Everyone’s needs may be different. I started out with jpeg’s only,and then shot a couple of years with raw + jpeg, but since 2012 I have shot raw only. I have never missed not having SOOC jpegs.
Mark
2 Likes
But even the jpeg file could be too large to transmit. Maybe it’s my age but, to me, phones are for sharing snaps; cameras are for making pictures 
Why would you use an already taken picture to check for critical focus? Surely this is part of setting up to take the shot.
Surely, if you want to use in-camera stuff, then you don’t need the RAW image. If you are shooting RAW, the in-camera stuff doesn’t affect it, so you don’t need the jpeg because you will be looking to process the RAW afterwards.
Having both is not “good practice”; it is a sign that the photographer isn’t thinking enough about what they are shooting before taking the picture.
Thus filling the card up unnecessarily.
I suppose I am, what some would consider, old school. That is, we make images instead of taking pictures. From a Large Format film background, where each shot can cost around €10, you learn to work out exactly what is needed before you press the shutter. 
1 Like
Indeed it’s about how you use your gear and which type of photography you aim to.
I go seldom out for only taking pictures. Most times i collect images wlie going somewhere with the family.
So not much time to prepear my shots. Frame, choose Aperture, check SS raise iso if needed. (i use i-iso most of the time to safe time) find apropriate AF point, correct exposure value if needed and done.
Ones in a wile i have time and opertunity to go out just for shots better then usual. And try out MF, bracketing, different angles to shoot a object.(have a hobby day so to speak. )
So the immiatly available sooc’s send by wifi of my camera to my tv is very handy.
I seldom shoot a 64gb sdcard full in one day so jpeg plus raw isn’t a memory problem.
On holidays i have two 64gb with me and a pc to delete selectively files on that sd./backup.
When i archive my source files the sooc’s are deleted, if there is a rawfile.
So needs, oppertunity (interesting things to photograph), time to spent , wanted results. Al those things are factors in use and camera settings.
(i know that pro’s who needs fast end product’s never shoot raw only jpeg. They simply haven’t time to proces raw files. So they relay full on sooc jpeg. Maybe some handling afterwards but not much.
(i think also then a raw plus jpeg would be a good choise if the writing time is fast enough for your use: If you got the image of the year you can use that raw to make it perfect.)
…good question. My answer is that i shoot both in order to get a jpeg to post/mail on the road. I set my jpegs to be 1/2 of the linear pixel count which gives me a) good conversion and b) files that transfer easily.
Once at home, I usually discard the jpegs, keeping only the ones I shared (in fact, they stay in the cloud and I don’t bother to delete them)
Does this add another item to the wish list? No.
So what’s the score now PhotoLab 3 is out? I am still looking for a full change log.
Hey, in the midst of downloading. Plenty of new goodies listed on the main web page.
Just about to install. I could be gone for some time 
From what I read it feels like the features promised as an incremental update at the PL2 launch turned into the new features to convince me to buy PL3. Not sure if it warrants an upgrade. I would like to support DXO unconditionally but recent developments (or lack thereof) with new camera support make me wary, even while my cameras are currently all supported.
My current workflow is DxO process to neutral, neutral with some tonality tweaks and quick fixes and then finish in Affinity Photo. So not sure to what extend these new features will have a big impact on my particular workflow.
It looks like points 1 and 6 have been fulfilled. I can’t find any info on whether there is now some kind of Solo Mode (open one tool and collapse all the others). I’m also not sure if the geolocation and DCP profiles support have been corrected.
I like the new HSL tool and the fact that there’s the Uniformity slider like in C1 – very good for portraiture. The mask manager and invert mask are useful additions, but I feel they could have been added to v.2 – they just sat on them till now.
Going through the User Guide: I’m not sure I understand what they say here:
The algorithms that the HSL tool uses are not implemented by the Saturation and Vibrancy sliders (global & local settings), nor by the Hue slider (local settings).
Has anyone updated in US Dollars? My update page indicates I have Essential which was included with the Nik Collection, but I previous purchased and am using Elite. I’m concerned the upgrade cost of $99 for Elite that I’me seeing is because they think I would be upgrading from Essential. Not sure how to fix that.
Mark
I think a confusion because you have two versions.
Ask to the support.
Pascal
1 Like
Elite upgrade from PL2 in EU is €69, non Elite is €49.
That’s the point about perceptual license software you get to choose whether you want to spend your money or not. You just saved yourself £46 (+VAT) and are a happy camper 
Personally the improvements to the local editing function looks interesting. I mainly use C1Pro and like DXO the default conversion is pretty good, so go straight into local edits after pulling a couple of sliders. The beauty of C1Pro are the layers (local) editing functionality. I set the layer to 70% opacity and then adjust the various sliders, curves etc. Then you can increase or decrease the effect to optimise the adjustment. Much faster than keep fiddling with several sliders. Much easier to judge the impact of a local adjustment when you can see the impact by varying opacity. If this works like C1Pro then this alone will be worth the relatively modest (for me) upgrade cost. YMMV
The control point technology with its auto masking is something that I wish was in C1Pro.
If your Elite license is showing on your account page you should be able to upgrade from there.
Pascal and Ian thanks for your help. As it turns out, the license for my Elite version was on the update page, but at the very bottom which was off the screen. Serves me right for owning all the DXO software products. 
In any case I’ve upgraded to PL3 and I’m playing with it now. So far it ts not clear to me how their implementation of the clone tool differs from the update to the repair tool, but I’ll keep at it. Maybe I’m missing something
Thanks again.
Mark
Exactly! I am also inclined to stick with PL2 and skip PL3. First because I am dissapointed that all that was promised when PL2 launched was never delivered within the 2.x branche and is now part of 3.x (with keywords not even being launch ready on Windows, and coming soon can easily mean PL4 based on DxO’s history). Secondly, I use DxO at the moment to convert my “dirty RAW files” into “clean TIFF files” after which I work on them in Affinity Photo which yields fantastic results. I do not see anything in this release that improves that process or the output, PL3 looks exactly the same as PL2 besides a few new panels which are mainly great if you don’t intend to leave PL in your workflow.
Regarding new features, this worries me:
Keywords are saved only in the PL database.
They are not included in the sidecars.dop and does not provide any sidecar.xmp.
See the chapter “sidecars.dop and the database”.
Why not write them to the fricking XMP file that you read to begin with? This system within a system is just confusing and also useless. The only use I see then for these keywords is to use them in relation to your workflow (e.g. needs “recoloring”, “fix object in background”.
Why can’t DxO for once respect industry standards? Or at least let us write the tags to the XMP file at a time we desire?
Hi,
Maybe just because they want to be careful and not mess up with our files ?
Most people have no idea how complex this topic of metadata is.
Explore ExifTool by Phil Harvey homepage to see it by yourself. Users think it is “just a keyword”…
I am sure DxO has a valid reason.
I am sharing this comment because I am trying to understand Exiftool’s job for my own use.
3 Likes
Complex for sure. But any other photo application can do it (Lightroom, C1, ON1, Corel AfterShot, IMatch, Photosupreme, ACDSee, Cyber Director etc.) so why not DxO?
I agree that it can create problems so a default seperate entry combined with an optional “write all metadata to xmp files in a menu” would work for most and greatly mitigate risks.
DXO should stick to raw conversion and not focus on DAM. Use specialist DAM software for this, it is complex and would just divert resources.
2 Likes
Agreed. But they are stuck between two paradigms now which isn’t helpful.
…don’t feel like they are stuck. There is some progress. For one, quality is fairly high already and then there are other things to improve, e.g. usability, performance (no issue on my 2019 8 core full ssd iMac) - and DAM, unless DPL should always be the processing wallflower in a photo workflow.
2 Likes