Workflow and/or Preference settings in DXO PL4.3.1 for a two computer workflow

Adobe is no reference. They do what they want because of their market power, not because they have particularly good ideas.

It’s not about “allowed” but about doing the right thing.

1 Like

If you ask me everything should go in the XMP file. I also agree a single storage location is best. (And DXO supports this if configured properly.) The database is mostly useless and frankly corruption risk means if something goes wrong you lose everything. The XMP standard includes a provision for unstructured data or custom data. All the contents of the DOP file could be placed in the XMP file with key elements pulled out into the standard XMP fields (or not).

I’m still not sure why some advocate for two different sidecars when all the data can be stored in one industry standard XMP sidecar.

Anyway DXO can and will do what they choose.

i suppose one problem is that DxO editing data is non-standard and can be quite voluminous and, on top of Adobe’s that would make for a very large sidecar that takes longer to parse every time you want to access the image.

1 Like

The parsing of the largest XML file you can imagine would be a tiny fraction of the parsing of the RAW file attached to it.

I am glad you and others are interested in this topic. I have never had any problemslike this with free Nikon software ( View and Capture and Studio) from 2006 through 2021. If Nikon can figure out how to avoid these problems, I think DXO should be able to too. I have always used a two computer workflow.

Here is an update I just received from DXO Support Team 1 on July 28th:

"I was checking those points with our team, and I can confirm that .DOP Sidecars do include star ratings but DO NOT include keywords.

Keywords are kept in the database and they cannot be moved to another computer in DxO PhotoLab 4. So that’s the reason for your issue here.

However, this will be improved in DxO PhotoLab 5."

When I received this I emailed to Support thanking them and asking them to address my specific Problems in (1) and (2) that deal with Master and Virtual copies and Star Ratings that they have not yet addressed as far as I can tell.

Given that something will be done in the next DXO update, if any of you have good suggestions to offer to DXO, I would let them know what they are.

1 Like

Thank you for your persistence in pushing these issues forward with DxO and thank you for the update on current status.

Separation of metadata into XMP files and image data into .dop files makes perfect sense and would preserve the largest possible interoperability. The ability to read crop information from incoming XMP/image pairs (until the .dop file is created) and all would be right in the Photolab world.

Well, almost. Nothing should be stored exclusively in the database. There should be an option to simply disable the database and store metadata and image processing data only in .xmp and .dop files for perfect portability.

The only value in the database from my perspective is the management of the image cache (for performance optimization)

2 Likes

If You have source images on one memory, that you switchet, dop file have every informatiom about edit this file.

Case with database may resolve sharing it via cloud. In preferences You could change the path where database is stored. For each computer You type the same cloud path and database is the same for each instace and database aggregate all action.

I posted a new thread about whether I can allow both my Desktop Mac Mini computer and my MacBook Pro could both access a folder with the photos that came from both places. It was suggested that I come here to this thread. I read the following, and a lot more:

I don’t use PL5 for anything other than editing. No need for keywords. I think I’ve come to the conclusion that if I delete the PL5 database on both computers, this idea of one large folder “somewhere” would work, but it’s a bad idea.

If that is true, is there a problem with copying the entire folder structure from my MacBook Pro, and copying it to the appropriate area on my Mac mini?

I think the safest way for me is to start a new “2022” master folder on both computers, and over time, move anything I add to the MacBook Pro to the folders on the Mac Mini. Then I can delete them from the laptop, or just leave them in storage in a folder on my external drive.

I think the keywords in the dop sidecar file has been solved with 5.0. Seems the windows version doesn’t retain advanced history like on the mac. (This should also be saved in the dop sidecar.)

Aside from that the actual database becomes mostly useless as far as I can tell except for “projects” (maybe the database is used for cache tracking too?)

Probably you can delete the database on startup each time and not have any issue sharing a folder between two computers. You may have to do some tests to see if it works for you.

yes → How to use PhotoLab on multiple Apple Computers

New Feature Request:

I am a windows 10 user who has reported problems with a two win 10 computer workflow to DXO before. I am now using DXO PL5 Elite on both win 10 computers.

I do agree with previous posters that the keyword problem has been addressed in DXO PL5. This is probably because the xmp files are in the same file folder as the RAW images processed in DXO.

I am less sure about Star ratings being correctly transferred. I am still testing this out.

In my workflow I do not do any star ratings until the file folders have been copied to my desktop from my laptop via external hard drive. Once I make the ratings and process the images, I copy them back to the external hard drive for copying again to the laptop.

To prevent problems(star ratings not appearing; virtual copies appearing, etc) I delete the file folders on the external hard drive before copying the file folder from the desktop to the external hard drive. I then do the same on my laptop–delete the folder then copy it to the laptop from the external drive.

One matter that may be contributing to the problem is that the images on the laptop are in drive C as is the photolab database. On my desktop, the images are on drive D: but the Photolab database is on drive C:

In Preferences, I have added a check in the following boxes for XMP: Save settings in sidecar ; load settings from sidecar

I hope this helps.

I have done some more testing with the latest win 10 releases of DXO PL5–5.1.1 and NIK Collection 4.3–both downloaded around Dec 17, 2021 to my win 10 laptop and Desktop.
The synchronization problems I have experienced are still present. Here is a brief description of them:
Synchronization Problems. ( Problems are not always the same in different file folders) Virtual and Master files appear. Virtual copies of NEF and Tiff files may appear in the same file folder as the Master file when the file folders are opened in DXO-PL5 on my Laptop after having been processed on my Desktop. This seems to happen randomly as I can discern no pattern as to what makes this happen. I have not done anything to create a Master or Virtual file on the laptop or desktop.

I sent a formal Support ticket to DXO a few minutes ago with an attachment that details what is happening. I will try and attach it here if possible. Two Computer Problems with DXO PL 5.pdf (2.5 MB)

I heard from DXO Support and sent them the DXO PhotoLab 5 Logs from my Desktop. Hopefully the logs will provide some clues to what is happening and how to make needed fixes.

January 25, 2022–My response to DXO Support once I got their response January 20, 2022. FYI:

Hello Fernando,

Your response confirms what I have experienced with all versions of DXO PL I have used–PL3 through PL5. Virtual copies of Tiff and NEF flies are created randomly when two or more windows (and Maybe Apple) computers are used to add or change sidecar files, dop files and process and export image files.

Your response did not include any information about what I can do to minimize the problem or what DXO might do or will do to resolve this problem.

I am left with the impression that there is nothing I can do to resolve the problem except to use just one windows computer to cull, keyword, rate, process, etc my images. Or live with the problem. For many DXO users these are NOT acceptable solutions.

I would appreciate knowing what part of the DXO architecture is causing this problem and if it can be changed or fixed. I want to request that it be changed to fix this fundamental problem with DXO PL software. And I want to inform others of the fix needed in case they would also benefit from it.

DXO has to figure out what changes are needed in its system architecture to allow “processed” images to appear the same on two or more computer platforms after different processing steps. My free and paid for versions of Nikon software never had these problems and I believe NIK at one time helped Nikon with writing its image software. Since NIK is now part of DXO, maybe some of the solutions are within your family of companies.

Joe Smith
Houston, TX

On Monday, January 24, 2022, 05:02:38 PM CST, DxO Support support@dxo.com wrote:

##- Please type your reply above this line -##
Hi,
We remind you that your request is pending and awaits your feedback.
If no response is received within the next 4 days, we will consider it resolved.
Regards,


Fernando (Support & Assistance)

Jan 20, 2022, 11:49 PM GMT+1
Hello Joseph,

Our team confirms is expected behavior, to have “Virtual copies of NEF and Tiff files are created randomly”, when the same folder is used by more than one DxO PhotoLab instance. When DxO PhotoLab discovers a sidecar with virtual copies which are different from the ones saved in the database, it doesn’t know what version is correct and should be kept. Thus it creates additional virtual copies for all possible versions of virtual copies and allows the user to make the choice by leaving some and removing the others.

Regards,
Fernando - DxO Labs Support Team

1 Like

Imo, this behaviour is quite reasonable, but I find one fundamental issue with it.

Imagine two computers, both with DPL installed with a local DPL database each (default setup):

  • Imageset 1 has been added on Computer 1, Imageset 2 has been added on Computer 2
  • Both Imagesets are merged into one Imageset 3 on both computers and some editing takes place at different times on each computer, then Imageset 3 is synced between computers (we have to expect that e.g. with a journalist or photographers who work in a studio AND on the road)
    → This is the moment when we get virtual copies, so far so good.

Now we want to remove the unwanted edits. Unwanted edits can exist in both master and VCs. While we can easily delete a VC, we cannot delete the master file, which means that some work needs to be redone or else will be lost.

When virtual copies were introduced in OpticsPro or PhotoLab, master and VC were equal in that either of them could be removed without losing everything (file and edits). I remember having commented on it because I did not immediately grasp the potential of this implementation at that time.

Later (DPL 2.2), the M/VC concept was implemented and from there on, deleting the master would delete file and edits, something that, today, limits the use of DPL in a studio+road situation.

At least one feature request to enable deleting the master without deleting the VC or making the VC a master has been posted a while ago. When I come across that request, I’ll post a link…

Thanks Fernando for sharing exactly what happens.

This is highly destructive behaviour. It could easily be avoided by simply allowing users to turn off the database and use just sidecars, which is exactly what most PhotoLab users seem to want to do, based on the answers in this forum. PhotoLab is very poor at managing huge numbers of photos, hence compromising portability in a futile attempt to be Lightroom just makes the application worse. On the other hand, thanks to .dop sidecars, what PhotoLab could do for users is be very portable between computers, always reading from by default and prioritising the .dop files.

1 Like

The main problem is that DxO allows image processing with different versions of the software.

  • Try PL5 and then go back to PL4

Is this a good idea? I don’t know. But this is how DxO wanted to serve its users.

Turn off the database and using only sidecars would simplify everything … if users were trained enough to understand how to answer the previous problem

Pascal

This just sounds like excuses and noise for not doing the right thing, which is allowing users to just turn off the database function and prioritise the .dop files.

If users can’t keep the version of PhotoLab straight, then we’re really heading for lowest common denominator. Aiming for lowest common denominator is pointless as to use PhotoLab effectively probably requires an IQ of at least 115 and reasonable tech proficiency. Lightroom is probably not much lower while CaptureOne is probably higher.

Spoiling PhotoLab for non-existent crowds of Photoshop Elements users who neither fit the use or financial profile of a PhotoLab user would be DxO shooting itself (or rather us, the users who use, appreciate and buy PhotoLab Elite Suite) in the foot.