What makes a master the master?
As far as I figured out a vc is only a copy of the edit list of the image I want to create a vc from. There’s no relation between them. When I reset a vc I get the unedited original image.
George
1 Like
Even then, it must be the users choice to decide which VCs to keep and which to delete. Even if, in case of an eventually hierarchical “structure” (in future), that means that some childs may be left orphaned. The naming conventions as they are now are OK - and absolutely no argument against this demand.
I agree to Oliver that the main purpose of VCs is to find out which corrections provide the best result. And after that decision is made, the other VCs can/should be deleted to not cause any confusion afterwards.
And why is it not now ? … One can always delete any VC one chooses to - - No ?
John M
Only partially.
As long as the copies are named automatically, name shifts also happen now if I delete any virtual copy not being the last one (e.g. the second copy of three). Then, the names of the exported images don’t match the copy numbers since the exported images are not renamed.
And no, I don’t propose that VC renaming should rename existing exported images automatically. That would have to be thoroughly thought through first. No quick fixes, please!
To be clear: I can accept that the virtual copy 0 is now called “Master” and it’s export doesn’t get a suffix. But I still see no reason to combine this change with “master can’t be deleted”.
To be consistent, DxO would have to forbid the deletion of any “not last” copy. Should I rather not have said that? I hope the irony detectors of all readers are adjusted properly…
No. VC 0 aka Master can’t be deleted. That’s the topic of this thread.
Strictly speaking, that’s true … but, there’s an extremely quick&simple workaround …
See the 2nd point above.
John
Thank you @obetz! This morning I thought the same and you said it. I agree absolutely with you. A friend always makes virtual copies because she thinks the “master” files are the originals and they shouldn’t be touched. I found the old version better and would like to have it back.
I do it both ways. Sometimes I make a virtual copy of an unedited original. And sometimes I make virtual copies of an edited original. The edited original becomes the baseline for experimentation with different additional changes In one or more virtual copies of it.
a workaround is not a reason not to fix the problem itself.
Are you in favor of “Master” copies being able to be deleted, against it or neutral?
Like many here I was not happy with the introduction of a master file that could not be deleted without deleting all its related VCs. At the time, If I recall correctly, it was claimed it was done as a result of multiple user requests.
In my opinion, the only good reason to have an undeletable master copy is if it’s a requirement of some general planned overhaul of virtual copy functionality.
However, since they implemented this change (in PL 2 or PL 3?), we haven’t seen any additional updates to virtual copy functionality that would seem to have made this necessary.
Mark
1 Like
Coming from Lightroom, I first found that DxO’s masterless vc solution was odd and welcomed the change to the current way of working.
Instead of making the master deletable, I’d prefer to be able to affix the ‘master’ tag to any vc.
After all, vcs are just different recipes applied to the one and only original file. A master displayed on screen is a virtual copy too…
3 Likes
I like the idea of being able to assign a vc to be the master. If you have a number of vcs you may forget which one was the one you wanted to keep!
If I can make anytime any copy the master, that’s fine with me. Then the copy tagged as master may be protected against deletion.
I added this option to the original posting.
Since you asked: I reckon it’s an inconsequential annoyance, with a simple, quick & easy work-around. I’d prefer more important issues were addressed than this (for me) rather minor one … So, I’m neutral.
Yes, apparently, DxO received a lot of support questions from users who were confused about which “version” was the Master - where they did not understand that, actually, there is no true master - just different versions (as we, in this conversation, know). So, they created a "M"aster … with one positive side benefit that I explained above.
John
You could use traffic lights to control that too.
That is true as long as you don’t use them for some other purpose!
True again… Now, if we used traffic lights and stars already, we’d need colour tags and more…
1 Like
But that’s the idea of a virtual copy. First you have one image and work with it. Then you make a virtual copy and try some other steps. And a third and fourth.
Finally you decide which one is the best and delete all other versions (or you keep them all 
).
But with the actual solution you have to copy all your settings from the virtual copy you like to the so called Master, which technically is also a kind of virtual copy, not the original RAW file.
2 Likes
Hi @obetz/Oliver - - As a compromise solution (with, perhaps, more likelihood of being implemented sooner than a total rewrite of VC concepts), you might like to vote for this proposal.
Regards, John M
1 Like
since it is spread over several postings of this thread, the solution worked out here might be overlooked: Allow (free and) static naming of virtual copies. Besides naming, there is no technical difference between virtual copies so a “master” it no more than a VC not causing a suffix on the exported image. Making the VC names static obsoletes the idea of a “master” probably only invented to avoid wrong assignment of exported images.
2 Likes