yes, filmpack and nikcollection both are having more interesting controls together then i use now of the possibilities. ( i bought filmpack for its contrast control and other extra functions besides the filters.)
thus the core raw processing tools.
I would like that there is gona be a cleanup of interfaces in the suite package, based on raw lighting/exposure, selectivetone, contrast, noise/sharpness. crop and perspective
And a sub control pulldown menu (If a three screen is supported then you can have spread it over three screens for imediate overlook :left, DAM mid :main raw tools, right the filters and such))for filters and “effects” which are mostly in filmpack ( like a pulldown over the other main menu.and some in nik, which are now a export to asset.
As DAM i use a old proofed system, import in a seperate folder, rename this folder as liked. date and location. culling the trash out by using the OOCjpegs, after that process the remaining rawfiles, when done, cut paste this folder in to rawfile archive based on date: year, 3months, month and location. ( because the dops are replaced also no harm done.)
This way i always keep track of new to do rawfiles and can still acces the older processed one’s if i like, as long as i know the date. but ive use the Dam only on the processed jpegs in a other application ; so if i want some i search there writedown the numbers( i never change shotnumber) Open dxo make a new project and import the numbers. out of archive.
works fine by me. but i don’t have thousants of images every week to proces
That would be a stunning upgrade, but i think the fact that lot of things are done before demosiacing is done, could be the difficult step working in raw stitching and stacking… Maybe a NIK version which can handle the tiff /linearDNG, so export the selection to nik hdr or nik stitch,( also highresolution stacking?) do your thing import and proceed to export jpeg.
keeps the interface clean and still fast. the new processed stitch wil be a tiff/dng new named number. Or use that nik menu to export.
I’d rather see PL continue being the best RAW developer tool and making sure it’s as transparent in working with DAMs. And not chasing the all in one solution which only locks in the user.
Gain users by giving them the absolutely best developer.
The point that PhotoLab should work with external DAM tools is a valid one. That an all in one solution locks in the user is not always true. It depends on the all in one solution. The key aspect is the full support for reading/writing all metadata except the develop edits to XMP in compliance with the metadata working group and the ability to embed metadata into files like JPEGs/TIFFs. The develop edits are private to each raw converter anyway, so here you are always locked in.
I would never use a DAM tool, that can store metadata in its proprietary database only without the possibility to writeback the metadata to XMP (RAWs) or embed it in the images (RGB). In this concern Lightroom is one of the better tools. I could transfer my metadata without any problems to IMatch or AcdSee from my previous LR database using exported metadata.
Can only second that. Full XMP compatibility is a key requisite. In the thread “DXO eports JPEGs with wrong orientation” you can read what happens if this is not handled in the correct way, especially when a separare DAM comes into play.
What I feared about the DAM seems to be true. DxO wants me to pay for an upgrade adding some DAM functionality, but I don’t need it or want it. Meanwhile, I waited forever for camera support (and still waiting for lenses). And now I can’t get support for my camera UNLESS I upgrade. No thanks; don’t need another Lr wannabe. And since I couldn’t use PL for my camera I used Lr exclusively, and frankly PL just sat idle.
And there’s nothing in the upgrade, even the camera support, to entice me back. Too bad; I liked it before.
What I will say is that imho the development of the dam in PL has led to a much improved image browser. That does make it a worthwhile addition for me.
Could you elaborate on the improvements you have found in the image browser?
I guess if you cannot see the benefit then it is not there for you. For me just the way the browser integrates as a tab is of significant help. Searches not so much but they clearly have a use at times.
I think the steps done will become more usefull with the introduction of keywords. This is the only thing, I would ever search after in addition to the file extension. An other precondition for being useful is the possibility to import/export all metadata to/from XMP. Otherwise the user is closed in inside the tool database and there is no metadata interoperability between tools.
Search on keywords is a must. For me the image browser (it is not a DAM yet) does not need to go much further as on Mac I use NeoFInder as my DAM, it is as complete as needs be for me. If a full DAM is required then I would suggest the functionality of NeoFInder as a place to start looking.
I see from your previous post that you are using the Mac version. My comments below apply to the Windows version.
In PL2 the image thumbnails in the docked image browser are displayed in a single row, and you can navigate through them using the scroll bar. Four navigation buttons let you go forward or backwards, and to go directly to the first or last images
In PL2, the image thumbnails are displayed in several rows and you must scroll the thumbnail grid vertically. The navigation buttons have been eliminated.
Not a big difference, but I prefer the image browser in PL1
Btw the grid view of the thumbnails is already available in PL1 (at least Mac version) by detaching it from the main window (Cmd+U). I prefer this view and put the detached window on another desktop. Then I can switch between this and the PL main window with a three finger swipe on the touchpad.
Personal preferences. I happen to hate that arrangement
Would be nice to get these back, at least in the CUSTOMISE tab.
I agree. I already miss the ability to horizontally scroll my thumbnails.
Vertical scrolling is (to me) not at all intuitive, especially with a now-miniature vertical scroll-bar on the right hand side. The size of that ‘thumb’ on that shorter vertical scroll bar is less effective as a guide to how many images I’ve got in the folder.
And I wonder how many of us actually have a second monitor that’s available for every PhotoLab session?
Agree with ColinG on this. We could already look for images by folder. Since mine are named chronologically, I can narrow it down pretty fast as long as I know approximately when I made the image. It’s the keywords that are missing. Without keyword search, it’s not really a DAM in any meaningful way. Hopefully the real PL2 will be released with this functionality.
This is clever Mark. Just allow better filtering and sorting, without a database and using the information from the flat files (mainly XMP sidecars).
I am strongly against any investment in DAM technology. I’ve been burned twice by do it all tools (Aperture which I loved before Apple neglected and then abandoned it, then Lightroom which went Adobe ID and then subscription only). I’ve spent hundreds on these all in one solutions and loath them all (including Capture One with its very heavy handed workflow requiring four folders to be created to develop a single RAW).
Now I want RAW converters separate from DAM. And for DAM it better be built on top of the OS, using XMP sidecars to store data. FastRawViewer does culling and rating perfectly for $15. When you’ve got your selects, just move them into a subfolder and point Photo Lab at that folder and process them all. It doesn’t matter that Photo Lab image and folder switching is a little slow. You only need to switch images once, when you load to process. The presets are fantastic. Create a preset for each project and refine it as you go to save time on a large set.
Then you just export all your images in a single go to a folder. With portfolio images they can either go into a simple folder structure or some kind of DAM for keywording and management, depending on your states. I just trialed my old copy of Lightroom 4 for that purpose. Lightroom 4 of course works great with jpegs. Almost everyone here probably owns an old copy of Lightroom.
I just don’t see a useful place for DAM capabilities in Photo Lab. I also see DAM as a place where DxO could kneecap the whole product.
DAM should be kept completely separate from RAW development. What I would like to see are improvements to:
- local image adjusment and correction
There’s no GPU acceleration now. For prepping RAW files my 2017 2.2 GHz four core MBP with an ATI 6750 is faster than my 3.4 GHz 12 core Mac Pro with a Radeon RX 580. Of course for output with Prime denoising, the Mac Pro does 50 files in 15 minutes instead of over an hour. But sliders should work in real time when prepping files.
Until speed is improved on core functionality, there should be no talk at all of DAM, just useful partner solutions presented to DxO Photo Lab customers. Heck DxO could create some official partnerships with FastRawViewer or others for instance.
FastRawViewer is a metadata editor, not a DAM like IMatch, Daminion, Photo Supreme, Lightroom etc.
The fact is: The DAM feature request is top voted (currently 21 votes).
I guess most users don’t even know the capabilities of “Windows search”, e.g.
title:"mountain" AND camera:"Canon EOS 60D". Works instantly if the image is in an indexed folder.
Not yet a DAM. Want more? Use an “expired” Lightroom CC (just no map based geotagging) and get real DAM for free!
If you want an even better solution: IMatch costs much less than Photolab.
In order to catch up with such a solution, DxO would need to invest an enormous amount.
I’m not sure whether the voters were really aware what this wish means. Asser wrote “The only downside to having DAM included are the potentially limited human resources to realize this”.
The only downside? IMO this is a huge downside.
ColinG is among the voters for this request but also writes: “…with the forthcoming update to the Mac Finder there will be even less of a reason for a dam to be built. I would much prefer DxO to spend its time improving the products - especially the U Point and general masking functionality.”
wait… one vote is from fdeitos - isn’t he a DxO employee?