I really hope you don’t expect us to quote the fine user manual here? 
1 Like
No, I don’t. I doubt I have any need for it. All I want is for PhotoLab to process my images, then export them to the “PL Exports” folder, which goes along with my raw images.
I never heard of “PhotoLab Projects” before, and I had no idea there even was such a thing.
Apparently Ray used it, but then he had no idea where those photos went. He wanted to copy them to a thumb-drive, to give to his friend.
I did find out what “Projects” is:
I don’t see myself needing it at all.
My friend was lost, and confused, and I wasn’t much help, because I didn’t even know that Photolab includes “Projects”.
No, I don’t, but once you implied Projects was part of PhotoLab, I was able to find the above link.
For my friend Ray, all he wanted to do is get his exported images onto a thumb drive. Doing it the way I do it, exporting those images to a PL EXPORT FOLDER alongside his original images makes more sense to me. Especially for a newcomer.
Thanks for pointing out where I could look to understand this.
His photographs didn’t go anywhere. You should know by now that PhotoLab doesn’t move images files. Projects are just pointers to a grouping of photos from different folders. They are all exactly where they were originally located. You should avoid helping your friend too much, Since you still know so little about PhotoLab you will probably end up confusing him more than helping him and he will likely learn PhotoLab more quickly without your assistance. This is why I won’t help you anymore. We have to spoon feed you information because you take almost no effort to figure stuff out on your own.
Mark
4 Likes
I’m pretty sure his friend will help him.
George
Hey, you guys are inventing things that don’t exist. I do know, and use the tools, and after processing my images a new folder is created “PL5 Exports” which contains all my edited images. I can then copy them to a memory stick, or into my mail, or whatever.
If you seriously think there is any reason why I should use Projects, then you’re right, I’ve been missing that. But in PL3, 4, 5, and 6 I’ve been doing it the easy way.
Perhaps there are times when I might find “Projects” useful, but I like doing it my way, with all my images and my exported edits in one folder, with the exported images within a folder inside the folder with my original images…
My friend Ray - he seems to be in the same place as I was when I first got PhotoLab.
I obviously don’t under PhotoLab as well as you, but I know how to do all the stuff I usually want or need to do.
Anything is easy to do, once you learn how to do it. 
P.S. - I don’t think anyone in this discussion has ever mentioned “Projects”.
Mike,
As usual, you don’t get it. The issue is that you have never shown any initiative in all the time you’ve been here. After all this time I am willing to wager that you still are unaware of at least half the features in PhotoLab. Projects is just one more example. It is just absurd. Unless someone here explicitly explains to you how to use a specific feature you seem to remain hopelessly clueless. We as a group have literally spent hundreds of hours of our own time trying to get you on board with this software and you rarely have ever thanked anyone for their efforts. As far as I’m concerned the free ride is over.
Mark
3 Likes
That just reinforces my point about your complete lack of initiative. If we don’t tell you about something in PhotoLab it doesn’t exist for you. How do you think most of us learned about Projects? Through osmosis?
I have never in my life met anyone else who has used so much of other people’s time to learn a relatively straightforward and easy to use piece of software and at the end had so little to show for it. I can’t even fathom the thought of how much effort it would take from other people to get you up to speed with Photoshop which is truly complex software.
Mark
3 Likes
We’re not talking about his original images. He was asking about the edited images, saved in a reduced size, which I expected would have gone to hi PL5 Exports folder, like mine do. He had no idea where they went. Since I didn’t know anything about “Projects”, I didn’t have any idea where they went.
I have no idea why he thought he had to export those images to a “Project”. Maybe all of you do this? I keep it simple - when I export images, they always go into a sub-folder inside of the folder with his original image files.
Let’s assume what you wrote is correct, and let’s assume I only understand 1/4 of the features in PhotoLab? So what? I know how to use the tools and features that I use to edit and export my images.
I don’t think I know “all” the tools and features of anything, software, cameras, whatever. Far from it. So what? I don’t know ALL the features, tools, whatever about anything. I do know enough to accomplish what I need to do.
Specifically, in this example, I have never needed to use “Projects” for any reason. If I get to where I need to, I would then learn enough. So what? There are lots of tools and features on my D780 that I don’t use, and don’t understand. The menu system has what looks like an infinite list of things I can adjust. When or if I need to change something, I’ll re-watch the 2 1/2 hour video that explains EVERY adjustment in the camera.
Back to this specific topic - what, if anything, is wrong with editing a group of images in PhotoLab, then exporting them to the PhotoLab Exports folder, and simply copying them to the memory stick? 1, 2, 3 and done. Now I think I understand what Projects is for, thanks to the link I posted, but none of that was needed for Ray to copy his edited images to his memory card.
I think you’re being silly about this.
So what? Why waste time on something until I have a reason to use it? I don’t have enough time for the other things in my life, that I need to do/know.
About “Projects”… why should I have wasted all that time about something I have no need or use for?
I use PhotoLab, with version 3, 4, 5, and now 6, to edit my photos for whatever I want to do with them. I used to do this with Lightroom, and DarkTable, and many others. I prefer PhotoLab. It does what I want it to do.
For you, and others, I guess you want to know and understand every setting, and every tool.
Same for film, I bought one of two brands of film, and used standard darkroom chemicals. I’ve read about lots of “trick stuff” that could have been used.
Are my images as good as Joanna’s? Of course not, but they are good enough for me.
I remember when PhotoLab was a giant puzzle, and I’m sure I made more mistakes than most people trying it. I’m also not an artist, and not a sculptor, and not very good with machine tools, and a zillion and one other things. Maybe I’m tired of all that. I just want to enjoy my photography, and PhotoLab is what I prefer, even if I don’t know all the trick features and tools.
Maybe each of you should ask yourselves - “Why do I take photos?” …and along with that, “Do I enjoy my photography?” I suspect we all have different reasons, and answers.
…and back to this question, why bother with “Projects” when all you want to do is copy your edited images from a day’s shooting, onto a memory stick? PhotoLab provides a way to do this simply and easily.
You don’t have to waste your time but spent your time understanding PL.That’s something you just refuse. RTFM!!!
George
2 Likes
Give purpose to the database.
The projects live in the database only.
2 Likes
Why?
For what I need, why should I care about the database, and why should I spend my time understanding PL ?
PhotoLab is a tool, just like all the other image editors. It may be the very best image editor ever, but the end result, the PICTURES we create, are the real goal.
To me, the image captured by the photographer is the most important thing.
All the editing in the world won’t turn a junk image into something awesome.
The camera doesn’t matter either.
Using Windows or Mac doesn’t matter.
As long as the photographer can adjust his photo to show what he wants to show…
…that is what is important.
Me? I’m certainly not anything even close to an expert at PhotoLab, but I can now utilize it to show what I want to show.
At the end of the day, PhotoLab is just a “tool”.
Ditto for the cameras and lenses.
I believe beautiful images come from the photographer, not from the tools used by the photographer.
Me? I am unlikely to ever become a “great” photographer, but I can capture images that I am happy with, and many people enjoy. For a while, it was one of my jobs, and I got paid for it.
My personal goal, is to capture images I enjoy. If some other people like them, great. If some other people find flaws in them, I will consider their advice.
I appreciate so many people here trying to teach me what they have learned, and I find PhotoLab allows me to do what I want better than the other editors. I appreciate the feedback, which has helped me a lot, both about PhotoLab, and more importantly about Photography.
Finally, the photos I have posted in my gallery, www.m.smugmug.com speak for themselves as to how good her how bad I am as a photographer. I should stop wasting my time in this silly (to me) argument about how well I know PhotoLab, and get back to posting images in my gallery.
…having said all that, I also understand that you are all trying to help me. I appreciate that, and I thank each and every one of you. I start to wonder at time how much more or less you care about the photos you are creating, or the tools you use to make them. Being critical about the photos I create and post here is good, and useful. Being critical about my not understanding PhotoLab as much as the rest of you, doesn’t help. IMHO.
When I was photographing championship radio control nitro car racing, it soon became obvious - you can’t “buy your way” into the winner’s circle. The people with the most talent usually won the race, not those with the most expensive components. Same thing here - each of us has our own level of ability in creating photographs, and the best photos come from those people with the most talent, not from the tools they used.
Having said that, PhotoLab is not “intuitive”, and needs to be learned, as with any camera or editor. Knowing and understanding the tools allows us to get the most out of them, all other things being equal. Is it better to improve by “doing” or “learning”? …probably a mix.
I just copied this artwork from The New York Times - it was done by María Jesús Contreras. Perhaps each of us, myself included, should take a little time to step “outside of our lives”, and consider what we’re doing, and whether or not it matches our goals. For me, it’s telling me that I am spending far too much time discussing what I do, and not enough actually doing.
Rather than discussing these things with others (such as this forum) I think I should turn off my computer, pick up one of my cameras, and just do the things I enjoy doing. Doing photography is far more enjoyable (or should be) to me, than talking about it. I will say “thank you” to all of you who feel you are helping me.
Knowledge is power. I can take a cold chisel and start hacking away at a piece of wood, but I’m never going to get great results because a cold chisel is designed for stone or metal, not wood.
Same applies to the tools in PhotoLab. If you don’t understand which tool to use to achieve the perfect image, you’re never going to be pleased with your photography because, without a RAW developer like PhotoLab, all you’ve got is a bunch of data, not a picture.
Except when the photographer has to capture an image in such a way that it is suitable for editing into that awesome something.
Without Helen’s intimate knowledge of B&W photography and of the appropriate tools to use in PhotoLab, this original RAW image…
… wold never have become this wonderful print…
Anyone without that knowledge of what PL can do would have a hard time reproducing such a result.
Which is why we stay away from darkroom processing of negatives, because we don’t have the same intimate knowledge of the tools and methods needed.
But, without knowing the right tools and how to use them, he won’t even get that.
Or, more correctly, beautiful images come from the photographer choosing the right tools to realise their vision.
Obviously I agree. If I captured an image, and processed it in both PhotoLab all the other image processors I am aware of, I would certainly do best with PL, as I know it reasonably well, or with Lightroom, that I used to know reasonably well, or Movavi or DarkTable (that I was learning), I no longer remember how to use the others. Having said that, I used to be happy with Lightroom, and then DarkTable. PhotoLab, for me, was better… but had I not found out about it, I would likely still be using DarkTable.
As I see it, that beautiful result is because Helen, like you, is a wonderful photographer. For the average person, or for me, I doubt I could have achieved a similar result. I would give 99% of the credit to Helen, not PhotoLab.
I agree - one has to understand the tools well enough to get good results.
This I disagree with. Technically excellent images come from what you wrote. Before digital, the best photographers were able to capture beautiful images, doing it mosty in the camera.
Proof:
It’s the photographer, not the camera. …and not the image processor.
You are such an excellent photographer because of YOU, not the editor you happen to be using. I agree that the better you understand the tools, the easier it will be to create “a better” image.
Or, to be blunt, YOUR images are so good because of YOU, not your camera gear.
I couldn’t disagree more. YOUR powerful and beautiful images are not due to digital vs. film, or RAW vs JPG, or PhotoLab vs whatever… You are as good as you are, because of YOU. It’s YOU who knows how to capture a powerful image, and your knowledge of tools available to you to bring it to life for others to see. Being at the right place at the right time isn’t enough - “seeing” what needs to be captured, and then doing so, is the start. …well, in my opinion anyway.
I think your photos from the past, before everything went digital, were good because of YOUR ability and eyes, not the “tools”.
I think what you are trying to say is "the better you understand a tool, the more efficient you will be using it, the fewer mistakes you will make, and the better you will do at deciding if this is the best tool for accomplishing what you want to do.
If so, I have no argument with that. Of all the available tools you know about, it will help you select the most appropriate tool, and make it easier for you to accomplish your task. If you have an open mind, it will help you find the better tools for what you want to accomplish.
…and the more you know and understand about the tools that can accomplish what you need or want to do, the more likely it is that you will select one of the better tools for that task.
If this is what you meant, I certainly agree with you.
Not true. Yes, they needed to do exactly the same as a digital photographer in getting the exposure right so that the neg could be printed, but it also required the photographer having intimate knowledge of how to print - dodging, burning, using multigrade paper and filters, etc.
Your quoted site is mainly about journalistic photography and those photos are primarily, possibly, the most famous press photos, but not necessarily the most famous photos overall. e.g. Ansel Adams’ Yosemite photos., which all depending on his intimate knowledge of the Zone System, which combined excellence in producing the best possible negative, so that he could produce the best possible print.
Again, not true. Some of the greatest prints were taken by a great photographer, who then passed the negative to a great darkroom printer. Without the two, working together, the end result wouldn’t have been anywhere near as good.
As long as we include the work “some”, I agree.
As to Ansel Adams - ditto. I think I read that he already knew what he was going to do to/with the image before he captured the image. And, he understood everything perfectly. That was his life. In that sense, I agree.
The only person I’ve met in this forum who seems to work in a similar way, is you. I suspect you could create brilliant images while using a “Box Brownie”. In a thousand years, I would/could never catch up to you. As for me, there is no photo I have taken since I was born, that you couldn’t improve on.
(…but I am happy with myself for what I can do, even if it’s not up to the highest standards.)
It was the first site that popped up when I was searching. If you have time, pick a site that you feel is more appropriate. I doubt it will change what I wrote.