@migo33 To be honest when I started with the PL5 Beta testing I was wondering why the interest in Keywords and the separation between keywords in the greater “world” and those that might be applied and used only within DxPL.
One scenario that I had envisaged for such a “split” was the definition of “containers” for the processing/progressing of a clients work within DxPL using keywords that would not be “shared” with the client, i.e. they would exist only within the domain of DxPL.
This has one “flaw” in that such keywords would be “shared” with the client when a JPG etc. is exported! The ‘Export to Disk’ can inhibit the inclusion of ‘Keywords’ and that selection or rather un-selection can be defined in an export preset but that would then exclude any keywords that came from the image metadata!
But the IPTC metadata might be a better source for such communication so keywords could be used internally for “client” and “project”/“progress” management and the IPTC for labelling the images and communicating with the client.
As @platypus has stated the original images are safe but with one caveat, currently if you ‘Remove’ a [M]aster DxPL reaches outside its domain and deletes not only the contents of its database with respect to that image and the DOP but also the image itself.
I personally object to the combining of the two functions into one command!
Although the following creates issues with respect to re-discovery I believe there should be two separate commands
- ‘Remove from database’ or ‘Remove all edits’ which will do that including removing the (current) DOP
- ‘Remove from Disk’ which will perform the current operation
or something like the above
The search is certainly limited but not necessarily too limited for the scenario we are looking at here!
As for the asset management capabilities Lightroom has more commands for managing the database, and you can certainly create a new Catalog at any time fortunately - of all the products I have “played” with while testing DxPL the only one that I needed that facility was Lightroom when a Catalog became corrupted, with a handful of images in it!? In truth the database management facilities are better and could easily be improved in DxPL!
@asvensson it should be an unnecessary experience, licences should be available online to be activated and de-activated at will, what does it matter if I have the product installed on a number of machines as long as I stay within my allotted licence limit. It might be good if DxO offered additional seats at a nominal cost, I remember the days when Skylum offered 5 seats then went down to 1 as standard because they said photographers had indicated they didn’t need more than that!?
@migo33 is this from personal experience or from what you have read in the forum posts?
In my experience there is nothing inherently wrong with the database! It is SQLite like most of the products with databases except ACDSee which uses some variant of DBase I believe.
FastRawViewer takes the data from the image but doesn’t do anything except ‘Labels’ and ‘Rating’ (and ‘Rotation’/‘Orientation’) and Photo Mechanic handles all the metadata without a database except with the Plus version which introduces DAM functions using a database.
The DxPL db is probably one of the simpler databases and I haven’t any experience of large volumes other than my ‘Bulk Test’ data of 11,000+ images which takes some time to “swallow”.