If I click on a folder with Affinity and/or Pixelmator pro images in the photobook view, I get the message that there are no images in the folder. I know these aren’t real images, but they can still appear in the Finder with thumbnails and previews. Is there a way to make PhotoLab 8 display these images as well? If this works, it would be perfect for me.
What is the file extension for these images? PhotoLab’s User Guide indicates the file formats which can be opened. See below.
Files opened by DxO PhotoLab
DxO PhotoLab handles the following file formats:
- RAW files from cameras supported by the program.
- Native DNG files from supported cameras.
- Linear DNG files created by DxO PhotoLab.
- DNG files created by Adobe Lightroom, Camera Raw and DNG Converter, excluding compressed lossy DNG format. DNG files output by merge HDR, Panorama, or Panorama HDR from Lightroom or Camera Raw.
- 8 and 16-bit TIFF files.
- JPEG files.
- JPEG and PNG files for watermark graphics, imported using the Watermark palette.
Pixelmator “.PXD” uses Affinito Photo “.afphoto” extension. I understand that it handles these types, the question was about whether it could be expanded, as the Finder can also display, even though it is not specifically an image cataloging program.
Hello @ambrits
@mwsilvers provided the list of file types Photolab views and can open. PXD and afphoto are proprietary files which Photolab cannot see. If you save your Affinity files as tiff, you will see them in Photolab. I don’t use pixelmator and can’t speak to save options there.
Yes, I am aware of the current status. I got confirmation that I was right. And if I understand the answers correctly, it follows that no change is expected in the future. Then you have to live with it and look for another solution to organize these files. Thank you!
What you’ve found is that Photolab isn’t a very good asset management system. I use it to browse raw files for processing but use another tool for keyboarding and all the things I expect of asset management.
1 Like
PL doesn’t “organise” files of any type whatsoever … Rather, it simply reflects the contents of folders (containing files of the types as listed by @mwsilvers/Mark, above).
Yes, just like FInder, which can show these files as well.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with Photolab, I love it, it’s easy to use, but I’d be completely happy if it showed these two files in the folders so I don’t have to reach for another tool when I’m looking for something.
1 Like
those two type of files are software specific, i don’t see any reason for DxO to modify PL to support them.
3 Likes
And what reasons do you see why not? In any case, it greatly increased the user experience and satisfaction on my part. But I’m telling you, it’s not a problem, but I thought I’d ask if it’s still possible, since it’s not a problem for the Finder. If it’s not, it’s not. I can live with it.
But why shouldn’t there be a reason for PL to support them if others don’t? It would have a service that even competing programs can’t provide. The answers are quite strange, somehow it’s as if I attacked the program, even though I only asked a question. The answer is no. I took note.
It would seem logical to assume that, but I am guessing you are a relatively new DxO customer. If you had been around here long term you would probably know that DxO has never concerned themselves with providing support for proprietary file formats other than for raw files. Even DxO’s limited support for Adobe DNG, which is an almost universal file format, took close to 20 years to be added. Optics Pro, the original name for PhotoLab was first released in 2004. This is just not something they are interested in pursuing. I know you find it disappointing, but the chances of DxO ever adding support for these files formats is vanishingly close to 0.
Mark
1 Like
sounds like an answer in its question.
because it is software specific and dxo doesn’t own those software, why putting effort for someone else work that is not yours? and like mwsilvers said, it took long time to support adobe dng format.
Thank you! Yes, that’s right, I am indeed a new customer. I think it’s worth a question, just in case. But I accept that it is. One always hopes that life can be even better after leaving the Adobe circle :). For a long time, I was looking for an alternative to Lightroom and Photoshop, because photography is a hobby for me and I don’t make money with it. I see PL as a good alternative to LR. Pixelmator Pro and Affinity Photo2 are still competing for PS’s place, for now Affinity is better :).
In fact, none of the formats are proprietary, like none of the RAW formats.
But I understood, I got the answer to my question.
1 Like
I guess @ambrits was not interested in being able to display or edit Affinity files. He was interested in whether they could be listed in the Library module.
I think that’s a very sensible suggestion. This makes it easy to see whether a RAW file is already being used in Affinity (or another programme). From a UX point of view, this is to be welcomed. It’s a pity that so many reasons are given here as to why this doesn’t work, shouldn’t work or isn’t a good idea.
1 Like
Terrible argument. DXO doesn’t “own” any of the raw formats yet they support those. Besides, like others have said, the request is not for DXO to allow those files to be edited-just show them in the library as existing. Simple and should be easy to do. If you aren’t showing every image in a folder you are really showing the library which makes that feature nearly worthless in my book. And why I chose a different program for managing files. DXO PL is a great raw processor but it’s a terrible library manager.
3 Likes
I don’t think anyone said that it is not a good idea, After my long years of experience with DxO I indicated that they have no interest in doing it.
Mark
All images viewable in the library and image browser are editable. To suggest that DxO change PhotoLab to view certain types of files without the ability to edit them would require a significant design change to the library and to the image browser. Feel free to continue discussing this as much as you’d like, but its not going to happen.
Mark
dxo support camera image format, yet they don’t even support all smartphone format. so not a terrible argument by saying that “why” would dxo work to implement software specific format when not all camera are supported yet?