How to check if a lens is supported by DxO PhotoLab, and if so, how can I get DxO to recognize it?

mikemyers · October 27, 2022, 2:50pm

Yes, B&H has a used lens for $700. I need to think about this some more. I was hoping my 28-70 might become my “go-to” lens. If I go out for a walkabout, smaller/lighter = better. With the Nikon, I will probably have a zoom. With the M10, it’s likely to be a fixed focal length. Last time that was 28mm. In the past, I used to “go places to take photos in those places”. Lately, it has been more of just bring a camera for whatever I find that I might want to take a photo of. I need to think about this some more…

Good idea - I need to think of this more often.

Yes, I forget very quickly, but hopefully I remember what is possible. I’ve gone through my menu system several times, and I think I have it reasonably close now, but there are things I need to read up on in depth, like focusing - but I have set focusing to be one single-point, with the rear button telling the camera to focus.

It was on the computer, in PhotoLab. I wanted people to see the two guys with their hammers, and I kept cropping to make that part more obvious. Then I found the fellow in the cab on the crane, and tried to make him more obvious, but I doubt anyone will even notice. …you know, I’m spoiled now. The camera has so much resolution, that I get “sloppy”. I just need to make sure I capture what I’m interested in, knowing I can crop so much. With the M8.2 I wouldn’t dare do that!

I love your sample images, especially the wave. It has just the right amount of “sharpness”, with the back of the wave showing motion. Lovely!!

As usual, you are correct yet again. If I had to do it again, I ought to have bought the 28-300 to begin with. Knowing me, I’m note sure how much I would carry it around. Even my 24-120 is more than I prefer to carry around. My 28-70 is more of what I prefer, and it can capture macro shots too.

Interesting to re-read what @prem wrote. I’m mostly taking photos just for myself anyway, but I do share them with friends and family. I pick one of my cameras, and one lens, and an extra battery. Maybe I should sell my older, less-used lenses. Instead I tend to give them to friends and family. I will probably never get rid of my Leica gear, as I’ve been using a Leica M since the 1970’s, even when I got “better” cameras for specific purposes.

I’m also “stuck”, as in my desire for any new camera gear is futile. Until Nikon starts making DSLR cameras again, I doubt I will buy a new Nikon. As for Leica, I started to get excited about their new M11, but no longer want one. I prefer my M10. I could elaborate on why, if anyone is interested.

I am anxious to start shooting film again, either in my Nikon F4 or in my Leica M3. I was shooting one roll of film a week a year ago, to get used to things, but got out of the habit. My Plustek Scanner is sitting in front of me, but I have no new food to feed it. If I was still shooting sports, I’d buy a Nikon Z9, but I’m not. I still see fascinating (to me) scenes of Biscayne Bay out my window most days, but as @Joanna would agree, I’ve already posted too many of them. There are lots of interesting buildings and structures around Miami Beach that I might start visiting. To be honest though, I never know what I’m going to photograph “tomorrow”.

mikemyers · October 27, 2022, 3:07pm

It has nothing to do with PhotoLab, but everything to do with photography. Rumors were flying all over regarding the upcoming Leica M11, and I figured I’d have a difficult time fighting off my desire to buy one. Then, when facts became clear, I got more excited, and then much less so. I decided I didn’t want a Leica M11. It no longer has a base plate on the bottom, which I can live with. It is designed for 60-meg images, but to me, 24 is more than enough, and I would prefer not to have all my Leica images so huge. The new metering system is supposedly more accurate, but the way they implemented it is too bizarre for me. I want a quiet camera - the M11 makes a racket every time you shoot, opening and closing the shutter both for metering, and then for taking the photo. There is more, but while I have enjoyed my Leica M cameras, this new one is not what I want.

Then, the other night, I found this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQBTQiyv8JE
I’ve already posted the link, and I’ve watched parts of it several times. It echoes some of my thoughts, but explains them better than I can. I had lerned to love my film Leica cameras, as they were so quiet nobody knew I took a photo. The latest Leica M10 is like that, but not the M11. I’m not sure who the Leica M11 is for, but I accept that it is not for me. That’s good, as it would cost almost $10,000 to buy one, and for the black cameras, instead of brass, they use aluminum. So, my M10 is likely the last digital Leica I will buy, and my Nikon D780 is likely the last digital Nikon I will buy. …and here I am, anxious to start shooting film again! Yikes!!!

Joanna · October 27, 2022, 4:56pm

Only if you never plan on taking shots of stuff that is either small and/or more than a few metres away.

For example, here are the six shots I took during a walk at the port of Perros Guirec on the 4th October 2017 between 13:21 and 13:46…

Focal lengths vary between 34mm and 200mm.

My challenge to you is to produce a similar series, taken on a walk around the docks where you live, picking out details or single subjects, rather than general scenes.

Virtually all of these shots were uncropped, relying on framing at the time of shooting.

Well, what do you think? Are you up for the challenge?

Prem · October 27, 2022, 6:44pm

That’s why I gave Mike the challenge to use his viewfinder to frame his picture and concentrate on his position to eliminate anything he doesn’t want in it. A long time ago I learnt a very hard lesson. I decided to go to 2.1/4 square but every time I got my negative back into the enlarger I could not see the pictures I saw when I took it. The problem was my brain was stuck in 36 x 24 mm frame and I didn’t realise it at the time. I suspect Mike’s brain is stuck in the publishing mode to give the editor more space to publish without him realising. As they say! In auto mode. I do hope he sticks with the D780, for that three months challenge.

mikemyers · October 27, 2022, 7:28pm

There are lots of “docks” all around Miami Beach, but for security reasons, only authorized people can get to them. Everything is fenced off with locks and warning signs. I’m certainly up for the challenge - will try to find a place to photograph.

In that sense, I am definitely stuck in “publishing mode”, as for all the years shooting for the magazine, they fitted the text around the photos or vice versa, and this made it easy for them. It also makes it easy for me, as I can see my image on my screen, and I’m free to crop as I wish to. I’m very picky as to where the four edges of the photo will be, to include/exclude as I see fit. I just want “the real picture” to be within my frame lines. If I was shooting color slides, this would not be good, but the “photographer me” needs to work with the “editor me”. I can’t do this very well with the M8, and need to plan my image much more carefully, but with the Nikon and my M10, I’ve got lots of space to work with. I’m also usually more concerned with “timing”, and I’m waiting for the perfect time to capture the image (like getting the hammer clearly shown), and this way I don’t have to worry I will leave out something I wanted to include.

For static photos, I love doing what you showed, creating my image in the viewfinder, and trusting the camera to do the needful. But then, I need to be ultra-careful - as in your last shot, I would want the boards (?) at the top to be perfectly level. Or, excluding them.

Ha! That’s why I have feet. :-).

When I grew up, for the longest time, I only had one lens, 50mm. It was years before I started to buy additional lenses (135mm and 35mm). Zooms didn’t exist, other than my enlarger.

Certainly!!!

mikemyers · October 27, 2022, 11:02pm

Translation in my mind - go to a nearby dock, and take one photo of a boat/ship, and five photos of smaller details. There is only one dock near me that I can get close to, but I can’t go out on the docks, as the gates are locked. So, here is my one “action” photo, along with PL6 files, and my detail photos.

_MJM0208 | 2022-10-27.nef (29.1 MB)
_MJM0208 | 2022-10-27.nef.dop (13.3 KB)

zkarj · October 28, 2022, 1:42am

Unless you travel south of the equator (or happen to live there ).

I disagree with this. If you spend $8000 on a lens that needs to be stopped down to provide acceptable image quality, then sure. But you do get what you pay for. Most lenses offer very small apertures that are “useless” because of diffraction issues, but that isn’t a sleight on the lens? In the end, if it works for you, then it’s a fine lens. Wide open apertures are not the only game in town.

My favourite lens is a 55-300 which I love for the flexibility, but also because I operate closer to the 300 end most of the time. My current one is sharpest at around f/8-f/11 despite its largest aperture being f/4.5-6.3. And that’s completely fine. I shoot birds jumping around under forest canopy, and sometimes I miss the shot because they move too fast. Would a bigger aperture help? Maybe, except the depth of field could well then end up blurring part of the bird I would prefer is sharp. The exposure triangle is a trade-off. Any time you gain in one aspect, you lose in another. The prior version of this lens I had was really only happy at f/11. I have hundreds of fantastic photos from this one which I pretty much left on f/11 all the time.

I had troubles many years ago shooting fast moving mountain bikes in forests. Several people told me to get a “fast lens”. I did my homework and figured out that I’d have to be incredibly accurate with my focus because if the near pedal was in focus, the far one would not be! An impractical solution! Instead I upgraded my camera to one with a much better sensor and shot with a significantly higher ISO.

“Zoom with your feet” is a phrase used by people who don’t understand the world. For myself, I’d regularly get detained and my camera confiscated if I tried to shoot my subjects as I wish with a 70 mm lens. You might also need other equipment like a boat or climbing gear, which could much more cheaply be solved with a little optical zoom.

JoJu · October 28, 2022, 7:17am

I spent nearly 900.- on it. Yours is typically half the price, more or less and covers

a smaller range of focal length
an APS-C sensor. The 28-300 was supposed to be a FF lens. Comparatively that would be 82.5-450 in FF, or, being very generous, a 100-400. The 28-300 weighs 800 grams. A modern 100-400 around 1100.-, plus a 24-105. So, plenty of weight saved, right? Yes, but at the drawback to hardly get a sharp shot.

I made 3000 shots with it with only few acceptably sharp, about the quality @Joanna presented, no part in the image really sharp. Yes, you get what you pay for. And can you point me a link to an $8000 28-300? No? Nobody makes them? Hmmm, I wonder why…

We’re currently in a thread of a man who seriously thinks of buying a Leica M11. for boats far out in biscayne bay. I didn’t reply to prevent him of throwing money on a 12 year old, meanwhile out of production lens design. I’ve been warned back in 2011, and then there were no Sigma/Tamron 100-400 FF lenses. Today there are, offering better value.

Too true, especially the “walking over water or through thin air to get a better position”-bit of that sentence. And also dealing with animals who think “supper is arriving!” when they see a zoom walker.

Joanna · October 28, 2022, 9:09am

Our pontoons are not locked off but all my shots, except the yacht in sail, were taken from the walkway outside them.

Now, come on Mike. I was leading a LF course a number of years ago and, during a review session, one of our number really annoyed me (in a nice way). She presented a few of her 5x4 transparencies on the light table and they were all perfectly framed

Think about that for a moment… she was using an LF camera with fixed focal length lenses and the obligatory tripod. And we keep on making excuses about needing to leave extra room in case we might need to crop in post-processing?

I will be the first to admit I still haven’t got the hang of perfect framing all the time, but a lot of the time that can be because I leave the camera framing in 3:2 instead of changing it to 5:4 or square.

You are looking at uncropped and untreated images. The boards needed distortion correction after the fact.

OK. Critique time

Except, to my mind (YMMV) you have left a whole load of extra “stuff” in the shot. I tried this framing, which focuses more on the boat…

The second shot - I would have framed to be more panoramic, to allow the prow of the dark boat more room to the right and, if possible, to have restricted the depth of field to try and blur the skyline a bit more.

The third shot I find difficult to read, possibly because the skyscrapers make for distracting echos. I tried reframing to square, starting with a light coloured pillar on each side to try and direct the eye to follow them rather than the darker posts…

Also, if you had placed the focus point closer and reduced the aperture a bit, you might have got the near posts sharper and the skyline more blurred.

The image of the cleat is a nice idea, except the top is a bit too tightly framed. I rotated it a bit and added some extra space to make things a bit more symmetrical…

The fifth shot, of the lifesaver, also seems a bit too tightly framed. Think about the strong shadows and if they wouldn’t add a bit of symmetry and balance, as well as leaving that tad more space at the left side.

For the sixth shot, of the rails, my thoughts are that a narrower depth of field, to blur the background more - a bit like this mock up with a grad filter blur…

For the last shot, I would have either framed wider to include the entire dark blob in the left corner or taken the liberty of cloning it out in post-processing. Also, you have cropped the rigging type stuff that leads the eye out of the image without “explaining” what it is.

Please feel free to critique my critique. Don’t forget, I wasn’t there, so can’t necessarily see what prevented certain ideas.

Joanna · October 28, 2022, 9:18am

Ah yes. So people actually live down there do they?

Or those of us who use LF cameras and a tripod

@zkarj is talking about the 55-300 lens, which is indeed DX. The 28-300 is FX.

Don’t forget, what I post here are usually only lo-res exports. The originals, from my Nikon D850, viewed at full size, make excellent A0 prints.

JoJu · October 28, 2022, 9:57am

Joanna, if an original “makes excellent A0 prints”, no export can degrade it the way your forest picture with the little leaf in it looks like. I’m sorry, but in that image nothing is in focus.

Also, there might be a difference between my idea of “excellent A0 prints” and yours. I know that lens, I know what it can do and what it can’t. No matter what you think about it.

Joanna · October 28, 2022, 10:07am

Well, the export was to 1536px on long side from a 45Mpx original, taken with an aperture of f/5.6

Here is a 100% screenshot from PL5…

JoJu · October 28, 2022, 11:15am

Stunning. Hard to believe it’s the same picture (hard, but not impossible, don’t worry )

Hmm, on second look… it IS NOT the same picture, dear Joanna!

Tststs… I don’t call it a deep fake, but… well, it’s still good enough for boats in Biscayne Bay

Joanna · October 28, 2022, 12:49pm

Ooops! I have changed the exported file to the original for the cropped screenshot

mikemyers · October 28, 2022, 12:58pm

My world started out in the 1950’s, and my only lens was a 50mm f/2 Sonnar. I guess based on what you just wrote, in today’s world, maybe getting too close to the subject might not be a good idea, but on the other hand, shooting with the 50mm, and filling the image with what you’re shooting, was more likely to capture a realistic image. Long focal length lenses collapse distance, whereas shooting with a 50mm is more likely to show what a person actually “sees/feels” when looking at that scene.

In today’s world though, if all I had was a 50mm, I’d miss out on so many photos I take where I need a wider, or more telephoto lens, just to fill the image with what I want to show.

Maybe that’s just me making excuses though. My wide-angle and telephoto shots “warp space” unrealistically, unless the person viewing the image gets much closer to the print or screen, or moves much further away, which won’t happen.

The physical reality limits what we can do - we can often only get so close to what we’re shooting, but we want to show all the detail as if we were right up close. Since my lens yesterday was 24-120, I stuck the lens through the gate, and zoomed as needed to capture the image I wanted to show. As @Joanna pointed out, sometimes I maybe got “too close” and other times I maybe didn’t get close enough. While I was shooting though, I just guessed what looked good to me, and shot, and if in doubt, zoomed out a little so I could adjust this later on PL6.

I don’t think the phrase “zoom with your feet” implies I didn’t understand the world. To me, it’s the opposite - the realities of the world often limit my choices, and I just do the best I can (or the best I can think of at that moment).

I had two “limits” yesterday - one was the focal length, which had to be between 24 and 120, and the other was the physical world I found myself in -unable to move closer because of a locked gate.

Leica has a large number of lenses that sell for around $8,000, and they are expected to be sharp wide open. I think the diffraction limits how much these lenses are likely to be stepped down. Fortunately for me, Voigtlander makes a large collection of similar lenses which are far more affordable. That’s what I buy. For Nikon, I’ve lost track. My 24-120 lens is loaded with distortion, and I wonder how well my PL6 is doing at taming it. My 20+ year old 28-70 Nikon has almost zero distortion, and everyone who has tested it raves about the image quality. I’m concerned about the size and weight of these lenses.

There were two choices for Nikon zoom lenses that went out to 300mm. From what @Joanna writes, and @Wolfgang wrote a year or so ago, I made the wrong choice. I need to do more research to see how those two lenses compare. …but my “favorite” walk around lens for my D780 is this one:
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/287035af.htm
" My Nikon 28-70mm is one of my very favorite Nikon lenses because of its small size and weight, handy zoom and macro ranges, perfect ergonomics, a real 9-bladed diaphragm, and it’s plenty sharp on my newest 36 MP FX D800")."

Also, regarding zooming:

Nowadays, I can either have a gadget bag with many choice of lenses of different focal lengths, or maybe one or two zoom lenses. The first choice is too expensive, and too time-consuming, but would be great if I could do it. The second choice is much more practical.

@Joanna, I’ll review your thoughts on my recent images in an hour or so. I read them, and I need to get my thoughts in order. The main thought is that you and I see “things” differently. The biggest difference seems to be “how much” or “how little” to include/exclude.

Prem · October 28, 2022, 1:51pm

You’re obviously very happy with your 24 to 70 mm so maybe it would be an idea to add something like a 70 mm to 300 mm to it and they would be the only two lenses you need.

For myself. I have a Minolta 24 to 85mm F3.5 to 4.5 and a Konica/Minolta 75 to 300mm F4.5 to 5.6. They both worked perfectly on my Sony a77 and my Sony a99 though I did recently by a Sony 24 to 70mm F2.8 Zeiss. The only problem with that lens for general use is that I need to eat two large steaks before I use it as I can’t hold it up for more than about five seconds. I also recently bought a Sony 100mm F2.8 macro lens but that is so I can digitise my many thousands of negatives.

It’s nice to see you fighting that publisher and trying to take images for yourself with better framing and less lost pixels in post developing

mikemyers · October 28, 2022, 4:31pm

Yep, I already bought the 70-300, very nice, and MUCH lighter than my 80-200

I guess so… lately I try to take photos that I would be happy to display in my home. Part of them is “photo”, and another part of them is “art”. I love cropping in the camera - what to include, and just as important, what to exclude. My “boating” photos were shot this way, and most were fun to capture.

mikemyers · October 28, 2022, 4:58pm

I’ll have to think about that. I try to capture my image within the frame. With 24 megapixels, this gives me all the time I want or need to create the “final” composition - which is not really accurate, because I go back to these images later, and re-adjust. If I crop in the viewfinder, I lose some of these options later on, while viewing the image in PhotoLab.

As a photo specifically of the boat, your photo is better. But it loses all the context of what’s around the boat. I adjusted how much “stuff” I wanted on the sides, and like that image more than “just the boat”. The extra stuff makes the image more important to me, compared to simply having the boat. I actually like this photo a lot, and a good part of that was just “luck” - timing.

I dunno… Again, to me, all the “extra stuff” makes the photo more interesting, at least to me. As art, you are probably right, but leaving all the other stuff in gives people a lot more to look at, if they want to.

Something is “off”, and it’s difficult to say what. I’m not sure I like either version. I prefer the original one I posted, but I can’t explain why. Something looks “annoying” now. I wouldn’t hang this on my wall.

Ouch! I may not be wearing my “photojournalism” hat, but removing things in post processing is something I’m rarely comfortable with. I don’t really like this image - it didn’t “work”.

I don’t like the red life preserver photo either. Too “boring”.

I was going to post all the original files, and the ‘dop’ files for each photo, but never got to it other than for the main photo of the boat.

Joanna · October 28, 2022, 11:20pm

I shoot a 45Mpx Nikon D850 because I want to print as large as possible. If I start cropping too much in post-processing, I’m gong to lose resolution if I print from too small an image.

e.g. If I shoot a full frame image to be printed at 240ppi, I will easily get a print of 34" x 23" without interpolation. However, if I shoot a DX format image (24mm x 16mm), I can only print, at 240ppi, up to 22" x 15" without interpolation.

Now, I know you don’t normally shoot to print, but the same principle applies to images for web publishing. And I have seen you write that you would sometimes like to see some of your shots on your walls. How disappointed would you be when your carefully edited (and cropped) image comes back from the printing lab looking rough due to lack of pixels?

Agreed I might have been a tad aggressive in my crop, but the idea was to suggest making the boat more of the subject, rather than just part of a picture. My friend Anne came round this afternoon and she suggested something different…

The boat on the left third and the posts on the right providing a nice lead in/out. Just another idea.

That kind of remark makes me think more of reportage than a fine art image

The problem I had with this was the lack of space around the subject. You have a very nice neat subject, with all sorts of symmetry, but I felt the cleat and its shadow just needed more “room to breathe”.

Here is a reworked version with more rotation and more space…

… although the stark split of the wharf and the sea still disturbs me slightly. This is where I would need to spend more time playing with what angle and distance to take it from in order to give it a better perspective. Either that or not bother taking it

Which is why I also suggested trying to include the whole object rather than clipping it.

Unless you play with it like the cleat and frame it to give it breathing room. I would definitely have tried to include the whole shadow if possible to give symmetry.

Here’s one I took of a line of tyres used as fenders, taken “straight”, saturated and B&W…

Part of this “challenge” that @Prem and I are encouraging you to take up is to stop simply “recording” what you see and, instead, start making photographic art. And I would reinforce trying to frame in the camera, because it trains your eye to see whether the image is worth taking or just leaving

Oh, and you might like to take a look at my friend Anne’s Flickr pages for ideas tataAnne | Flickr She specialises in detail shots.

mikemyers · October 28, 2022, 11:42pm

Much of what has been written above reinforces a feeling that I’ve had for ages, and it’s even stronger now than ever.

All digital cameras offer us menus, as the digital software can easily be configured in many different ways. This starts at the camera, before we even consider the editing. software.

I’ve got two main cameras that I use, Nikon DSLR, and Leica Rangefinder. With the Leica, everything seems “obvious”, and in 15 minutes or less, I can review all of them. In use, I hardly use any of them. I set the camera to ‘raw’, not ‘jpg’, and while I can configure any of them (such as white balance, and ISO settings), I can easily ignore all of them. Just put on whatever lens I want to use, manually set the ISO, manually set the aperture, manually set the shutter speed, and focus. The one “extra” tool I often use is to turn on the histogram, as confirmation that my exposures are reasonable. So, when I’m shooting, I select an exposure (and verify it’s reasonable), focus, and carefully take the photo. It’s also fast - manual focus can be faster than any auto focus… but more importantly, it is ME who is deciding where to focus, not some computer algorithm on my Nikon.

My Nikon D780 is incredibly powerful, unless I turn off all that power and leave it set to “auto”. I’ve learned in this forum that using ‘auto’ is not a good idea. But the complexity - it would take well over an hour to just describe all the focusing settings - I started to learn them, then got lost. By comparison the Leica is fast and effortless. Align two images in the rangefinder (something that I consider important) and I’m done.

I used to say that the Leica felt like it becomes part of my body - it just works, and I can give all my attention to framing the image I want to capture, and telling the camera where to set the focus. My Nikon D780 feels like a computer that I’m holding out in front of me. I enjoy it, and it’s easy to use (as long as I stick to things I understand), but it is constantly reminding me that IT is in control, not me.

The Nikon can be effortless to use - just select the auto settings, aim, zoom, and shoot. The computer will guarantee a good result.

The Leica is not effortless - it takes a while to get used to, as it’s so different. It’s like driving a car with a stick, or an automatic. It’s not for everyone - someone not willing to put in the time to learn how to use it will probably hate it.

As for my new favorite image processor, PhotoLab, it doesn’t care. It’s “GiGo”. Garbage In > Garbage out. It loves my Nikon Cameras, as the Nikon is perfect unless I mess up, and PL knows just what to do, and gives me a great starting point, that I can edit. PhotoLab is not so happy with my Leica images - if I didn’t do my part right, it’s too late. GiGo.

With the Nikon, all I need to do is click the shutter button. With the Leica I need to do a lot more. Taking photos with the Nikon is effortless. Taking photos with the Leica means I need to think about what I’m doing.

I get the feeling that a lot of people in this forum have been encouraging me to work with the Nikon. I also have a feeling that nobody else here in this forum is using the Leica. Leica seems to push people towards Adobe Lightroom. Even in the Leica Forum, they are suggesting what Lightroom settings to use.

Final thought - last night, after making dinner, I glanced out my window and saw this beautiful sunset. My D780 was right in front of me, so I went outdoors, rested the camera against the door frame, and took a photo, with NO expectation that it would come out acceptable. Despite NO attention to make sure my settings were appropriate, it did just fine. I highly doubt that I could have done this with my Leica without spending a LOT of time getting it configured properly:

_MJM0224 | 2022-10-27.nef.dop (13.1 KB)
_MJM0224 | 2022-10-27.nef (34.4 MB)

That the photo came out, despite being shot at ISO 20,000 is all due to the camera, and certainly NOT to me. I’m sure there is a lot more I could do to improve the image, but I was so shocked it looked this good, I left well enough alone. My Leica needs me to capture a good photo. My D780 doesn’t care - it does just fine on its own.

(There are probably lots of settings on the D780 I ought to change, and I ought to learn how to configure all those settings, or at least most of them, manually. If I sit back and watch a 2 1/2 hour video, so be it. By now, @Joanna would have learned it inside and out, while I just made sure some of the basic settings were right.)