DxO supports a really LOT of body / lens combination, but those of us who have a lens that not supported now - and is unusual enough that it’s probably never going to be need to be able to create a set of geometric and vignetting corrections and save that as some kind of profile. The lens I’m concerned with is a prime, but a more general solution would involve multiple focal lengths with separate corrections for each.
Interesting request. I can imagine a few different ways one might accomplish this. One, possibly the most straightforward, is the EXIF-based optical correction solution that’s proposed here:
Another that might already be possible is to manually adjust what you can and create a partial preset from those adjustments. As you say, different focal lengths (and even apertures) will require different presets - and DxO might need to expand on what’s possible to adjust manually. I question how practical this would be.
If you have ViewPoint 5 activated, then the ReShape Fusion tool has potential as a basis for more complex distortion correction. However, I don’t know if it can presently be incorporated into preset generation.
For DxO to build a toolbox in PhotoLab for this would be innovative.
…no votes yet. @bobkoure , you can (and should) add your own.
Adobe publishes an instruction on how to create a lens profile and there are tutorials that show what goes into creating profiles. Not that they can be used in PhotoLab, but you can see how to proceed for profile creation… Didn’t search for a long time and came across this:
Adobe Lens Creator downloads can be found here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/de/camera-raw/digital-negative.html#Adobe_Lens_Profile_Creator
If you use the lens a lot or almost exclusively, it might be worth creating a preset that corrects the most irritating aberrations like CA. Unless you need to create the presets using a checker as per tutorial, manual adjustments might be good enough to start with.
At least it would be nice to be able to “force” (at my own risk, doesn’t need to be officially supported) using supported lenses with supported cameras in unsupported combinations, like when using adapters for Canon EF, Nikon F, Sony A etc lenses on mirrorless cameras cross-brand using adapters.
Manual module selection has been requested for years. And maybe it will come, or maybe not.
The “problem” with manual module selection is that one risks to replace one issue by another. But we could at least try to find something that looks fitting
We could probably all wear Schwarzenegger’s t-shirts -
and I believe that most of our t-shirts wouldn’t fit Arnie.
I knew I could vote for my own request but forgot - thanks for the reminder. Interesting that Adobe has a solution for this.
The lens I use that doesn’t have a profile is a Rokinon 14/2.4 with an F mount. PL misrecognizes it as a different Samyang (same manufacturer) 14 with primarily a mustache distortion - and this has close to none. As it’s (at least what I’d consider) a super-wide, I only use it for specific situations, mostly night-sky, plus when I want to get creative with perspective. But dealing with it is a bit of a PITA - to the point I’d be willing to spend an unreasonable amount of time putting a PL profile togenter, particularly if there was a way I could share that with other people using that lens (e.g. on a forum here). Without going into it being an arguably superior lens to the Nikon 14-24 it replaced (no coma) it occurred to me that I’m not the only person with an oddball lens, hadn’t even thought about the problem of adapters on MLs…
But it does become a problem of combinatorics, so why not let people who want to put the time in to fix the issue do that?
So far, DxO has not added any feature for custom profiles. Probably because they suppose that the quality most people will get is less than what DxO deems necessary.
If reputation is based on image quality rather than customer happiness, they do the right thing, but instead of doing either/or, an as-well-as policy could improve acceptance for a wider basis of customers.
