After I have created a mask if I rotate the image the mask doesn’t rotate with the image, surely the mask should be related to the image rotation.
3 Likes
Yes, one has to be careful to do all geometric and horizon corrections first. This feature request already exists and has received comments from DxO. It needs more votes, though!
I can’t believe more people haven’t voted for this.
I think a lot of people use PL as a basic RAW converter then do more editing in Photoshop or Affinity.
I have used both Lightroom and Capture 1 in the past and did 99% of my processing in them without having to use Affinity.
I think without all the little workflow bugs and missing features Photolab could compete with LR and C1 as a one-stop RAW processor.
1 Like
Many of the people on this site have been users of PhotoLab for a number of years and are very aware of this limitation. This subject has not come up often recently, but it was addressed by a number of us several years ago. DXO is very familiar with this limitation and have chosen to ignore it in favor of other enhancements.
There is currently a huge backlog of requested enhancements to existing features and desirable new features. This particular issue is only one of dozens of items in that backlog.
Since DxO provides PhotoLab with only about a dozen new and upgraded features for each new annual version, a lot of us would prefer they focus on new features instead of spending their limited resources on an issue for which there is an reasonable workaround.
In a perfect world, I agree that it would be nice if this issue as well as the dozens of other backlogged issues were finally addressed. However, this is not a perfect world and the downside is that it would require a year or two with even less in the way of new features in PhotoLab than we’re getting now. It’s a trade-off.
Mark
Mark, you’ve built a reputation as an infamous apologist for the failings of DxO to solve basic issues like support for mobile DNG (iOS/Android: both of which they’ve supported in the past) but this one takes the cake. Rotating masks along with the image is about one of the simplest features DxO could add, it’s just numbers and geometry. A good programmer should be able to break the back of this request in an afternoon.
Vote for the feature, instead, old chap. I have.
What am I missing? The masks I make rotate, flip and distort. Using “undo” has unexpected results. It won’t undo 90 degree rotations and flips, but it will reverse other geometric alterations?
Alec, I think I may not have made myself clear. I am not apologizing in any way for DxO regarding this issue or the many others they have failed to fix over the years. What I was attempting to convey was that after years of inaction these issues are probably not going to get resolved anytime soon, if ever. I think that is a realistic assumption.
Further, considering the paucity of new and upgraded features from year to year, it seems obvious to me that if DxO were to focus on fixing each and every feature with a known issue, as has often been promised, there would likely be an impact on the resources needed for the development of new features.
I am not happy about the lack of attention given to the growing backlog of issues, and like many here I have developed workarounds as needed. Despite its large number of issues, for me, PhotoLab is still very worthwhile software. It is unfortunate and frustrating that DxO has chosen not to allocate the resources needed to address the longstanding backlog.
Mark
4 Likes
Yes. When I discuss this with the photographers around me who are using or have been using Photolab or PureRAW, I find that the trend is indeed : “let’s PureRAW do the demosaicing and denoising work when really necessary and look elsewhere for the rest of the post-processing”.
As time goes by and the list of so-called “minor” but uncorrected problems grows longer, these many minor and neglected problems are slowly becoming one big issue. I don’t change my mind : if DxO are confident in their product (and they have many good reasons to be), they should invest in their development resources. If they don’t, it’s their customers who will lose confidence.
This mask rotation issue is typical. Of course we can do all the geometric and optical corrections first but very often, the “finishing” work in the real world implies making a few adjustments after the fact. Post-processing a photo is not like manufacturing a part in a factory. We are not robots.
In all post-processing software I’m aware of, the basic rule is that the order of corrections applied to RAW files doesn’t matter. Photolab is breaking the rule and that’s not a good idea not to fix this.
3 Likes
It is working because you are using a luminosity mask.
3 Likes
Which, of course, is luminosity based rather than position based
1 Like
More votes?
Such blunders should emmideately surface to the top of any bug-list.
1 Like
My experience about long lasting bugs is that there are 2 main reasons for these issues to remain uncorrected :
-
The developers really don’t care.
-
There’s a design flaw in the software that prevents the issue from being fixed because this would imply a complete rewrite of a good part of it.
I usually name this kind of bugs : “eternal bugs” (which means “give up any hope”)… unless they eventually reach the status of “Feature”. It’s just a matter of time.
2 Likes
PL has been in need of a rewrite for years but if DXO can’t even get old bugs sorted there is little hope until grinds to a halt with all old bodges effecting it. When I used Light room it had a total reprogram many years ago and was transformed as have other programs undergoing it. But to do a rewrite needs commitment of resorces and acceptance it needs to be done and I don’t see either present with DXO
3 Likes
Every approach has its drawbacks, amply illustrated by this dichotomy.
Yes, it’s kind of zkarj.
But at least you can watch the open source for yourself and decide.
And I agree, Darktable has a nice and modern UI too, provided you choose the grey interface; the black one reminds me of the Catholic garb.
You misunderstand me. I find the Darktable UI to be an impenetrable mess of detail with almost no sense of design. PhotoLab’s isn’t brilliant, but its head and shoulders above Darktable.
1 Like
Sorry to hear that you failed in your investigation of Darktable. No worries, you are certainly not alone. It takes effort and will to take on new challenges before you can experience the blessings of a quite different layout with a much wider set of options.
Darktable is probably not suited for wedding photographers, but otherwise professionals are happy to use it. Darktable is the rally car that leaves the family cars: ACR, Lightroom, Capture One and PhotoLab behind.
Only the sharpening features need help, and DxO PureRAW 4 is perfect for that.
1 Like
Does pureraw has all parameters PL has when it’s about denoising and lens softness or only presets like low-medium-high instead of sliders with continuous values ?
Because since loupe exists I am able to fine tune those very quickly and precisely for any image and it is great.
No, in PureRAW it’s still a choice between a number of grades, soft, standard, strong, hard - and each with a formidable increase of fine definition.
I regularly use “soft” and intensify sharpness in Darktable if necessary.
I can also regulate high frequency skarpness in several ways in Darktable to make them less harsh and more “pleasant”.
Different blending modes are awailable for almost all tools. Furthermore they can be repeated as if they were layers, like in Capture One and Photoshop.
Actually I lied.
PureRAW 4 has for DeepPRIME and DeepPRIME XD2s / XD an Advanced option with two sliders: Luminance and Force details.
Sorry about that.