raw editor and PSU

[fbungarz]

FYI -- DxO Optics Pro 10 places a tiny check mark in the lower right corner of the thumbnail in its browser after a file is processed.

Just to clarify: "processed" in this context means the file has to be fully developed, i.e., processed into another file with the raw adjustments applied. There is no process indicator (!!!) if any adjustments have been made to the raw file itself before an output file is generated (See the discussion in the DxO forum here: http://forum.dxo.com/index.php/topic,10112.0.html). This I find extremely irritating and for me is currently a deciding criterion not to choose that raw converted even though I find its interface and adjustment settings most intuitive of all three.

Cheers,
Frank

[Mke]

There is no process indicator (!!!) if any adjustments have been made to the raw file itself before an output file is generated (See the discussion in the DxO forum here: http://forum.dxo.com/index.php/topic,10112.0.html). This I find extremely irritating and for me is currently a deciding criterion not to choose that raw converted even though I find its interface and adjustment settings most intuitive of all three.

Hi Frank

I see (also from your comments over on the DxO forum) that you're having trouble fitting DxO into your workflow. As mentioned elsewhere, I don't find the lack of a process indicator a problem or an irritation, so thought it may help to expand on how DxO works well for me alongside PSU.

The first element is that I normally process an entire folder at once (but sometimes in 2 or more batches), exporting selected images along the way. The second element is the folder structure, which looks like:

• -Assignment Name (contains only exported files, moved from RAW Files & RAW Files 2)
  ---RAW Files (contains the RAW & dop files)
  ---RAW Files 2 (contains more RAW & dop files, if I run out of time and process them in 2 batches - I later merge them once exported)

...so that, in PSU, clicking on the Assignment Name shows me only exported files. If I want to view those that I didn't export (as well as those that I did), then I move to the RAW folder.
PSU versioning makes it clear which files were exported and which weren't. I prefer not to have PSU interpret modifications to the RAW files, so that - by switching between exported and RAW versions in the version set - it's normally easy to see whether the RAW file has been cropped or modified in DxO. And if I want to go back and process an additional file in DxO, I select and launch the RAW file in DxO from within PSU. And DxO has two methods of comparing the visible image with the original image, if I have a need to check.

[fbungarz]

Hi Mke,
thanks for sharing your workflow. I am not quite sure I understand it though, are you really talking about physical folders called "Assignment Name", "RAW Files" and "RAW Files 2" on your hard drive? If so, how do you keep versions together? I thought PSU only supports versions in the same folder? Perhaps what you call "folders" are your custom placeholders for the files? If so, how do you make sure the raw files that you generated with DxO end up being assigned to the correct versions once you are back in PSU?
I am actually quite reluctant to develop the adjusted files and would much prefer to only do that, if that is necessary. I want to use the raw converter mainly to adjust whole batches of similar files, developing them only when needed. I plan to only process the real keepers, essentially only the best ones. Those ultimately will perhaps even need some fine edits in Photoshop. (I guess I am thus searching for a way to combine advantages of both worlds: non-desctructive editing/raw adjustments and photoshopping).
The suggestion to use PSU to catalog which photos were adjusted and which were not is a good one and someone actually suggested it before. And, if I only edit batches of similar photos in DxO at a time that seems a workable approach. Yet the decision to which files I want to apply the same set of adjustments is much better done within DxO and that is why I am really missing a marker there - to see immediately, which photos I worked on, without having to switch back to PSU. I definitely want to avoid having to process the raws first just to be able to see which images I already adjusted!
I have been thinking that using the semaphore DxO flags would perhaps be the best workaround, their disadvantage that they are not automatically applied would even to some extent be compensated if PSU would see them. I then would not mind having to flag the images in DxO, it would actually even safe time, because I would not have to flag them in PSU again. But as far as I can tell these flags are exclusive to DxO approach of editing raw files.

And a final thought: my motivation to comment at the DxO forum was to get feedback to see if adjustment markers there will likely be implemented soon. That does not seem to be the case. Of all the posts I have now read about that topic, where users suggest various reasonable requests to implement any such feature not a single one has ever been visited or been replied to by a DxO developer. That seems telling. And with some users even strongly lobbying against such a feature I doubt it will ever be implemented. Too bad.

I got a couple of days left. I think I likely will go with Capture One, perhaps I will even give Lightroom another chance.

Thanks again though for for sharing. I really appreciate the feedback.
Cheers,
Frank

[Mke]

Hi Mke,
thanks for sharing your workflow. I am not quite sure I understand it though, are you really talking about physical folders called "Assignment Name", "RAW Files" and "RAW Files 2" on your hard drive? If so, how do you keep versions together? I thought PSU only supports versions in the same folder? Perhaps what you call "folders" are your custom placeholders for the files? If so, how do you make sure the raw files that you generated with DxO end up being assigned to the correct versions once you are back in PSU?

Yes, I'm talking about physical folders, not placeholders. PSU will (normally) automatically version files if they are in the same tree branch. I do occasionally have to manually version a few - not sure why.

I am actually quite reluctant to develop the adjusted files and would much prefer to only do that, if that is necessary. I want to use the raw converter mainly to adjust whole batches of similar files, developing them only when needed. I plan to only process the real keepers, essentially only the best ones. Those ultimately will perhaps even need some fine edits in Photoshop. (I guess I am thus searching for a way to combine advantages of both worlds: non-desctructive editing/raw adjustments and photoshopping).

Yes, that should work. Another thought - in PSU you can also change the color of the 'folder symbol' to your own custom meanings (Preferences ->Catalog -> Folder State Definitions); I use one myself for 'unprocessed' folders - but that does only work at the folder level, of course.

The suggestion to use PSU to catalog which photos were adjusted and which were not is a good one and someone actually suggested it before. And, if I only edit batches of similar photos in DxO at a time that seems a workable approach. Yet the decision to which files I want to apply the same set of adjustments is much better done within DxO and that is why I am really missing a marker there - to see immediately, which photos I worked on, without having to switch back to PSU. I definitely want to avoid having to process the raws first just to be able to see which images I already adjusted!

Yes, I can see how a marker would help your situation. If I want to check from within DxO, I just switch on the button to "Display corrected and reference images side-by-side" and flip through them. And I note that you're not keen to export, but another work around would be to export everything (to set the marker) at a very low quality (for speed) then delete the exported files.

And a final thought: my motivation to comment at the DxO forum was to get feedback to see if adjustment markers there will likely be implemented soon. That does not seem to be the case. Of all the posts I have now read about that topic, where users suggest various reasonable requests to implement any such feature not a single one has ever been visited or been replied to by a DxO developer. That seems telling. And with some users even strongly lobbying against such a feature I doubt it will ever be implemented. Too bad.

Yes, the DxO team have their own way of doing things - mainly spending most of their time measuring lens-camera combinations, ignoring most feature requests, and developing new features that nobody asked for but which are often actually rather good - frustration and brilliance blended together...

I got a couple of days left. I think I likely will go with Capture One, perhaps I will even give Lightroom another chance.

Good luck with whichever suits you best