DxO files and collections

[57Andrew]

Lightroom Version

11.4.1

Operating System

1. macOS 12 Monterey

I have DxO PureRaw as a plug in and I am very happy with it. However when it imports the processed file to the original folder it also adds it to a collection. I don't want this and I have tried deleting the collection folder. It simply creates a new one next time. DxO says it is nothing to do with them. They say Adobe must be doing this. I have been through my LRC Preferences and can't see a way of stopping this. Is there a way to remove this permanently? I find it very irritiating. It also defaults to the collection each time so I have endless sub-folders by date under the collection that I have to scroll down through and then collapse the folder again.

From DxO: "We have found that on some systems, processed files from DxO PureRAW are placed into Collections in Adobe Lightroom. Upon investigation, this has been determined to be done by Lightroom. There is no code or setting in PureRAW to instruct Lightroom on how and where to place photo files imported into its database."

Thanks for any help.

Andrew

 

[Johan Elzenga]

See https://community.adobe.com/t5/ligh...s/integration-with-dxo-pureraw-2/m-p/12986087

 

[57Andrew]

See https://community.adobe.com/t5/ligh...s/integration-with-dxo-pureraw-2/m-p/12986087

Many thanks - I did search under DxO collections but this didn't show up. Not very inspiring from DxO.

 

[Colin Grant]

If you use DxO Photolab as a plugin to Lr the same thing happens. Lots of things are uninspiring from DxO imo but that collection thing is ridiculous.

 

[57Andrew]

Lots of things are uninspiring from DxO imo but that collection thing is ridiculous.

I like the outputs although I don't know why they look a bit underexposed after processing. The file sizes are huge but I tend not to keep them now once they have been exported as jpegs. And the time to process is probably a reflection of running the software on a 2019 13" MacBook Pro. I shoot a lot of low light wildlife images in woodlands and the end results look decent. I have tried to be satisfied with LRC's native noise reduction capabilities but eventually conceded defeat.

 

[Colin Grant]

I like the outputs although I don't know why they look a bit underexposed after processing. The file sizes are huge but I tend not to keep them now once they have been exported as jpegs. And the time to process is probably a reflection of running the software on a 2019 13" MacBook Pro. I shoot a lot of low light wildlife images in woodlands and the end results look decent. I have tried to be satisfied with LRC's native noise reduction capabilities but eventually conceded defeat.

The file size is an unfortunate bi-product. It is the same with ON1 No Noise, which I tend to use with Lr as it works on tiff, jpeg etc as well as raw. It may not be as good as Pure Raw, not in th eyes of some, but it is still very good and certainly good enough for me. That said, I cannot understand why Adobe have not progressed in this area - maybe they are working on it!

 

[KarstenG]

If you use DxO Photolab as a plugin to Lr the same thing happens.

If the PureRAW behaviour reported by @57Andrew is exactly the same as with PhotoLab, then there's a workaround - until DxO have changed this. If they will ever do, because IMO it is intended behavior.

To be very clear - are you talking about this collection set, with an individual collection for every export to DXO / import to LR?

This collection is explicitely created as part of their import plugin, which takes care to return the imaged process to LrC:

    function(context)
      dxoCollection = catalog:createCollectionSet("DxO PhotoLab", nil, true)
    end

When I started using DxO PL, I didn't like this as well, apart from some other things.
So I tweaked the Lua code of the plugin to
1. not create and maintain this particular collection set
2. stack the processed image "above" the source image (and not vice-versa)
3. add the processed image also to the LR collection from which DxO PL had been called (if so)

If we are talking about the same thing, and someone is interested in tweaking their plugin too, I will think about a way how to share this without infringing DxO's IP and T&Cs.

 

[Colin Grant]

If the PureRAW behaviour reported by @57Andrew is exactly the same as with PhotoLab, then there's a workaround - until DxO have changed this. If they will ever do, because IMO it is intended behavior.

To be very clear - are you talking about this collection set, with an individual collection for every export to DXO / import to LR?

View attachment 19037

This collection is explicitely created as part of their import plugin, which takes care to return the imaged process to LrC:

    function(context)
      dxoCollection = catalog:createCollectionSet("DxO PhotoLab", nil, true)
    end

When I started using DxO PL, I didn't like this as well, apart from some other things.
So I tweaked the Lua code of the plugin to
1. not create and maintain this particular collection set
2. stack the processed image "above" the source image (and not vice-versa)
3. add the processed image also to the LR collection from which DxO PL had been called (if so)

If we are talking about the same thing, and someone is interested in tweaking their plugin too, I will think about a way how to share this without infringing DxO's IP and T&Cs.

Yes - DxO PhotoLab creates a collection for every image it sends back to Lr via the plugin that PL installs.

 

[KarstenG]

I just installed a test version of Pure RAW 2, and noticed that the plugins are compiled LUA code.
Which makes it impossible to carry-over / share any plugin tweaks, because this would require LUA source code (which exists for PL5).

 

[Colin Grant]

I just installed a test version of Pure RAW 2, and noticed that the plugins are compiled LUA code.
Which makes it impossible to carry-over / share any plugin tweaks, because this would require LUA source code (which exists for PL5).

Not surprising. Why DxO have not changed it is one of life's mysteries but as I say the ON1 plugin does a good enough job for me (mind you so does Lr most of the time).

 

[57Andrew]

If the PureRAW behaviour reported by @57Andrew is exactly the same as with PhotoLab, then there's a workaround - until DxO have changed this. If they will ever do, because IMO it is intended behavior.

To be very clear - are you talking about this collection set, with an individual collection for every export to DXO / import to LR?

View attachment 19037

This collection is explicitely created as part of their import plugin, which takes care to return the imaged process to LrC:

    function(context)
      dxoCollection = catalog:createCollectionSet("DxO PhotoLab", nil, true)
    end

When I started using DxO PL, I didn't like this as well, apart from some other things.
So I tweaked the Lua code of the plugin to
1. not create and maintain this particular collection set
2. stack the processed image "above" the source image (and not vice-versa)
3. add the processed image also to the LR collection from which DxO PL had been called (if so)

If we are talking about the same thing, and someone is interested in tweaking their plugin too, I will think about a way how to share this without infringing DxO's IP and T&Cs.

this is exactly what I was referring to and wanted to eleiminate. I am not sure why DxO would do this since it serves no purpose other than to annoy. If people wanted it they could do it anyway.

 

[tarma]

DXO does have some useful things in their software, but the company has been on my "do not trust and think twice before any upgrade" list for several years now. Sometimes I think they specialize in annoying customers.

 

[Colin Grant]

DXO does have some useful things in their software, but the company has been on my "do not trust and think twice before any upgrade" list for several years now. Sometimes I think they specialize in annoying customers.

Know what you mean. I don't see the software as anything special nowadays. It may have been once but the others have caught it up. I can get much better results and far quicker with Lr, where I find the masking far superior (not to mention the dam).