Just create lots and lots of repair points to cover all the dust spots, zooming in to place them. Then zoom out and in again.
Got it. Thanks.
Mark
I remember this was a big and nasty issue in PL3! Happened to me LOTS of times.
With later versions I have only encountered it once, and I had attributed to a mistake of mine… But it looks like it wasn’t!
This appears to be a different problem.
Mark
I had to try, but to no effect. Maybee this is a Mac version problem?
I tried it too and now after reading it again with a TIFF file, but so far no problem with the retouching tool.
The above mentioned problem with LA masks plus perspective corrections, that also exists here, seems to have nothing to do with this.
This also exists in some french companies or medias but I wouldn’t say that it’s a generalized practice.
I already PM’ed @Joanna with my test results but wanted to share them with others. I tested this issue in the Windows version of PL 7 with Joanna’s original tiff file and was unable to recreate the issue she was having. This may be a Mac only issue. Perhaps someone else using a Mac can try to recreate the results she was getting.
Mark
1 Like
There really do appear to be a lot of Mac bugs in PL that have escaped us in Windows
Don’t get too smug. You are by no means exempt 
1 Like
@Joanna DxO appear to have decided that the Forum is not giving them what they want, whatever that actually is, i.e. they have never explained what they want or how they want it delivered and have always been very selective about what they do and do not respond to, even when there was a DxO representative present on the forums!.
The forum can certainly get somewhat frenetic with certain issues, probably even more so with Beta Testing but I have continued to post issues in the forum and also raise a Support request that also references the post since the “vanishing act” when all DxO presence in the forum - “vanished”.
But the nature of the support request does not really permit the “story/scenario” telling that the forum normally allows and therein lies a problem!
The current support process is way too prescriptive. You provide a report of your problem in a purely descriptive manner and separately provide images.
This fits the scenario of “I did this and look what it did to my image”, if that!
This may fit certain problems but does not even touch the surface of
“I was doing this” - description plus image and
“then this happened” - more description and additional related images
“but” - more description plus associated images
“and when I” - description plus yet more associated images
“and look what I then found had happened to” - description and even more images/screen snapshots etc…
If the proposed Beta Test procedure follows the current support process then I believe there is a potential problem!
With the current support process we can at least use the forum to provide a storyline, providing the support personnel can either access the forum or at least be able to read any pdf created from the forum post, been there and had problems with both!
With the lack of any Beta forum, then there is simply no convenient way to actually provide a more expansive response unless the test is
“Please do this and did you see a red or green block?”
It certainly stops testers making “fatuous” remarks like “why is it a block and not a diamond”, “why are there only two colours on offer”, “the identified item is only clear enough when” etc.
You are unlikely to be “disappointed” in a response if you have carefully controlled the nature of that response from the start. But you are also unlikely to learn new things if the reporting process is so controlled that more is excluded than included!
Indeed, this would be useful. Since I posted this in a Mac forum, that is what I was hoping for.
I don’t see it as a context but it’s such a pitty that there do apear to be a lot of Mac problems
@John7 There is another answer to your query and that is do Mac users actually use and “stretch” the product more than Windows users.
To be honest I don’t really care, a “bug” is a “bug” regardless of the platform on which it is found and the forum provides the means to alert other users to be aware of a “bear” pit.
It’s just sad that DxO don’t see the forum as a “force for good” and as an opportunity to share knowledge!?
Regards
Bryan
Off topic a bit I now, but why are DxO behaving like this - they were once part of the gang but something seems to have happened that I missed. Responsiveness at their end is not what it was as I found out when I lost my access to the testing forum and they were too busy to sort it (and the fault was not at my end). Maybe DXO see the forum as being too small in terms of membership numbers to be representative of the user base.
2 Likes
Hello,
I will have some time tomorrow evening or sunday to try it out… let me know if you still need a confirmation until then.
I’ll send you the original TIFF file by DM before i go to bed tonight.
1 Like
Have you tried to put “Microcontrast” all the way to the left (-100) and meet up only with Fine Contrast to say 30 instead? When I make repro photographs of film media that has become my standard and it saves enormous amounts of time since it both make a lot of uncleanliness and spots vanishing instantly. In fact this method made me chose Photolab in the first place over anything else when working with film.
Also check that Clearwiev Plus is deactivated because it also uses a lot of Microcontrast as you already know.
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