You indirectly answer my question. DxO is better with caracterized lenses for chroamtic aberrations.
I don’t know qulity results without.
Pascal
2 Likes
Pascal, how should I handle chromatic aberration on my vintage manual lenses? The way I deal with it now is checking which aperture yield ghosting and chromatic aberration and not using them. What happens if I do have an image with strong chromatic aberration with a vintage lens with no CPU information?
I’m not a specialist Alec 
I think I know Chromatic Aberration depends on your lens, a large optical-aperture, the strength and inclination of light. Good !?
I think know the value is not important.
DxO helps you with the maggic wand.
You must correct it at minimal 75% zoom display to see the effect.
Go 
Pascal
2 Likes
Perhaps this was not a good example. I should find another image.
Let me play some more with the software.
Meanwhile back to the topic heading…
In Photoshop one can choose how the Parametric sliders affect an image (in PhotoLab the “Selective tone” sliders).
As we know images can vary so why not have the option to adjust the “roll off” of the various sliders rather than just a fixed setting determined by software engineers?
A screen shot from Photoshop. The pointers directly underneath the graph can adjust the effects of the sliders.
2 Likes
Hello to All!
A bell just went off in my brain’s RAM > there is already a “Feature Request” for the improvement of the “Selective Tone” sliders here.
@sgospodarenko Can we bring these votes together?
2 Likes
Yes, this subject of the adjustment range of the sliders, most notably, the highlights and shadows sliders, has been discussed in at least a few threads over the last year. I don’t believe the feature request you provided a link to articulates the problem well.
Mark
Agreed.
My request was to bring the votes together for the same feature enhancement, not specifically favoring the thread I linked to.
I vote for it but I am out of votes, so can not click
Consolidating the votes and the feature request threads make sense here. m9k’s request was just for the default extreme Lightroom calibration (I prefer the softer calibration in PhotoLab). Based on those Photoshop screenshots, there’s definitely scope here for some advances to the selective sliders. This kind of improvement falls squarely within the domain of a RAW development tool.
I’m not certain though how to integrate such controls though without making PhotoLab “fiddly” – the kind of application where you spend all your time calibrating instead of processing.
I would say give the users options and they will find the way for themselves.
In DxO you have the option to switch Smart Lighting from Uniform to Spot Weighted. You could have similar option in Selective tone – to switch from ‘‘as it is’’ to more selective sliders.
I am playing with DxO at the moment and the more I play with it the more I like it. Still there are some things I personally would improve:
-Split toning tool: at the moment you can only select seven colors (Sephia, Gold,…etc) but it would be neat if there was the same option to select colors as in LR.
-HSL tool: I miss some colors, especially Orange in HSL. I think there is not a lot of work to add those colors.
-Crop tool: I miss the function from LR to straighten the image – you grab the corner of a crop area and rotate it. It’s more simple then moving slider in Horizon tool.
-Copy correction settings: sometimes I don’t want to copy all the settings
-Local adjustments: If I use Brush those sliders are distracting - I would like to move them away from the brushed area.
At the moment I can send the file straight to Lightroom or Photoshop to get the features I personally want but why not make DxO even more powerfull.
Software needs to be improved constantly. There are always things to improve.
The downside of changing the operational range of the sliders will be that every image edited with the older range will probably automatically be re-adjusted as a result of the new parameters unless DXO implements something similar to Lightroom’s Process Version.
Mark
4 Likes
-Split toning you need film pack, I know it make no sense to have those slider there if you don’t even have film pack.
-HSL should have all colors with 3 tab like in Lr and other software.
-Crop tool doesn’t have straighten tool, its in your correction panel which you can adjust even in crop mode.
Agree that adjustment brush sliders would be nice if we could move them away, like a popup panel but that affect the selected point.
1 Like
This reminds me of the very nice Light EQ in ACDSee raw converter – there are three modes there (Basic, Standard, and Advanced), which should make everybody happy when it comes to usability.
2 Likes
Just one thing: The greenish tint of hair and cable are probably caused by longitudinal CA which is not that easy to correct…
2 Likes
Good point, Mark. There’s no reason for people’s old corrections to be made obsolete. In this case, I was suggesting that the data itself would be stored in a more complex way behind the easy veneer. Images from before the upgrade to Selective Tone sliders would be converted by the old algorithm when updated.
Most of your points are not improvements, m9k, but differences. Quite frankly for most of them I far prefer PhotoLab’s way of handling these adjustments. The last thing the world needs is another Lightroom clone (there’s already Lightroom). Example:
PhotoLab very sensible separates straighten and crop. I loathe the way it’s done in Lightroom. The best preset for Horizon and Crop (and it’s in my standard Zero Corrections + Leica M8/M10 colour preset) is auto crop on, unconstrained. Nothing on Horizon. If I do decide to straighten the image, then as soon as I have, there’s an autocrop with all the black space moved away but no constraint on aspect ratio so adjusting the crop is instant.
Much faster and more accurate than Lightroom and no freezing up of the computer as it tries to move around all those grid lines and the whole image while cropping it.
Copy correction settings: if you browse around here, there’s some long threads devoted to the subject. It’s really easy to get a subset in PhotoLab. Just turn off the panels you won’t want copied over and turn them back on again. It’s just as easy to do that as be confronted with that discouraging Lightroom 50 checkmark interstitial screen.
Again, I’d suggest quite separately from the PhotoLab issue that you learn to work with software and not against it.
You kind of like PhotoLab after just a couple of weeks and after coming in prejudiced against it. I can’t stand Lightroom and I worked with it as a main digital darkroom for almost two years and was expert in it. When you learn the software, then there will be time to criticise it and make feature requests.
Right now you could start by asking the community if there’s a better way as you haven’t found it, didn’t want to work through Pascal’s free and excellent tutorials or fully read the manual (also downloadable as a PDF, hélas the PDF is automatically generated and not very well formatted, current one attached here).
DxO-PhotoLab-manual-2019-04.pdf (22.9 MB)
That’s what I believe LIghtroom’s process versions do. They allows compatibility in newer versions of Lightroom for images originally edited in older versions.
Mark
Lightroom is doing something different. They are calling it process versions and forcing the photographer to convert between them and accept updates. What I’m talking about would be invisible and would be accurate. Switching between Adobe process versions can radically alter how an image looks. If PhotoLab adds more complex Selective Tone Sliders but adds the right math in the background, when you open your image in a more recent version of PhotoLab, the tone sliders would be automatically converted and the sliders themselves would move the new position before opening. And the image would look exactly the same.
I.e. the slider buttons may not be in the same position but would represent the same result.
Those numbers could change to -20 Highlights, 9 Midtones, 24 Shadows, -6 Blacks in a new system which restricts the range of each slider. Or those numbers would stay the same as the range restriction would be set in the background to the same as the original process.
In this scenario the photographer would be free to change those range restrictions and choose a default set of range restrictions. I’d suggest some intelligent presets: PhotoLab 2, Lightroom 6, CaptureOne which mirror the Selective Tone Sliders, along with an option for a custom set. I don’t think photographers should be encouraged to have more than one custom set as really a photographer should get to know his or her Selective Tone sliders as knowing them is more important than what they are.
Since I know the PhotoLab 2 tone sliders I had no problem at all correcting an image almost completely with selective tone sliders, using fairly extreme values and mixing the crossover parts of the palette carefully (highlights and midtones, midtones and shadows, shadows and black).
@uncoy and @mwsilvers
Exactly Alec and Mark
I find it very frustrating by this endless comparison.
Dxo is not a Adobe product.
Lr is not a single approach for photo traetment.
Of course yes, DxO converts values from old algorithm when updated!
Like Alec said, try to “learn to work with software and not against it.”
Pascal
3 Likes