There are two things I feel are needed in DPL.
- As a printer, I’d like to see DPL 5 support the Prophoto color space.
- As an abstract photographer I rely on vertical and horizontal image rotation and would like to see them both included in DPL 5.
I agree regarding performance. Anything possible should be done to speed up the processing time.
I need native support for pixel shift images of Pentax (and other cameras). This is very important feature for me and a real advantage. Please!
1 Like
I’m only trialling PL4 but I have a few suggestions:
-
Performance: especially “correction preview” and “export” which are noticeably/much more laggy than any of the other top raw processors (I’m using a maxed-out Mac Air with the M1 chip)
-
The tone curve (an essential pro tool) needs work. Histogram background; better/smoother curve control with the option to delete specific points on the curve; sliders for quartile/quintile ranges; a combined ‘R,G,B’ curves display (in addition to luminance). PL4 is not at the same level as other ‘pro’ tools. Also, an AUTO setting for e.g. med and strong contrast as in LR.
-
The local adjustment tool inherited from NIK is neat as far it goes. But it is very primitive in an important respect: you can select & adjust only regions not luminance or color (as in LR and C1 for eg.). This is a significant deficit.
-
The interaction between “Smart lighting” and all of the other tone tools is too obscure I’d prefer DXO dropped the smart lighting’ marketing name and explained the parameters or included them as a set of operation in other tools. AFAIK ‘smart lighting’ is a combination of reduced (selective?) mid-tone contrast and a non-linear mid-tone exposure boost. It’s certainly part of the DXO ‘look’ (sort of ‘low-key HDR’) but it needs more transparency (in the information sense of the word) and to be better integrated with other tools.
-
I have no problem with PL using the file system as the image ‘database’ but the “Photo Library” is not as functional as it could be. There seems to be no way to ‘include images in subfolders’ when viewing a folder. Some of the filters that are available are inscrutable: images that I have processed show up the ‘ready to process’ filter etc.
-
The accuracy/predictability of clone/repair needs work (as it does in LR, C1 etc). It seems the XMP (non-destructive) editors will never match the pixel editors for this procedure. But perhaps there’s a role for machine learning in the choice of ‘gloop’ that is used to re-fill a repair. Maybe too ambitious for PL5.
1 Like
I agree with all of your points. Just one minor detail:
This is possible by selecting the point and pressing backspace (on MacOS).
Thanks for the tip, Christian. I missed that obvious trick (I must not have selected the point correctly). Best, Peter
Hello Peter,
Essentially when you place a control point on an image, it creates a complex mask that is based on the red, green, blue, hue, saturation, and brightness values of the area directly under the centre of the control point. These are very similar to luminosity masks, and range masks
So it is much more than olnly select and adjust regions.
Best
Sigi
1 Like
Thank you Sigi. I’m not sure we’re taking about the same thing.
With the PL4 “Local Adjustment” tool – or with the masking tools in other raw processors – you first need to paint a region (even a point) before you can make any adjustment. Then you have an option to make a variety of changes to different aspects of the chrominance and luminance of that masked region (level, local contrast, etc).
What I would like to do (and other raw & pixel processors allow me to do) is to select only certain pixels/regions within a masked area based on their luminance or chrominance. For example, to affect only those pixels/regions included in the masked area that are in the top 10% or the bottom 10% of the distribution of the luminance in the masked area.
If, for example, I want to change the contrast of pixels in the 50-90th percentile of the luminance distribution in that masked area, or of the pixels in the masked are that are not ‘dark-blue’ (or magenta or whatever)’, I can do so in LR or C1 etc. But in PL4, as far as I know, I can only make a change (or a group of changes) to all the pixels covered by the mask. As you say, the changes can be very specific or quite complex (just as in LR or C1 etc). But in PL4 they apply to everything covered by the mask.
That’s a big difference in functionality that I’d like to see DXO address.
Hi Peter, welcome.
Is a known issue, probably caused by realtime processing of the optical module and deepprime preprocessing. You see every time the “plop” of optical correction when changing images or entering local modes. It’s work in progres i think.
Point 2 yes please also my pressurepoint.
Point 3, luminance layers is the magic word some speak of. Controlpoints are quite powerfull and things as (edit: manual) feathering and colorselectiveness is one thing that the present controlpoint will inprove. And ofcaorse a HSL type of feature in the edit menu…
Point 4, did you tried face selective mode? The boxes you can place?
It works together with exposure correction and selective tone.
Point 5 DAM is also a fast work in progress state. It gets better.
Point 6.
Clone repair is much better then it was. I am from v1.2 til now 4.2.
By using show mask you can replace the source spot but not turn in angle, this would help fine tuning filling. Same as reshaping outlinging by pulling and dragging the lineshape.
For now, try switching between clone and repair wile moveing the feathering and opacity. And moving the source spot around.
Peter
Edit about controlpoint selection.
@Pieloe made a excelent tutorial which shows how the colorselection works.
(can someone link his website? I am on mobile. 
)
It’s like a eyeball
Pupil most centers circle is the sample for masking.
Iris, three parts of a circle, is the feathering, it added extra selection.
Outer circle, second feathering spread, the wider the more it fade out effect.
I have placed lots of examples around here.
1 Like
Thanks for your explanations and suggestions, Peter.
On point 4: I have tried the ‘spot weighted’ approach to “smart lighting” that tends to preserve the lighting characteristics of the selection(s) while modifying the rest of the image. But it’s still not obvious how the “smart” lighting changes work: they seem to affect both contrast (the differences between pixel regions) and levels (the average luminance). Nor is it clear whether the regions covered by the selection(s) (and a feathered border?) are immune from the ‘intensity’ slider movements or just less affected by the slider. I think it’s the latter.
I much prefer to use the tone curve which is procedural and deterministic. It performs one (multiplicative) transformation mediated by a highly variable control (the curve whose slope at any point is the control value).
Alas, non-destructive (XMP based) raw editors only use global curves. The raw editor that first introduces masked curves (as in Photoshop) will win the game! 
Are you aware of idyn of panasonic?
it’s more or less working the same.
it squeezes blackpoint and whitepoint into a certain Dynamic Range.
by selectively modifying highlight midtone shadows and blacks in tone and lowering contrast levels.
If you use boxes you can pin certain places in the image. (deepshadows and highlights only.) keep Smart lightning at moderest 25%, and push and pull with exposure and other things. as contrast en selective tone you will see that it tries to keep those places levelled like a chickenhead stayes still wile you move the body around.
maybe these test image will help to understand the effects.
01 test images for printing.zip (634,3 KB)
thanks @Sigi
Re:
The interaction between “Smart lighting” and all of the other tone tools is too obscure I’d prefer DXO dropped the smart lighting’ marketing name and explained the parameters or included them as a set of operation in other tools. AFAIK ‘smart lighting’ is a combination of reduced (selective?) mid-tone contrast and a non-linear mid-tone exposure boost. It’s certainly part of the DXO ‘look’ (sort of ‘low-key HDR’) but it needs more transparency (in the information sense of the word) and to be better integrated with other tools.
I agree. The Smart Lighting tool needs to be split into 2 tools. Basically a “Fill Light” control which Lightroom users will recognise and a highlight/mid-tone contrast tool.
Users/reviewers need to be able to understand and predict what the tool will do to the image. At the moment it is move the slider and hope:-)
This is what the manual says about Smart Lighting:
What settings should you use with DxO Smart Lighting?
DxO Smart Lighting is probably the most complex of our corrections. It has a global and a local effect on the image – affecting the whole picture and local details – and has a strong influence on contrast and brightness. Such a complex correction can only be mastered with practice. However, you will quickly see for yourself how effective DxO Smart Lighting is even for difficult images.
First, generally speaking, DxO Smart Lighting changes bright images only slightly, but has a stronger effect on darker images. It has little effect on highlights, unlike Exposure Compensation. Second, you should stick with the three automatic correction modes as much as possible, as they can cope with most situations, and then fine-tune with the Intensity slider afterwards. If you need to do further corrections, use the Selective tone palette or the Tone Curve.
If the tool is this complicated then logic would suggest separating out the complex functionality into a couple of “simpler” sliders.
If reviewers can’t understand a tool you don’t set yourself up for a good result.
Why make something complicated if there is an alternative way of doing the same job?
3 Likes
Yes, I completely agree Ian.
The manual also suggests the use of the selection tool in the SL dialogue for more control. It may work more subtly for portraits (I haven’t tried) but it doesn’t seem to add much to the global “intensity” control for eg landscape images. If you select more than one region or enlarge or reduce the size of the selection, the result still seems to be only a (global) “intensity” change.
It might be, Ian & Peter, that (at least part of) your difficulty will Smart Lighting is that you’re coming at it from the perspective of trying to convert your LR experience into using PL - and you’re finding it’s not working in exactly the same way (which, others might conclude is a “good thing”).
I don’t have LR experience, so it could be argued that I don’t understand what I’m missing - but I am very happy with how Smart Lighting works for me … along with ability to tweak the result with Selective Tone & Contrast adjustments (for the latter, via the Advanced contrast settings - as provided with a Film Pack license) … I rarely use the Tone Curve.
Regards, John M
6 Likes
Treating jpg and raw as one file
I always do raw +jpg. I’d like to see them as one like in Lightroom - if I delete a picture, both are gone from the disk. If I work on a picture, the raw file should be used.
What i do is throw all sibblings doubles in a ooc-jpeg folder.
So only the once i need, camera stacking, scene types as “candlestars”, panoramastitch., are left in the source folder.
I am often throw the ooc’s in the bin.
I shoot raw and jpeg so i can sent photo’s to smart tv by wifi from my g80.
And my menu structure is full accesable in the camera.
But indeed it would be nice if we have a checkbox to connect ooc-jpegs on the raws so they move and deleted with the rawfiles.
Most important? Don’t overdo it and end up breaking things. Nik 4 already has me on the edge. If PL5 ends up with as many problems I’m done. It doesn’t need to be a swiss army knife (there are already a few of those that are well enthroned and not soon to be de-throned). Just make any new things it does reliable and exceptional.
6 Likes
The Leica Q/Q2/Q2M have a handy digital crop feature which shows “framelines” for 35, 50, and 75mm equivalents. Lightroom will automatically respect the selected crop and display the image cropped by default. Photolab just shows the standard 28mm.
I agree c.gephart keep cantered on improving the core things, getting rid of bugs and getting the processing speed improved.
With the Mac I agree with supporting more than 2 versions and though I don’t use one an Apple smart phone RAW support is needed, both areas will lose PL customers in what is a declining market for camera processers and that will impact on those of us left
If all the things Light Room can do (and other programs) are so wanted there are those programs with all the things wanted there, use them. There is no way a small firm producing PL is going to produce another Light Room there have been enough problems with the introduction of a water down DAM!
3 Likes