DxO PhotoLab 6 tips for 'missing features?'

Yes. Lens correction strategy of the DXO is somewhat different than that on other companies, like Adobe or Phase One etc. Usually these companies are quick to release their lens correction profiles in order to support the new gear that comes out, but DXO takes its time and does more accurate correction. It supports less lenses and camera bodies, sometimes it releases the profile for camera or lens six months or year after initial release, but its usually worth the wait. Although the release cycle and support has been sped up in recent times.

There was a good video on the difference in makes, especially for wide angle lenses.

The noise reduction is probably over all the best with most control, with new Adobe Noise Reduction AI being very close second and Topaz DeNoise AI probably being third. Although Topaz is updating their AI models more often and also works on non RAW images as well. The advantage of DXO PhotoLab over Lightroom is that it does not require creation of separate DNG file to apply noise reduction and demoseicing, it can be done in the app itself. Saving storage space, and time on processing.

Well, I would say DXO works slightly differently than other programs, but I would say the most underrated tools are Color Pandering with ability to simulate so many different camera bodies and rendering profiles that its really hard not to find the perfect color rendering of so many. Also one can load custom color profiles that one has created or directly from Adobe to more closely match the color rendering.

Also DXO wide color gamut working space and ability to protect out of gamut colors is really I think underrated, since its really the best way to work with color right now.

Also Clear View and Smart Lighting are really amazing tools with Smart Lighting having ability to apply very selective and useful dynamic range adjustments. Combined with other tools, its really easy to get perfect dynamic range for almost any image and do it quickly. I use that all the time.



Also contrast controls can be very useful since they can be applied in shadows, mid tone and highlights with three levels of contrast. Useful for all kinds of images and creative work.

Film grain simulation that comes with Elite version of the PhotoLab is also very useful and very well made, matching closly the analog counterparts. Also the ability to correct for complex perspective issues is probably the best out there, and there is a great way to bring back some of the distortion to correct for distorted faces with wide angle lenses. Useful when shooting close up of group portraits with wide angle lens.

There a lot of these little things in the program that I find maybe not revolutionary but really easy to use and pretty powerful. Like Lens sharpening panel, that really can make a big differences in quality of the image, especially for softer lenses and smaller sensors.

Also control points and other local adjustments are quite powerful for almost any tone and color adjustment you would want to make, realistically speaking. I think people need to spend more time with them to figure out how it works, but its quite powerful and I don’t see many advantages to AI masking like in Lightroom in a non compositing environment, where you only need color and tone adjustment, because I’m virtually aways able to get color and tone adjustments I want with existing tools.

For the sake of brevity, I’ll just use it in a way I don’t normally use it, but to illustrate that it can be precise if one wants to.


There are quite a bit other small things that I like DXO as a tool, but those are some I think might be a bit different than other tools. Its not that C1 or Lr are not capable RAW processing programs, its just different way of working I guess.

1 Like

Dxo is good at testing camera+lens combo and giving a solution that makes feel your lens are better than they are.
They are good when it’s about denoising at high iso (even if adobe power will kill their advance on it).

But apart from that about every tool is embrionaires and should be developped better.
Interface is old and miss a lot of basic stuffs most softwares have since decades.

DxO is a good testing gear company with a demosaicer which takes advantage of this. Not a good software development company. Every new tool is extremly !!! long to produce and never complete and far from what exists now in modern digital image softwares.

3 Likes

I have a directory of 6-7 images that have metadata I want to copy from. I copy the metadata from the appropriate photo and paste it onto a selection of photos. It’s the only workaround I know…

It would be better if there were presets.

1 Like

I am still trying to get my head around control points (and lines). But I see the potential and agree that they may allow necessary adjustments without AI masking (and make a more subtle effect).

1 Like

Are you suggesting that Lightroom and Photo RAW provide better tools beyond lens correction?

There used to be (for Author/Creator & Copyright) - but this capability was “broken” when PL introduced the IPTC interface … I agree - it would be helpful to have this re-introduced.

This is the “secret sauce” for DxO. I never had a camera that could take sharp photos until I owned PhotoLab. Now I find out all of my cameras took sharp photos. DeNoising is the marketing feature (and it is remarkably good) but for me the real feature that keeps me from using anything else is the lens modules. They are, in my view, unequalled. It’s what makes PureRAW a compelling product — the secret sauce in a black box (OK my metaphor may break down here. :smiley: )

DxO is certainly pushing optical corrections further than any other app…at the cost of taking a long time, if they cannot get gear loans etc. What’s more: If we characterise a camera-body combo, we characterise one combo. How about sample variations? With a de-centred lens, the resulting module will help none, with a perfectly centred lens, we can serve a few.

Do we need distortion correction in a landscape photo? Birds in flight? No, but if you’re into architecture photography, cityscapes etc., you’ll love it.

As for noise reduction: PhotoLab is certainly among the best, but there’s a tradeoff: For best NR, you pay with “no full preview”. That’s not too bad imo, I trust DeepPRIME without thoroughly checking its loupe window.

1 Like

What i mostly try to do is:
Import rawfiles in a shootingdate folder in a import folder.(rename for recoqnision but keep the date in front)
Those files stay there until i am done with them.
After export final jpegs in my viewing archive folder i copy all xmp’s and dopfile’s in the shootingday folder and create in this folder a “backup 20230811 plv6”
And then this hole folder goes in to a same structured folder tree as the fotoview archive but then in rawfile archive.

This prevents nonrecoverable problems due version updates corupted dopfiles very unlikely but better save then sorry. And more important metadata corruption in the xmp files due multiple application writing updates inside this textfile.

my advise is backup in a folder all what’s timeconsuming to recover and test if the library functionality of PL enough is for you and if it’s not ruining your previous work in the metadata.

That’s an interesting point. I guess we can only hope that manufacturing variance is small enough that DxO’s profile errors are small.

…and see what the modules do with our photos. If they cannot be fully corrected (e.g. for CA) by the module, either your lens or DxO’s is off. I had such a lens and DxO updated the profile (which then fixed my issue) after quite a while, so I suppose that their specimen had caused the issue.

Let’s not neglect things like subject, light and composition to improve our images.
If we need to pixel peep, the journey is most probably still ahead of us :grin:

Indeed. While the technical aspects of a photograph are important, and a given in professional work, the aesthetic aspects are what make a photograph memorable.

Roger Cicala from Lensrentals ususally only made MTF measurements, if he had 10 copies of one lens. And interesting read you can find here: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/measuring-lens-variance/

In some cases the variations were high enough to make a difference.

Also, if sharpness “is not there” it could also be related to no or poor microadjustments of the AF. I recall one specific Sigma Art lens, the heavy 85/1.4 DG Art which I tried twice, one as free trial, one as rented trial and only in combination with USB dock and AF adjustments in camera I got sharp (no, very sharp…) results were I aimed at. But that’s DSLR era, should no play a role in mirrorless. Although Z6 and Z7still have this menu topic. :man_shrugging:

Next point was, there’s one value for AF microadjustment in a camera’s menu. Maybe two, if it’s a zoom. When I wanted to get my AF system as accurate as possible (which is still kind of guesswork contrary to today’s mirrorless AF systems), I had to find out, I need different adjustments at different distances:

Do that with a zoom, you get 4×4 different values, or in Tamron’s case 3×6. I learnt to NOT take it for granted that AF is “out of the box” accurate.

1 Like

@Joanna
I have until now only used sRGB-workflows even for printing but now I have a new monitor that supports even Adobe RGB and P3. P3 is gaining importance and will start to get more relevant for some even when it comes to printing. So, my point is that we will get a cumulatively grooving mess on our computers with sRGB-, Adobe RGB and even P3-files spread all over. So, the world gets a little more complicated now than it has been before.

When using Photolab or Capture One these converters will not make use of the ICC-profiles when displaying previews, which is fine when developing images but not all that good when it comes to printing In Photolab. Not even “Image Properties” can be used to enlighten me about which ICC-profile is embedded in a JPEG-file. It just displays “RGB Format” which is just not good enough.

A Canon even Epson has a proprietary software for printing called “Epson Print Layout” that in some respects is superior to Photolab:

First it really reads the embedded ICC-profiles when it dispplays the image previews. Below there are four JPEG-files with different profiles. From the left Adobe RGB, P3, ProPhoto and sRGB:

and secondly this application also displays the embedded ICC-profile in an image when using “mouse over” like below, which is very useful and a feature I really love:

I would love to see something similar in Photolab. It would be very nice if DXO would be able to equip even Photolab with features like these in the Print module of Photolab and also in ImageLibrary. That would make life a lot easier for me and all the users that use to print. I think it´s a must to be able to quickly verify that a file have the appropriate ICC regardless preparing for printing or the webb.

1 Like

@JoJu
That´s why people nowadays buy mirrorless systems that doesn´t even have a micro adjustment system since these mirrorless systems works with “feed back” in a closed loop system. It just can´t get out of sync like DSLR-systems do. Mirrorless cameras luckily has just one light path but DSLR-cameras has three, that ought to be in synk but not always are. That was almost the only reason when I bought my first mirrorless 10 years ago (a Sony NEX 7 which I loved until my son borrowed it and put it on top of his car before he forgot it and just drove away).

Remove blur from photos (motion,lense,etc).

@JesusSheep
Lenses => excelent optical module doesn’t remove out of DoF but repairs most lens flaws and make it much more crispy’er then it was looking.
Motion blur is captured thus not a camera fault, a repair means longwinded pixel chuwing by PL. It seems there are applications to fix that with AI and internetconnection to compair your image with others in order to replace the blurred pixels with infocus one’s.

Much better is get it right at the start or life with the motionblur as fact of life.:slightly_smiling_face:
Same as DoF repair: You can add more out of DoF by using a mask and “add blur” and for a small amount of the degrading sharpnes use sharpeningmask at the other side. (both are in the menu of local adjustment.) And for blur by heatwave’s and dust in the air we have micro contrast which adds also extra feel of sharpnes with clearview plus or blunt microcontrast slider. A form of dehaze and clarity. (don’t forget the tone curve in this matter as solution)

Me personally have SP10pro for panasonic(29euro cheap) for stacking, (i sent tiff out from dxopl to finalise and stack.) and it had softproofing before dxopl even as something we stil don’t have: Edge detection and detailed detection filter/mask. (for that i use my culling app FRV.) So you can check which of the “burst” or bracket images has the best startingposition for development.

But plain magicwants for fix my image?
Nope i am rather not have that mind dulling tool.
I like the L.F.M.M.A.T.A. System
:grin:

I’ve had considerable success with Topaz Sharpen AI, always using a DNG with a “DeNoise and optical corrections only” TIFF export from PhotoLab as the start point.

It is very good at fixing slight out of focus or motion blur problems. It won’t do magic, but it will often save those shots that just weren’t quite done right in camera. Mostly I restrict it to “subject” so it limits the possibility for artefacts in unimportant areas.

Once I have corrected the issue, I finish the image in PhotoLab, though sometimes I will crop and colour-correct, then export a “finished” TIFF for sharpening. After that I only add my watermark and do final output to JPEG in PhotoLab at the end.

This is one image I “saved” with Topaz. The original had just enough motion blur that I was not happy to publish it. After Topaz I had to get rid of a “halo” around the beak that it introduced, which I did in Affinity Photo.

Imgur

Iphone 11 and up support would be nice.
I wonder if PhotoLabwill read files from there camera app on I phones :slight_smile:
Support for Adobe DNG from Lightroom and DNG converter.

This support is already there. If you convert an original RAW file (from a supported camera) to DNG using either Lightroom Classic or the standalone Adobe DNG Converter, then PhotoLab will use it and you lose no features.