-
default Soft Proofing settings
-
open the Advanced settings to check …
-
export with Same as Soft Proofing
rendering intent is ( not all icc profiles are compatible, but in general )
Absolute Colorimetric
Relative Colorimetric
Perceptual
Saturation
RI … of which 2 are available … w/ printing
note
the bug in the GUI has been reported since long
and may be he wants something else when he outputs the image to JPG file … in any case a proper software offers classic intents explicitly for that purpose and as I noted the solution ( absent effort from DxO to facilitate the matter ) is to output to a script ( instead of saving to file ) that does it ( you can have a script for each intent, again not all color profiles are suitable for all intents ) and saves to a file … DxO is using LittleCMS, so does ImageMagick, so quality of conversion will be on par between both
With PhotoLab, Rendering Intent applies to files exported for printing.
When the export target is a digital image file (ICC Profile = sRGB, Adobe RGB, etc) then the Rendering Intent selection in Soft Proofing is ignored.
- As noted above by Wolfgang, enabling of Rendering Intent when the ICC Profile is a digital image file is a mistake - aka a bug ! - - This was pointed out to DxO long ago, during PLv6 beta testing … but it’s another of those UI glitches that has never been fixed … Sigh !!
Instead, when the ICC Profile is a digital image file, PL applies its proprietary “Preserve Color Details” algorithm … For a LOT more info on the PCD algorithm, see here.
-
During beta testing, the PCD algorithm was described to us as “An algorithm developed by DxO. It’s neither the same as Perceptual or Relative Intent - it’s something in between”.
-
In my experience, the PCDA does an excellent job - and it saves us from having to make a choice between Relative and Perceptual Intent … as it’s a combination of both, tweaked for the specific requirements of each individual image
may be yes, may be no – as you clearly can’t quantify your experience beyond subjective adjectives - but sometimes people want what is known and NOT some “marketing” stuff “in between”
this phrase makes me wonder what do you mean here in a proper English … the matter is a conversion between 2 color spaces , a normal practice is to be able to specify a rendering intent clearly calling it that name, even if it is a home-brew contraption called “Preserve Color Details”
I agree. DXO has done more for color management in photography than most other big name companies in the last few years.
DXO does a great job at color management and improves on area that should have been improved on by others , long ago. “Preserve Color Details” does something the other color rendering intents have a hard time doing.
“Preserve color detail: this slider applies only to matrix based ICC profiles, so only display profiles – not printer profiles. Set at 50 by default, the slider lets you alter saturation and details in saturated portions. By reducing the value (to the left), the slider maintains saturation to the detriment of the details and, To the right, the details are preserved to the detriment of the vivacity of the colors. Note that the Export menu has a Preserve color detail checkbox which gives you the option to apply the slider’s effect to the exported images.”
That is a lot more control than standardized and outdated rendering intents that were limited when they were implemented for the first time and were never updated.
DXO PhotoLab is first and foremost a RAW processing application. Meaning it takes the raw data from an image file and provides tools to develop it to your liking and tries to preserve that on export. Color rendering intent has been replaced by a better system, which does this job better.
If you are working with non raw files than having standardized rending intents as an option might be reasonable, but not for raw files. However, rendering intent is only there to provide a compromise between working profile and output profile and nothing more. Therefore the is no real advantage to use; Absolute Colorimetric, Relative Colorimetric, Perceptual, Saturation other than dealing with this compromise. And DXO offers its own solution that is better.
If you really want for some strange reason to keep standardized rendering intents in DXO it might be convenient to have them in DXO, but it should not be a big deal for anyone who is into this kind of stuff. You can export a file with largest color space, like ProPhoto RGB and use any other app that supports these rendering intents to do the conversion. I don’t see any inherent advantage to that , but it is possible.
That being said you do have two options for rendering intent: Relative Colorimetric and Perceptual in the soft proof panel. As Wolfgang has pointed out.
You can carry over this when exporting an image, including the preserve details, DXO proprietary mode.
I don’t see where the problem is. It works and it works well.
I think that is already implemented.
I don’t know if people want to print from DXO or just soft proof, since there seems to be better more dedicated solutions for printing including specialized software from the printers and off course many do in fact send their files to be printed by printing labs. But I guess it could always be improved.
such as what ?! marketing claims excluded ? did they design an industrial grade CMM/CMS ? or licensed LittleCMS from a one man outfit like Marti Maria ?
Are you being a contrarian on purpose, as per usual, because you must know what they have done. By the way, its time you find a name for yourself. Its impolite to pretend you don’t have one.
you simply parroting a lot of adjectives from marketing materials
You are simply trolling Mr. straw man. go fetch a better argument, and find a name, than come back.
reminding what DxO said on record upon v7 release : “create your own calibrated color profiles from within PhotoLab for scientifically accurate colors.”
yes, that was a great contribution to the color management… a simple matrix profile DCP profile of a target with a just one “cyan” patch barely outside of sRGB gamut… scientifically accurate colors my proverbial body part 
next claim was there nearby = “For the first time within a RAW image editor, DxO PhotoLab 7 lets photographers calibrate images directly within the interface.”… this is NOT true, others did way earlier and better ( Phocus raw converter from Hasselblad for example )
Did they remove all that ?
Great unrecognized contributors … ICC stands ashamed
Oh just save some time and do everything with DPL instead of needing to open Photoshop to know what you are doing and have a consistend colorfeedback when you softproof. if PCD is a homebrew version of ACE from Photoshop ok, but you could/should choose because depending of the image you have, different rendering intent could be of use to optimize the output gamut (be it a paper, a screen, or your book printing service online).
Yes when I print, I export with ProPhotoRGB which is, by the way, no fully detected all the time by Photoshop (instead another profile close, but it’s ok), and need to go to Photoshop to softproof, simulate and then print from it.
Where? Maybe I am not clear : I mean auto softproof. Auto compensation on various metrics of the image, for the simulation of a rendered proof copy to match the original copy of an image (or get as close as possible to the human eye). That is not done IMO.
I think you don’t know what you are talking about with all due respect. Yes some of us do prints. I had several High End printers.
“Better dedicated solutions including specialized software from the printer” ??? Yes if you are talking about entry level printers maybe. I currently print on a 24" Epson 7900, and the best soft you have is a very good printer driver (and a bad spectrophotometer software)…This driver needs a software in order to function and have the printer to print.
You need photoshop to print or C1, because Photoshop have full softproofing tools, a decent printing module (just open the Ctrl+P if you have photoshop…) that interfaces well with the Epson driver.
This is a slow process and exporting in TIFF16 from DPL is somewhat suboptimal (Maybe DNG export is the solution? did not try it yet). I would like to do it in DPL and not need to have a reccurent need to transfer image in PS for anyprint…maybe it is unavoidable.
I support and use DxO since 2007… and I would like you to elaborate on that statement…
Over the years, DxO then DPL has broken through many things, but color management isn’t one of them until very recently (and I wouldn’t call it a breakthrough). Preserve Color Detail is interesting and needs more spotlight, but to the community here (at least me) such statements are kinda hollow.
Yeah - I was being a bit loose there … It’s better explained as follows;
“Preserve color detail: this slider applies only to matrix based ICC profiles, so only display profiles – not printer profiles … "
PS. It bothers me, too, that you’re not prepared to declare your public profile … It makes me wonder what you might be hiding (?)
Originally, I was ignoring your posts for this reason - but, despite being occasionally “prickly”, I’ve found you’re generally informative and helpful to others; so, I’m giving you the benefit of doubt. All the same - some more info about you would be nice/friendly.
Are you referring to @wolfgang’s comment about the bug in PL’s UI ?
… If so, it’s that the “Intent” option is enabled in Soft Proofing when a matrix-based ICC Profile has been selected … In this case, Intent is completely ignored, and the PCD algorithm is applied instead - So, it should be disabled … in the same way that “Simulate paper & ink” is disabled for matrix-based ICC Profile
John M