First and foremost: I guess it would be a good idea to having a whole folder of “wishlist” items and pinning them to the beginning, to making it easier finding similar requests for the next gen PL.
Besides my strong request for updating the masking functions to some intelligent object masking (e.g. birds, trees, sky etc.) I would very much like to having the organization of image folder and main window differently.
I do use the seperation of the image browser from the main window. I think it’s a real cool feature and makes it much easier working on projects. Having said that, if doing so, the folders are in the “fotothek” (German version) on the main window, while the buttons for exporting into application or exporting on the disk is on the image browser window. That’s not logical and makes the flow not easy. It would be much better to having a complete image browser and organization tool where you have the folder structure, and the pictures in one window. If double clicking on a picture, there opens the modify window, where you finally can decide what to do with the picture - making a jpeg out of it, of using external programs.
BTW - it would be very cool to having in the organizing tool things to search the images for - e.g. Exif date, e.g. the date.
I think you are looking for Lightroom. I sincerely hope that DxO does not waste more time and energy replicating the macOS Finder and Windows File Manager. File management is an area where any error is fatal. Better to leave it to the experts (Apple, Windows).
Adobe builds basically an alternate OS system (with their huge resources) which wastes memory and hard drive space (have you checked how big the Adobe applications and the frameworks to run them are?).
I organize my photos with DigiKam. I have disabled DigiKam’s RAW support and configured “Additional sidecar file extensions” as “dop DNG RW2 CR2 ARW DNG.dop RW2.dop CR2.dop ARW.dop”, so DigiKam treats them and their dop files as sidecars. In PhotoLab I render JPEGs without a suffix, so “IMAGE123.ARW” is rendered to “IMAGE123.jpg” next to it. DigiKam will only see the .jpg files but if I move or rename them, the RAW and .dop files will be automatically moved/renamed with them.
I treat my RAW files like negatives. I load them into PhotoLab where I develop them, but then they are just archived for future reference, similar to how my old negatives are stored in a locker somewhere, and it’s the JPEG (or paper) version that is the one that others will ever see, and even myself in most cases.
I should also add that I keep all metadata in the .xmp sidecar. If I edit any tags or other metadata in DigiKam, it will be saved to IMAGE123.jpg.xmp, so if I rerender the JPEG from the RAW, DigiKam will only overwrite IMAGE123.jpg and leave my metadata in IMAGE123.jpg.xmp alone.
Additionally, I have written a script that will keep a second read-only library in sync with my main library. This second library has the same folder structure as the main one, but only contains .jpg files, with the .xmp metadata merged into the .jpg files. It also excludes files with some specific tags and those rated 1 star. This folder is scanned by Plex so I can show them on the TV at home.
Then I plan to use the same script to sync a third read-only library on a shared Dropbox folder containing only the images tagged “public” and rated 4 or 5 stars. Family and friends can pick whatever they want from here for personal use. I want to use a photography oriented cloud service instead, but I haven’t find one that supports multilevel folders/albums and has a usable API (can be managed with rclone or a similar tool) at a reasonable cost.
@Per I’m afraid this will become another thread cluttered with workarounds. This is not not @MartinJJ wishlist. And I support his wishlist, although I know there are nearly as many “workarounds” for the lack of a proper image management tool within PL as there are PL users.
And the PL users with a workaround stick stubborningly to it and don’t want to see any improvement or any easier way to handle images directly inside PL’s photo browser as their holy workaround would become unnecessary. This is just one of the minefields here. I also used to work with an undocked PL image browser (until I became fed up with the stillstands on some improvements, necessary for me but always been debated into the dust by said users) and still set up C1 to browse on the left monitor and edit on the right. To me, that’s a very good way using two screens.
I have tried a few workarounds, but none of them really works for me.
And if I decide for my main developing tool, I want it to have at least basic organization tools supporting my workflow.
I do not request a complete photo organizer with automatic key word finding (which never works correctly) and other high end functions - and I definitely do not request a complete operation system like Adobe. I just want a central organization structure for my photos with some kind of “logical” structure. I have a lot of good funtionality in PL - and that’s why I use it, but the organization of the photos has room to improvement…
Like JoJu is writing. Most users work with 2 screens anyhow. And PL already supporting the seperation of the image browser, which is a good way (at least for me). All I am asking for, is to think this structure a bit further… You have one screen for the photo itself, the other for the browser. But to my understanding the folder structure belongs to the image browser and the export buttons are more a thing I will decide upon when having done my adjustments to the photo.
Thank you Wolfgang for the suggestions - I am more looking for some basic functionality where you can build yourself a searching engine, e.g. for camera, for date, for ISO or something like that.
I too get annoyed when my feature requests (not only with PL) are met with workarounds so I agree with that sentiment. I just find the DAM features of PL so lacking I don’t even know where to start. You can’t even create a directory with the Mac version of PL. That’s like the most basic DAM feature I can even think of. Perhaps to filter on camera and lens, which it can’t do either. On top of that, the marketing on the PL website cites “Robust file management for effortless organization” as one of the reasons for using PhotoLab…
Before DxO even started to conceive a DAM, I decided I would write my own, for Mac, that would interact easily with PL.
It is only a simple affair that is designed mainly for keywording, star rating, Finder tags and descriptions. It also allows for the creation of Smart Folders, which give the equivalent of Projects.
All this without the need to worry about synchronisation of metadata because that is all stored in the macOS Spotlight database, which is constantly updated by the system.
When it comes to searching, I use my app for the above but, for anything else, I use the excellent search and sort facilities that are already in Finder.
Actually, by far and away the most useful feature of my app, and one of the primary reasons for creating it, is that it allows me to browse my images in a flattened hierarchy, so I get to see all the images in all the sub-folders at the same time, rather than having to continually switch folders in the tree view.
That was to be expected that you will pop up with your own app, dear @Joanna
But as it’s neither
publicly available nor
working on windows nor
delivering a structure for albums and projects nor
programmed and and maintained by a bigger than one person (in retirement, I assume?)
I wonder why you keep us telling about? What is your motivation? I don’t mean that angrily or mean, I’m a bit curious, I admit. And it’s just not helpful for anybody wishing for a better DAM from DxO. But it adds some noise to the threads in this topic range.