It looks like a desaturated mask. You say you have a local auto brush on the horizon. Check to see if you have a mask covering that area in the center as well as the top of the trees near the left fide of the image. If you can’t figure it out, do you have access to Dropbox or a similar site when you can post the raw file and .dop file for this image so we can determine what is going on?
Mark
It is not only the tree in the middle of the pic, but also at the left side, when you follow the hoirzon line.
Suppose you made certain settings in conjunction with the Automask tool.
That comment tells more about you than me. Contrary to your assumption I use a very wide variety of software and have been using wide variety of software in various areas for a long time. What you have also made wrong assumption is that I am attempting to ignore what is possible, vs defending what exists in DXO PhotoLab.
If you bothered to actually read my comments you would have noticed that I’m not opposing new tools that could be added to DXO PL or improving existing ones in PL, but instead I’m defending the existing tools against the claims by some people in this threat. Claims that the existing tools are “archaic” and “useless”. They are not. They are very powerful and very useful for skilled users in particular and I would argue fit the needs of what would be required for most images we work with.
Also I would argue that introduction of new bells and whistles of technology does not equal a better results in the final output. It can, but the trend has been actually going in reverse. Just take the example of technology in cameras , lenses, and even smartphones. Leaps and bounds more powerful technology than what we had just 5-10 years ago and seemingly completely new technology analog vs digital if we compare it to 30-40 years ago.
Has the output of great images increased proportionally to the advancements and demand for new technology? No. Quite the opposite. We make more and more picture, far more than ever before. We have the platforms to share it with a click of a button at any time we want. We have cameras that fit in our pocket and do most of it automatically… but compare to how many images are taken, and how many are really remarkable, the trend is clear. We, as a culture are regressing. As someone elegantly put it; “Never before has a generation so diligently recorded themselves accomplishing so little.”
So, you see, I’m not against technology, but a) I say we demand too much of technology and not enough of ourselves, with results being quantity over quality. Take from what what you will. b) I’m saying that existing masking tools in PL are quite suitable for vast majority of tasks one would need in normal use. And Finally c) I’m not against new tools being added to PL or improving existing ones, on the contrary I welcome it and I’ve made requests for new features myself, but I am defending the ones we have as being very good for what they are intended to do.
Also I’m aware of the situation on the market and how business side works, which I take into account.
For example, here is generative fill in Photoshop I just used to fill in the edges of an image that processed in DXO, making sure I leave as much screen real estate as possible.
Great and sometimes useful technology. But will this technology make use better artists or better meme makers? I think you know the answer to that one.
I would love to have this natively in DXO so we can maximize the filed of view and combine it with other great tools like lens sharpness, optical corrections etc. But to implement this DXO would have to either license the tech or build a huge expensive infrastructure and database like Adobe has to support this technology. I am aware of the underhanded methods Adobe used to get this tech and how they plan to use it, and that is what I am not a fan off. Hence I would rather see DXO improve what they can and stay small user oriented company than to chase companies like Adobe with virtually unlimited budget and agenda to screw over their users for profit and in the name of woke ideology (ESG, DEI, hostile takeovers) etc.
What would be possible great if DXO did something like Blackmagic did in their Davinci Resolve. DaVinci Resolve’s Magic Mask is a Neural Engine tool that allows users to isolate one or more people within a composition by applying paint strokes to the person.
That would be another way to implement AI masking in a way its quick, fairly precise and can be used on almost anything. And in the case of Blackmagic it has local database.
Brand New Magic Mask in Davinci Resolve 17!
Contrary to your original assumption, I do use many programs and I am aware of what is out there. But that is not the point I was making originally.
I see also some difference left, but the dark spot like a tree in the middle is curious.
The automask tool covers the complete horizon, ship, trees, from left to right. All the not in the mask values (contrast etc.) are the same, except the color rendering in 1. Neutral color and in 2. DxO camera profile Canon 5DS. In the mask the shadow in 1. is set to 12 and in 2. to 22.
Regards Willy
Image 3 out of the camera.
Hi Willy,
same as @mwsilvers mentioned, can you please share the pic + the dop-file?
I would like to have a look … and then show you how to select more precisely
( guess, that’s the reason for the ‘a bit uneven’ result → what you presented above as #2 ).
Wolfgang
Can you use a file sharing service (dropbox, google … whatever)?
Ok. So let’s assume that photolab is a good as possible for masking …
and that the problems encountered come from the users and not from the software …
I’m not really sure about that …
They are not useless, they have qualities and are suitable for lot of use, but they could (should!) give user ability to refine the result when needed, and should be more easy, fluid to manipulate, transform and set.
That’s what can be found in other softwares.
thanks for the dop-file, but that refers to your CR2-raw-file – at least I could not apply it with your jpg.
Anyway, I downloaded your first jpg and tried something …
Let’s say, you want to increase contrast / visibility for the coal ship and use the Auto mask brush.
The Auto mask’s blue overlay indicates where you painted over,
but it does not (only) show, what then will be affected (what got ‘sampled’ while painting over).
→ To make that visible, temporarily pull up the exposure.
Everything much brighter than before shows your real selection – what will be affected later.
You can see, that I didn’t catch all black parts etc. To include/add them, I decreased the size of the Auto mask and carefully (slowly) painted over those parts.
If easier, you can also ‘repair’ the mask with the Eraser.
In Windows right click to get on the “?” → to get the help overlay
and use ALT + Click to get the eraser
to then clean up where the selection went overboard.
shown with the exposure taken down again
And the same thing works on the trees, but maybe you should use a separate mask to then apply quite different values.
Explore more possibilities and make use of a Control Line,
but don’t forget to use the mask view.
Have fun – it just takes a bit of exercise.
Wolfgang
… and the file(s) → Willy1.zip (217,0 KB)
Thank you Wolfgang for your help. I don’t have a dropbox so I can’t transfer the rawfile (60 MB).
I am familiar with local adjustment. What surprised me was the black spot at some point that was not in the other processing.
Kind regards, Willy
How so?
I don’t dispute that. I agree. I simply do not agree with the part made by some people that the tools are not usable or that they are worse than some of the other tools, even when intended use and practical use is different. E.g. luminosity masking vs hard edge masking for example.
Hi Wolfgang,
I deleted the local adjustment (auto mask) in the image with the black spots. After that I created a new auto mask, the same as before, shadow + 22 and see… The spots are gone! A mystery.
Kind regards, Willy
Hi Willy,
while I can only guess of course, I imagine your mystery had to do with some ‘inappropiate’ selection.
The Auto mask brush works fine with clear colour / luminance differencies, but you get in ‘trouble’ when they are close. Then I either edit the selection by calling the Eraser tool (and varying it’s opacity / soft edge …) or I throw the Auto mask out, zoom further into the pic and use the Manual brush.
With some exercise you get to know the tools’ limits – and how to use them to your advantage to get good (enough) selections.
Suppose you noticed in ‘my’ example, that the Auto mask was deactivated. When you turn it on, the section so treated appears somewhat in 3D – well not really, but the much higher contrast on the coal ship in conjunction with the darkened sky attracts your attention. 
just experiment
Wolfgang
Hedley Wright:
I’m rarely using Photolab now. Lightroom’s masking has become so fast and easy that it’s now my editor of choice. Adaptive custom presets take it to a new level. The new noise reduction is also close to DXO’s.
Wolfgang wrote:
… which needs to be improved
(straight lines, option to fix/secure the mask against accidental movement,
better tablet/Wacom support and …)
Fineus wrote:
Chiming in here on the overall topic (I’ve not read the whole thread in-depth, sorry but there’s a lot to go through there).
I do think some intelligent masking tools (and) greater control of what we have would be beneficial.
- Control Points are great but only circular. Why? For so many applications in shaping light (particularly on landscapes) it’s useful to be able to morph the circle into an ellipse. So many tutorials for photo editing use this.
- AI Masking. Like it or not… Lightroom has a huge advantage here as people will see it, like it and want to use it. With a single click on Lightroom Mobile I can have my subject masked with reasonable precision - where I’d still be fiddling with auto-brushes or CPs in Photolab.
- CPs can be more powerful and I certainly see the benefit of them (and being able to adjust them by Luma and Chroma) but they can be more technical to set up with precision and are very tedious to use for any bulk editing work as you have to copy the Local Adjustments then go into them in each new photo and move everything ever so slightly. Meanwhile in Lightroom for some masks you simply ‘auto-detect’ the new image and the mask adjusts to suit where the subject has moved. If shooting a dog or a person (for example), Lightroom comes out as a much faster solution.
I’m a big advocate of Photolab for all manner of reasons, but do think it’ll struggle to attract attention if it sleeps on this and it’s a deciding factor for shoppers.
Above you have a very short and precise comment on this discussion that I somehow heated a bit when I commented on Joannes post on using Contol Lines as the solution for “all” need of more “Intelligent masking”. I think Hedley Wright nailed what it´s all about that some here love to avoid thinking of.
@MSmithy
You have worked very hard to convince me that you don´t need anything else than Photolab to solve all your needs of postprocessiong - so hard that I really wonder why you still embrace Photoshop so hard that your knuckles all gets white (like very many older photographers - because there are many older photographers that has got stuck there in Photoshop since 90-ties despite, they might not need it at all and would get a far better and more effective flow if skipping the TIFF roundtrips)
My answer to you is that you totally miss the point, because what I try to explain is that Photolab is very much like a user interface mess that gives far from a logical workflow. It has a lot of different tools that works in a none consistent way. Some tools can just be used within the bolted on Local Adjustments.
In Capture One every single tool can be used both globally and in “local” layers in the same consistent and easy to understand way. There is a 20+ set of very useful and effective Style Brushes to begin with and on top of that every user can easily make their own. Compare that to the completely stiff and non-extensible interface of Local Adjustments.
In Capture One there is also a very smart thing that let you save a selection of a global color as a new layer after picking it with a pippette like in Photolab Color Wheel but in Color Wheel that is totally impossible because it just can´t communicate with the Local Adjustment system. Because there is no communication between the different part of Photolab we can´t get access to the tools in Local Adjustment in order to polish that selection and for example clean all the color clutter we don´t want to have in the picture. I consider this a real stupid workflow obstacle and if I was the cheif designer of PL this should be my first case to solve.
I have been a great supporter of Photolab and even Optics Pro despite its limitations and since I always upgrade to support DXO I could as well subscribe - it would not make any difference. Still I´m quite worried about Photolab’s future. Photolab has been quite superior to Lightroom when it comes to image quality but that gap is closed now since Adobe finally has managed to fix a good noise reduction that might be in par with Phootolab. Creative Cloud is a very strong offer and to a very reasonable price and the advantages for Photolab is quickly vanishing.
On top of that DXO allows itself lead times to fix camera profiles as long as 6 months (Sony A7 IV) as its worst, that stops many professionals from choosing Photolab as a professional tool because they will never know if they will be able to use PL with files from their new cameras.
Photolab also blocks many workflows based on DNG which makes it unsuitable for files scanned by industry standard scanner software Vuescan and others. DNG from Capture One can´t be opened in Photolab today either. That way they have closed the whole Cultural Heritage market world-wide. If you have standardized on DNG you will be far better off with Lightroom.
**… and finally again Hedley Wrights words: **
“Lightroom’s masking has become so fast and easy that it’s now my editor of choice. Adaptive custom presets take it to a new level. The new noise reduction is also close to DXO’s.”
Even your own video link that points to the Lightroom guru Scott Kelby is also very convincing. His word about the new masking tools in Lightroom were “effortless”.
It is not me who love to make my life unnessessary “compiicated”, that happens just to be a sideeffect of pin pointing work flow imperfections. As a former developer I still have a hawk eye on bottle necks and work flow imperfections and there are very few commercial softwares i have found so inconsistent in the userinterface as Photolab. Besides a very needed action on these problems DXO have to get on track with more smart and more efficient masking and layer tools and they can begin with picking the lowest hanging fruits. I think that is to open a communication between the global Color Wheel and the Local Adjustments layer system.
With these words I think I have said what I want to say in this tread because i don´t think we will get so much further than this.
… and I have no intension to intentionally embarrass the DXO-folks more than I already have done. I know they don´t like what I write since they don´t publish certain posts before controlling what I write first. I have no other intention than to help improve the software there is and if they don´t want to have that dialog I wont disturb.
Since the quote of my own first posy in this thread got eight likes I believe that these people are interested in “real intelligent masing”: (not just adapt to sometimes dull tools because those happened to be the only ones there)
"That is not what it means. You are talking about “lines” when we need something much more smart, flexible and adaptable. We need something with far better precision and adaptability than “control lines” can offer. We haven’t even something primitive like the “radial mask” in Capture One, we have lines that we try to apply even to a hole. I´m surprised they haven´t given us at least a radial mask too, when they gave us the “lines”.
We need more magic than that!
Yes, you can use Control Lines to a few different scenarios but it’s like to compare a “marten hair brush” with a “piassava broom” or a pair of “forged pliers” with a “pincette”. Control Lines is just some emergency equipment you have to use because there isn´t anything better there to use.
“There`s a hole in the bucket dear Eliza dear Eliza…”"
That is not correct. That is your interpretation perhaps, but I’ve never claimed PhotoLab solves all my needs of post-processing. That was your interpretation. A wrong one.
Unless you can demonstrate why that is so, it remains your opinion is not a fact. And I disagree with your opinion. Quite the opposite to you, I have stayed with DXO since I started using it, back in version 1.0 and I’ve used lightroom since 1.0 and Capture one since a very long time. I’ve worked with few shots , theatered shooting in the studio, weddings with multiple shooters with up to 5000 + photos that needed to be processed. I chose DXO because I find that is works for me the best. If it does not for you, that’s fine, but your opinion is hardly a fact… unless you can back it up with some evidence.
Does this make a better end result? It depends on the user. I made this point before. Unless you can demonstrate a realistic situation where an image cannot be colored corrected and “developed” to a satisfactory level, it’s just a user thing. When I switched from Lightroom to Capture one, it took me a while to adjust, but I never liked its user experience. That’s my personal preference. When I tried DXO it was a natural fit. It just felt right for me. It’s a matter or personal preference when it comes to the user interface and workflow, but all these programs are very capable to do most tasks one would need, and each has their pros and cons.
Again, show me where this is a problem. Why would I need that? What would be a scenario where I would be in need of using Capture one over DXO in this specific way? I don’t see it. I’ve worked on so many images it’s not even funny. I’ve not found a situation where I needed something that I could not do in DXO when it comes to processing RAW files. And for any extra work or retouching I use tools that are more suited for that which can be found in Photoshop, as I’ve mentioned before. If you have a problem with DXO in an image, something realistic, I would love to see it. Because other than some crazy idea that is unrealistic, I doubt the usefulness of tools you claim are of critical importance. I find it to be a matter of preference more than anything as well as different approach to processing raw files.
Ultimately it’s like cameras, they are just tools. You can give a smartphone camera to an experience photographer and they will make a good photo. Good in composition, lighting, etc. You can also give an inexperienced amateur the best camera money can buy, and do you expect he will produce better photographs? Not likely. The same is with these programs. A lot of is doing to the user. Most cameras like most raw processors today will be good at base level stuff, and they differ as you start to go into nitpicking. In my experience, if the user has problems with the tools, it’s not always the tools. In fact, most of the time it’s the user that is the bottleneck.
Judging by your bias towards Capture one and dismissal of existing tools in DXO, I can only conclude that it’s the problem is in you or in your expectations if you cannot get well processed photos from DXO PhotoLab. As for the special needs, I’m still waiting for a demonstration of that.
Adobe is a giant company that does not care about its users but it has virtually endless budget because of other reasons. So its not a fair comparison for a small company like DXO to compete in the same space.
Creative cloud is actually not cheap at all, but more to the point you rent, you don’t own the software. There are many other problems with that as I’ve mentioned some of them in the past. But if that is your thing, go for it.
As for image quality, DXO always stated that was their primary goal and they are still the best at overall image quality. Lightroom AI denoise, is not ideally implemented at the moment but it will be improved in the future I’m sure. Adobe team has said so.
What’s next?
“Denoise is our third Enhance feature. We’re proud of what it can do today, but we’re already looking ahead to make it even better. For instance, we have some ideas on how to use additional training data to improve resolution. We’d like to support additional file formats and combine Denoise with Super Resolution. We’re even looking into ways to speed up the workflow by not needing to make a new DNG file. It’s a very exciting time, and you can expect us to continue making big strides forward in AI-powered image editing.”
What Adobe is not offering yet is all the special optical corrections, lens sharpness and demoseicing and noise reduction all in one program. Both Capture One and Lightroom tend to crop a lot of the image rather than correct for optical distortions as well as DXO does, and in the case of Capture one this is particularly noticable. You can see in the program just how much they crop. For the time being ability to produce best quality overall and most corrected image, is still the main advantage of DXO. That is the objective fact. Not just my opinion. Until Capture one and Adobe catch up or surpass DXO, I still think DXO is best choice if one is interested in best quality possible out of a RAW.
Also the way Capture one business model is heading with more focus on subscription model as well it favors DXO as the best altergative that is not going in that direction, bussiness wise. As more people look to migrate off the big brands because of the woke ideology, subcription model, and other underhanded practices, there will be space for smaller companies to fill in the space left behind by the big corporations.
Yes, effortless if you want to select something. But image processing in these raw programs is not really about precise selections most of the time. Its about balancing tone and color of what is already captured and for that precise selections are rarely needed considering all the tools we have. Just because one can, does not mean it should or it is needed. Like I said, show me realistic real world examples if you think there is an objective reason for it, otherwise its a matter or personal preferences.
I’ve been reading lot of forums for a long time and there is this natural tenancy to be features or gear oriented. If only I would have this or that feature in my camera or my program I would make so much better images. Or comparing one brand to the next, one program to the next. In reality though, those that work daily with these programs, usually are far less vocal and far more specific and value fundamentals more than anything. Speed, stability etc. Speaking of that, I sure would love to see speed and stability improvements in DXO as I would love to see it in all applications off course for obvious reasons.
There was a period where both DXO I think prior to DXO PL 4 was quite slow and there was period when Lightroom went on the cloud after version 6 I think where they were really buggy and slow. Over time they improved. Capture one is quite snappy it seems, but they too sometimes make bizzare choices, like when they changed export module in capture one. Everyone freaked out, because it broke their established workflow. Important thing for those who work with it daily.
Interesting way to put it. I don’t see that anyone was embarrassed. Since you failed to demonstrate anything to back up your claims about “useless” and “archaic” masking tools in DXO , I would leave the comments about embarrassment for some other occasion.
Should I really point out the level of these things in Photoshop? Or lightroom for that matter.
Well, lets just ask Deke the very old and respected Photoshop educator, what he thinks about the consistancy in User interface/ experiance in say Photoshop.
10 Things I HATE about Photoshop!
If you watch that, you might notice that PhotoLab is doing just fine, thank you very much.
Well , as I’ve constitutionally said. I’m not against improvements or new features, but the call existing tools usefully and dull is just more of a confession about you the user, than it is about the tools. The tools are just fine… if you know how to use them and you are not cyncial about it.
I think you simplifies this question a lot. It´s certainly not that simple. The workflow and user interface limitations makes it even impossible to get access to some of the tools depending on where you are in the application. … and some of the tools are really unusable for some usage. Nothing strange with that either. I have explained that just above. If you would be more fair in your argumentation you would not ignore the work flow effectivity aspects because they often affects or controls what tools we actually use. … and you go to Photoshop of some reason despite you say you can do everything you need in Photolab. I say I will go for Capture One of the same reasons but I differ in my opinion that I dont agree that I get the same quality when it comes to the need of more control and precision.
Some tools are really to prefer for a certain job over others. Is that really a controversial stance? When I once was a flight engineer a had a lot of different tools in my tool box. Some general and some specialized for certain tasks. Some made by myself to suit special needs. Almost exactly like Capture One works today - since it´s extensible but that is not exactly the same picture I have of Photolab.
Hmm. You keep claiming that, but I have not seen an example that would make me agree with you.
I never said that. I never claim I have everything I need in Photolab, I have everything I need in Photolab for what I use the program. I use Photoshop for other things that its better at and meant to be used for. its part of the overall workflow. Nothing wrong with that. There are dozens of programs I use on daily basis, and I don’t complain its not all in one program. If I need to email my image I use dedicate email program, I don’t bitch and moan about how its missing in image editing program, if you get my drift.
That fine. I’m just still a bit confused about the need for control and precision. To what outcome I ask. I don’t have the need or the problem you have, and I don’t need to do that in a raw processing program. If I do actual compositing or retouching, Photoshop is the obvious choice, not Capture one or lightroom. You can do some basics in these programs, sure. But other than that, it becomes more trouble than its worth and one quickly ends up finding limitations in both compositing and retouching, simply because neither capture one or lightroom are meant to be tools for that job.
Even basics in these programs, like cloning and healing etc, its like trying to drive with a spare tire under 60 km/h. You can, but its no fun and its not ideal solution.
Not at all. I am the same way. But if you are going to bash tools other find useful, you better bring some evidence to the discussion. That’s all.
They each have their strength and weakness, as does lightroom. But they are all capable raw processing tools. End results will in terms of creative choices be more related to users chocies and use of existing tools that will all do the job well, than lack of features. Image quality is a difference matter because its more objective. Noise reduction, resolving details and that kind of things. But creative choices, are different thing. Its up to the user. And the skill that he has.
There is just one thing today that makes me continue with Photolab and it´s the integration with PhotoMechanic as a metadata editor and metadata database. It´s far superior as a combo than Lightroom or for that matter Capture One. I tried to integrate Capture One with PM Plus but it couldn´t match Pl and PM Plus at all.
Capture One is so much more sophisticated than Photolab though and it really suits me much better as aconverter but as it is now I´m a stuck here with a software I´m less and less impressed by. I´m sad to say that DXO have lost most of the R&D momentum the last years. Maybe it´s all because they laid most other things to the side when they built the PictureLibrary. So something really has to happen because if it doesn´t Adobe and Lightroom will eat them alive. I give DXO a year or two if they don´t get it together.
I also do a lot of repro photo with Capture One that is state of the art for tethering. Now even wireless with Sony A7 IV that I use. Photolab has not any support at all for tethering so I will need CO of that reason too.
Yes I had already talked about on other posts because DXO gradually loses its leadership on certain functions.
Now you have to offer much more, which other software is doing with their more complete solutions.
I’m waiting to see what PL7 will offer but I’m starting to look at elsewhere.
Likewise…
