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

Mike, for all your photos you still know very little about the essence of what PhotoLab is and how it works. Posting photos are the end result only, If you do not have an idea of what features are available, what they do, how’s they work and how they interact with each other through discussion and experimentation.

As an example, I’m not sure if you have Filmpack loaded but if you have, do you understand the relationship of the fine contrast slider with the related highlight, midtone, and shadows contrast sliders?. It first requires an intellectual discussion of the relationship and then self-experimentation on ones own time see those relationships. It absolutely does not require you posting a photograph here to see the subtle relationships between the contrast sliders.

Like many of us here, what you should have done from the very beginning was to spend your personal time going over each and every feature, applying them individually and in conjunction with to each other on your own photographs in the privacy of your apartment, and then ask us about things that you were still confused about. Instead, you used the goodwill of the nice people on this forum who took their time out to teach you about every single feature. If you had spent half as much time experimenting on your own as you have being taught by us, you would understand the capabilities of PhotoLab much more than you do. It is not rocket science.

Almost everyday it seems you’re having a revelation about some feature that’s new to you which someone has mentioned, that you should have been aware of on your own long ago. Be honest. How much time have you ever actually spent experimenting with PhotoLab features that you were not familiar with without first having had somebody tell you about them?

Mark

Again this is not a photography evaluation site. Photos are generally posted here only as examples to show the effects of a particular tool or combination of tools. Those examples are usually not finished photos since other tools might distract from what is being discussed and demonstrated.

Your threads are about the evaluation of finished photographs using PhotoLab which don’t teach anybody very much about the various tools, what they do, how they work or how to apply them.

Mark

3 Likes

OK, I guess that may partially explain why PhotoJoseph may have stopped doing Webinars on PhotoLab:

I used to enjoy learning from PhotoJoseph, trying on my own what he demonstrated in his webinars, and re-watching as often as necessary…

PhotoJoseph and @Joanna have ways of making individual features and functions quite clear. I prefer their way.

…but enough of this. Not much more for me to add. Different strokes for different folks.

In life that is generally true, but on this site that expression primarily refers just to you. On the two humongous threads you created which have a total of 4559 posts, a whopping 1703 of them or 38% were posted by you. @Joanna is responsible for 16.4% of them, mostly responding to your posts with assistance and opinions. The remaining 2100+ posts are from 22 other people, who also mostly responded to your posts with assistance and opinions.

These two threads are very much your own personal stage where you seek assistance, post your images, and express your opinions. You have also decided that something is missing from this forum because more people don’t post their images processed with PhotoLab like you do. It is apparent that very few other posters here agree with you about that.

You’ve never really understood or immersed yourself in this site and have very rarely participated in discussions other than those you have started yourself.

Mark

The thread reminds me of erring in a desert, walking in circles over and over again. Processing with PhotoLab is surely enough playing its part too, but I have started to read the posts diagonally and might therefore have missed a few hints.

I’ve seen works that touch art and some that are documentary rather. Maybe it’s the fate of photography to be stuck in reality or at least to be glued to it, which is a pity imo.

1 Like

In that case, this is the wrong forum for you. As Mark has said several times, this is not a photo sharing forum.

Neither is it a forum for learning how to take photos - that should be something you should either already know or have been learning elsewhere.

And you would be wrong. Again, as Mark has said, PhotoLab is not there primarily to correct mistakes in camera settings, it is far more about replacing the darkroom, where negatives are optimised and compensations are made for differences in dynamic range between the human eye, the sensor and the capabilities of display devices or paper.

Indeed, there has been the odd occasion when I haven’t need to edit a photo at all but, no matter how good a photo you create in the camera, unless the lighting is totally ideal, you are going to need to adjust the captured image to match what the human eye can perceive, just as we would have done in the darkroom.

Then there is the subject of ubiquitous dust spots that seem to appear from nowhere to land on your sensor. I know you don’t like removing “reality” but I don’t know a photographer alive today that would not remove such imperfections. Before digital, this would have been done with a knife, brush and inks after the print had dried.

Over the 20ish years I have been using a computer to edit my photos, I have never found such intuitive software as PhotoLab. And that is why I come to this forum - to help those who don’t “get it”. But, what I can’t do is teach you how to “see” photos and I find myself getting frustrated that your posts are much more about the non-photos and what you “felt” than about creating photos worth more than just sending to friends and family.

But, to end, let me repeat, this is not the forum to seek advice on photographic techniques - it is provided by DxO to support users of their software in the use of its tools.

I think I am going to have to avoid replying to your posts of photos unless there is a specific question about using the tools in PhotoLab - and I don’t mean asking how to better frame the image.

4 Likes

What are these DxO forums for?
Here’s what DxO has posted:

From www.forum.dxo.com

Screenshot 2024-06-08 at 07.25.53

…and it does include "…and photos processed using DxO PhotoLab.

I agree with what Joanna just posted:

And from Mark:

The overwhelming majority of my posts are from replying to others, which I can mostly stop as of today. I agree with all of you that this is not a “photo sharing site”, but by posting both my images and the .dop file, that is the only way to get useful feedback on what I did with PhotoLab, which is part of why this forum exists. And @Joanna has been MOST helpful that way, far more helpful than people who want to suggest different ways to make my images more like what they do - and for that matter, I wish many more people were posting their PhotoLab images, along with their .dop files.

Suggestion, ignore the words, and if you wish, review the .dop files, and the images. And I will try harder as of right now to follow what DxO has posted above, and stop replying to other posts about other “stuff”:

"Share your feedback, ideas, questions, and photos processed using DxO PhotoLab."

Hi everyone, been letting life get in the way on my photography/ processing for what seems like months (has it really been that long :laughing:) - nice to see not a lot seems to change and good to see regular faces still around.

Picking things back up again and have revisited some images from my trip to Sicily in 2019 - started with trying to squeeze something out of this image and struggling for artistic inspiration.

I’ve ended up with this

Anyone care to have a try at improving it? I feel there’s more in there than I’ve been able to envision. I’ve tried to use a few PL7 features I’ve not spent much time with before so would appreciate any advice on how I’ve applied them. RAW and DOP also attached. You’ll need FP for the film emulation I think.

20190616_105358_00119.DNG (30.6 MB)
20190616_105358_00119.DNG.dop (39.0 KB)

2 Likes

Hey, welcome back!!! I think most of the original gang is still here.

I’d love to see what some of the more experienced people come up with, but can you please say a bit more about what is going on? I see all those bits and pieces on the table (screws and nails and…), but I don’t recognize anything they go with/to. I love the fellow at the table, and the “walls” around him, but I’m mostly lost. The color in the walls and his shirt does help me, and all the “stuff” inside the room behind the guy, but I have no idea what I’m seeing… Oh, and I also like all the detail when I “zoom in” to your image.

Welcome back!!!

It’s known as an environmental portrait.
It doesn’t need explanation. Just take the time to explore the image and let your imagination run. What you see will not necessarily be what others see.

How on earth can you be “lost” with such a lovely potrait?

Don’t seek explanations, just enjoy.

I think we have to stop beating up Mike on these topics. It appears he is genuinely incapable of understanding or enjoying images that diverge from his rigid expectations and definition of “reality”. That would explain a lot.

Mark

Hi Daniel,

alternatively, you could show the person in his workshop without distracting the viewer from him.

20190616_105358_00119.DNG.dop (189,4 KB)

The perspective you have chosen together with his posture pulls the viewer into the picture and the table not touching the door on his right allows (invites) the viewer to have a look inside. – So much for the idea. :slight_smile:

Since you ask about PL’s tools – Tone Curve, Smart Lighting → different Spot weighted, different Selective Tone, different B&W film … and a few more local adjustments to give it better tonality/3D.

Play with the settings to see what they do and have fun.
Wolfgang

2 Likes

Very nice. The result is very different than the original. I think I like it more then the color original due to its primary focus on the man and especially his face. I am always amazed by how often color distracts us from really “seeing” important elements of an image.

However, I also like the original color version but for different reasons as the main focus for me in that version is the environment around the man.

Mark

2 Likes

I am not sure he could have spot metered in a moving car?

I’ve come rather late to the party.

I use auto-ISO in A priority mode. I have set the minimum shutter to something that works for my lens and shooting scenario. (In fact these are saved as recallable settings). For example; a 24-70mm lens shooting landscape the slowest it will go is 1/60. After that it pumps up the ISO. I choose the Aperture based on creative decision (bokeh or maximum depth of field) and the camera does the rest. I check now and again that the ISO’s are within a manageable range. On that point I did some tests a while ago and as a rule of thumb if the image is going to be in print I aim to not go higher than 800 ISO. Things may be better on the latest cameras. But for social media and online I just let it go to maximum ISO. (This is for landscape / travel photography).

Thank you, I like what you’ve done :grin: I was going to open it slightly out from the just the man, hence the repair I did to remove a quaint (but distracting) card posted on the wall

Mike,

It is just an environmental portrait with interesting elements, as @Joanna pointed out. It is an older man behind a table in front of what is apparently some sort of business. Regarding the various elements, there is no real need to understand anything else.

I know you have a lot of difficulty conceptualizing images that have elements without enough context for you, but there is no particular reason to know what is going on here. That is just a bunch of random hardware on a table. Perhaps it is a fixit shop or some other business, or perhaps not, but it is immaterial. The hardware on the table, and especially it’s potential use, is a tiny and unimportant element of this image.

Can you provide us with more detail as to why you are lost. Can you try to explain why you need to know specifically what is inside and what exactly you mean when you say you have no idea what you are seeing? What is it that you need to know or understand and why? I really want to understand why you seem to struggle so much with photos in ways that most of us don’t. Understanding that may help all of us communicate better when we’re discussing specific photographs.

Mark

Pretty close to what I want to show, but I need to leave now for dinner.

Mike. I take it you have never been to the Mediterranean? If you are so interested in reality, then you would know that shadow light there is bright and not at all warm-toned, like you have portrayed it. This is due to the almost cloudless blue sky lowering the colour temperature, especially of shaded areas.

When attempting to edit someone else’s images, you really need to explain why you made the choices you did, especially when they are so drastic.

The elements that caught my eye are the man’s mischievous smile and the unknown “treasures” in his shop. I hoped to draw these out.
I love to peruse old workshops like I did as a kid in my grandpa’s shop. Lot’s of “treasures” to find. So, I imagine the man’s smile is a response to the question: “What’s in your shop?”

The shop clutter is part of the charm, so I brightened this part of the background. B&W seems to help draw these out and add to the “mystery”. I choose portrait crop to bring these elements together framed by the door’s frame. I didn’t see much of interest in the walls/doors other than as an entrance into this world of hidden treasure/mystery.

Just a thought…

1 Like