Can I assume that any image which has not yet had the non-denoising Preset done at the time it is exported will have that done at the time of export? I have to scroll down to expose more images to get it going. Question is: the preliminary Preset change with the spinning circle stops as soon as the process moves off the bottom of my screen.
I then exported the images as JPGs (100%) and a long, slow process started (even without any Noise reduction) because of the concurrent thumbnail rendering and the image rendering and exporting taking place at the same time (I believe).ĭOPs are also being generated because the export is considered a database change, the export name is stored in the database and the DOP (which is essentially a copy of the database entry, actually entries because the details are held in more than one database table). The next stage is to go through and render all the thumbnails but selecting any image during either stage will go into a render phase for the selected image (which it always does) before offering that image for ‘Customization’. The first phase of processing is for DxPL(Win) to read all the images and create the thumbnails and at that stage the thumbnails will not have been rendered using either the DOP, if one exists, or the initial loading preset (or so I believe). I have just loaded a Bulk test of 1,000 images from HDD (so a relatively slow process). So far I haven’t found a direct comparison between TIF/DNG sources versus JPG exports in which the TIF version was much or at all Longish posts for a simple answer - yes it is fine because I believe that to be the correct answer and also because I tested it! And if there are glitches you can still decide if it’s worth the effort to deepdive into editing.Īnd contrary on the idea of 16 bit TIF or DNG to waste energy on longer calculations with no better outcome, I prefer exporting well-edited RAWs to JPGs and put that either in Affinity Photo or focus-stacker. If they work out without some bokeh glitches, double contours, phantom glow and whatever might happen, you still can work on your RAW. It might be (not 100% sure) helpful, but saving a RAW and JPG eneables you to test-run a stacking process with JPGs. I still stumble into them as it’s impossible to ckeck the result when out in the field (without laptop). That’s neither Affinity’s nor PL’s fault, but the concept of focus stacking has some traps. Your focus merge has some flaws Part of the towel in foreground would have needed more images in shorter stacking steps. from PL) - and use Affinity’s UI to select and merge the component images.Įxport the result from Affinity - and open it in PL for any tidying up you may need to do to it. Open Affinity in stand-alone mode (because it’s not possible - AFAIK - to send multiple images to another app. Select ALL the RAW files from your bracketed-set in PhotoLab (so that any correction changes you make will apply equally to ALL of them) … Be sure to set Deep PRIME NR on.Įxport to disk with the following options: Do not enable resizing - set ICC Profile = ProPhotoRGB … this will provide Affinity with the best basis to work with.
That’s not the best workflow, in any case … You’ll get much better results by processing the RAWs in PL - and passing the results to Affinity for stacking. That’s probably because you’re stacking the various images in Affinity first - and then sending the stacked result to PL for further processing ? … in which case the result is no longer a RAW file(s) - and Deep PRIME works only on RAWs. I can get the focus stacking done in Affinity but can’t edit that imagine in DXO, at least can’t do Deep Prime.
0 kommentar(er)
