Tip: Making best use of PL4's new Workspace Category Filtering feature

A bit of both. Certainly very high ISO and heavy cropping isn’t isn’t my norm, so that may well explain my reaction compared to yours.

People who mostly capture landscapes in very good daytime light probably won’t be impressed by DeepPRIME. For the rest of us, its amazing.

Mark

1 Like

Well, I didn’t say only very good daytime light. I do still own a tripod. :slight_smile:

Otherwise, NR just isn’t the determining factor for me. I use PL, Capture One Pro, and Exposure X*, and they all have strengths and weaknesses. I could make do with any of them if need be. The biggest weaknesses of PL for me are OS support, weaker backwards compatibility for rendering, and UI. I’ll need new hardware for PL5 at the current rate, and that alone may mean the end of the line for me, for a while at least. Looks like I will get two more versions out of Capture One, and even more out of Exposure: X6 supports all the way back to El Capitan on Mac. I’m tired of continual forced upgrades, so I’ll happily support software that forces me to open my wallet less frequently.

1 Like

Interesting take, it is always personal choice with software as with cameras. If DXO doesn’t do much for you obviously no need to upgrade.

Personally I find the UI improvements very welcome and very valuable to me. We spend a long time in the UI :slight_smile:

DeepPrime has been getting near universal approval over on DPReview (or "everyone uses Adobe) forums, something quite rare these days when new software is released.

We don’t all use the same camera, so there is no reason to use the same software but I certainly think DXO V4 is a really good version and hopefully they will fill the space below the Local Layers palette with editing controls replacing the existing radial on image menu. Looks like they have left space for that :slight_smile: Along with the editing controls it also looks if they are getting ready to add HSL to local adjustments. The colour picker will then come into its own as in C1 that you already use.

So very positive from me for V4, and I am primarily an unapologetic C1 user. Not moving to DXO but credit where credit is due they are making strong progress, C1 better not rest on their laurels :slight_smile:

1 Like

Just so it doesn’t sound like I’m only hacking away at DxO, I was underwhelmed by the Exposure X6 upgrade as well, and if what I’ve read about the coming C1 upgrade turns out to be true then I won’t be jumping for joy on that front either.

But they may all get my money in the end anyway. I’m not yet so bitter as to be without hope. :slight_smile:

1 Like

The way I handle it is I have my Essential palettes open as default in a linear workflow (how I work through my own images). I’ve been able to remove a few palettes which I used to keep in Essential as they are aren’t far away, on the buttons. I’m as sceptical of trendy user interface changes as anyone, but after having the chance to play with these changes, the new system ends up being a big step forward, hardly compromising our existing way of working. We still enjoy a default Essential tab, it’s the unlisted one. For simplicity’s sake, a first tool button should probably be added: Essential. At that point, one of those tab buttons would have to be open at all times. There would no longer be an option to have none enabled.

But that’s splitting hairs. Now that I know I can disable the buttons by clicking the active one, and go back to my Essential palettes, I’m totally happy with the new interface.

When there is progress, we should recognise it as progress and be grateful.

Strong praise that. :slight_smile:

Yes, I’m also thankful that I can get them out of the way. :slight_smile:

But seriously, as I wrote earlier, I’d be happier with the buttons if they were configurable. As it is, the tools I use the most are behind three different buttons, and then it’s just faster for me to skip the buttons and revert to my palette containing my essential tools. Until that’s possible, I don’t find the buttons to be any help at all, and limiting search to only these hardcoded buttoned tools is even more of a head-scratcher.

All I want for Christmas is a Preferences item to disable this new tools interface in its current form.

3 Likes

That was exactly my first impression too …

Yes, this is/was true for me too … But, after some initial frustration/annoyance I found I was still able to stick with my custom palette, for ~90% of my needs (achieved by not having any of the category filtering buttons active) … plus use the category filtering buttons (only as necessary) to access lesser used tools.

This approach enabled me to get rid of the LHS palette from my custom workspace layout - as I was using it mostly for less-used tools (but only 'cos I needed to have them somewhere) - whereas, now I don’t need them in my custom workspace 'cos I can access them via the buttons.

See my layout above to see how clean/simple this is (for me, at least).

John M

2 Likes

At the risk of repeating myself somewhat … :slight_smile:

The problem is that we can’t use the buttons to access all of our lesser used tools because DxO has hardcoded their contents. This is my main gripe with it. I would love to be able to put Exif Editor there (to take my previous example) so that I don’t need to put it in a palette in the off chance that I want to use it.

It also wouldn’t be a problem if the search field hit all tools instead of just the one’s DxO has decided to put behind these buttons, but then I’m back to me other point, that I really see no need for the buttons at all. They’re just an alternate way of organizing tools. They don’t provide any benefit over palettes beyond preference. If DxO wants to spend time on alternate methods of accessing tools instead of fixing existing UI quirks/omissions then they should at least give us the option of choosing the one(s) we prefer.

There’s at least one other quirk with the buttons that make the functionality unattractive. If you toggle the visible state of a tool in a palette (ie. the open/close triangle) then that state is remembered if you restart the application. Not the case with the tools behind a button: they’re always open by default, which makes them slower to access unless you’re prepared to toggle them off manually. (I’m on Mac in case it makes a difference.)

You still need to have lesser used tools somewhere if they’re not one of DxO’s hardcoded/buttoned tools. That’s the problem with it. I would happily have only my common tools in a single palette on the rhs and a search field to access any tool and call it a day, no buttons required. (Well, maybe one to display all active tools not in a palette.) Or let me configure the buttons and I’ll use them as C1 tool tabs and need no palettes at all. Right now we’re somewhere in between.

Or have I completely missed the possibility of controlling what’s behind these buttons somehow? I see no way on Mac at least, and the manual sheds no light.

Again, my invective isn’t directed at you at all - you’ve found a way to use the new functionality that works for you and even gone through the trouble of sharing it with the rest of us - but I’m afraid I still think the functionality is half-baked. Maybe it’ll evolve into something better, but I wish DxO would spend more time finishing/polishing things before releasing them.

Don’t tell them that!!! :slight_smile:

Apple? yes ive read the complains.
Windowbased? no mine pc is a 9 year old desktop i7 4770 3.4Ghz with a basic GPU normal video card. V4 is running not fast and edgile swift or front running on my commands but fast enough and some waiting closing things or changing big things.
Deep prime’s software uses GPU reasources if it’s possible to spread the workload and i think v4’s overal software is rewritten to do so. (changing/updating a videocard is less expensive then a new MPB and CPU) So ok now it’s a slaughter among older systems with bad video capacity’s and they can’t write software for all videocards hardware to use there capacity but predicting that this is the case every year is a bit premature.

UI is changing but indeed not mind blowing different , they migrating step by step wile asking our opinion about the change which imo is better then just bring out a total different UI which everyone is hating but hence it’s done so deal with it.

Every time i do some digging and learning in DxOPL to understand the “under the hood” connections and interactions. (the why thing are changed/ behave as they are)
The more i can work out workarounds for problems even the original use of a tool isn’t designed for that.)
Example: Smartlighting, great for easy setup DR/spread/compress histogram within borders wile changing overal global exposure(lightnes) value.
i had this preset default active for a wile at slight level and used boxes to control this, point is it interacted in my colors more then i thought even when it wasn’t necessary to change something the AI was working.
Less smart then i thought or i didn’t understood it’s working properly. Still i use it alot to set the ETTL and ETTR borders before i start in partial slider adjustment.

I am not a photographer in a level that i can say “look at my website you will like it i made them on purpose” but i think i am digged in DxOPL in such a technical level that i can say if i like something or that it is lacking finesse.
And there are things i don’t like in DxOPL (which can be improved i mean.) like in all software.
But i am quite pleased with the instant improvement due lens profiles and (deep)prime on my rw2 files of my modest G80 and there easy interface visualy. (no mindbobling Maze of tools and subtools which needs hours of reading to understand how they work.)
The technical manual can be improved doh. if you like to know what things actually do and how that’s a complete selfstudy/practise.

I think we can divide the users as
happy: new macbook lastest OS and window 10 users
Not happy: all mac’s who are discluded by the cut off.

1 Like

Yes, I should have said that, Apple in my case. Like you say, the situation is better with Windows. So much so that I’ve thought of using a Windows machine for image processing, but I’m too enmeshed in the Unix heritage to find that appealing. Even with the Windows subsystem for Linux, there still seem to be limitations/difficulties that I’m not keen on spending time working out/around. Still, something I have my eye on.

Problem is I’m also not at all keen on any of Apple’s machines these days (non-user-upgradeability being a big reason; Mac Pro is nutty money), Hackintosh (if you’re so inclined) has other issues, and Linux just isn’t an option for the commercial software I prefer in this case. I’ve used dcraw and ImageMagick from the command line on Linux, but even if there was feature parity with PL and others, it’s hard to deny that an edit-compile-preview cycle isn’t ideal for something as visual as image processing. (Ironically, the same reason I seldom find PRIME and DeepPRIME necessary for my usage.)

I’ve dabbled in RawTherapee and Darktable on Linux, but I’m just happier with PL/C1/Exposure, along with Affinity Photo. If push comes to shove then I’ll probably just live with whatever upgrades I’m offered on my existing hardware until there’s more than a PL upgrade to force my hand, which is probably still a good number of upgrades in the case of Exposure and Affinity Photo at least. (Unless Apple’s move to ARM messes things up.)

2 Likes

I totally understand your point of view.
In your case DNG and optical module has more value i think.
And viewpoint with it.
Don’t know if the new DNG features are that much more then v3.3 that that will tick you over.

My cousin is a linux programmer all his working life and basicly “hates” windows and android commercial phone’s. Apple? Thé wórst moneysuckers there are. Overpriced hardware, closed system no possible hardware side manufactorers basicly build for looks and people with too much money and no desire to build there own pc hardware.
(His words not mine aldoh i agree for most of it.)

Most older hardware runs faster on linux now then they did when they where new on official OS.
But the software applications which are compatible arn’t widely spread.

Not an easy choice.

Peter

Hmmm. PL4 is performing better than PL3 on Macs from both my anecdotal (limited) use, and confirmed by (I think it was) @uncoy.

I meant because of macOS support: I have no Mac that will run 10.15 Catalina, so if DxO drops Mojave for PL5 then I’m out of luck. Just not interested in new Apple hardware with non-replaceable RAM and/or SSD for all but the Mac Pro, if I’m not mistaken. Some iMacs have replaceable RAM at least, but I’m not interested in an integrated display either: I already have more than one that I’m perfectly happy with, and don’t like the idea of having to replace a display along with the hardware it’s attached to.

So a hefty outlay on Apple hardware to be able to upgrade to PL5 is not happening for me, and even one of the other options probably won’t unless PL5 finally addresses absolutely everything I’ve reported to DxO since PL1. Otherwise, I’m quite happy with C1 20 and Affinity Photo, and even the weak points in Exposure X6 may well be addressed by the time they drop Mojave support. I’m even seeing more in X6 than I did initially. Just a little disappointed they decided to spend time on auto adjustments instead of addressing the relatively primitive perspective correction tool and some glaring problems with how some other tools work in combination with it. (As bad as some tools operating on the uncorrected image even though it’s the corrected one you’re looking at.)

In the same vein of (relative) positivity, I also have to admit (to @mwsilvers at least) that I’ve now seen the advantage of DeepPRIME on some of my own images. Still not my usual case, but I remembered one image in particular that put me off PRIME in the past since the NR improvements in C1 20 did just as well, and DeepPRIME is a noticeable improvement, even at less than 100%.

I’m still pitchforks and torches on the Smart Workspace additions though. :slight_smile:

1 Like

When I purchased my 2018 Mac Mini, I upgraded the RAM myself. It was a hassle but I did it. However, I was not confident about the integrated GPU so I bought an external GPU at the same time.

Thanks, but SSD is still soldered on. I actually thought RAM was too, but one is enough.

My 2010 Mini requires complete disassembly to replace both SSDs (which I’ve done), but not even possible in more recent models is too much for me.

1 Like

Yes, the only “user upgradable” component in any consumer Mac is the RAM in a 27" iMac, or of course anything in the Mac Pros. The iMac screens are very good but I understand you have something you’re comfortable with and certainly matching up two monitors is a lot harder if one is built into the computer.

My personal preference is the iMac because of its screen. As someone once put it, “that’s a really excellent screen for an excellent price, oh, and it comes with a computer attached.” I prefer a single screen at home despite running 3 at work, but that’s with a ton of dodgy Microsoft products to wrangle (what I wouldn’t give for a Mac at work!)

Glad to be able to use the palettes like in PL3 - laptop screen for the tools plus one monitor for the photo.

2 Likes

I can see how this new workspace category filtering can be beneficial to a workflow…but…maybe I’ m too old fashioned already…I like to keep almost all tabs open, like I did with PL3.
Scrolling? Yes sure, but it’ s either scrolling or clicking :slight_smile: I don’ t mind and I always have all tools “visible”.
The new DeepPRIME is absolutely stunning. I even tend to use it for all files from iso 800…or maybe iso 1600 upwards (shooting Sony A7RIV here). So far I simply cannot see any " plastification" of images. Great job DXO!