Thanks, however I find it easier to use Luminar Neo for this. There’s a “Sky Enhancer” slider that works very well. I would prefer this in PhotoLab though.
Could be within DxO’s policy of automating features.
- Enhance sky
- Enhance face
- etc.
We’d want some means to tune the enhancement though.
That’s why I only use PL7 as a mean to be sure that this example of a mainstream commercially promoted raw-editor doesn’t do something serious, that I can’t obtain with the free Darktable. Further, the chance for a direct dialog with the developers of Darktable is always at hand, as opposed to DxO. Darktable is not difficult, just deep. Try it, it’s yours.
Whats in need of a “please fix”? 
Photographing the sky with a wide angle lens and polariser usually produces uneven results because polarisation and filter effect depend of how light enters the filter. This leads to parts of the sky being deep blue while other parts remain unchanged. Equivalent focal lengths shorter than, say, 24mm can cause the effect.
Fixing this automatically is next to impossible unless some machine learning AI is applied.
The ill effect of polariser and wide angle can be worked around with a radial mask, or, in PhotoLab with a u-point or control line local adjustment.
1 Like
Ahh I see.
Thanks for the explanations @platypus and @Wlodek
I seldon use polarizers when doing landscape - mostly due to the fact I often used the Nikon 14-24 back in the days.
I think there was a Lee linear polarizer with an adapter for that beast, so useful only for very special purposes.
Yea.
I looked at that at the time.
But as you say the lens is a beast and the filter arrangement isn’t small either.
I sold the 14-24 in the end and got the 20/1.8 and 24/1.8 instead.
That function DOES exist. Look at your export panel.
This function is only used to add a suffix to the file name so for me it’s useless.
I stand corrected; and all this is subjective, but why would you want to change the name of the original file, thereby making it very difficult to find in the future? Unless, of course, you change the names of all the files en masse with keywords, adding to your workflow, etc. And again, why would you want to do all this assuming someday you might need to find the file again? Again, as I said, all this is subjective, but I work with a goal of reducing my workload not adding to it now and in the future. It’s been my experience changing the name of the original raw file has never been a good idea for me.
I may haven’t understood your message, but I don’t want to change the name of the original file but the exported files as in this way:
NameEvent_01.jpg … NameEvent_xx.jpg
You’re right.
We need to use another software like AntRenamer.
Several times I asked DXO why this restriction and if there was a particular reason for it but I never had an answer.
Assuming you have Photoshop, this kind of final output renaming can be done in Bridge very easily.
Yes of course like all other software … I use Xnviewmp.
But why go through another software to do this, I don’t understand.
1 Like
The revamping of the viewer (including removal of the 75% zoom limit for accurate preview) has been promised for 4 years… and still no trace of it.
2 Likes
Have a look at Picture Window Pro 8 by Digital Light and Color
I use adobe bridge for bath renaming and i don’t have an adobe subscription so you can use it even if you don’t. it would be nice to be able to do it inside PL. when I used C1 I would rename on import but as we don’t import into PL (which I really like) it would be nice to have a way to rename later like adobe bridge.
And this tool was asked by users for PHOTOLAB, notFilmpack.
DxO have been communicating on this tool beeing part of photolab for monthes after v7 release on the sale page of their website (presented as a new feature of photolab7). But buyers only get this greyed not usable button.
They only stopped to lie on their site after some users warned control authorities of misleading advertising.
So don’t expect to much with photolab.
They will probably do other sneaky tricks like this in the future to try to sell at exorbitant prices basic functions that have been available for decades in other softwares .
And be carefull if you ask new functionnalities (even very basic but missing ones - there are so many of them) : they could use your idea to try to sell you something else !
Maybe they will put mask in viewpoint module next time or create a new module to plug in photolab ! 
And of course put big gray unusable squares that can not be remove in the middle of the interface in which the world mask will be written.
1 Like