Retaining advanced history between edits

DxO PhotoLab Which feature do you need?
#21

“Joanna
The problem occurs when people are only ever taught one way of doing things and don’t understand why. So they go on doing something that may be totally irrelevant and unnecessary for their situation”.

I would not necessarily agree with that. Some people find a convenient way of doing things and they tend to stick to it. Me included.

The reason I prefer to use the advanced history is that it is much easier to step back to the last known good update rather than going back to the sidebar and thinking: "was it blacks I increased or was it the shadows that I increased or was it decreasing the exposure. 3 separate operations to adjust and possibly put back to what they were because I chose the wrong one. A 4 or 5 minute operation to find the right one against possibly 30 seconds in stepping back in the history.

For those that do not require the history, then that should be selectable in the preferences. The same goes for the silver effect pro and the Vivisa on-screen sliders which Mark has mentioned and I commented under that heading.

These things and the differences between Windows and Mac should be a priority for DxO. They should be endeavouring to correct 1 or 2 of these with each bug fix update.

As far as the Nik collection is concerned I have gone back to version 3, and I will not be updating any further until those sliders are back. They should be selectable via preferences for those that do not like them.

Sorry Joanna, but I’ve been able to sleep on all of the comments on this topic so far and the fact that you made me realise by clicking local adjustments I could bring back my past editing and I was able to correct my mistake. I still prefer the advanced history. See comments in the 3rd paragraph.

1 Like
#22

No problem. After more than 56 years in photography I’m still finding those times when someone, sometimes less experienced than me, says “did you know you can do…” :crazy_face:

#23

I completely agree with you on this.

The History panel is a very powerful tool that, when used properly, enhances the processing workflow.

Like Lr, PL is supposed to be non-linear processing - But, it is not. Certain steps should be done in sequence to achieve the best result. For example, you don’t want to blow the highlights and then try to recover them with another tool. The History allows you to see the sequence that you took. This is an important factor to consider when I use “non-linear” audio editors.

Another facet of the History is - you make several minor adjustments of a tool, say HSL, to determine which you like best. Being able to go back and foreword between those steps for comparison is an advantage. But then you take a break of a few days and come back to it. With the Mac version, carry on as before but Windows - well, no, you can’t do that.

And, no, virtual copies really do not help in this scenario.

I really find it odd that a few of the Mac users object to the feature being implemented in the Win version.

The fact that the History was not fixed on the Win version was one of the two main reasons that I did not update to PL5. There was nothing in PL5 that was of real interest to me - not even the control line.

Allan

#24

Having used Lr since version 1, I have extensive experience with it. Snapshots are not quite the same as virtual copies - Lr has both.

While the History does all that I have talked about in an other answer, in the case that you mention of the History being deleted from an editing point on-wards, then you create a virtual copy and have both Histories. Best of both worlds.

Allan

#25

As a Mac user, I can assure you I am not objecting in any way. That’s just silly.

#26

I am surprised at the virulence of some of the responses. Those who ask questions of forum members should accept that the answers do not correspond to what they think, especially with regard to the use of PL vis-à-vis Lr, the two systems being completely different!

#27

Being the trailing horse here, i want to add that before we had the advanced historytool we liked to have a “safepoint” which is almost the same as a VC.
A safe this settings from this point. And edit a name to it like, basepoint or optical corrected.
A full visiualisation of the original history by arrows back forward step by step is now the norm.
I use this only for reviewing my choices.
If you by accident change a value you cut the historystring and you lose all progres after that point.
So i am not use this feature often other then as review. And return to the top before i change a thing, yes adding a step to the list.

I would be happier when i can store safepoints from the historylist and tag them with a sentence or word. Say 5 per image. Stored in the dopfile.
Like vc’s which i can rename the suffix but then as point of returns for the master stacked behind the thumbnail of the master.

Now i make a VC or a temporaly preset which i can name : " point before i try something" so i can return to that point at any moment program closed and opened again or not.

My 2cents

Much less database bytes of useless historysteps of each image.

1 Like
#28

People keep referencing Lightroom with regard to this feature. Virtually every full-featured post-processing program has a similar feature. It was one of the few things I missed when I left Lightroom and started using PhotoLab in 2017. The fact that it is not a valuable feature for some people In no way disqualifies it as a very useful feature for others.

Those of us who rely heavily on this feature can’t understand why others are so critical of it. It gives a editing flexibility that is simply not available in any other way, There is no other way to step back to an earlier point in the edit process and begin a new edit path from that point on.

Mark

3 Likes
#29

If you go to a previous position in the history and then make a change you lose all subsequent steps. For me this does not make sense. If all subsequent steps are retained then I can definately see a use for history, otherwise not really!

Personally I have the history palette minimised as I don’t find it in the least useful. Virtual copies are much more useful if you want to try something different and not lose your current edits.

1 Like
#30

It actually makes perfect sense. Here are just two examples. First, you can go back in your history to some earlier edit and create a virtual copy to take you on a different path and then go back to the top of the history stack on your master copy. Another use is when you’re editing an image and are happy with the direction it is going and then add a bunch of additional edits and discover you liked it better at an earlier point. You can easily return to that exact earlier point where things started to go south and try a different approach. It great for what if on the fly revisions. Sure you could use virtual copies, but to accomplish the same thing you would need a new virtual copy after every edit.

Mark.

1 Like
#31

Hi Mark, I see how your examples can be useful. My eduting is actually quite simple as I edit to make my photos as close to what I saw as possible so history is not really an issue. Just how I work :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes
#32

My aproach wish is about history storage, retaining after closing the app.
The present advanged history step by step is indeed usefull for your examples.
I would like a possibility to mark and store a level of processing.
Like “prespective, and cleaned”
Then “local adjustments”
“prepped for b&w conversion”
So when i don’t like the endresult i can go back to locals or even further to the cleaned state and create from there a VC to see if an other aproache fits better on that image at any time.

#33

So why not create a VC and name it whenever you want to mark a step in processing?

#34

I’m keeping well out of this discussion … Following it closely, tho !

John

2 Likes
#35

As most often, different people have different needs and all of these needs are legitimate. Some needs can be worked around through things we can learn from posts, the needs remain legitimate though.
Keeping out of a discussion is, imo, a sign of accepting those needs for what they are.

2 Likes
#36

In this case, yes …

#37

:thinking: Windows? I can’t…
Too much VC’s would make the filmstrip enormouse long.
Then we need a fold and unfold action to stack master and vc’s if not needed to be visual as thumbnail.

1 Like
#38

Really? @StevenL another difference?

Now that sounds like an excellent idea. But what do folks do when the history list gets long and unwieldy?

#39

YES, and old LR 5.7 already has a whole bunch of possibilities
Screen Shot 11-23-21 at 01.55 PM

1 Like
#40

Yes, another difference. :disappointed:

Mark