Part 2 - Off-Topic - advice, experiences, and examples for images being processed in DxO Photolab

[platypus (Canon & Mac (Intel and M1))]

When I started with digitally editing photos, I used a copy of PhotoShop 2 on a Mac LC III.
I never liked it that much and was fairly happy when Apple introduced Aperture which was a power hog and never smoothly on the iMacs I had then. Enter Lightroom, lower cost and sunning smoothly and fast, so my decision was made and I never regretted it. While OpticsPro had a few unique selling propositions and worked wonders on photos taken with a Nikon D200 in regards to clarity and noise, it had no feature whatsoever in the field of asset management.

Anyways, here I an, using the best of both worlds, Lightroom Classic and PhotoLab, and if I had to kiss one of them good-bye, it would be PhotoLab because it is a nowhere as well equipped asset manager and has no provisions to keep its database aligned with what is actually stored in the photo archive.

@mikemyers

everything I’ve done, for decades, is in one file - the catalog. Lose the catalog and everything is gone. So I tried making copies, and backups. Anyway, if you edit something in PhotoLab, in a raw file, and your image is “photoxx.raw”, you end up with your original image “photoxx.raw” AND another file “photoxx.dop”. which is a summary of everything you did to the image.

Both Lightroom and PhotoLab store everything we do in their catalogue/database. And both can be set to write that stuff to sidecar files. Lightroom and PhotoLab store slightly different sets of information in their .xmp and .dop files respectively, but whether you have these files or not is a matter of choice. Both apps can be set to write those files or not.

@mikemyers

Backup those files, and even if an alligator swallows your computer, all your work is safe in a backup drive.

No backup, no mercy.

---

Anyways, neither Lightroom nor PhotoLab nor Photoshop nor … is better, but they can complement each other … and what we do or think is a matter of our choice, mostly.

[mikemyers]

@platypus

No backup, no mercy.

Hmm, am I wrong that Apple’s Time Machine backs up all my files, and later on, I can recover individual files, or my whole computer (think of a huge crocodile!). I have two Time Machine drives, and alternate between them, so one or the other should have my data …unless it is a giant Crocodile which eats both my computers and both my backup drives.

I guess I’m getting lazy in my old age, as I stopped worrying about this once I switched to two Time Machine drives, kept in different locations.

For better or worse, I now have PhotoLab and related stuff, Lightroom, and PhotoShop. Every so often I get to remember how to use Lightroom, usually if I’m looking for files from many years ago.

[mikemyers]

@platypus

While OpticsPro had a few unique selling propositions and worked wonders on photos taken with a Nikon D200 in regards to clarity and noise

Strange, last night I was watching a YouTube video telling me how wonderful the Nikon D200 was, and how well the CMOS sensor worked. My brother has a D200, but never uses it - I had to help him buy a charger and two new batteries.

Did you think there was anything “special” about the CMOS sensor? Did your PhotoLab recognize the camera?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppGiy_28xr0

(Not for me - I’ve already got a D2x.)

[Wolfgang ([ Win10, PL+VP+FP, Nik7 / 3.3 ])]

While you like “entertainment” – the D200 has a CCD sensor, no CMOS.

[mikemyers]

@Wolfgang

the D200 has a CCD

My fault - I meant to type CCD and my fingers got confusabobbled. I apologize for them.

People seem to like those old CCD sensors. There were discussions in several forums about this.
" CCD sensors create high-quality, low-noise images. CMOS sensors are usually more susceptible to noise . Because each photosite on a CMOS sensor has several transistors located next to it, the light sensitivity of a CMOS chip tends to be lower, as many of the photons hit the transistors instead of the photosite"

I’m not sure what to believe - presumably this is a reasonable explanation:

CCD vs CMOS: A Review of Sensor Technology

Regardless of the facts, despite my typo above, I keep reading that CCD creates “better” colors.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

Regardless of the facts, despite my typo above, I keep reading that CCD creates “better” colors

That doesn’t account for the this text from that article…

However, recent advancements in CMOS have led to the production of CMOS image sensors with image quality approaching that of CCD sensors, making them increasingly competitive in various applications. Recently, as of 2020, CMOS cameras have caught up to CCD cameras in image quality. [The difference between CCD and CMOS image sensing]

CMOS vs CCD verdict: Historically, CCD. But both are comparable today.

Then you need to bear in mind that CCD were used in the early days of sensors, which soon moved to CMOS. Heck even your D780 is CMOS.

---

@mikemyers

Did your PhotoLab recognize the camera?

I can process all my D100, D200, D810 &nd D850 images without any problem.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Then you need to bear in mind that CCD were used in the early days of sensors, which soon moved to CMOS. Heck even your D780 is CMOS.

Joanna, I know what I currently think, but not enough to argue this one way or another. I know a lot of people in the Leica forums feel that the color quality they got from CCD was degraded when Leica switched to CMOS. I hear the CCD people saying it was better, and I hear the CMOS people saying it’s just as good.

I would be very interested in what YOU personally think about this.

As you write, even my D780 is CMOS, but I suspect that is due to other reasons, not color fidelity.

I don’t think I’m in any position to judge.

I suppose I could take the same image with my D780 and my D3, at the proper exposure, with no editing, and compare them.

Here’s a topic that may explain the visual difference:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/384129-ccd-vs-cmos/

And a sentence that seems to sum it all up:

"There is some quality of the CCD sensors that makes the color rendering amazing straight out of the camera. You can achieve the same look with CMOS sensors in post, but the RAW files just have a different native look. I have a difficult time describing what those differences are, but they are there. They are really apparent in mixed-source lighting. The CCD sensors seem to handle mixed-lighting sources more elegantly. "

I’m curious about all this, but I’m not sensitive enough to the color issues to agree or disagree. Maybe @Wolfgang has an opinion.

There are many aspects to our DSLR’s over and beyond the type of sensor the camera uses, and unless one of us wants to go back to the old technology, we’ll all be using the latest technology, CMOS.

(I do remember liking my old CCD Nikon photos a lot, but I never could identify WHY it is I felt that way. Maybe the sensor is part of the reason, or maybe it IS the reason. I dunno.

[Required ( M1 | Nikon)]

Every technology have their time and reign. But progression will continue and sometime for the better and other times for less cost.
Let it be emulsion, optics or sensors.

Even though the colours from the D2X modes I-III were loved by many - including me - simulations from newer systems and sensors can offer the same and thousands more.

But the legacy can be worth so much more.

[mikemyers]

@Required

But the legacy can be worth so much more.

I just watched this video; it’s not all that long, but the guy explains his feelings so clearly, and why…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbenTHeD4F0

I can’t argue with what you wrote “Every technology hav their time and reign”… but there was something about my D2x and my D3 that made me really love the images. Maybe now I understand.

If indeed, the colors from CCD are better than the colors from CMOS, that is something to consider.

I could never explain to Joanna “why” I like the images from those old DSLR cameras so much. Perhaps it was the sensor. I guess I could take the same photo from both my old Nikon and my new Nikon, and see if I can notice any difference. Or, with all Joanna’s expertise, maybe she can explain this in easy to understand words. A lot of people in the Leica forum are convinced about this, and people in that forum are trying to come up with settings to make the CMOS images more like CCD images.

Watch the video I just linked to. He explains things better than I can.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

I know a lot of people in the Leica forums feel that the color quality they got from CCD was degraded when Leica switched to CMOS. I hear the CCD people saying it was better, and I hear the CMOS people saying it’s just as good.

Of course, that is going to depend on whether they were using RAW or jpeg files.

@mikemyers

I would be very interested in what YOU personally think about this.

Simple. Since I always hoot in RAW, I really don’t care what the colour is out of the sensor, I just adjust it to suit and use FilmPack if I want a particular look and feel.

@mikemyers

Maybe the sensor is part of the reason, or maybe it IS the reason

Or maybe it was the jpeg settings you used.

@mikemyers

If indeed, the colors from CCD are better than the colors from CMOS, that is something to consider

When it comes to the look and feel of an image, there is no better or worse, just different.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

Simple. Since I always hoot in RAW, I really don’t care what the colour is out of the sensor, I just adjust it to suit and use FilmPack if I want a particular look and feel.

I smiled at your hooting when viewing images!!

If I just visited a family member and took, let’s say, 25 photos, I might actually do as you say and capture them in ‘jpg’ mode, so I could share them easily. Normally, my cameras are all set to shoot in ‘raw’.

If I wanted to quickly view those images on my computer, I would use whatever image viewer came with the computer. So many people are saying those images were more colorful when shot with a camera using a CCD sensor.

@Joanna

Or maybe it was the jpeg settings you used.

I hardly ever shoot in ‘jpeg’, unless the images are just to give away and I don’t care.

@Joanna

When it comes to the look and feel of an image, there is no better or worse, just different.

I don’t agree with that; there are too many mistakes people can make to end up with “worse”, but I know what you mean, and agree (for those of us who know how to adjust the looks of an image when necessary).

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

So many people are saying those images were more colorful when shot with a camera using a CCD sensor.

But the question remains, were they shot in jpeg, which always tends to make images more colourful, regardless of the sensor type.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

But the question remains, were they shot in jpeg, which always tends to make images more colourful, regardless of the sensor type.

For me - I don’t remember.

For others - well, if they are jpg shooters, it would be jpg for both CCD and CMOS.

Twenty years ago, when I was shooting the D2x I’m pretty sure I was using ‘jpg’. When a few years later, I bought the D3, most likely still jpg.

When I joined this forum, using PhotoLab, and being told PhotoLab was designed for RAW images - that’s probably when I made the big switch.

…and I mostly agree with you, with RAW it doesn’t matter - everyone can create any colors they want. But when this anonymous shooter returns home after a week of holiday, with a few hundred snaps of his (family?) holiday, is he or she going to want to just share the images, or spend several hours editing first, and then share???

…even for me, it all depends. If I care about the images, I’ll use RAW. If not, I’m likely to just shoot in jpeg, less “homework”.

[mikemyers]

I went to Wakodahatchee Wetlands early today, and finally had birds come to me, rather than try to catch them outside my balcony. Here’s one of my favorites.

D780 worked fine, my 300 “p” lens ditto. I was mostly able to hold the lens steady too. I think I took 1,000 or so photos in all.

I got to take both photos of the birds and other animals, and a few of the birds fighting for “who was in charge”.

Rather sleep right now. Will post one photo here, and one of the “fighting” tomorrow.

780_3971 | 2024-04-04.nef (28.4 MB)
780_3971 | 2024-04-04.nef.dop (13.1 KB)

[mikemyers]

I guess I’ll post one of the fighting photos now, then go to sleep.

At the bottom, are nesting birds - dozens of them. Above apparently are some birds fighting for their standing in the flock - as best I can guess. They went at it for ten minutes or so!

780_3434 | 2024-04-04.nef (27.7 MB)
780_3434 | 2024-04-04.nef.dop (13.7 KB)

[George]

@mikemyers
They look good.

George

[mikemyers]

@Wlodek

My exaggerated rendering with two different crops:

Wlodek, I like both, but I mostly like the second version, with more of the bird, and more space around it. And I like that you left more space “in front of” the bird, than behind it. And I like that you brought out more “texture” in the bird.

My image is what I “saw” with my eyes. Your version has changed this into “art”.

If you wish to, I’d love to see your “.dop” file, knowing how much I learn from those files. But I’ll probably learn more, if later today I re-edit my photo using some of your ideas. I might compromise a little, as I did like having all the “green” around the bird. The “black” gives it a very different effect.

These two images show two “sides” of my brain, with the bird being “artistic”, and the fight being “journalistic”, almost, but there is too much editing (just to bring out the details) for it to be a real “journalistic” photo.

Also, I learned another lesson - I wanted to start with some camera settings that I had saved as Nikon’s “U2” pre-set. I thought I could then change whatever I wanted, as needed. Not so - the camera, for no obvious reason, kept re-setting my ISO to only 200, leading to massive under-exposure. My friend Ray blamed the U2 setting, which I thought was silly, but he was right, and once I went back to Manual mode, the camera stayed where I put it. Sadly, the “fight” photo was one of 20 or so images grossly underexposed. I won’t make that mistake again. Other than that, the camera worked just how it should, and maybe because of my higher-than-needed shutter speed, most of the images appear sharp.

[mikemyers]

Side comment - I got to use my friend Ray’s Nikon Z8 a little, and while It lacked the “real view” I’m so used to, I could see a perfectly still, and clear, electronic view loaded with details about the image. He had it set to first focus on a bird, and then almost instantly track the bird’s eye, as he moved the camera around. One “box” showed the bird, and another “box” followed the eye, turning to a unique color to show that this was in perfect focus. I was overwhelmed by the Z8 “image”. The camera did all the hard work, and all I needed to concentrate on was the timing, and the zoom. His lens was long enough to take good moon photos (good) but he had to use a monopod to support the beast.

We couldn’t figure out how to show his photos on my computer, as the Z also can use some fancy (expensive) high-speed memory card, that I didn’t have any way of seeing the photos on my computer. We tried to use the high-speed USB cable from his camera to my computer, but neither of us knew how to get that to work. If those cards are really the way of the future, I guess I ought to by an appropriate card reader, just to have it. Good/bad news - with my D780, my own focus was on the composition. With the Z8, I found myself concentrating on the bird’s eye with the camera constantly working to keep the eye sharp, regardless of where the eye happened to be on the screen - I guess that’s a benefit of “mirrorless”, although Ray very much did NOT like the previous camera he bought, the Z6. If I was rich, I’d buy a Z9, but I ain’t… and $5K for the Z8 isn’t likely either. My D780 was better for me than any camera I have owned, as the focus was fast, and accurate, but I don’t (yet) know how to turn on “tracking” in DSLR mode. Maybe I need to learn how to use “mirrorless mode” from Live View, but then, how to accurately view the rear camera screen in bright sunlight??? Lots more to figure out, but for now, I was 200% satisfied with how well the D780 worked - and with a D850 I would have 50 megapixels from every image, more than the Z cameras.

[mikemyers]

I think I was too sleepy when I edited the “fighting” photo. The camera lowered the ISO to only 200, because I had left it in “U2” mode, not knowing better. Won’t happen again.

Here’s this morning’s version, and the revised .dop file.

780_3434 | 2024-04-04.nef.dop (14.0 KB)

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

Interesting. I like the way you’ve darkened the background.

@mikemyers Here are my efforts…

780_3971 | 2024-04-04.nef.dop (34,5 Ko)

Note, I used the new Luminosity Mask local adjustment to get more detail out of the feathers without affecting the rest of the image

---

780_3434 | 2024-04-04.nef.dop (30,6 Ko)