I’m annoyed by the filter menu on the Mac as well. But “deselect all” won’t work so simple: Then you have to click for, e. g. “one star” and “accepted” and “untagged” if you want to see all one-star pictures which are not rejected…
If the filter menu just could stay open so that I do not have to click twice for every change but click once to open the dialog, select/unselect all options as I need and click another time to close.
Furthermore the filter dialog on a Mac is at the bottom of the screen, so in addition to clicking I often have to scroll. Turning it into a dialog box would fix both annoyances.
Later on the dialog box could be enhanced with user defined presets for the filter settings to accommodate any workflow.
Maybe the filtering system deserves complete redesign, but as PL is not catalog oriented app (which I really like and is for me the advantage over others), the filtering is not so heavy used. I have suggested this feature in menu, because it is really simple change. And if DXO decide to remake the filtering, okay, but most painfull flaw will be sloved.
I disagree. If you have star ratings and pick/reject then it’s catalog oriented in my book. Add in keywords, virtual copies, and albums and I think it’s hard to argue it’s not a catalog-based app. It’s just that the catalog is rudimentary enough for some people to ignore.
Okay, but in compare to for instance LR the catalog features are limited. And it’s fine for me and maybe many others.I mean that you don’t need catalog for work with your photos. I can process any folder anywhere. If I copy “session” folder to NAS and than back to external drive or different folder on my computer, I can work on that. If I put that on laptop and go, I can still work on them. I don’t need huge catalog of everything.
After I process photos (RAW “negatives”), I archive them a I put resulting JPEGs to iCloud Photos. I like this kind of freedom without bothering with catalog. I don’t need huge catalog, because I’ve got folder system for that.
If you use PhotoLab on both computers, you actually have multiple catalogs that will not get along, so you pretty much have to ignore the features provided.
But really, Affinity Photo has no catalog, Lightroom is catalog dependent, and PhotoLab is closer to Lightroom than Affinity Photo — some features are dependent.
The practice you describe of moving folders around and back and processing them where you wish, is a capability Lightroom catalogs handle very well, which is why I have requested exactly this capability for PhotoLab. With Lightroom you can store a catalog wherever you want and you can import one into another and export part of one to a separate catalog. All bases covered.
I know some people don’t like to be “tied down” to a catalog, but in my experience there is very little downside unless you insist on running your filesystem in your own way. I’ve never done that. Never felt the need to, and I still get backups and all sorts of other processes on my terms so I figure I’m unlikely to ever feel like I need to manage my own files.
I used to use Lightroom and also CO1, which are both catalog based. At first, you need to import images. Then if you move them to another folder you need to update the location in the catalog. You delete some images, you need to resync the folder, and so on.
I like that with DXO I don’t have to do that at all. I can work with files anywhere. If I have my laptop on the trip and start to work on images, at home I move them to another computer and can continue. Deleted images are deleted. If I move the folder to NAS to the archive, everything is there and it’s done. I always out into archive final JPEGS too, to be real archive with “negatives”. I don’t need to browse all those images in RAW, filter them over lens length, ISO, body, etc. It’s finished and backed up together with negatives and I come back only occasionally. So I’m not tied with any catalog, I don’t care if it is huge, I don’t care if it’s corrupted, I don’t need to backup it up (no LR backup dialog when you close the app ). If I switch to another software, I don’t care how to move the catalog data. Several months ago I did some folders reorganization while using LR and if don’t have all images in one place it’s pain (you can’t move actually a missing folder).
So the workflow by DXO freedom for me which I really appreciate and is a big advantage.
While it’s true you have to import the images, that is importing them to the catalog. It’s a common misconception about Lightroom (and I am not saying you don’t understand this) that it has to “own” your photos. It is entirely possible in LR and others to “manage by reference.” This is not all that different from the (arguably automatic) scanning that PhotoLab does when you open a folder, and which you can ask it to scan ahead of time (thus truly equivalent to an “import” action).
As for moving and deleting, you just do that in the catalog. I realise this does mean you’re forced to use the catalog to do such actions but with a program like LR it is designed to do everything the photographer needs. In all of the time I used Lightroom, Aperture, and Luminar, I never once had to resynchronise a folder. That’s no different to how I use PhotoLab, but for a different reason.
In fact, using Lightroom imports is one step to get my photos off the memory card onto local storage and into the application. With PhotoLab it is one or two steps depending on how you count it, because I have to manually get my images off the memory card and then have PhotoLab index/import the images when I first open the local folder.
Neither do I because my keywords are in the files themselves (other people may have them in standard sidecars) and picks and ratings are only ever transient information for me. And of course, edits will never translate between products.
I never imported images “into the catalog”, I always used the “manage by reference” mode. But in principle LR still expect your images in the same path as when you import them. When you move the folder, copy new images or delete some, you need to locate the folder or do a synchronization. And as I don’t need to search for images from past sessions, I don’t appreciate cataloging advantages. I use a raw processor to cull images, do some corrections, make final JPEGS and put them into iCloud Photos (and archive RAW files as “negatives”). I’m not a professional who needs to look in the history on the “RAW” level, search for pictures shoot by specific exposure settings, or find images with a specific animal.
So I understand when somebody like a catalog and takes advantage of it, but I’m not that one. I like that I “open folder” with images in PL whenever it is and I know that RAW corrections remain even I move or rename that folder.
Lightroom still treats manage by reference as importing (as it still has to “learn” where they are so it can complain when you move them), which is why I was equating it to PhotoLab’s automatic-or-manual indexing of folders.
But yes, I get that catalogs aren’t for everyone. I think the ultimate treatment for PhotoLab would be to allow opening of any folder as it does now, but also provide for full cataloguing for when/who that is needed. ON1 does this.