Reading mode: Light Dark

DXO photolab!

Go to last post
nbirkett said:
nbirkett said:
Mark9473 said:
I see the masks highlighted pretty much like in that video. Can you describe what you are missing?
Click to expand...
All I can find in PhotoLab is an ability to draw and display traditional masks. The unique feature of Nik control points is that you don't actually draw the mask - you select points and establish a 'circle of influence' around each point. The tonal values under that circle, and the overlap of the circles, are used by the software to create the mask. Without that capability, you aren't implementing the Nik approach.

I can't see any way to do the Nik approach using PhotoLab.
Click to expand...
I'll answer my own question:
  • Click the 'local adjustment' button
  • Right click on the image to bring up a 'wheel' of options.
  • Click on the icon at the top of the wheel to select 'Control point'.
  • Then, you can create control points, adjust circles sizes and make other selection from the Nik package. I still can't get 'show mask' to work.
A pointer or help icon on the screen would have made this more identifiable to new users.
Click to expand...
There's an icon on the screen where you first placed the control point for that mask layer. Clicking that shows all the overlapping circles created within that layer.
 
nbirkett said:
nbirkett wrote
  • Click the 'local adjustment' button
  • Right click on the image to bring up a 'wheel' of options.
  • Click on the icon at the top of the wheel to select 'Control point'.
  • Then, you can create control points, adjust circles sizes and make other selection from the Nik package. I still can't get 'show mask' to work.
A pointer or help icon on the screen would have made this more identifiable to new users.
Click to expand...
I briefly played with a demo yesterday - got the impression this *very limited* implementation of the Nik plugins was a rush job. Looks and feels tiny and clumsy, a last-minute addition.

I much prefer the straightforward method used by Capture One: create layer, define mask with masking brush (you can see your mask while you do it), select color range to be processed and then do all kind of manipulation with the regular controls for color, sharpness, exposure, white balance, contrast, hue, saturation, brightness, microcontrast, etc.

Then refine further, if needed, with the eraser mask brush, transparency, etc.

Very simple and quite powerful, specially the color editor.
 
Last edited:
DXO incorporation of U-Point is very poor compared with the Nikon Capture NX. software.

If it was the same I would have purchased in a flash.
 
PhotoLab takes about 30-50% longer to export a RAW file to which PRIME noise reduction - and nothing else - has been applied. Ouch.
 
Mark9473 said:
nbirkett said:
nbirkett said:
Mark9473 said:
I see the masks highlighted pretty much like in that video. Can you describe what you are missing?
Click to expand...
All I can find in PhotoLab is an ability to draw and display traditional masks. The unique feature of Nik control points is that you don't actually draw the mask - you select points and establish a 'circle of influence' around each point. The tonal values under that circle, and the overlap of the circles, are used by the software to create the mask. Without that capability, you aren't implementing the Nik approach.

I can't see any way to do the Nik approach using PhotoLab.
Click to expand...
I'll answer my own question:
  • Click the 'local adjustment' button
  • Right click on the image to bring up a 'wheel' of options.
  • Click on the icon at the top of the wheel to select 'Control point'.
  • Then, you can create control points, adjust circles sizes and make other selection from the Nik package. I still can't get 'show mask' to work.
A pointer or help icon on the screen would have made this more identifiable to new users.
Click to expand...
There's an icon on the screen where you first placed the control point for that mask layer. Clicking that shows all the overlapping circles created within that layer.
Click to expand...
I get that - it shows where I have drawn the mask circles. But, that isn't the mask which Nik creates. The Nik software uses the tonal values under the circles to create a dynamic mask where, when you add a new circle, the intensity of masking in the whole image can change. Unlike with standard masking, the circles you draw are not defining a geometric area of the image which is masked. Rather, they are defining a tonal area. The software accumulates the information on tone values from all circles and generates a mask to select common tonal values. Not all objects inside a circle will be affected; some outside the circles can be affected. The video cited earlier shows this in action.

For example, I have an image of a black dog with a red bow (a complex shape). I place five circles on the image, all with their centerson the bow. The circles all extend into the body of the dog. When I then increase exposure, the bow becomes over-exposed but the exposure of the dog does not change.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in Photolab which provides a visual image of the masking which results from applying circles. Just seeing the circles tells you nothing about the mask that will be used with adjustments
 
I can only conclude I'll need to watch some tutorials to understand what it can do and what not.
 
nbirkett said:
Mark9473 said:
nbirkett said:
nbirkett said:
Mark9473 said:
I see the masks highlighted pretty much like in that video. Can you describe what you are missing?
Click to expand...
All I can find in PhotoLab is an ability to draw and display traditional masks. The unique feature of Nik control points is that you don't actually draw the mask - you select points and establish a 'circle of influence' around each point. The tonal values under that circle, and the overlap of the circles, are used by the software to create the mask. Without that capability, you aren't implementing the Nik approach.

I can't see any way to do the Nik approach using PhotoLab.
Click to expand...
I'll answer my own question:
  • Click the 'local adjustment' button
  • Right click on the image to bring up a 'wheel' of options.
  • Click on the icon at the top of the wheel to select 'Control point'.
  • Then, you can create control points, adjust circles sizes and make other selection from the Nik package. I still can't get 'show mask' to work.
A pointer or help icon on the screen would have made this more identifiable to new users.
Click to expand...
There's an icon on the screen where you first placed the control point for that mask layer. Clicking that shows all the overlapping circles created within that layer.
Click to expand...
I get that - it shows where I have drawn the mask circles. But, that isn't the mask which Nik creates. The Nik software uses the tonal values under the circles to create a dynamic mask where, when you add a new circle, the intensity of masking in the whole image can change. Unlike with standard masking, the circles you draw are not defining a geometric area of the image which is masked. Rather, they are defining a tonal area. The software accumulates the information on tone values from all circles and generates a mask to select common tonal values. Not all objects inside a circle will be affected; some outside the circles can be affected. The video cited earlier shows this in action.

For example, I have an image of a black dog with a red bow (a complex shape). I place five circles on the image, all with their centerson the bow. The circles all extend into the body of the dog. When I then increase exposure, the bow becomes over-exposed but the exposure of the dog does not change.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in Photolab which provides a visual image of the masking which results from applying circles. Just seeing the circles tells you nothing about the mask that will be used with adjustments

--
Nick
Click to expand...
I am just testing DXO Photolab. Are you using the control point adjustment?



0731f1a449884293ad2a3a6d7e88bf7c.jpg

This appears to do what you want, i.e. it adjusts based on tone values and would appear to work on your dog example. I placed a control point on the wood of the building, expanded the circle to include the sky and trees and then varied exposure. Only the wood was effected.

It does not indicate the area being effected , but as far as I can remember NIK didn't either.

Ian
 
Hello The interface is customisable, only up to a point.

You can remove some tabs, but some tools appear twice in some tabs and the duplicates cannot be removed, well as far as I have tried.

MDE
 
A quick before and after image I was using, purely to experiment with some of the features. Not intended to be any sort of showcase example, but for my £55 upgrade I am happy with the new options this gives me. I've a feeling there will be more to come from DxO with this.

Corrections as could be achieved in DxO Optics 11. Actually shot on a RX10M4.
Corrections as could be achieved in DxO Optics 11. Actually shot on a RX10M4.

Local corrections with DxO PhotoLab. Actually shot on a RX10M4.
Local corrections with DxO PhotoLab. Actually shot on a RX10M4.
 
Last edited:
Mark9473 said:
I can only conclude I'll need to watch some tutorials to understand what it can do and what not.
Click to expand...
Come on - I've been using Nik software for 3 years and understand what it can do. The concern is that DxO's implementation doesn't provide the feedback the it should.

Here's the dog image I mentioned. The first image shows the mask as displayed by Photolab. The second shows the effect of changing the exposure. using the Photolabs masking. Note that this alters exposure on the bow but not on the dog's fur even though the fur is inside the circles

In contrast, the third image shows the 'display mask' from Nik Collection (Color Efex Pro 4). Notice how it is a totally different display from that provided by Photolab. You don't see the circles. Rather, you see areas of black and white (and grays) to show how the algorithm has interpreted the information to generate areas to be affected (white) or protected (black). I could have added more 'negative control points' to prevent the residual effect on the dog's fur. But, with the Photolab display, you aren't even aware that the mask is affecting unintended areas.

It is this display that is missing from Photolab.



1e742d31510b4d20a6296a4599793529.jpg.png



2f1a27b934d84295a167824a27836629.jpg.png



a52497d1013c463883187126a9bcb23e.jpg.png



--
Nick
 
Last edited:
SantaFeBill said:
Austinian said:
I didn't want my image management tied to any one RAW processor; I see that as an entirely different function.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I've used Photo Mechanic for years (and now occasionally Fast Raw Viewer).

In that time, I've used 4 different RAW processors/editors (and trial versions of several more), and yet my organization and ratings of photos was and still is available, and will continue to be regardless of what processing sw I may use in the future.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more. I use Photo Mechanic for file ingestion and management. It is a high powered browser that has all the tools and features that I could ever want. Many professionals are devoted to it.

I might add that I detest catalog-based systems. Yes, they have some advantages, but on the whole, I find them to be a serious drag. Yet it seems that many catalog (e.g. Lightroom) users can’t imagine working any other way.

Rob
 
yanisha said:
Austinian said:
Lightroom (and others) DAM looked to me like a tool to lock in users to one company's software. But I can't deny it was effective at doing that for Adobe. ;-)
Click to expand...
IMO, the LR simple DAM (or other software's) is not the lock-in issue. Star ratings, keywords, etc. can usually be easily transferred to many other programs. Some will even import a LR catalog to get the info.
Click to expand...
If I needed a DAM program, I'd want one that was independent of the RAW processor from the very beginning.

I'd not want to limit my choices to a DAM program that might be able to import from some RAW processor's DAM, but not necessarily from others that could have superior capabilities for my needs.
yanisha said:
What is the lock-in is the non-destructive editing you have done. It cannot be transferred to other programs. This is true for all non-destructive editors.
Click to expand...
The whole point of changing RAW processors would be to use the new processor's more effective adjustments on those images that would benefit, not the adjustments from the old processor. "Transferring" would be useless even if it could be done.

If you'r happy with LR, that's fine. It's certainly the most popular RAW software. But it's not for everyone.
 
You are spot on,I have been using Capture NX for the last 13 years, I understand completely the working of U-Point,unfortunately the DXO version is very poor in comparison.
 
ISOhappy said:
Mark9473 said:
ISOhappy said:
  • there seems to be a lot of sharpening going on, especially with the lens correction modules.
Click to expand...
Use the sliders to find your own preferred sharpness setting, then store that as a preset.
ISOhappy said:
  • Image is sharp, but noise is much more obvious than in LR
Click to expand...
Noise reduction is not applied to the whole image (except of course on exporting the jpeg), but there's a small preview window in the control panel.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Phil Hill said:
Jacques Cornell said:
PhotoLab takes about 30-50% longer to export a RAW file to which PRIME noise reduction - and nothing else - has been applied. Ouch.
Click to expand...
Edit/Preferences/Performance
Click to expand...
There is no such setting on the Mac version.

I tried "max simultaneous" at 1 and 4: made little difference on a single image. OP11 did it in 1:20, PL did it in 2:00. That's a big slide backward.

--
If you think digital is hard, try slide film.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos
 
Last edited:
Jacques Cornell said:
It's gotten a lot slower. Let's hope they improve performance on the next point update. Soon.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a Mac issue. Both versions run at about the same speed on my 4-year-old PC, under 30 seconds for a Canon 5D3 raw to 16-bit TIFF. If anything, PhotoLab might be slightly faster, but I'd have to do additional testing to be certain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

luxborealis
Just published: Part 1 of a thorough comparison of DxO PhotoLab 9 and Lightroom
Replies
16
Views
16K
Zeee
Z
E
Is DxO PhotoLab a good subscription free alternative?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
117K
ishwanu
I
G
Advice needed
2 3
Replies
41
Views
10K
MarshallG
MarshallG
Night Pixel
DxO PhotoLab Elite Vs. Lightroom Masking..."Bi-lingual" Andy Hutchinson Translates...
Replies
13
Views
507
Ab S
Ab S
N
DxO PhotoLab 9 failure with mask
2
Replies
23
Views
14K
NJDan
N

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top