Off-Topic - advice, experiences and examples, for images that will be processed in PhotoLab

I think what most people trying to say is if you need to fix it it started wrong. in or out your reach of control doesn’t matter.
If you take effort in the taking part you have a better start at postdeveloping.
Fixing tools are always usefull.
Lots of tools in dxopl we asked for our selfs. All of them are fixingtools.
Some/most of them can create artefysial looks.
Like the blur slider which is to control DoF. Only in the way you can make more blur and less DoF NOT the otherway around.
Why? You can mutch, blur rhings who are there in focus but out of focus things are just pixels which, in this case Sharpen AI, is guessing what those blobs of pixels should be presenting. Sometimes it’s done right sometimes it’s doen wrong.
If you use deepprime plus you get the same kind of feeling.

Personally i hope they don’t go much further in the guessing street.
Aldoh i would like to have a WB which can be used as auto correct overcast and misjudgement of awb in the camera.
Now i use an other application for that and take over the numbers in dxo.

That said.
Buy and use what ever you like to use to develop your images. It’s a free word.

To add,i was for my job at a photoprint studio and they had a very nice collection of arty photo’s on there walls. (i didn’t snapshot them with my phone i feld wrong about that in respect to the maker and my function at that time.)
Most of them where not real in any way but very powerfull and beautiful.
They took an well composed shot of an model human or animal and enhanched/modifyed it from there to surreal looks.
A bit like these

Let’s just leave it that I disagree.
…and if there is a “great sharpening tool built into PhotoLag”, when people do a “search”, why not point them to it?

I agree.

Having said that, there are people (like my nephew) who just wanted it to look “better”.
Of the people I suggest PhotoLab to, maybe I just should have told them to stick with Adobe.

Me? I don’t think the quality of an image is the absolute best judge of the image.
I think these photos are wonderful for giving viewers a feeling of “being there”.
By the standards I think you’re suggesting, they should all have been deleted.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&sca_esv=554056951&rls=en&sxsrf=AB5stBjn-YPXuZV5nTryX8YXL-bJXX-SFg:1691237126741&q=robert+capa+normandy+beach+photos&tbm=isch&source=univ&fir=negHj4KmyrjTeM%252CrqjUMdSRBbuqsM%252C_%253BwG-k7SqLyo6FhM%252C8oHwYAKRD7EOwM%252C_%253BvJwmgeUhIdJf7M%252CIp1i3LsHQy65aM%252C_%253BE6SEV5jqTrJAqM%252CEI2KCOq9tZjEoM%252C_%253BQZ69a0Z2opcZFM%252Ce29rm62o4Z9dwM%252C_%253BTmu7EYfl1Wum9M%252CPK2iR9WGqRrjdM%252C_%253BjMxfLDfHbAqJLM%252CGS-BPnMDs3lZaM%252C_%253BoH9jkbdtgMX1RM%252CQeoKvdOPuuAjOM%252C_%253BGzftV9zBXLV3FM%252Cw7GGcid4KVlK4M%252C_%253BtkeyhCS4e1daLM%252Cp1VmYYArC5ZLiM%252C_%253BsXrGqn8OfHR1qM%252C2Ecx-waV3tMw-M%252C_%253B3mfLwAPo-WDuLM%252Ce29rm62o4Z9dwM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kS1oHVqiBL1FIZduZZ7fEpViseMSA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTgK6hvcWAAxV_lWoFHWnoBv4QjJkEegQIGBAC&biw=1510&bih=1204&dpr=1

All things considered though, getting technically perfect images while being shot at ain’t something I would/could do.

There is a big difference between a RAW processor like PL and tools like PS, Topaz, etc.

PhotoLab is primarily a RAW processor that can deal some shooting problems but that is not their strength.

In the days of film, we used to run the negative film through developer, stop bath and fixer, but then we had a choice. We could either just get an “average” print by means of a single exposure under the enlarger and average development, or we could learn the skills necessary to manipulate the negative, using multi-grade paper, filters, multiple exposures and dodging and burning to get a far more creative and sometimes, better print.

Now, DxO have gone to a lot of time and effort to give us the ability to do all sorts of corrections but, just as there was nothing you do to completely recover blurred images from negatives, likewise, PL can only go so far. To do anything more needs a whole different generation of creative tools of a kind that old 35mm film photographers could only ever dream of.

With film, we could only get grainy 3200 ISO or much slower but finer grained 100 ISO film. We couldn’t change ISO partway through a roll and we certainly couldn’t reach the dizzy heights of the high ISO speeds that modern digital cameras give us.

We are no longer in the days of the limitations of grainy or slow films and comparing old war photos with modern family shots, is hardly fair. If I wanted to restore old images, then yes, I can scan them and use a pixel editor to try and improve them or I can follow your original ethic of never touching the original. And, believe me, sharpening a photo that was badly taken violates that rule big-time.

Which is why the public were happy with what they could get back then. Nowadays, there really isn’t any excuse for such defects.

For 100 ISO film, at f/16 for maximum depth of field, the fastest speed I could get to photograph a bright subject would be 1/60 sec. With a modern digital sensor, capable of 25,600 ISO, that rises to 1/8,000 sec. There is simply no excuse for blurred images nowadays. The camera is capable of stopping all movement if used correctly - any faults are totally down to operator error.

As for focus blur, we now have very efficient, tracking, auto-focus, so no excuse apart from operator error for that.

Then we have the advantage of being able to shoot in burst mode, so yet another reason to not get bad photos.

Otherwise, if an image is not perfect, either delete it or use tools especially created for the job.

Of course, if you really want an all-in-one tool, change to Affinity Photo - just don’t expect the same high quality RAW conversions that you would get from PL.

As others have rightly said, PL is not primarily a repair tool for bad images, it is a photographer’s tool for people who know how to make a great image.

4 Likes

I agree, but (at least for me) it is much more than that. I stopped using all my other image processing tools, and 99% of what I do is PhotoMechanic > PhotoLab.

As to the old war photographs - many of those photographers were well known photographers, in this case finding themselves drenched in salt water from having just gotten out of the landing craft, and trying to stay alive while capturing what they could. The photos look real, because they are real. The goal was to show the world what was going on.

You (all) win. I hope you at least understand what I’m trying to say here, but we’re discussing totally separate discussions. If you don’t understand what I mean, I’ll have to accept that, and move on.

OK, but when I fell in love with PhotoLab, I stopped using Adobe, Affinity, Photoshop, Lightroom, DarkRoom, and all the others. For me, it’s “one size fits all”. I’ve been trying to get Adobe users to give PhotoLab a try. Then I get questions like what I used to post here. I try to get the others to check out the PhotoJoseph videos, as a start.

I don’t think you meant that. What “defects” do you see in Robert Cape’s photos?

Would these image be better, had they been taken by a Nikon D890 ?

One last thing, which I enjoyed a lot. While Robert Capa didn’t have the benefits of the latest technology now, in 2023, he had something far more important - which reminds me of how wonderful your own photos from way back when looked so good. It’s the photographers not the camera - or as I now put it, it’s the Indian, not the Arrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1tEz5EOSg

Anyway, I’ll stop making any suggestions from now on.
Much better to spend my time here learning from the rest of you.
That’s why I first came to the forum, back when my middle name was LightRoom.

Except one size rarely fits all. Since PL is primarily a RAW processer there is no shame in using other applications for non-RAW files.

2 Likes

You are correct, let me rephrase:

“For me, one size fits all.”

Explanation: black&white, color, film, digital - since I first used PL3, the only time I use other software (DarkTable) was for my Leica M8.2, before I learned how to fake the EXIF data so PhotoLab would work. I’ve probably got ten or so other image editors on my computer, taking up space. One “size” works well enough for me to use PhotoLab for everything, even scanned images. Perhaps not optimal, but adequate.

What you wrote is obviously correct, but I have no desire to re-learn the old software apps.

“One size fits all” products of any kind are almost always heavily compromised and are rarely ever the best products available in their category. If that is the kind of software you require than PhotoLab is not the product for you. I suggest you stop wasting your time here and look at other products such Skylum’s AI based Luminar Neo and/or the Topaz AI suite. They are both flawed in many ways but may better suit your requirements. And best of all, you don’t have put in much effort to make them work. They do a lot of the thinking for you.

Mark

1 Like

I wrote “For me, one size fits all”, meaning I can do most of what I want to do in photography with one of my cameras, and with one of my image processors. I consider PhotoLab to be the best. You seem to want me to give it up because occasionally I need to edit a jpg image, or because I sometimes scan images from my film cameras?

I’m confused…why are we even discussing this? Just because I made a suggestion for future versions of PhotoLab???

Can we please move on?

The issue is not your suggestions for future versions of PhotoLab. It is that you continue to make comments indicating that after all this time and effort you still lack a basic understanding of what PhotoLab was designed to do and how to get the most from it, and why integrating something like Topaz AI as a repair tool with its tendency to over sharpen with very visible artifacts would not be a good idea. That is what is prompting me to suggest that perhaps moving on to software that does most of the work for you, and does not have a huge learning curve requiring you to make a significant personal effort, may better meet you requirements.

Mark

1 Like

Thank you very much for the suggestion.
To reply, I would rather “struggle with” PhotoLab than use the other software.
Thank you also for your opinion about Topaz AI.

Mark, I’ve been thinking about proposing this for a while and from what I’ve known him, he should be happier with it.

:+1:

2 Likes

If DarkTable ever catches up with PhotoLab, that’s the only other editor I have any desire to use, and if find myself away from home, with no access to PhotoLab, that’s what I would be using until I got home.

Even with me not being as good at using PhotoLab as each of you, I’ve got no intention of switching.
Despite your criticism, I am perfectly happy with PhotoLab, and have been despite my struggles.

Do all of you even have a backup software to use, if you find yourself away from home and your computer, and need to use someone else’s computer to edit some photos you just captured?

When I wanted to NOT be an Adobe fan-boy, and before I learned about DxO, and until PhotoLab worked with my Leica and my Fuji, I was also still using DarkTable.

Thanks anyway.

Now I know you’ve been sniffing the wacky-baccy. If ever there were a badly designed, hard to use, convoluted app, that would take the top prize.

Since it would mean installing another licence on someone else’s computer, that is not a likely scenario.

And, if I couldn’t use PhotoLab, there would be no point in doing anything to an image, just to have to rework it when I got home. Which is why I use my 16" MacBook Pro with a 27" Apple Studio Display at home and simply unplug it to go on a trip.

To my way of thinking, I love “open source” software, even if it’s not polished as well (yet) as commercial software.

I was lost for a while, just like in PhotoLab, but there are/were lots of YouTube videos explaining how to do things (again, just like PhotoLab).

My first thoughts about PhotoLab were to go back to Lightroom. But then, as now, I’m too stubborn to give up.

DarkTable can’t (yet) do all the wonderful things PhotoLab can do, but it wasn’t nearly as bad as you suggest, at least for me.

That it is open source means it is free.
Buying PhotoLab seems to be a yearly expense to me.

Is this really that difficult to do?

Sorry Mike, again you are in the wrong forum.

Just responding to Joanna’s post up above.
Sorry if that bothers you.

“badly designed, hard to use, convoluted app”… until I got used to it, that’s what I felt about PhotoLab, but I stuck with it anyway because of all the great stuff I read about PL. And PL does things that DarkTable can’t do (yet).

Thanks @Wolfgang - I wonder if I can replace the current forum title with simply “The Wrong Forum”? Probably not.

I wish I had thought of that 2,797 responses ago. Thank you. :slight_smile:
Over the past weekend I got my Lightroom and DarkTable working again, so I can remind myself of what they were/are like. I still prefer PhotoLab.

Contribute something constructive to the DxO Universe, otherwise please go elsewhere.

2 Likes

Wolfgang,

I normally agree with almost everything you post, but that is a little harsh, even for me. However, it would be nice if his participation went beyond his own self-serving threads. If Mike had been fully participating on this forum all along he might have learned much more about PhotoLab then he obviously has up to this point. Hopefully, the critical posts he has received recently from some of us will serve as a wake-up call and he will start to read and participate in threads other than his own. I hope he will also try harder to experiment on his own so he won’t require as much hand-holding from us.

Mark

I will certainly try.

Yeah, this topic started to feel like a “clubhouse”, which I admit I enjoyed.
Maybe I enjoyed it too much.
I find myself more interest in what each of you is doing, and why, than I am in the software.
Very intoxicating. …and interesting.
I never thought of this thread as “my own”. All I did was start it.
My participation led to posting lots of images, and enjoying the feedback. Guilty as charged.

Other than my editors years ago, there is nobody I know or know of who has had such a huge influence on my “photography” as Joanna, and sadly (as I see it) this is coming to an end. …but on the other hand, I think that’s what you all want, so I’ll go along too, but I won’t be posting images like before.

Funny though, I enjoyed the “hand holding” more than the “learning”. I guess that was yet another mistake on my part.

I don’t think I have anything constructive to contribute to the DxO Universe.
I’m certainly not going to “go elsewhere”, as PhotoLab is better than any other image editor I have used.