PhotoLab 9 Still Can’t Handle Basic DNGs? That’s a Problem

DxO PhotoLab Feature requests
1

For the love of all things photography, can we please get basic default DNG processing?

Even if there is real value in camera-specific RAW processing, simply being able to process a standard DNG file would be incredibly useful. Considering PhotoLab is now on version 9, this feels like a glaring omission in the software.

I completely understand the need for dedicated support for each camera’s specific RAW files, but why can’t PhotoLab at least process any standard DNG by default?

This is easily my biggest gripe with PhotoLab.

8 Likes
2

Garrett

Don’t forget to vote.

Pascal

3

There’s no such thing. DNG was basically meant for “CFA” or “LinearRaw” data to be processed by Adobe software. But being a TIFF/EP extension, it can contain RGB or RGBA data in standard colorspaces. It can contain MakerNotes, which are in proprietary format. Hence it’s not clear what you mean by “standard DNG”.
What use case do you have in mind?

3 Likes
4

If you search the forum’s PhotoLab feature requests for the word “DNG” you get a long list:

Search results for ‘dng #dxo-photolab:feature-requests’ - DxO Forum

Could it be that what you’re asking for has already been asked for at length and has already received votes? If not, please clarify what you want, as Wlodek proposes.

5

Yes, I believe you are correct. After searching the forum, it looks like DNG support has been requested at length by many customers and has been upvoted multiple times.

To clarify what I’m asking for: I understand that DNG is not necessarily a single, perfectly “standard” format in practice. I also understand that camera-specific RAW files require dedicated support, profiles, lens corrections, and all the other processing work DxO is known for.

That said, my request is more practical than technical perfection: I would really like to see PhotoLab offer some level of default or generic DNG processing, even if it comes with caveats.

For example, even if DxO cannot provide full camera/lens module support, optical corrections, or perfect handling of every DNG variant, it would still be extremely useful if PhotoLab could open and process more DNG files in a basic way. Many cameras, phones, scanners, and other applications can produce DNG files, and many other pieces of software can at least open and work with them.

That is the frustration for me. I prefer using PhotoLab 9, but I often have to use other software simply because PhotoLab will not process a DNG file that other applications can handle.

So I’m not asking DxO to magically support every possible DNG variation perfectly. I think many PhotoLab customers would accept reasonable limitations, warnings, or reduced functionality if it meant we could still bring more DNG files into PhotoLab and work with them.

My basic question is: why can’t PhotoLab offer a fallback/default DNG processing option, even if full DxO-quality support is only available for officially supported cameras and RAW formats?

6 Likes
6

Yeah, it’s frustrating to see many posters frustrated without being able to define the reason for their frustration :wink:

3 Likes
7

I know, right? It must be terribly confusing when customers keep asking for the same missing feature, upvoting it, and explaining the use case repeatedly.

But to define my frustration clearly: PhotoLab does not support DNG files as broadly as many competing applications do, and that forces users into other software. I prefer using PhotoLab, which is exactly why the limitation is frustrating.

But I do appreciate the concern for everyone’s emotional clarity. :wink:

6 Likes
8

What specific use case do you have in mind?
If you don’t have real problems, it’s better not to invent artificial ones. Otherwise frustration can bring you down. Badly. Try to be happy and carry on.

2 Likes
9

The specific use case is simple: I have DNG files that PhotoLab will not process, while other applications will. I would prefer to stay in PhotoLab 9 rather than leave my workflow just to handle files that are otherwise usable elsewhere.

That is not an invented problem. That is a workflow limitation.

I am not asking for perfect support for every possible DNG type, nor full DxO camera/lens corrections for unsupported files. I am asking for a basic fallback/default DNG processing option, even if it comes with caveats.

Your lack of understanding of my workflow — or the fact that you may not use the product the same way I do — does not make my frustration imaginary. It simply means this limitation may not affect you personally.

And respectfully, dismissing customer frustration as artificial does not make the limitation disappear.

3 Likes
10

That’s because you made no effort to make my understanding better. Take for example ‘I have DNG files that PhotoLab will not process, while other applications will’. You don’t provide any details about the DNG file and you don’t list other software that can deal with it. It simply sounds like propaganda. If you expect any help, please define the problem first.

1 Like
11

Obviously, customer retention is not your strong suit. I have been investing in DxO since the software was called OpticsPro.

So yes, your tone and blind defense of PhotoLab’s poor DNG support says a lot. If you had simply said, “Send us a copy of the DNG so we can take a look at it,” that would have been far more helpful than dismissing the issue as “propaganda” and taking a condescending tone with a long-time customer.

The issue is simple: I have DNG files that PhotoLab will not open or process, while other applications will. This is not an artificial or invented problem. Many other applications handle a broader range of DNG file support than PhotoLab, including:

  • Adobe products

  • ON1

  • Capture One

  • Luminar Neo

  • Topaz

  • Wondershare

  • RawTherapee

  • darktable

  • and others

Freaking WonderShare does more and honestly, this should not be treated like some bizarre request. The forum is littered with customers asking for better DNG support. This has been requested repeatedly and upvoted multiple times. The lack of broader DNG support in PhotoLab is well known.

Do you actually compare PhotoLab’s DNG handling against your competitors? Because from a customer standpoint, the limitation is obvious.

I am not inventing a problem. I am describing a real workflow limitation that affects customers who want to stay inside PhotoLab instead of being forced into competing software.

Just because this may not affect your workflow does not make the problem imaginary. And dismissing long-time customers this way does not exactly inspire confidence.

So, is this your unfriendly way of asking for a copy of a DNG?

4 Likes
12

To be clear, this is user forum and I don’t have any connection with DxO, other than buying and using their products. DxO staff users can be easily identified here and they rarely post since about 2023. As an old forum user you surely know that.

I was just trying to know your problem. Cool down and don’t imagine too much.

Then just do it. I’ve asked for that at least twice already. Over.

4 Likes
13

At this point, I have clearly been wasting my time.

To be clear, I never asked you for any help. I was commenting on PhotoLab’s poor DNG support in a thread where actual DxO staff might see the feedback. Instead, you jumped in, dismissed the issue as “propaganda,” suggested I was inventing artificial problems, and then acted like you were just being helpful.

That was not helpful. It was condescending.

The issue remains exactly what I said it was: PhotoLab handles fewer DNG files than many competing applications, including Adobe products, ON1, Capture One, Luminar Neo, Topaz, Wondershare, RawTherapee, darktable, and others. That is not imaginary. That is not artificial frustration. It is a real product limitation that many customers have raised before.

2 Likes
14

So please take your non-helpful self to another thread. People sometimes post feedback because they want the company to hear it, not because they are looking for a random forum user to argue them into silence.

1 Like
15

Hi, Garrett. I hope I can help reset the discussion and not add to the combat. May I offer a suggestion for clarity? When you say “DNG files” what I think you’re actually talking about is camera RAW files in DNG format. Is this correct? As you might or might not know, DxO’s policy on DNG input support is given here:

Which DNG files are supported by DxO PhotoLab as input? – Help center

So I think the root problem here is that RAW files (DNG or not) are either supported by camera modules or cannot be used at all as input. There have been requests for DxO to make PhotoLab able to read and process unsupported RAW files to some extent, especially if a supported camera’s RAWs are similar (but not necessarily). And why not, when we can use Exiftool to fool PhotoLab or use non-DxO software for unsupported camera RAWs? I think it’s enough that you want PhotoLab to be more flexible with what it supports as input, and I agree with this to any extent that DxO might be able to do it. IMO no need to argue it further, as only DxO knows what might come of it.

If I got anything wrong, please comment further.

2 Likes
16

I share your frustration.

I’m not an expert in file formats, but what I understand with a DNG file, at least as I used it before coming to photo lab, was at the DNG would include the original raw file along with any modifications you made to that EAW file within the DNG. I would use Adobe’s DNG converter to convert my RAW to DNG, and then work with that DNG in the editing process using Photoshop. (Actually PS Elements).

For me, that meant not having to make sure to keep track (during any sorting or backup work) of any sidecar files that held the modifications I made from the raw file.

As I understand it in photo lab, you can turn the feature of a sidecar .dop file off or on in the preferences. So here again I would need to be sure I include the .dop files when moving files between folders of during back up procedures.

As mentioned, I am no expert in all the advantages or disadvantages of using a DNG file in the process, but at least coming into PhotoLab a couple years ago, my reason (to use DNGs) was because of simplifying file management for my workflow.

I learned this DNG workflow process watching Lynda.com videos featuring Deke McCleland over a decade ago. (For what it’s worth).

I hope this helps the conversation.

17

So having read most of the other posts, I am not seeing one other issue to PL 9 and DNGs, and that is PL must support the underlying camera to begin with because converting to a DNG will not make it work. A few years ago I had a couple of unsupported cameras (a Fuji X10 and a Fuji HS 50) that will not render even after being converted to DNG format. I have played (a lot) with native raw files converted to DNG and at one point exported my entire library (about 50k files) to DNG, but abandoned it because DNG DOES strip some exif data and (separate issue) any edits that are done to a DNG that are stored internally (as opposed to sidecar) then have to have the entire file backed up as opposed to ONLY the sidecars…assuming you do backups.

Since you are clearly using PL9 (for the moment), it is unclear if you are also using Adobe, but from EVERYTHING I can tell…DNG is ONLY standard INSIDE Adobe software. I DO think PL9 supports all or most cameras that use DNG as their native raw, so this discussion would seem to be focused on native raw that has been converted. I have used DxO since Optic Pro 3 and have had my share of frustration, but at the end of the day I don’t see anything that beats PL for raw development and de-noise. You can certainly now EXPORT from DxO to DNGs but the compressed DNGs apparently do not contain full edits.

18

I referenced that two posts above yours.

19

Funny. My Sigma BF shoots DNGs natively as its raw format, and Photolab has no problem with them.

20

As said before. DNG creates more problems than that it solves.

George