Although I am sure Joanna would appreciate your attempt to assist her, when it comes to PhotoLab, she is a subject matter expert. She also teaches it to other photographers.
Mark
Since about 1984, I reckon … 
2 Likes
@ColinG I haven’t the first idea what motivates DxO, other than some self-destructive motivation or maybe a consummate belief that they are always right and their users simply don’t deserve them!
Either way it is not the users fault and there is precious little we users can do about it (and not for want of trying)!
@John-M are you referring to the dystopian book/film etc. or the launch of the Mac 
3 Likes
What I want to know is when DxO will finally provide support for this amazing and revolutionary machine? 
2 Likes
Thanks for the idea but…
Just out of curiosity, I tried this but it wasn’t at all successful with this image…
Without adjustments…
With adjustments…
Notice how the sofa back is almost completely missing to the left of the subject’s arm.
Out of further curiosity, I also tried reducing the Microcontrast locally, but that also removes the grain structure and leaves a peculiar textureless are that instantly attracts the eye.
Pest or colera.
Usually this happens when you make geometry correction like distortion, horizon or perspective, after applying any retouch o local correction. In these cases, the geometry corrections applies at the picture but local and retouch masks don’t follow the picture changes and remains in the same place. So be shure that some geometry corrections has not been applied after local adjustmets or retouch and be shure that automatic geometry settings, like auto perspective or horizon, are not active too. If the undo action does not eliminate the problem, you could make a virtual copy of the image at regualr intervals, before that the problem occurs, to have a backup copy.
1 Like
@Joanna Send me a download link to a tiff and I’ll run it through Capture One’s automatic dust removal and send back the tif.
Clive
Wooohhhhoooo. @Joanna
You had to do all of these masks? Was it to remove noise?
As for me, since I had my old negatives scanning project.
I found out that for scanned negatives the best solution was using Topaz Denoise.
Usually for my scanned tiff files my workflow is
- Topaz Denoise - for removing flatbed scanner noise
- Luminar Neo- for removing color cast of the old negatives there’s a dedicated slider for this function.
- Then keep on with Neo or PL .
Generally speaking, PL is Raw file oriented. It doesn’t really shine on non raw format so usually I just kept on with Neo.
Now a days, since I moved back to LR (still using PL, mostly as a LR plug-in for de-mosaicing, optic module and prime Denoise where’s needed), I would try it with LR, after Topaz with my next scans. Still scanning negatives once in a while because the young generation discovered film cameras and enjoys all the feeling and emotions related to film photography…
I’m still shooting analog and I scan my new negatives (or the old ones) with an old Nikon Coolscan V ED. With this high resolution scanner, it’s almost like scanning the film grain. I use Nikon Scan to scan the negatives (no correction applied except Digital ICE, moderately) and Imagenomic’s Noiseware (in Photoshop) which is very good at removing the “pseudo noise” generated by scanning the film grain. If necessary, the Despeckle and Dust & Scratches commands in PS can help finalize the image. Here are 2 samples, an old one and a recent one.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ec3n2fx72uq7nf/Sample%201.tif?dl=0
https://www.ppphoto.fr/galleries/01_dallemagne/#&gid=1&pid=26
1 Like
@Pat91 Are those samples are before or after noise reduction?
If it’s after, I would consider Topaz.
An alternative could be Define 2.0 of Nik collection (the free version from Google) it did a good job too.
After. When I shoot analog, I’m not expecting or even looking for extremely clean images. If they are speckle- and dust free but still grainy (not noisy which is not the same) and remain a pleasure to look at when printed in A4 or at most in A3 format, it’s OK for me.
I will give Define a try. Are you talking about Topaz Denoise AI or about the legacy Topaz Denoise (I still have a valid license, I think) ?
Mine is Topaz AI, but you can try your Topaz and compare it to Ps.
Define 2.0 you can compare as well.
AFAIK the flatbed scanners introrudce some extra “noise” or “small grains” to the scanned image, therefore I prefer to control it somehow with Denoise AI. Took one of your images and denoised it with Topaz, out of the box, without any special adjustments (with your permition I hope)
[OFF-TOPIC ON]
No problem. Thanks.
Actually, I could not reinstall my old Topaz plugins on Windows 11. They all crashed upon startup. I’ll have to fix this but meanwhile, I could not test Topaz Denoise. I found an old email from Topaz explaining that I’m entitled to a free license for Denoise AI because I had a license for the legacy version. I’m currently downloading it.
I have recently used Sharpen AI for a big project and I must say that I have been surprised by the very good results. So maybe I should have a look at Denoise AI and compare with DPL.
Well, I suggest that we stop polluting Joanna’s thread. I’ll possibly continue this discussion on a new thread.
[OFF-TOPIC OFF]
1 Like
I wonder if this problem is Mac specific. Since I’m on Windows , if there’s anything I could do to help you out, let me know. At this point I only have PL7 installed.
Mark, I think I know Joannas competence by now but it is not all that common that do what I use to do when working with my digitized Agfa CT 18 positive color film. No other converter I have used have these pretty unique features with three different and overlapping contrast parameters.
Abolishing all influence of Microcontrast have this pretty effective effect of totally cleansing messy unclean skies that could take forever to “right” manually. Not everybody has been working as much as I have done with these sometimes pretty terrible Agfa CT 18 and 21 skies.
… and from what I have read by Joanna I´m sure she would have no problem at all to let me know if she should feel offended or irritated by my intention to make a constructive input. 
Despite your remark I have hard to see anything wrong in trying to help when someone seems to be in trouble - despite it is Joanna She is just lovely and shows that even a superstar in the Photolab heaven can get into trouble from time to time and feel desperate.
In order to become a power user and Photolab superstar it helps asking for help from time to time in order to develop. There is always more to learn for us all, isn´t it and there is no other way really than continue asking questions is it?
Remember the headline of this subject:
I’m ready to scream!
She also wrote :
I have privately written to Barbara, apologising for the “rant”, but when you’ve got a customer waiting for a print and you’ve just spent an hour, only to find that the work you’ve done has been lost, it sort of gets to you. Then there’s the recent total lack of response from Dx0, which even applies to the beta forums before they closed them down, which makes me wonder who has said what and to whom in DxO to alienate them from communicating with us.
For me that sounded pretty desperate and to a certain extent out of control and that is fine too. Not everybody is as polite as Joanna apologising “for the rant” either, as she put it. Something to learn there too.
1 Like
I wasn’t attempting to be critical of your response. if I gave you that impression I apologize. I don’t follow every one of your posts or your interactions with others. I wasn’t sure if you were aware of Joanna’s level of familiarity with PhotoLab.
Mark
1 Like
I wonder if this problem is Mac specific. Since I’m on Windows , if there’s anything I could do to help you out, let me know. At this point I only have PL7 installed.
OK no problem.