Hello DXO team,
In order to sort images from the same burst, it will be interesting to have a side by side visualisation functionality to keep the best photo from the same burt.
Regards
Dear @sgospodarenko
is it possible to merge all the FR’s with “compare” like Compare view (like in Lightroom) - DxO PhotoLab / Which feature do you need? - DxO Forums and Compare several photos in same view - DxO PhotoLab / Which feature do you need? - DxO Forums and this one .Thanks in advance.
Enjoy your weekend
Guenter
And what would be the point? The next new user missing this simple feature will open a new thread again instead of searching first. Because no one can understand why a RAW converter in 2021, coming in at significant costs, doesn’t have this simple feature. But then, it’s not the only “simple feature” missing and given the rather poor “progress” from PL4 to PL5, I don’t expect anything to happen.
Dear @JoJu ,
that’s correct but…hope dies last 
And I hope anybody of the DXO staff will notice that one FR with a lot of votes is on the verge of revolution 
If I ever believe that DXO will not change anything, which is what many users want, I will officially leave the forum, continue to use my version 4 until it is no longer possible for technical reasons, and otherwise concentrate on my hobby of photography…
And yes…I will skip the version 5 because there are a lot of little things preventing me to update.
I have communicated this often enough during the EA phase.
Enjoy your weekend
We’re on the same boat, @Guenterm. I, too, don’t see a single reason to update to PL5. And the mess with some people’s ratings and metadata is not helping much.
2 Likes
Never upgrade and continue with Photolab 4 eternally 
? Sounds like some kind of a self-harming behavior. I´m afraid you are going to miss something 
, because the future will be so bright that you got to wear shades!
possibly, with current slow climate saving efforts…
3 Likes
Why not…PL4 supports my camera and lenses…if this combo works I’m happy…I look into the future with a smile…because I’ve learned that the future brings good things, different new solutions, and I do not look back in sadness. I live in the here and now and look forward to new challenges and new things…Sunglasses I don’t wear in my technical world, only wear ones in summer or during sport in bright light …" always look at the bright side of life dadamdam 
That´s perfectly logical not to upgrade if a certain version doesn´t give any reason to do so, but you also wrote: “If I ever believe that DXO will not change anything, which is what many users want”. Is it??
A lot of users has really waited for a better metadata support and a better PictureLibrary and many of them are pretty pleased with what they have got in version 5. Many many Fuji-users that also wanted to get a chance to get access to Deep Prime and maybe the markets best image quality finally got that. Without beeing one of them it might be the single most important feature upgrade when it comes to the potential of widening the support for Photolab and the future market shares.
With Photolab 5 the new PhotoLibrary and the better support for the integration with other XMP-based metadata editors and archives Photolab now offers two migration path, one basic in PhotoLibrary and one more advanced “state of the art solution” in a surprisingly decently integrated PM Plus, that together with Photolab 5 offers the market a high end solution with both a RAW-converter with the markets best image quality AND a far better metadata editing solution and image archive than the one Lightroom offers. I think that is what DXO should promote now and I hope the future will bring even more integration improvements between Photolab and other external XMP-centric software.
I don´t care all that much about either of these two improvements I described in the beginning of this text since I, as you might know, use external tools for the metadata editing and archiving but what I and many others do care about is that the integration between PM Plus and Photolab got a significant lift in version 5 and that is really huge for me and the users that have a similar workflow to mine. First we are quite a few that underestimated the impact of the new PhotoLibrary and integration improvements with other XMP-centric tools but after having done quite a lot of common testing efforts we now can see we have got a lot of new important improvements that will please a lot of people. It´s that good that it now will open a raelistic migration path from Lightroom for many to Photolab, that earlier had to put up with an inferior image quality in Lightroom because they didn´t see an alternative to Lightrooms archive and they can now even choose between one basic and one advanced alternative. That is far from what Adobe can offer with Lightroom and either DXO or Camera Bits will force people into a tax like subscription. I guees that would even please you and Joakim.
Dear Stenis,
thanks for time and description.
Only a short answer, not to get more confusion from my bad english in the post.
My post want to point for
- FR’s with lot of votes which are ignored
- long time discussed themes that do not receive attention(DNG support / HEIC support / browsing speed / compare View and, and…)
and al to of other things you surely know .
I use DXO since version DxO Optics Pro Standard 7.2 and at the moment I can live with the limitations…if not…see above 
1 Like
The most surprising thing is that many of the options demanded in these forums are surprisingly easy to implement, no complicated algorithms, no artificial intelligence, very simple little things…
1 Like
DXO has a real chance to pick up peoples opinions, experiences and feature requests here in this forum but if I compare the dialogue Camera Bits have with the users of Photo Mechanic, DXO is not all that present and responsive here.
… but it might as well be the case that it´s Camera Bits that is the exception because they are really on their toes.
But there is also Capture One, not just Lightroom. It develops with as much quality as PL and doesn’t have as many gaps. The focus should be more on the comparison with C1 rather than with LR.
A simple way to compare a least two pictures side by side is probably the most important feature missing in PL!
1 Like
UP in case DXO would need a new feature for the next upgrade…First demand in the forum sept 2018 !!!
Proposing a catalog feature since the PL5 is a nice idea but without a strong and so required compare pictures tool, it sounds like useless…
Culling a reportage of hundred of pictures requires most of the time to compare similars pictures. And without a side by side (or more) window it’s impossible !
Lack of inspiration ? Just have a look of the LR’s one… or at least during the testing process of PL, just try this use case : A photo reportage with a folder of hundreds of photo with 5/6 similars’ ones for each subject.
1 Like
It is so apparently easy to implement and so obviously necessary for professional or semi-professional use that I can’t understand DXO’s passivity in this matter. It is understandable in Pure Raw as it is a very limited program that is rather a preliminary step to finish the development in C1 or LR. But a program of this ambition and this price should be attentive to the needs of the users, or perhaps they are not aware that many of us can take several hundred pitures in a single photo session and among them there can be one or two dozens to choose only one?
Unless you are a software developer and have intimate familiarity with PhotoLab’s design parameters and codebase, you should not make any assumptions regarding the degree of effort involved to robustly implement that, or any other, feature.
Mark
2 Likes
I’m really waiting for a comparison mode w/ different pics, expanding the present possibility to compare variants of the same file – and I’m asking for a PL solution (not w/ an external program) → … // → …
(ed)
Your answer is reminiscent of the arguments of authority used in the Middle Ages to discredit opinions. If you are aware of these difficulties, I would be grateful if you could explain why any developing, retouching or viewing programme can, including those that are free.
And your response is reminiscent of those who have no knowledge about how these things are actually done, and grossly oversimplify the design parameters and effort involved,. They often seem to assume things will magically happen by flipping a switch.
I honestly don’t have the time or interest to review all the various reasons implementing this feature would be much more involved and problematic than you believe it should be. But I will mention a couple of things that need to be considered.
Most of the software that currently compares two images does so using internal jpegs rather than the actual raw files. FastStone Image Viewer as an example, uses embedded jpegs for fast file comparison for up to four images simultaneously. It can also be configured to view raw files directly for that comparison but then it slows down to a crawl. FastRawViewer (FRV) is much faster at comparing raw files directly, but if I recall correctly is limited to comparing two images. As far as other software you are referring to, we would have to look at each one to determine whether they are viewing raw files or embedded jpegs for comparison purposes and how responsive those comparisons are.
Don’t get me wrong, what you would like to see is certainly doable, but it would be a major new feature involving a significant effort with a significant amount of beta testing, and it may already be on DxO’s roadmap.
Such a feature would have to go way beyond just comparing two or more images. It would have to include functionality and options with regard to what you want to do with those images once you compare them. If performance when comparing two or more raw files directly is not sufficiently fast, then the whole feature may be useless to those who have large numbers of raw files to review, classify, and cull quickly.
Mark