When I create a virtual copy in DPL, the resulting previews have the same name and both have a tag (“1” in a box, “2” in a box).
Both solutions for this request:
Rename the file name field for virtual copies
or
Add a description field in a second field under the name.
Pascal
https://forum.dxo.com/t/proposal-improve-handling-when-virtual-copies-are-used/4649
I like this idea!
Since I wrote this post, the situation has changed. Virtual copies now have a number while the original image is marked with an “M”. Although this looked like a good idea at the time, I now find the current implementation to be more problematic. Here’s why:
When I have a VC that I like better than the master, I cannot delete the master because it also removes the copy. Removing the master should promote the copy to be the new master so that nothing gets lost.
Basically, it does not matter, which image is the master because both master and copy are just two different recipes applied to the same food, both recipes are stored in one sidecar file. Therefore, neither the master nor the copy are individuals but different views on the same thing.
Does it make sense to throw away all potatoes only because you have changed your mind and now prefer baked potatoes instead of mashed potatoes before you have even started to cook them?
I understand you platypus.
But the new M mention don’t change things.
What is the difference between VC versions ?
I think a commentar field is convenient.
For the other idea, I follow you too.
Pascal
i am out of votes so
one like from me
I agree. I don’t particularly care for it either. The only current solution is to copy the settings of the virtual copy onto the Master copy and then delete the virtual copy,. Compared to what we had before, this is an extra step. But, if this new approach is part of the path to user renaming of virtual copies I can certainly live with it.
Mark
i think there is a easy wayout.
just a rightclick and a choise in list of
“make this master” and the old master becomes the VCnumber you renamed master.
just under that a “rename VC”
same as the “problem” if you go to nik and do something -safe -return to DxO there is no clue anymore which setting or preset you used. So you need to rename the TIFF filename_ myBNW.tiff
i think if you “see” VC as a form of snapshots then renaming is a mandatory necessity.
like : (VC1)filename_base editing before locals.rw2 or something
(VC2) filename_adjusted for B&W.rw2
i use the export name apendix every time to give info about the adjustmenttypes like _HSL or _automask so i know when i view the jpegs i can see which protocol is doing better.
keeping track of what you did is getting more and more a prime methode.
what also could work is a textfield in the ictp/xmp as a commentbox which also is for a VC to aply.
Sometimes i like to write some comment about what i did or tried or the thought of the export state.
and with a comment box i can read back what i did,
Peter
A pragmatic solution that I also use (it’s feasible as long as there are not too much masters/copies to work on)
A “commentbox” for both the master and the VCs would be very useful. It should not be something mandatory for those who don’t want to use it.
I think there should be Image Name and Copy name (Version name).
The way I like to work:
For me it would be amazing if I can export my images as “master image name” + “copy name”. A copy name could be “Fuji Velvia” or “black and white” or “4/5 crop”.
So I would like this functionality to be connected to the export menu. Lightroom has this and it is amazing, in Capture One it is harder to work this way so I have to abuse another metadata field to get the same result.
Hello guys,
As this request is already in our backlog list, I suggest to close the request and free your votes.
Regards,
Svetlana G.