Should PhotoLab do everything that other tools do?

There are different teams who work on PhotoLab and Nik Collection products.

Alex

4 Likes

It comes tomorrow with DxO PhotoLab 4!

Alex

3 Likes

I understand the wish of new things and i am also keen on new tools which DxOPL does not have jet.
Some things are easy to cover by extra applications. like Bridge and FRV. both are part of my pre PL workflow.
other things as watermark are for me not very high in the wishlist but i have a freeware application for the moments i like to use it.
High on the wishlist is a propper xmp updating/writing which supports IPTC. I find the library search function great. But i don’t use the entry function in the now DataBase only storage. i need/use Bridge for that.
These have nothing to do with excelent jpegs producing which i find with my M43 rawfiles amazing, but it does effect my workflow due the fact i need to start an application next to DPL when i want to change something in the exif/keyword/tags/iptc of a rawfile.

An other thing is selective tone and contrast toolset, sounds strange but i use alot of workarounds , combinations of different tools to get something done and i am in the impression there is some finetuning possible. Still it’s all about finetuning small steps to keep the application free of cluttered toolset with tools and possibilities which has almost nothing to do with improving an image. Every new item needs to make it as a hole better not just more.

We see what V4 will bring in this matter… :thinking: it wil be soon in the open :upside_down_face:

1 Like

You guys are overloaded :upside_down_face:

I think DPL is just right as it is. Does a superb job of RAW developing and then if you want some creativity you can purchase NIK. I use Viewpoint but not NIK.

I do think that .dop files should be replaced with .xmp in the same way other tools use .xmp (Lightroom etc.)

DAM functionality should be improved to support IPTC but not to replace specialist DAM programs. Also, the database should be optional, i.e. use only .xmp files instead of database of required.

1 Like

Great questions Joanna.

Keith, I’m with you on moving metadata to XMP but there’s no good reason for DxO’s own proprietary development information to be cluttering up XMP and some good reason for it not to be there (other programs may either scramble or erase it, as it’s not a known standard).

Personally I’d like to see DxO thrown their hat in the DAM arena and I’d even be willing to pay them to do so. But only as a separate application which has to stand on its own merits. Photolab should remain a standalone RAW developer which plays well with photo management tools like FastRawViewer, ApolloOne, Photomechanic Plus, iMatch, Photo Supreme and even Lightroom and Bridge.

I’m somewhat ticked off that 1. a database is obligatory (I don’t want it) 2. metadata is not written into XMP sidecars but proprietary .dop files. Anything which moves Photolab to playing worse with others could push me to look for alternative, more open tools. If DxO have sufficient resources.

Right now, there’s some kind of severe performance issue in my copy of Photolab 3 (3.3.3) on Mojave 10.14.6 when the open folder has more than a few dozen images. Hence my first priorities are like very similar to @m-photo Marc’s: stability and performance.

For big enhancements like those @pierre5018 suggests, I’d like to see them developed as extra tools:

Some nice to have features : panorama stitching, focus stacking. However external applications exist, and they can be invoked from PL.

Panorama stitching could either be its own module or part of a big ViewPoint upgrade. Focus-stacking also seems like a separate add-on like ViewPoint (but doesn’t belong there). What would be good about keeping these extras outside of the main program it would mean they would have to pay their way. If not enough people are willing to pay for a focus stacking tool, then those resources should be spent elsewhere on tools like an advanced panorama and stitching tool.

DAM is the “extra” project which worries me the most. There are two reasons for that:

  1. DxO’s announced tendency is to try to shoehorn it into the existing Photolab application.
  2. DAM is an infinite blackhole. DAM involves two-way file syncing (the toughest task in IT) and an incredible mess of conflicting standards.

Photomechanic have been building photo triage and metadata tools for twenty years. It took them five years to bring their DAM add-on (Photomechanic Plus) to public beta. It’s good but it has problems. Some of the other DAM builders are capable coding teams: some of them have been at it for more than ten years and I have to say the results are not attractive (I test drove Photo Supreme on someone’s recommendation this year and found it clumsy and ugly at least on Mac OS X: java or Linux interfaces – the otherwise solid open-source Digikam – usually look lousy on OS X).

There’s so much other urgent work to be done on Photolab starting with performance while DAM will take up all the resources and more, threefold, and still not be competitive for three years.

3 Likes

@uncoy
You make a valid point about other software possibly destroying dop data if included in xmp files! I will adjust my suggestions to: keep PL specific data in dop files and put ALL xmp data (ratings etc) into xmp files for interoperability with other software.

Keep DAM functionality to a seperate plugin like VP for those who really want it. VP integrates beautifully into PL when you purchase it so the same could be done with a DAM module.

2 Likes

I’d say the DxO suite is the best photo editing software for me. :grin: It keeps getting better, too. Meanwhile, several other dedicated tools I’ve used for years for tasks like panorama stitching, stacking, and HDR have not been improving. They are just about good enough - cumbersome and faulty to some extent. I don’t expect DxO to implement these functions any time soon - at least, not to the degree needed for me to replace these tools. And pairing DxO’s software with these tools is working well for me right now.

1 Like

i don`t think that PhotoLab should do everything that other tools do.
It should be able to do RAW relevant things.
So please, no sky replacent and similar s*** (<- stuff) :scream:

With tomorrow you mean today? :hugs:

2 Likes

@Adrenochrom,

On Wednesday :slight_smile:

Alex

:innocent:

Hello @gregor,

Could you please tell us what tools you find missing in PhotoLab that forces you to switch to Photoshop somewhere in the middle of your workflow?

Alex

Does the Tone Curve correction not work for you for that?

Alex

level and tone curve are two different tools, with level either from Ps or AP you have more control than just using curve for black point or white point with the “blending control”.

Keep in mind that neither Photoshop nor Affinity Photo have the capability to apply those types of edits directly to raw files. I’m not sure if ON1 Photo Raw has that capability.

Sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that Photolab is primarily a raw converter/processor with a significant number of additional features and is not a full featured pixel editor.

Mark

3 Likes

Good point Mark. In this case though, adding a proper levels tool would make total sense for the ultimate RAW converter. I tend to use curves myself (have been doing so for two decades, took almost ten years for curves to become mainstream) and still love curves as they exist in almost every image application and behave similarly in most (curve calibration and scale varies). That said I do use levels in video editors and would welcome levels in Photolab.

This request – adding RGB levels – really fits into the hardcore DxO users’ mantra about better RAW tools. The great part of it is that those who don’t need a new levels palette never have to open it or even look at it.

My priority would still be to improve HSL to match C1: the new HSL tool is powerful but doesn’t yield me the same kind of clean results I’ve had modifying colours in my (very limited) use of C1. Advanced colour manipulation is relatively weak in Photolab, noise management is very poor in C1. Equalling C1’s strengths would be a good direction to go in terms of attracting new users: before C1 can finally decipher noise reduction.

PS. I see there is an HSL colour picker in Photolab 4. I’m looking forward to testing it out. Perhaps DxO is there already in terms of colour manipulation. I was talking more about quality of results rather than just the colour picker though. Looks l like I have some head to head testing of C1 colour manipulation against the new Photolab HSL tool in front of me.

2 Likes

I prefer " Master of all trades". Would that be possible?
At the moment, I use DXO PL3 for almost all images. 100% sure I’ ll upgrade to PL4.
Agree with Adrenochrom.
I use Qimage One for printing.

No it’s not possible. Not from the beginning of time. You are asking for Formula One car which functions equally well as a dump truck and as a motor home. Any other impossible demands to put forward?

1 Like

Just joking…I know that

1 Like

Guess, the answer is neither yes or no. Yes, if you are missing basic functionalities forcing a user to use other tools. No, because you always need your own mission and vision for your product and looking to all the different tools out there, you will simply see no trees anymore because of all the forests.

1 Like