This case is working as expected for me, Bryan … Your screenshot was cut-off on the LHS - so I cannot quite see your OoG toggle selection - but I suspect it may not be as you intended (?)
Yes, that would be ideal - but the developer would have had to save and restore that state … and I guess they didn’t think of that !
John
@John-M Sorry about truncating, apparently there are pills you can take for that but …, a bit sad, don’t the developers ever try using the product for real (albeit some of my tests are somewhat surreal, there are probably pills for that as well)l!
It should default to ON, but I can see wanting to have it OFF if one is only working within the confines of the cropped area. This might also speed up rendering? Or just be an attempt to please everyone?
I agree with your comments about Protect Saturated Colors being manually controlled differently in soft proofing vs. export. I previously understood what PL was doing, and now I am confused. Could it be that enabling PSC in export now applies the algorithm exactly as it is configured in soft proofing, with its set intensity - even if soft proofing is off? Fortunately, the user guide has been updated to show that the answer is YES!
The export option is described this way in the user guide:
Excellent! But couldn’t that be made more clear in the user interface??
Here’s the thing: if you select “same as soft proofing,” the checkbox stays checked but is grayed out, meaning PSC is automatically applied as in the soft proofing subpalette. But if you select an ICC profile independent of what is in Soft Proofing, you can turn PSC on or off as you wish. Why would you want to do that? This seems to be only somewhat explained in the soft proofing section of the user guide:
So it seems that the export dialog checkbox always pertains to what’s in the soft proofing module. It becomes fixed if using “same as soft proofing” for ICC profile, which is less confusing and seems to confirm what I’m reading here.
Here’s what I suspect DxO is trying to do here: people complained that the automatic PSC algorithm was confusing, so they provided a way to turn it off completely and give total control to the user. Now the removal of out-of-gamut warnings is completely in our hands and one need not be “caught out” if exporting to a small color space that’s the same as the monitor is calibrated for. But in so doing they have introduced greater complexity. Explanatory notes in the export dialog window and the Soft Proofing subpalette could be more helpful.
There is an explanation with the softproof
BUT … (as John-M stated in post #1)
While in the preview with softproof on and setting this new PSC slider to 0, 50 (default) and 100
I can see colour changes in those highly saturated colours, but no difference between the exported JPEGs / TIFFs, all outputs looking identical.
Then setting this PSC slider to 50, export and compare the preview / softproof to all outputs,
only at 50 (default) the softproof looks identical to all outputputs,
→ which means, the PSC slider setting is NOT mirrored with export,
contradicting the explanation in the new online user guide.
So, there is something wrong.
All exports were set as
( didn’t check “Same as Soft Proofing” )
→ New in DxO PhotoLab 6.1 - #20 by Wolfgang
[ To countercheck I undid that checkmark, exported the file
and now the output was identical with the preview / softproof / PSC slider set to “0”. ]
After reading the whole afternoon DxO’s “How to …” and the new online guide, there is nothing mentioned anymore about the none-customizable PSC Algorithm, but this new PSC slider … as quoted.
To me, it doesn’t make sense at all to introduce a variable setting for the preview / softproof, which only works at the (50) default setting.
@DxO_Support-Team – please take note
What a bother. I guess I’ll be setting my export ICC profile to “same as soft proofing” for now. Have you tested to see if that applies the PSC slider setting to the export image?
No, I didn’t – will check now …
“Same as Soft Proofing” does it correctly (checked with PSC set to 0, 50 and 100 with TIFF and JPEG)
… so, it’s a bug with
Thanks very much, Wolfgang!
Double bother: I’m finding that the Intensity slider for Protect saturated colors in the Soft Proofing module is having no effect at all on the gamut warnings. The slider does affect the rendering in the image preview, however!
Yes, that was the first thing I noticed. At least it should have affected the Destination gamut warning.
To make sure, that it is not colour space dependent, I checked with screen switched to sRGB, closed PL6 and tried in AdobRGB – the same …
I’ve never seen any performance difference between Soft Proofing ON versus OFF - - so, I wouldn’t expect to see any just for a lesser “strength” setting for the PSC algorithm (?)
You and me both, Greg !
John
Well, I can confirm that what I see on the screen is exported when the export ICC is “same as soft proofing.” It’s just that the out of gamut warning indicators are proven to be useless in this regard, not reflecting the effect of PSC. I suspect this was always the case. So I still have to decide whether or not to ignore the OOG warnings and just accept what I see - or, make Color Rendering and/or HSL adjustments to change it and see if I like that better. 
And this is just for display ICCs. Not for printing - I remember DxO saying that PSC won’t be applicable to soft proofing for printing. Wonder what that will look like when implemented? Could it be that this is why the OOG warnings don’t take PSC into account??
@DxO_Support-Team Can you help us understand all of this better? Thanks.
Wow ! That sure is obscure !! - - Well done for sussing that out, Greg.
(So, what’s the point of the ON/OFF control for the PSC algorithm on the Export UI ? … I’ve always thought the setting for “same as soft proofing” was wierd anyway - 'cos it applies even if Soft Proofing is not activated … Another obscure behaviour).
John (Sigh !!!)
That’s quite possible – while I had shown here ( just click on the screenshots )
But then, the CL engine is at the “input side” and here we are talking about the to be expected output.
Let’s see, what DxO can tell us about.
You would in the unlikely event you are exporting to a larger color space, if PSC can also work to decompress.
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …According to this note;
- 
… the setting does not have much impact on large color spaces - That is, it’s apparently smart enough to apply “protection” only to the degree that it needs to.
John M
Color Management changes … More detail;
I’m really struggling to understand the point/purpose of the new Protect Saturated Colors Intensity slider on the Soft Proofing tool. I have read the on-screen help-text; which explains what it does - but not WHY ?!
So, all I can do is try out various settings, to see how it impacts the Exported image.
Note: I’m using an image with very saturated reds for these tests - whereby the on-screen impact of changes to the slider is very clear and obvious.
Firstly, I (wrongly!) assumed that setting the Intensity slider to Zero and then toggling activation of the Soft Proofing tool would result in no difference on-screen (as is the case for, say, the Color Rendering tool) … Instead, I could discern on-screen changes to the saturation/detail trade-offs (albeit, slight).
I was planning to report on all the combinations of having various settings assigned to the (new) Protect Saturated Colors Intensity slider - along with different settings for the (new) PSC check-box on the Export-to-disk UI … but I just ended up thoroughly confused !! !!
I can confirm that which Greg confirmed - that is; using the option when Exporting-to-disk for ICC Profile = “Same as Soft Proofing” does result in different degrees of the Protect Saturated Colors algorithm being applied (rather than the standard default equivalent to the slider value = 50).
Wow !! … Who, other than we nerds (and we’re struggling !!) is ever gunna understand any of this ??
Yes, but only if the setting for ICC Profile in the Export-to-disk UI is “Same as Soft Proofing” (otherwise, it applies the default setting for “strength” =50)… and I very much doubt that I would have worked that out for myself, had you not suggested it !
In which case is it a bug, Wolfgang ? … I’m not following you on this point.
That’s the least of my concerns, for now … I’d just like to have an overview of design intent.
John M
Is it just me or is there something wrong in the build 6.1.0 Build 74:
The exposure, blacks and shadow behave unexpected and show wierd, pixelated results in high contrast (underexposed) images.
I went back to 6.0.1 Build 33 and the problem vanishes.
BTW - is it true that there is still no radial/eliptical filter?
Could you please give an example, so that we can see / understand the circumstances (camera, ISO, exposure …) better?
This is how it looks without adjustments (Nikon Z6 NEF, ISO 100)
This is what PL 6.0 does with shadow enhancements
And this is what I would like to have
Sorry, I cannot show what 6.1 did since I already have deinstalled it.
Did you create DNG files by any chance? There is a bug in the way DNG files with edits are displayed which DxO is aware of. If these are not DNG files then perhaps others here can assist you. I am not having any issues with my NEF files.
Mark
I have just got an answer on a case I reported (PL hanging when opening certain folders) and they urge me to update to version 6.1. I feel reluctant doing so since there seem to be quite a few bugs reported with 6.1 already.
What is your opinion about the 6.1 release??
