Now that PL3 includes a proper clone tool, I thought I would share my first image that I had previously had to use PS to clone out stuff, but that I have now used the new clone tool instead.
I’m still getting used to the tool and its peculiarities but, so far, I’m impressed.
Before cloning but after basic exposure adjustment:
After cloning and other adjustments:
Nice.
I also like this tool.
Pascal
Personnal note. I prefer the atmosphere of the original image.
Did you noticed this DxO exclusivity (for a raw workflow) ?
When a new cloning mask overlaps a previous correction, the result of this first one is taken into account.
I hope to be understood despite my aproximative English 
Pascal
Nice picture and I am with Pascal on the “mood”. My preference would be #1
Hi Joanna
As Ansel Adams said, we don’t take pictures - we make them. And indeed, the lights on the rocks out there distract from the rest of the image, specially when it is cropped more drastically, as I did in my own interpretation of your input image. Apart from flipping the image and the cropping, the image could be rotated clockwise just a little bit…
Note: No offense meant changing your image.
I must say I find it amusing, when posting an image to illustrate a technical detail, how many people feel they can make comments on the artistic intention of the image 
The second version of the image represents what I experienced when I was actually taking the picture and how I envisioned the final result (apart from being over-sharpened and over-compressed when reducing it from 36Mpx to post here). The Photoshopped equivalent has already been exhibited to critical acclaim so, sorry guys but, that’s how it’s staying 
Indeed. Something I practice all the time, especially with my large format work
Of course, there were no actual lights on the rocks, just flare on the image from the lens, thus the need to remove them.
I should have known 
Pascal
I agree. The updates to the repair tool and the new clone tool are excellent, but there is a learning curve to get the best from them. Since you are ditching PhotoShop, was all the processing for this image done in PhotoLab?
Mark
we all have different point of view and that’s why we can enjoy someone else work 
both nice, one is moody and the other with more details.
I’m really sorry to emphasise the point, but I also claim that the first version is incomparably better…
That’s not nice to insist.
Joanna give us an example of her precise work.
Don’t make her run away.
Pascal
Haha, ça n’est pas très “nice” non plus de refuser aux autres une liberté qu’on s’est empressé de s’accorder à soi-même… C’est même très vilain, mon cher Pascal
Joanna posted that image only to demonstrate the success she had with the new clone tool. She was not seeking, and obviously did not want, any comments or criticism of her work. We should respect that.
Mark
Indeed. That was the reason for posting - to “show off”
The version which I have exhibited was created before PL3, so I had to export it to PS in order to do the cloning there. But, for that version, I did export to TIFF, so that I would have a file ready for printing, rather than doing a double export.
good example for the new cloning tool, without other comments
Tu veux le redire en français ?
That’s probably because we humans have HDR software in our brains.
Because we buildup a memory image of all things sharp; our eyes are adjusting wile scanning the scene. so the contrast of clouds are enhanced wile the sundownlight is not blinding.
see this:
So is your endresult not “real”? does it matter?
The fun part is that at this moment DxO PLv3 can do even more in this matter. and if NIK is involved wel full throttle sky is the limit. 
This wasn’t a hijack more a image heavy support LOL.
I have always found it amazing how much can be accomplished in Photolab considering it is less feature rich with a much simpler user interface compared to some of its competition.
Mark
Hi Joanna
I did not want to contest your artistic expression while playing around with your image but to find out if and how the flare bugged me as it did you. I found that they disturbed me more when I flipped the image and cropped away the foreground. Your interpretation corresponds to your intention and, again, is not under any kind of criticism from my part. That’s why I took the original image to play with in order to not mess with your artwork.
Coming back to technical aspects again: How do you print your works without PS assuming that you printed from PS)? Directly from DPL or through some other process?
First I export to TIFF, finished size at 240 ppi, using the ProPhoto RGB profile. Then I use the macOS ColorSync tool for printing, since it manages sending to my printer with the correct ICC profile for my printer.
After many years of using Photoshop, mainly for scanned 4" x 5" negs and transparencies, it was like a breath of fresh air to be able to make such stunning images from my digital files with so much less effort than with PS. I do still use Photoshop for LF work, as de-spotting dust from Large scans can defeat DxO’s healing tool; in fact, I would consider trying to do much with a 300 Mpx TIFF image is really pushing DxO well beyond what it is intended for. Although, sometimes, I will use my Nikon D810 on a copy stand to make a lower resolution image for smaller prints or cataloguing images.
