Features/improvments I'd like to see in PL

How would I create a “partial preset” that I can select when needed? Just create my own partial preset, save it, and then select it as needed? I know about “presets”, but not about “partial presets”.

Also - what is the difference between Temperature" and “Tint” ?

@mikemyers, you can find such info in the User Guide.

You can access it directly from PL’s help menu.

Well, that took me to Page 111, Color, which does show the sliders, but doesn’t explain what I was asking about.

This video was far more helpful, completely answering what I was asking:
Color Temperature and Tint

I did find a LOT of things I want to read about in the user manual, so thank you for sending me there!

For anyone who doesn’t wish to watch the video and just wants a simple answer: Color Temp adjusts the White Balance along the Blue-Amber axis and the Tint adjusts the WB along the Green-Magenta axis.

Thanks to @platypus , @Joanna and @mikemyers for bringing up and solving the problem of editing files written by unsupported cameras. I’ve been frustrated by this restriction ever since Optics Pro 8. So simple, just convert to DNG if necessary and change the name of the camera to the first supported model in the series. Brilliant!

Incidentally, I think the ability to edit files written by unsupported cameras(at your own risk) has been requested many times in the past. No success yet.

This should also be a suggestion to DxO PhotoLab - please add this to the online manual. It would have answered my search.

@mikemyers and @rrblint, for more about Temperature and Tint, check out this post:

Summary: While Color Temp adjusts the White Balance along the Blue-Amber axis and the Tint adjusts the WB along the Green-Magenta axis at “normal” temperatures, but these axes change with temperature.

You can easily verify it, if you set Temp to extreme values. The tint slider will have different effects then.

The advantage of using ExifTool over a regular hex editor is that ExifTool understands and makes available many Maker Notes. This is due to ongoing work by Phil and an army of volunteers.

Of course, this would be unnecessary if manufacturers didn’t think they have a competitive advantage by encrypting this information…


More importantly, a hex editor doesn’t give you any idea of which tags you are touching and which and how many characters are valid :sunglasses:

…which is no problem in our example case with the M8 files. Using a hex editor provides an unaltered view on the file’s content, while exiftool proposes an interpretation which can a) help to understand the tags, but could also b) deliver a faulty value because of the reverse engineering involved.

Nevertheless, info can be stored in clear text or in the encrypted sections - and exiftool will help to find the occurrences in those “private” parts…which leads us to another discussion: Why would manufacturers encrypt metadata, if it can be decrypted so effortlessly (from a user point of view)?

…you could file this as a bug or as a malicious attempt to get more money out of less features :wink:
(we’ve seen this lazy trick with perspective tools moving to ViewPoint…)

Well, apparently…

…which means that there is a >3 year gap between what is shown in supported gear and reality…

1 Like

One can but hope that DxO are as good as their word.

Here’s a D100 shot from 2005 that shows, with a quick model tweak, conversion to DNG and the loving care of PL5 (minimal edits), just how good an old 6Mpx RAW file can look…


made in Berlin 2005 with a Canon Ixus 400, my first digital camera.
Only JPEG, but also 6 MPix

That is indeed a really good question. But it seems that they prefer any and all ways that help lock users into their proprietary world(s). I suspect, though, if they did a rigorous cost-benefit analysis they’d find it wasn’t worth the trouble and expense of doing business this way (as opposed to letting information go free).

1 Like

Indeed, if you import your images into LR from an existing HD directory it does not move your images, but if you import your images from a card reader off your SD card directly into LR it will automatically create a catalog and place those images as I mentioned in my post, deep within LR install on your program disk. Anytime you create a catalog without manually designating it’s location, the default action will put that catalog in the LR program installation. Finding them later without using LR is very cumbersome. The “Photos” program on Macs does the same thing. Although LR does not move your original images, it does store the images you worked on within the catalog deep within LR file structure.

“deep within the Lr file structure” is not what I see on my Mac.

When I use Lightroom to copy files from the card to my computer, I define the location of the new files. This location is completely independent of the folder surrounding Lightroom’s catalog or preview files. Previews are just that, previews, they are created as needed and can be deleted anytime. Lightroom will recreate the files when this is necessary/when I work an image.

If LR allows the same line it’s old and now irrelevant competitor Aperture does, both options are possible. Storing images outside or inside the database structure.

Aha, and using DxO edits without DxO is easier? Actually, it’s rather easy to move images from inside the package to the “normal” finder structure. But some prejudices stick around long after the apps are gone…

Thanks for pointing this out, Mark … It’s made obvious in the slider scale; but I’d not really “clocked” that before.

John M

1 Like

May I ask you to remind me, Joanna - What’s the benefit of intermediate conversion of RAW to DNG ? … and when is it best to take that approach ?

John M