I downloaded a PL9 30-day trial but have been too busy to dive in. I’ll get to serious editing eventually, but right now I’d be grateful if experienced users could tell me: Is there a feature like Lightroom Classic’s “Auto” (but better) that yields one-click adjustments on photos you need to process but don’t merit lots of attention? If so, what’s the workflow from Lightroom Classic? Thanks much.
You can create a Preset that turns on automatic exposure, contrast etc. in fact a lot of the adjustments have an Auto option. It looks like a magic wand next to each setting.
in the example below it’s turned on.
Turn on all the settings you want by default then create a Preset.
This is an answer but I’d add that I don’t find PhotoLab’s auto-exposure etc. to be very good as it seems to like to push the histogram in to a centred curve, regardless of what the image actually needs.
Meanwhile other functions like auto-noise-reduction and auto-contrast don’t seem to look at the image, they just retain a certain preset number which is applied to the image when turned on.
In other words you’ll get automated edits but they might not be very satisfying.
I’d advise that OP takes some time to learn the program and carefully craft their own presets as a solid starting point from which they can alter just a few things (crop, exposure etc.) to complete the edit. Unfortunately it sounds like they’re too busy/not yet in a position to be able to do that.
Anecdotally I find PhotoLab to be more of a “hand craft and tweak every individual image” rather than a “batch edit 100 images” type tool. It’s good for taking your time over every shot, but not built for easy automation.
Have you tried Smart Lighting?
1 Like
I have, that’s one of the things I’m talking about - go in too hard and it tends to wash everything out (in my experience). Less = more.
But then we’re back to creating a “mild” preset and tweaking each image to get a finished look, rather than punching “auto everything” and getting a solid usable edit.
“Better” is a word I’m kind of allergic to 
I propose you take some time and assemble a set of images that work and don’t work with LrC’s “Auto” feature and then list the things that LrC does and doesn’t provide compared to what you expect. Doing this helps to
- know and document your aesthetic baseline or requirement
- analyse how apps deal with different kinds of images in respect to the above
→ list the pro’s and cons of the app depending on image characteristics
One such baseline/requirement could be: “I want night shots to keep the night feeling”.
From what I’ve seen from different apps, auto-settings don’t provide better or worse results. If results look “better”, it’s probably because the image(s) used for testing more closely fit the “expectations” of the app and its built-in auto adjustments and not the other way ‘round.
In order to find the suitable (not better) app, test with a widest possible variety of photos you normally take and see what you get and how easy it is to use. Once selected, stick to that app for a few years.
Jumping ship every six months will simply keep you busy in the steep part of the app learning curves …
4 Likes
Thanks all for making time to reply. I’m in the midst of a couple of very full days, but will take a good look at your thoughtful suggestions by Saturday. I really appreciate your generosity in sharing ideas.
1 Like
The one thing I would do to improve things is to pick a default preset that will be automatically applied to all of your images. I think that by default the initial preset used is ’Natural colours’ which is quite oversaturated.
Even if you just choose from 1 of the existing presets, it can help. Just try out the most promising looking presets on a few of your images, and choose the one you like best. Set this as the initial preset (in preferences). Then any images you add after that point will automatically have your preferred [reset applied (it doesn’t retrospectively go back and change pre-existing images).
This can buy you a little time until you are able to explore the product a bit more.
If you find a preset you like and you want to apply it to all the images you have already viewed in PL, just delete the database. Then each time you open an image in PL it is 'the first time in effect, and your new default preset is applied.
PL is well worth getting to know.
I thank you all again for your thoughtful suggestions, and apologize for not responding in detail sooner; just crazy busy. For the images prompting my question (they don’t need extensive editing), I concluded after a few tests that round-tripping to and from PL9 or some other option, e.g. Radiant Photo, wouldn’t be worth the time I’d save using LrC’s Auto function simply because of familiarity. May I ask a different question now? I’m a longtime Lightroom Classic and Photoshop user, happy with both, and have no reason to abandon either. However, I tested noise reduction on some high-ISO raws in PL9, and DxO handles them much better (for my taste) than LrC or Ps. So I will purchase either PL9 or PureRaw5 for that feature. Would there be any significant advantage to buying PL9 rather than PureRaw5? Are there features other than PL9’s brilliant noise reduction that might make PL9 the smarter buy? If I had more time to play around with PL9, what other star feature or two beyond high-ISO noise reduction might warrant jumping in there occasionally, if you know? Thanks again, and happy Almost Weekend.
The AI masking is decent, it got off to a rocky start and there have been some performance issues but things seem to be a tad more able now (at least on a Mac).
I was using CaptureOne for database and most editing and Pixelmator when I wanted some AI masking. PL9 allowed be to use just one tool, though PL9 is lacking in database management.
As with all software, familiarity will soon generate time-saving and you’ll likely soon be able to create some presets that will allow you to easily adjust photos to your liking.
Its a pity the trial period is only a month, for people who have a full-time job and other commitments it may not be enough time to really get a feel for it.
In your case, probably not, since you are doing all your editing in LrC or PS. Just understand PureRAW is designed as a pre-processor, i.e. don’t start editing in LrC / Ps and then pass the file over to PureRAW for noise reduction because PR won’t recognise the edits you’ve already made. First use PR to demosaic and denoise then pass the file to LrC / Ps for editing.
Having said that, why don’t you download and run the PL free trial? The trial version is not crippled in any way and it runs for 30 days. You might find you prefer it to LrC / Ps.
Well, as Emily Litella famously said (for those old enough to know): “Never mind!” After running side-by-side, high-ISO noise reduction tests using trial versions of PL9 and PR5, I’m gonna pick PL9. I prefer its loupe function, and it’ll allow me - as some of you kindly suggested - to gin up a preset that does more than reduce noise if I want a different starting point than I could get from PR5 on the dng that comes back to LrC/Ps. Might also look at Nik. I used and enjoyed Nik Color Efex years ago. Thanks again for all the good and generous advice here. And hey, O.F.A.P., I love your handle. 
Happy Friday!
1 Like