I would certainly make use of a Batch-renaming feature … but I’m not much interested in any of the other, general DAM features, which I see as LOW priority for the DxO dev-team, compared with improvements/enhancements to PL’s image editing capabilities.
The sidecar files only contain the develop settings as a description. They are human readable, just open them in a text editor. It is a cooking receipt only the PhotoLab’s raw engine can understand. All external tools could read this, but there is nothing they could do with “Apply prime and do a little bit of smart lightning”.
What I don’t want is to turn PhotoLab into Lightroom. I don’t want to have to import images. I don’t want additional complexities for a DAM which can affect performance and distract DXO Labs’ already limited programming resources from their main task of adding or enhancing raw editing features. In any case, DAM enhancements to PhotoLab are probably unlikely anytime soon since this package is now in its 12th iteration.
I do not know, how often I have read this. PhotoLab will never become a Lightroom. It is the other way round. PhotoLab is the only RAW developer, I know of, which has no DAM functionality. This is true at least for On1 RAW, CaptureOne, Lightroom, Darktable, Alien Exposure, ACDSee, PhotoDirector, soon Luminar and Affinity.
If you want to have DAM functionality, there are several approaches:
One approach is for example used by On1 RAW, where you can define folders on disk as your favorite folders. Only these folders are indexed and only these folders allow extended search and navigation. If you do not set favorite folders, nothing changes for you. This indexed folders approach is also used by plain DAM tools like IMatch.
An import can also be an optional thing, as it is the case for rename functionality. The “import” is just an improved copy, where you can define the target directory, some directory structure created with the help of file metadata and metadata templates to be applied on the copied files. If you copy your files manually in the explorer and do not alter metadata, then again there is no change for you.
The only downside to having DAM included are the potentially limited human resources to realize this.
Regarding requirements for Digital Asset Management in PL;
A different way to approach this is to ask is; “What practical outcome do we want to achieve” … rather than a list of features we think we might need, which can end-up as nothing more than a marketing check-list.
Because, just for example, we’ve seen requests for such features as key-word search … but, perhaps, without understanding that this implies that extensive and accurate key-word tagging will need to be applied to all images (in order to allow for reliable searching).
So, is it worth DxO’s time implementing a feature that’s actually not going to get much practical use (except by the few of us who are well organised) ? … Or, would this limited resource be better applied in enhancements to, say, Nik & PL integration ?
Disclaimer: I’m making this point from the perspective of someone with no need for DAM features in PL; I have this handled using other tools … So, I accept that mine is a “selfish” perspective.
seems silly or redundant for others but i like separate tools for separate things.
those do things better and easier then the " i can do it all"
The only thing you need is a row of tools which arn’t overlapping to much so you don’t override actions done by a other.
import tool to select images and videofiles
fast culling viewer
raw editor with power to do most (also local) corrections you want.
A pixel editor for the sake of extra corrections.
DAM for tag and organise the bunch you keep.
i use a import folder which hold the imported files, from there i cull the bads out, then i proces the raw’s export in a other folder. copy this to my nass to view in 48" and if satisfied i move those to my archieve which is guarded by my DAM.
At last i move the rawfiles to my other (raw)archieve with the sidecars for as i like to do a other development.
Then clearup the leftovers like tiffs , dng’s which i use to move between the tools
But that’s just my way of keeping track of my things.
It is not only about what we want to achieve, but also about, who is the target audience for the product.
There is the basic user, who needs the basic features given by PS Elements, On1, ACDSee. He will not buy a RAW developer for 300€.
There is a pro user, who mostly will not leave the Adobe eco system, because of all external dependencies that exist.
And there is a prosumer, which mostly will choose between:
The most part will stay with 1), of the same reason as the most part buys iPhones. Just because it is the market leader, and they do not want to deal with compatibility problems or other issues, that make them think.
The remaining part will choose between 2) and 3). For those, that need a fully featured workflow between SD-card and JPEG export in one tool, will currently not choose 3). That is my opinion. The question is, whether those people are the target audience.
We are customers already, so we have adapted our workflows somehow.