Good for you. Don’t know what happened for me.
Is “focus point” working for you ? It is in the title you found.
Good question - I hadn’t tried it myself. It turns out that if I search for focus point, with or without quotes, I get a bunch of good results. If I filter only “PhotoLab - Which feature do you need?” results, I still get good results, with the one I linked to at the top. I guess searching is hit or miss depending on the steps you take. What I do is click on the magnifying glass icon at the top of the page, enter a search term, then click on Advanced to select only the relevant “Which feature do you need” category. I find this to be reliable.
Ok. Maybe I have to better see how research works. It’s not the first time I can’t find subjects I already read (not this one, didn’t have read about it before).
Do you think it is likely that Nikon would be willing to give proprietary information to DxO for no cost? Do you believe DxO would be willing to go to the trouble of providing this data for only Nikon cameras? They would then be under pressure from users to provide it for every camera model from every manufacturer supported by PhotoLab.
Mark
It doesn’t hurt to ask. 
And this seems to be a popular feature request.
1 Like
JFTR, additional to “Displaying Focus Points” above:
1 Like
I don’t think (maybe I’m wrong) being able to read AF point position in raw file is a strategic information.
I think (maybe I’m wrong) Nikon could understand that being able to use their raw as efficiently as possible, showing here they have a plus, could benefit them.
So I think it could be possible, if diplomatically explained, they accept.
And what I’ve seen from other kind of softwares, collaboration generally profit to those who do.
Well, back in the day Aperture did show the focus points of a couple of Nikons. In RAW at least. But not all Nikons. As a digital beginner at that time, I found it very helpful when using 3D tracking to see where (in theory) the camera was focusing on. It was also interesting to see, how big or small the AF points appeared: In D5100, it was only 9, but smaller than the D7000/7100 or D800/D810 with their 39 /50 something AF points which where so big that I sometime shad to ask myself “and where in this big rectangle is the focus measured now?” Even a Canon G11 did show AF points (or better: large rectangle fields) and also a cheap Lumix µ 4/3, but not Pentax. And all Fujis. All two of them
Lateron in D750, D7100, P7800, P900: not always AF (and on some bodies not at all) points visible. If someone knows someone at Apple, ask them if Nikon didn’t provide them anymore or if the cameras didn’t write them into the RAWs anymore (ok, P900 doesn’t write RAWs) .
Sometimes the pattern was shown, but no rectangle was red = manual focus? So it’s also a check “AF did work/was not engaged”.
I think it could be helpful for beginners or for owners of new cameras to get some confidence quicker.
If one is really interested in the focus points one can use ViewNx or CaptureNx-D, the free raw converter of Nikon.
It has no practical value, only educational value.
George
That says something about your view of education. 
Seriously, at home looking at the AF points might be a bit too late to re-shoot and for somebody setting his camera to f/11, AF and recompose, it sort of works without knowing too much. I keep forgetting, I’m in a forum where “patchworkarround” software (for all the stuff PL can’t do) is the standard and not the exception 
Sorry, starting Aperture to check for the AF-points display maybe made me a bit home-sick. For what exactly do we need all this progress and updates? Just kidding’…
Well, it is available as part of ExifTool, as is the focus point info for a number of cameras. This page includes the Nikon info (there are loads further down including points available and points used for dynamic AF modes)
Absolutely Mark. And this is the problem. Not forgetting that camera manufacturers are prone to issuing firmware updates that can change things.
These have now been replaced by NX Studio
You have hit the nail on the head. Most of the time, looking at AF points is simply an exercise in mental torture, thousands of miles from where you took the shot and realising you got it wrong. Who cares where the focus point was? Suffice to say it was in the wrong place, which is easily seen because the intended subject is blurred. Also, as someone else said, if you focus then reframe with BBF, the focus point will been the wrong place.
Moral of the story - get it right in the camera - note to self 
1 Like
@Joanna
Or it can help when not being sure if AF is working well.
When you shoot with razor sharp dof, you can often have doubts.
This is the point.
When you come back from fast moving subjects shoots and see you have very fewer keepers than usual, this is a way to see if you did wrong or maybe your camera did wrong.
When you should for fine tuning AF, the same (dslr) : you generally shoot 5 time the same correction, have to do it for a range of corrections, and for different distances; this is very precise and takes time; and when back to your screen having to compare them you sometime have some interrogations. And sometime you have to do several time the test for being sure.
Being able to have clear responses when looking at the result is sometime better than doing test again to be sure.
And opening nikon software is a bad solution. They are sooo slooow.
My experience of course, but I know for sure it’s not only mine.
Anyway I would prefer DxO work on big working color space or extended masking and layer system than on this kind of detail.
1 Like
For all the reasons everyone’s noted above, this request would have a very narrow audience. And, as @Joanna notes, you can get the information via ExifTool or Nikon’s software if really desired. I assume other manufacturers provide similar tools for those in need.
@jch2103
As I said nikon software are toooo slooow for being efficient on this (because when there are problem, you generally have lot of images to check).
Exif tool seems to me of not big use (unless something I don’t undestand) because it’s when in work cession that this information is required when needed.
But as I said too I would prefer DxO work on big working color space or extended masking and layer system or any big part that makes PL take a big step forward than on this kind of detail.
Yes, but PhotoLab is not a testing tool. There are lots of ways you can determine if your camera is not nailing focus besides seeing the location of the selected point of focus in PhotoLab. Putting in the time and effort to implement it in PhotoLab seems like a waste of resources which could be better used elsewhere.
Mark
1 Like
@mwsilvers
I agree. As it seems to be complicated. Just wanted to explain the use of it, because not everybody uses long lens at full aperture on action shooting, and it seems some didn’t understand why the need of it.
But again, I agree.
Although it gains some reputation from DxO as testing-lab 
I have to agree if I look at “what will be missing in the future” that caring for a display of AF-points of DSLRs today seems like caring for manometer displays of steam engines.
Also, DxO PL is not the fastest app to display RAWs and worst, it can’t show more than one image on it’s main screen, so comparing is a bit hard.
Btw. @JoPoV I stumbled over the term
razor sharp DoF
and think it’s a contradiction, but I believe you meant a shallow DoF? I actually don’t think the display of the AFpoint will help much, there’s movement of you and your subject, a bit too much of it and the interesting area is out of focus. To me, DSLR and AF mean coincidence and guesswork as indirect measurement has always some kind of failure rate.
Hi,
posted in the wrong thread, but the facts are true
Generally always use continuous AF. It’s about fast moving subject and long lens full aperture.
So it is useful.
@JoJu
Yes, sorry. English is not my native langage and sometime worlds mix in my head when I try to type fast.
but shallow dof image has to rhyme with rasor sharp image for me, it has to be rasor sharp.
Or I may have always misunderstood “razor sharp”.
And my AF has to be as precise as possible.
