I sort of disagree with you on this point. Posting photos that illustrate the effects and capabilities of different tools can be many times is more effective in understanding a function than 1000 words. Some people catch on quickly, others need more time to cogitate.
And anyway, what is wrong with having a “cafe” section like this where people exhibit their favorite photos, discuss photographic philosophies and opinions, fuss and fume about things that get under their skin (sometimes far removed from the subject of photography), and so forth? Many photography websited I’ve seen over the years have them. A very popular and active darktable forum labelled “Charge your battery and take some photos” is a current prime example. And the participants LOVE IT because so many people post photos to show off something they’re particularly proud of or to ask for help in making it better. Isn’t that what’s happening here?
Noone if forced to read a thread they don’t like! I, for one, thoroughly enjoy this thread and read it every day.
At some point in time, when one of us feels the time is right, perhaps we can create a new thread simply titled “PhotoLab Cafe”.
Thank you for that bit of information - my old DarkTable installation stopped working, and I’ve been struggling with finding how to install the new version. I’ll find that thread, join, and ask my question there. There are a huge number of people, especially in India, who can’t afford good image editing software, and “Open Source” fascinated them.
I’ve also got to admit though, that no matter how hard some people seem to beat on me, the participants here are what keeps me glued to this forum, much more so than “DxO” itself. I read what everyone posts, but decided a while ago to just read what I think they meant, and accept that maybe I just don’t know enough to understand them. At the same time, in my mind, “photography” happens in the camera, when someone actuates the shutter. To me, which editor is used, is far less important. Even one’s choice of cameras is far less important.
Since you brought it up, instead of waiting for me, perhaps YOU can start a new thread here titled PHOTOLAB CAFE, and help guide it to a proper start?
Good definition of a tourist snapshot, no? I call a lot of my pictures that way and don’t do that to rate them low. But it’s good that my definition made you laugh.
Edit: Out of curiosity I downloaded your DNG image, and the more I let my eyes wander over it, the more the image tells, thanks to your composition @danielfrimley Giacomo Abbate, craftsman specialized in restoration of Pianoforte, working in Palermo seems to give you a “welcome, new customer”-look while sorting his collection of wood screws. He cleaned the table in the morning with compressed air. I like this “storytelling in 1 picture”
Are you happy with shooting at aperture priority? To keep your ISO at 100?
They didn’t create this section either - it’s just a “thread” in the forum section, and the “PhotoLab Cafe” would just be another thread.
DxO:
“In this section, share your feedback, ideas, questions, and photos processed using DxO PhotoLab.”
I can create the new thread tomorrow morning, using the above text as the thread starter. DxO has created the forum - we can post a new thread, as we wish, and how you have so nicely defined it. …unless you beat me to it. It certainly fits into DxO’s words regarding the user forums, as copied above.
If you read all that I said in various posts recently you will note that I indicated that posting images that illustrate the effects of specific tools can’t be very useful. However, that is not what has been happening in this thread or the previous simile named thread that Mike also created and dominated with his own posts and images.
Up to this point, there are 4500 posts in these two threads which were very much all about Mike’s personal needs. And in those 4500 posts there were certainly many dozens if not more images, almost all posted by Mike, that had absolutely nothing with PhotoLab. In addition hardly any photos posted by him were examples of the results of specific tools. Very often they are just multiple versions of the same image with an unknown number of changes and little explanation of what has changed and why. I’m sorry to rehash this, but these two threads were basically Mike’s own personal section.
I think you left off two words at the end “to me”.
I certainly find them useful, and @Joanna’s examples were especially useful.
Obviously, we feel very different about such images.
Posting images is wonderful.
Posting videos even more so.
It is a good way to illustrate some things that the tools can do (perhaps, only for people who don’t already know these things.
I would change one word in what you posted:
Posting images that illustrate the effects of specific tools CAN be very useful.
…what was that saying that one picture is better than a thousand words?
I honestly don’t have the time or interest to respond in detail to this post. First, I wish you would stop attempting to edit what you mistakenly think I meant.
I am not at all against the idea of using photographic examples to aid users in learning how to get the best from the PhotoLab suite. However, the images you have posted here overwhelmingly have not been good examples of any particular tool use or technique and for the most part are a mish mash of tool use which is not particularly useful to anyone else trying to learn or understand how to use the tools in PhotoLab.
You seem believe that these two threads that you created and dominated have been significantly helping other people understand how to get the most out of PhotoLab, I wish it were true but it isn’t In all this time only around 22 or 23 other people have actually responded in these threads, and most were a vain attempt to assist you with your personal and ongoing confusion about using PhotoLab.
Although every once in a while you post an image worth discussing and some good does come from it, the bottom line is that these threads which you created have provided for the most part precious little value to anyone but yourself.
With your experience you potentially have a lot to offer here, but you rarely demonstrate that. And after 4500 posts in these two threads, not to mentions hundreds of other posts in your other earlier threads you have not accumulated very much additional knowledge about how to use PhotoLab to get the best from your images. You still seem to be not much more than a newbie user after all this time. I attribute that to you only using very few of the tools available to minimize any alteration to your images. Clearly these threads that you believe potentially can add so much value are not working for you…
With all the forums, and all the discussions, nobody is forcing you to respond to this specific thread I started, which was intended to be “off-topic”. If you don’t like it, just ignore it.
I, for one, enjoy seeing other people’s photographs processed using DxO PhotoLab.
I’ve found the explanations here more useful than what I’ve found elsewhere.
I’ve found interesting ways to do things.
Nobody has to read anything here - simply start your own new thread, and define what you hope to achieve. If others prefer, they will join you in your thread.
Perhaps you might also re-consider what PhotoLab is for. We all have our own reasons for using PhotoLab rather than the dozen or so alternatives.
I would go way out of my way to read Joanna’s postings, even if I had to pay to subscribe to them.
In a word - no, don’t do this. Only start a new thread on a specific topic, then folks can find them easier than they can in a single thread with thousands of posts.
But, please, please, don’t start yet another mega thread like the last two, that talk about anything and everything.
Think - one thread, one picture, one question. When that question has been answered, start another for the next picture or question
It was not ironic. In my mind making a religion out of ISO 100/21° is an unnecessary limitation of the parameters which define an image by DoF and motion blur (or absence of it). The aperture used by Daniel is f/3.2 which I like for this image although it blurs the background and doesn‘t distract from Giacomo’s expression. And it‘s an APS-C camera, so the DoF is larger.
To me, the AE mode was my standard for long time, but a couple of years ago I shifted to Auto-ISO. I need a certain DoF, I need a certain blur or absence of it. ISO has to follow, not to dictate any of the other parameters. And I don‘t care too much about noise.
I absolutely agree with that. But based on your general usage, the things you do with your images for the most part could be as easily accomplished with any basic post processing software. With regard to the tools and techniques that make PhotoLab truly special you are either unaware of them or refuse to use them. In any case, even though you continue to use so little of what the PhotoLab suite has to offer, somehow you have managed to turn you minimal usage into multi-thousand post threads. Much of the examples you provide are repetitious. The same basic concepts are discussed over and over and over again. Additionally, after further review I realize a very significant amount of the discussion in your threads is more about subject selection and composition than about using PhotoLab. While discussions of composition can be very useful, regardless of what you think this site is intended for, it is not a general photography forum. It is a vendor’s product specific user site.
I meant it the opposite way, see my post before. I‘d like to encourage you to raise ISO if needed and set your camera to manual + Auto ISO. Don‘t be afraid of noise, PL can deal with it with it’s DeepPrime noise reduction. But you can‘t increase or reduce DoF in post and you also can‘t reduce or add motion blur of a subject in the image.
Ah I understand now, yes I use manual and auto ISO all the time now on both the Leica and the D850, Giacomo was taken when I first got the camera 5 years ago. I think we’ve both advocated this way before? Just before ducking our heads as Joanna lobs a full-manual ticking off
(@Joanna only teasing, I totally understand when and why )
It all depends on how much noise the camera produces with higher iso. But lower iso is always better.
I also use AE and use the back wheel for temporarily exposure correction, Nikon. That works with auto iso too. But when using M and auto iso I’ve a problem. Then it’s difficult to correct the exposure with the same A and S. The only way is with the EC button and that is not temporarily.
I call a lot of my pictures that way and don’t do that to rate them low. But it’s good that my definition made you laugh.
Giacomo Abbate, craftsman specialized in restoration of Pianoforte, working in Palermo seems to give you a “welcome, new customer”-look while sorting his collection of wood screws. He cleaned the table in the morning with compressed air. I like this “storytelling in 1 picture” 
…unless you beat me to it. It certainly fits into DxO’s words regarding the user forums, as copied above.
)