I didn’t check it exactly, but had a similar issue. I think it finds files in the database of PhotoLab which were moved/deleted. When Windows Explorer/MacOS Finder is used to move/delete files PL obviously can’t keep track and an orphan entry will remain in the database.
But this is just a theory. I haven’t verified this.
I agree with what a few others have said here and that DxO should focus on core functionality as there are plenty of DAM apps and photo browsers out. in the world. FWIW, you can still use Adobe Bridge CC free and only costs you creating an account with Adobe. I use it for all my tagging and other meta data editing and it will create XMP side cars for RAW images. The only downside is that it won’t display previews with the DxO adjustments applied to any RAW files.
I find OP doesn’t manage cleanly deleting images and all the dop files. I usually have to clean up after deleting as there are dop’s left and if that’s the case the data base may also not be being maintain correctly as images are removed. This has been passed to support, who initially weren’t interested but did in the end pass it on, though to what effect is unknown.
If that’s the case it could also add dead returns to a search if the data base is used.
Adobe Bridge CS6 continues to work even on El Capitan on Mac with no issues. Could go further (haven’t tested yet).
I also would like to be able to search for ranges, for example ISO hogher than 2000 or between 2000 an 5000. this seem not to be possible.
Let me address a few of the questions here:
- No search for cameras and lenses.
This makes sense and this is something we considered as an important criteria to be able to search on. So it’s coming, the only question is when 
On that feature though, I’d be curious to know how many bodies/lenses you have from your images, just so we get a better feel on how users might use that one.
- Multiple search criteria can be added. But the input field is rather small and then I have to type blindly.
It should follow your typing, and if it doesn’t it’s quite a bug. But certainly, the field is quite small and we’re investigating alternative placements or solutions that would allow it to be bigger. Then again, taking examples from the Finder or Mail, the search field is usually not that big either, and that usually works well, so there’s also some balance to find there.
- When I enter “Thursday” though it searches for pictures with a shot date of tomorrow, October 25. Week
days should search in the past week, not in the coming week.
Most certainly, and that’s probably a bug. We’ll look into fixing that for a future version (but we can’t fix it in the past quite yet ).
I now have two empty “Recherche” folders and am unable to delete either one of them.
Those are actually recent searches. They will be deleted automatically as you make new searches, so you’ll never have more than 5 of them. That being said, we reckon that this isn’t clear at all at the moment, so we’re working on improving on that point.
Thanks for the feedback!
No ideas but same thing for me. Cannot delete empty search 
First, I really like the fact that there is a search feature now.
Second, I may be using it wrong, but when I start a search, the engine seems to pull files that are in other directories than the one I am working in. Is it possible ? If not, is it hard to add ?
> If not, is it hard to add ?
Is it hard to add what? The ability to search other folders? Or the ability to restrict the search to the local folder? I am not sure which you are asking.
I would like to search the local folder.
Typical searches would be:
Hi @Xavier,
if by local folder you mean the current one in which you are working, you can do that easily using Filter icon above the filmstrip.
Thanks, Pathal, but I think you are referring to a sorting, which is slightly different.
As an example, when I would like to search pictures that are “4 stars and more”, I would still like to keep chronological order, and I would also like all other pictures to go out of the way. With the sorting function, I have to scroll to see where the limit between 3 stars and less and 4 stars and more is. So, not only this is slower, but it is also not producing the desired result.
I guess it must be possible to enter searches for “current directory AND n to p stars”, but I just do not see how at the moment.
I’m not referring to sorting, but to filtering (icon left besides the folder name) which allow to filter on some criteria, including stars, as you can see in below copy screen in French:
Thanks! I had not seen it was possible to select items this way. Is there a quick way to deselect all items ? (the “Reset” choice just reselects everything).
just type in three * (***) in the search keywordand you get the threestars images visible.
Hi John - - You may find this useful: Code snippet for removal of orphaned sidecar/.dop files
Regards, John M
Edit: I just noticed you were present on that thread, John - - Will leave this here, tho, as it may be useful for others.
Its one of the problems that I see DAM development becoming such a drain. If the program can’t even delete all aspects of an image now how much more work will be needed if its used as a DAM? Its all well and good a clean up being added to deal with it but clean deletions are what you expect from a program deleting things not having to clean up as a separate thing. Clearly they will have to get this sorted as part of the DAM i.e. cleaning up correctly but that will be more resources diverted from the large number of areas of the cor program needing improvement, changes or new additions.
The few times I have used Photo Supreme to delete images its managed to do clean deletions including dop’s. But hasn’t been many so I don’t have experience of large numbers.
Whilst I definitely share your concerns, John, about the diversion of resources into providing DAM capabilities in PL (an ability in which I have absolutely zero/ziltch personal interest - - I just want PL to be the best possible RAW & image processor out there), I hesitate from being too DAMning about difficulties in deleting sidecar/.dop files associated with deleted images … as it’s not quite a simple as you might be assuming.
That is; PhotoLab (as I understand it) is running on multiple processing threads, each of them taking care of different functions - with, for example, i) determination that a sidecar file needs to be created running on one thread whilst ii) responding to your instruction to delete an image (and its associated sidecar file) running, in parallel, on a completely separate processing thread - - and the O/S being unable (for microsecond timing reasons) to keep both threads equally informed about the presence, or not, of a sidecar file.
All the same, there certainly are methods of ensuring that threads are kept mutually informed - but, it’s not necessarily an insignificant programming fix (esp. when also juggling resource priorities).
Regards, John M
You are probably right, but if you what it to be a DAM it needs to do this not rely on users to run clean ups to clear up after it due to inability to make clean deletions. As such I fear the difficult reprogramming becomes more urgent if you are to sell PL as a DAM which is why I fear what most of us see as more urgent things will be kicked into the long grass again.
So, I never answered this one. For me it would be like 2-3 “bodies” (one may be an iPhone…) and 5 different lenses. But I don’t own a lot of gear compared to others…
Still, same behaviour. To be honest, I don’t use the search at all, mostly because I don’t have an easy way to search just in the current folder. Otherwise it could be a good replacement of the annoying filter dialog, e. g. to find only pictures with 3 star rating in current folder.
