New user with a weird problem. I just purchased Photolab 7. I also downloaded the trial for Pure Raw and installed it. In Photolab, the lens softness correction is not showing up. I also installed the filmpack trial. The filmpack shows up but not pure raw.
Am I doing something wrong? tried uninstalling and reinstalling and no luck. wondering if this is because it’s only a trial?
Thanks in advance.
Hi and welcome here,
if the cam is recognized and the lens profile active, it looks like this.
.
I wonder why you are testing Pure Raw, whose features are included in PL,
except for the current Denoise model, probably expected in the soon (?) upcoming PL 8.
( deleted – unexpected double post )
Thanks, I thought the same thing. I bought the elite version so I thought it would be there. Then I thought maybe that was part of Pure Raw which is why I downloaded it.
The camera I’m using is the X-H2s, I can’t imagine it wouldn’t be supported. The lens I used was the Canon 70-200 F2.8 an old lens that I’m sure is supported.
So I figured maybe I installed something wrong, but I guess it’s the combination using an adapted lens that doesn’t exist? Shame cause adapting the Canon to Fuji is half my photos…
But I checked other images with normal combinations and it worked.
I do find it weird though that the tool pallet for lens softness correction doesn’t show up at all if a lens or adapter I guess in this case, isn’t supported. I would think it would be greyed out and inaccessible, but not gone completely.
Thanks for your help.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think I’ve seen any mention of lens-body combos of different brands. Fuji-with-Fuji, Canon-with-Canon etc, but not Fuji-with-Canon. There are many thousands of combinations already, if hybrid ones were to be tested that would be exponentially more work for a relatively rarer (I would say) use case.
I just didn’t understand how it worked. I thought if the lens was listed and the body was listed, it was good to go. I didn’t realize it was taking them together as a combo. And yes, it is a rare pairing, but it’s a great setup for sports.
Basically gives stacked sensor fps speed with a FF equivalent 100-300mm reach @ F2.8.
I wouldn’t have questioned this except I find it odd that option disappears completely if the setup isn’t one that has been tested. It should still be there, just not accessible.
As a new user, I only know it exists because I wasn’t getting good results with unsharp mask alone and I found posts about using the lens softness first and tweaking it with unsharp mask. So when I went back to try that and it was missing I got concerned.
To supplement and (partially) answer @Oak’s question/problem …
This is what it looks like when the camera is recognized
(otherwise you wouldn’t see the picture at all)
but without a lens profile, be it
as in your case
that the lens adapter does not pass on the required lens information
or no lens profile available for this lens.
.
To counteract the unavailable correction
you can use the classic Unsharp mask and set it up manually,
(which would result in oversharpening if used in conjunction with a lens profile)
but also zoom in to 75% and check the edge offset too …
From what I can tell, DxO supports 22 makes of camera. If they were to support only one lens from another manufacturer per body, that would make over 4,000,000 combinations. Now imagine if they supported, say, 20 lenses per body, the numbers soon rise exponentially and they would need to obtain one of every body and one of every lens for testing. So @Oak don’t be surprised that they don’t support cross-brand pairing.
I just don’t understand why you have to have a body & Lens together? Lightroom corrects for lenses independent of the body. Or at least give an option to choose which to use the lens or the body if the combination doesn’t exist.
I don’t expect them to have every combination imaginable, but maybe combinations isn’t the best way to go about it?
Regardless, the toolbar was completely missing in my case just because my combination of lens and body was missing. That seems like an oversite in the GUI design. It should still be there even it you can’t use it.
These are shortcomings - but DxO has described themselves as having very exacting standards. I suppose that having only lens corrections without camera body data - and vice-versa - would be unreliable and imprecise. I believe they’ve mentioned that in the past.
The disappearance of the toolbar is also a deliberate design decision on their part.
Have a read of this. DxO do not do what Adobe do.
And, in English…
Curiously, I was on the English page when I copied the URL.
Only options visible but not accessible are the one you can buy but have not (Filmpack options if you do not have bought it). Their clutter the interface and it can get very annoying (just try to select a frame if you only have an old filmpack version and you’ll see how annoying it is). Or look at the luminosity mask you can’t use every time you open local adjustments (even if this feature has been asked for photolab and not filmpack !).
Yes, DxO can’t hide those functions that are not part of the software (support told me it is a near impossible task to acheive), but they can hide functions that are part of the software …
A bit like being taken for a fool.
Yes, I had to edit the link after pasting it in the message.
Yes, I’ve noticed that with dxo.com links as well. To ensure the forum displays the EN version of the page , you often have to edit the URL, to include an explicit ‘en/’ after the ‘.com/’.
Except a colour shift of a lens – can you name any feature to which it matters which sensor records the image? Also, I‘d be interested in a really good reason (keeping the profiling team busy would be one) to not go the LR / C1 way of dealing with missing lens profiles?
I could understand DxO‘s stickiness to their concept if there would be huge differences between sensors. Theses days, that is – in the old days were more sensor fabs producing differently featured types. Noise, colour interpretation, dynamics were different. But how big is the market share of Sony sensors today?
I just cannot imagine how a lens could help with narrow dynamic range or high shadow noise? Vice versa, what can a sensor improve if the lens is soft, has lots of CA, weak corners?
@Oak I found that a bit of a contradiction:
An old, soft lens means you‘re highly depending on extra artificial sharpening. If you like the outcome, that‘s a matter of taste, but to expect support for one genuine lens to another genuine system? Just try to calculate the number of lens tests to all bodies currently and long ago on the market. Not to mention the loads of 3rd party lenses available. I‘d go crazy in less than a week if I had to profile a few dozens of them.
Sure, you can adapt a Ford Tin Lizzy‘s engine into a Jaguar of 1980 and enjoy the outcome, I recently saw a Citroën 2CV with a BMW 100RS engine combined which raises some questions in the car insurance‘s contract department.
The image circle, maybe? Or diffraction parameters? Or something to do with demosaicing? I don’t know how it works. Only that DxO has insisted on this for over a decade.
You can always try to alter the EXIF data of your RAW file that specifies the camera body, so that DxO software will apply a correction module. Then you will see if things look right or not and can submit a support request to DxO to make your case.
Blockquote An old, soft lens means you‘re highly depending on extra artificial sharpening. If you like the outcome, that‘s a matter of taste, but to expect support for one genuine lens to another genuine system?
The lens isn’t old. It’s probably the most popular lens Canon ever made next to maybe their 24-70. I meant it was old in the sense it’s not a mirrorless lens. But this lens is still sold new for over $2k (US). It’s certainly not an obscure lens from the film era.
Also, the lens isn’t soft, but you have to sharpen raw images. And the unsharp tool isn’t that great. In fact, the poor quality of the unsharp mask lead me to research how to sharpen in dxo. I figured i was doing something wrong, and i was i wasn’t using the soft lens correction. Dxo recommended using that first. Then using unsharp mask to refine it. Except in my case, lens correction was missing.
Also, when i said that, I didn’t understand that DXO requires the combination of a lens and body to have been previously tested in order for these tools to work.
To be honest, I find that odd that DXO works this way. Mainly for two reasons, no other software does that to my knowledge and the golden rule in photography has always been, lenses over bodies. Meaning the lens is more important than the body and you can keep a lens much longer than the bodies.
This tool does not give enough control in photolab to be really usefull.
Just do manual sharpening with other softwares.
What their marketing sell are correction modules created on the basis of laboratory tests carried out on lens/camera combinations, allowing to correct defects/weaknesses that would otherwise go uncorrected.
Is this really effective ? I wouldn’t say.
But I must admit that I really appreciate their softness correction.
If you take this specificity away from photolab, what’s left as a strong point to set it apart from other software and compensate for its weak points, now that its hegemony in noise reduction no longer exists ?
Only the fact that it offers (offered ?) a perpetual license, if this does not disappear in the near future too. Moreover, a DxO bankruptcy would mean the end of all new licenses about 1 month after the shutdown of their servers, now that they require a monthly internet connection so as not to be invalidated.
Keep your versions prior to those requiring an internet connection backep up !!!
