Request the ability to group control points in Photo Lab

As most of us are aware control points can be grouped in the Nik Collection. It doesn’t seem they can be grouped in Photo Lab, unless I’m missing something. There is nothing in the manual regarding this. I’d like to see the ability to group control points in Local Adjustments in Photo Lab?

I’m curious to see what others think about this.

Dear Barry,

I voted because we discussed last year, and it would be a big step in comfort


Actually a Local adjustment with the type “Control point” in PL is a group of control points.
You can add and remove controlpoints to the “group”, when you edit the adjustment.

1 Like

I think it’s not exactly the same
If you add for example 4 CP in a photo yes they are grouped and work as one controlpoint

If you rightclick-new Mask you will got a second one independent from the first one

but you can’t group Number1 with number 2

the only chance is going to number 1 -duplicate it it and place it where you want and delete number 2

It’s not often used in my workflow, but it’s different

I hope my explanation is correct and I didn’t miss any feature or trick

I’m not sure that I understand this request. A “group” of control points consists of several CPs placed anywhere on the photo but all with a single control center(equalizer panel) where adjustments can be made to all CPs simultaneously. No? This is already possible and in a much easier form in PL4. Once the first CP is placed then many other CPs can be placed(even dozens of them) all over the photo ,and as long as the first CP is not closed, before placing the subsequent CPs, they will all be controllable by the equalizer that is associated with the first CP.
This process can be repeated for group 2, group 3 ad infinitum. Much easier than having to create groups of CPs as in the Nik collection. If you later decide to add CPs to any of these groups, simply reactivate the original CP associated with the group and add CPs as necessary. There is no need to “group the groups together”.

Dear Mark,
that’s correct and exactly what I tried to say.
But imagine you have Group A, B and C with different settings, and now you will make one last setting to all groups, or add a single point you made before to one of the groups.
it’s like creating a formular in Access when you decide to give n-fields an equal feature…you can mark them individually and assign maybe blue background.
Like I said it’s not often used, and not very important and neither a killing feature.

Hi Mark,

Yes, I agree that adding consecutive CP’s does create a “group” connecting only those CP’s. There have been times during editing when I’d want to change the “group” by adding or subtracting a CP in PL. This cannot be done as it can in the NIK collection. Groups in NIK can easily be formed and reformed. While I agree it’s certainly not a deal-killer by any means; however, I think it’s important essentially the same functions act the same way if for no other reason than consistenancy. Especially for new users the two different approaches makes no sense. The flexibility od adding a CP from Group 2 to Group 1 is different than it is in the NIK collection. I guess what I’m really advocating is to have a consistent workflow between the two, PL and Nik. For me, having the bounding box in NIK is a wonderful visual way to see what points are being grouped.

Again, this is certainly not a deal-killer but I can imagine a new user using bounding boxes in Nik and wondering why it’s not there in PL. Consistency in a company’s software, for me at least, is important.


1 Like

Hello again,

the only thing I miss in for example Color Efex Pro is the renaming option of CP’s.
I checked a photo with a little Highland calf where i have 4 groups of controlpoints for different browns, and it would be a charme if it would be possible to rename them.
But we have the renaming option in DPL :slight_smile:

Hi Guenterm,

The example you give is really the central point I was trying to make. Nik and PL Local Adjustments should have the same behaviors.

Maybe if we look like the calf we get it

Hi @Guenterm and @bsachais Yes I can understand your point, especially consistency. But since I’ve never run into these situations, I’d vote for changing the implementation of Nik to be like it is in PL4. Sorry but it’s just easier to me. :smiley:

Request the ability to group control points in Photo Lab as in the NIK Collection…

Watching the DXO webinars, especially those that Dan Hughes hosts, he will show how to group control points. Then you go to PL 4 and Local Adjustments and it’s like why isn’t this working as Dan Hughes just showed us. As I’ve mentioned in other posts, software should not be a guessing game.

You watch a webinar, very well done with Dan Hughes, and then go to PL and you wonder what the heck am I doing wrong! Being familiar with both PL and Nik it’s not a problem. But from a marketing perspective, why confuse users? Dan Hughes illustrates this is how it’s done and then you go to PL’s Local Adjustments and that’s not how it’s done.

Personally, I can deal with it; however, if DXO wants to smoothly incorporate Nik with its wonderful RAW processor, well, to bluntly put, Dan Hughes can’t illustrate how to group Control Points and then it’s something different in Pl#. It’s non-sensical!

You might be interested in this feature request

Good morning Pierre,
do you think we should ask Svetlana to merge this two FR’s?

best regards

Hi @Guenterm

I think you could edit this thread’s top post to clarify your intent. As a feature request, your post should cover specifically any points not covered by the one I posted.

You might be also interested in these other posts below:

Excellent suggestion which has been implemented.

Thanks Guenterm