When I see their demos, the edges of the selected areas are very sharp. Usually, it is difficult to get a convenient result with this kind of selection. I found the Control lines and the U-points of PhotoLab easier to handle for photography.
Where did I post here that the competitors are not very good? I apologize if I let you think I was scratching your favorite comforter app.
But I agree with everything else in your post and was interested to learn that Capture One is moving forward with an automatic dust spot removal tool.
Stenis
(Sten-à ke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
82
Despite I have praisad Capture Oneâs layer and mssking tools design I have to say I havenât always been so impressed with their spot removal tech. I still think Photolab is best in this area if comparing it with CO. A long time I have been especially unsatisfied with how COâs healing and cloning have worked compared to Photolabâs that I really love.
BUT I will be exited if they really have made some substantial improvements that might make a difference. Tanks for the video link:-)
you are missing the point ( apparently you simply do not know how it works ? ) - cameraâs firmware ( for most cameras from major brands like Canon or Sony, there are indeed models that donât do this ) writes auto WB as calculated by cameraâs firmware ( has nothing to do with any âmanufacturer raw developing applicationâ, as we are not talking about what K/tint stuff is displayed in app UI for a user ) as 3 multipliers ( sometimes 2 assuming âgreen channelâ = 1.0 ) in a raw file , that is what a proper raw converter can use as a âCamera Auto WBâ ( just like âAs Shot WBâ which also a set of 3 or 2 multipliers written by cameraâs firmware in raw files - there is no difference in usage between them in a raw converter or any need for any âmanufacturer raw developing applicationâ to give a user an option to use âCamera Auto WBâ along with âAs Shot WBâ ⌠and nothing prevents raw conversion app developer to offer its own âApp Auto WBâ too ).
Stenis
(Sten-à ke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
84
Ian and Noir, sometimes I get surprised by Photolab. One great aha-moment for me was when I realised that I didnât need to hunt spots at all when developing my repro photographed Agfa positive color slide film. The only thing I needed to do to completely get rid of all the imperfections in the skies was to totally get rid of all Microcontrast by pulling the slider all the way to the bottom (left) and insted meet up with Fine Contrast upto maybe 35.
That is why I consider Fine Contrast being Photolabs most underated tool. What it can do is pure magic for my skies in color slide images.
Topaz are pushing ahead with AI image quality and getting there. Not perfect yet but they are constantly improving. Be a big investment to catch up, but one can hope.
Highlight recovery is a big one for me. Would save a lot of time.
Iâd like to see some smarter sharpening tools. DxO is a bit rudimentary.
burnt highlights are burnt highlights, nothing to recover from a white spot. all you can do is replace pure white with a lesser white like 245-245-245.
I kinda agree. I prefer to do my compositing with other tools so masking is not mandatory. On the other hand masking can help fixing images handily. Perspective⌠I prefer to use PC lens, but sometimes I have to use other lenses. Then fixing corners after perspective correction is normal procedure and automatic content aware fill would be a nice time saver.
Missing is AI sharpening, I would greatly prefer NOT to process my images separately in Topaz. I would be much easier to keep processing within one file and one app.
Give Affinity Photoâs Inpainting Brush Tool a try.
Itâs worked wonders for me on the small black parts of a photo which has been horizon levelled but requires considerable amount of the black triangles to be filled back in. There are limitations but Inpainting Brush Tool is good and best of all itâs normally fast. One doesnât have to spend hours laboriously painting the missing information stroke by stroke. Itâs still enough work to encourage a photographer to frame and/or level better.
Since the tool is so good in Affinity Photo, I wouldnât want DxO to waste a huge amount of development resources to build a fill function which is not first rate.
Thanks. I use Photoshop at the moment and currently tool like remove tool is probably more advance, especially for complex edges, but for simpler edges I think this works just as good. While I do retouching in Photoshop or if I didnât use it it could be Affinity Photo, its an extra step or part of overall retouch. If DXO implemented it it might be something just to apply on export and leave but there already is a solution as you pointed out. Just an extra step and you are done. I havenât tried the Affinity photo tool, thanks.
I think it would be very beneficial if DxO implemented some of these new AI features into PhotoLab 8 that their competitors have been implementing. AI enhanced versions of masking, recovery tools (highlight, dust and retouch/eraser/spot healing), keywording and content aware cropping could all increase productivity and creativity, and would complement DxOâs current feature set very well.
I think the next version must have AI tools, because competition will have it. AI can easily give a better repair tool and improved auto horizon tool. I would also like it for auto mode of perspective tool.
Iâve changed my mind on in-painting. Itâs so useful, that Iâd like PhotoLab to include it in PhotoLab 8 or 9, but make sure that itâs best of class or close.
Right now I go between Affinity Photo 2 or TouchRetouch to make these corrections. Both could be better and more reliable.
A hint: some kind of configuration of user intent would be useful (add clear area, continue pattern). I.e. do I want pipes on the wall (again) in a pattern or just a blank wall.
Iâd love for PhotoLab 8 to have AI color/tone enhancement as good as Radiant Photo. Just the color/tone part. Their âdetail enhancementâ looks like crap 90% of the time (massive halo artifacts from oversharpening) and is best turned off but the color/tone tools impressed me.
What specific tools or features do you mean when you say, "Their âdetail enhancementâ looks like crap 90% of the time (massive halo artifacts from oversharpening) and is best turned offâ . Your donât provide any specifics. Uploading raw and .dop files demonstrating the issues you are seeing would be helpful.
Oversharpening is easy to avoid when use of the tools are fully understood and used appropriately. Like any other software things like sharpening and contrast in PhotoLab are often over applied especially by newbies an those who are unfamiliar with PhotoLabâs best practices.
I was talking about the âdetailsâ sliders in Radiant Photo, not PhotoLab. Their provided presets are all way oversharpened and smeared even on low settings it does a very bad job compared to DxO PhotoLab.
(DxO PhotoLab also has exaggerated, halo inducing default settings but thatâs beside the point.)
(screenshot from Google Images to show which tool I meant)
if I let you think I was scratching your favorite comforter app. 
