@sgospodarenko I am disappointed to see that the missing Conflict icon (‘S’) when changes are made to a JPG does not appear to be fixed with this Release.
In addition I got unexpected ‘S’ icons for two RAWS that I set up yesterday with PL5.2.1 when testing what keywords various software produces in response to various combinations of keywords entered.
I am appalled that the ridiculous changes have been made to the product that effectively removes the existing ‘No sync’ option and replaces it with a “resurrected” version of what used to happen with PL4 DOPs (which that was with a much smaller set of metadata).
If DxO wanted to re-introduce this technique then it should not have been introduced in this way! Those that choose not to use ‘Always synchronize’ are now going to have metadata taken from the DOP for newly discovered images.
I will test the full implications of this shortly but it should have been a separate option, even if that takes a “lot of work” adding the new option field to two versions (MAC and Win10), in multiple languages and with amended documentation. I wrote this when I tested it as part of PL6 Beta but …
PL5.3.0 Flags Conflicts for data added by PL5.2.1 - Why?:-
I am confused as to what those like me who use an external DAM should be doing now the don’t sync setting looks to have been removed, maybe I am confusing things. They do appear to keep changing things with no explanation as to what the changes mean and how to use them. I just what my DAM to be the only one effecting the role it does, keywords etc. O
I am concerned this may mean data in my XMP will not be read by PL and export the keywords and it had been doing, as said I may be misunderstanding this but the total lack, again, of information from DxO is very unhelpful.
DxO had got themselves in a hole with PL5 metadata handling (in my opinion it wasn’t originally a particularly big one), principally caused by a lack of documentation at the very beginning, and then “listened” to what some of the users said in the forum and then started digging in that hole even more and have made it much, much worse!
My belief is that the DxO UI “police” don’t want the UI changed except when a host of new features come along. e.g. when PL6 is released. In particular they appear to be paranoid about making any changes to the preferences screens!?
As I suggested above a “simple” change to add a new field in the preferences would have enabled the following;
An option to select what fields PL5 should generate when storing the components of an hierarchical keyword. In my opinion there was nothing wrong with the original, most complaints were that the user wanted no change to the data inserted by their DAM. But some of the complaints in the forum accused PL5 of generating an excess of fields so they changed the product!
An option to use metadata from the DOP. Users got tangled up with the changes to the use of metadata from the DOP when PL5 started to put that data where is (arguably) belonged, i.e. with the image data (embedded or as a sidecar). Some users complained that they preferred to have to keep only the DOP and so we now have this new “kludge” and what a “kludge” it is, about the worst I have seen in 36 years in the I.T. industry. Yes I have made emergency fixes to a database or two in the middle of the night in such a kludgy way (with the customers consent) but never to an operational piece of software!
So far they have deprecated two “features” and we are expected to accept that the new way is better - well it isn’t and in both cases the new feature should have been added to the existing repertoire of features, with an option to select it or not, and not replaced a feature without a “by your leave”.
The sheer, unadulterated, arrogance is beyond belief!!??@sgospodarenko, @alex
@John the procedure I have documented is to “restore” the original AS(OFF) procedure or rather to give the same results, nothing has changed with AS(ON) (I hope)!
