Wish List

[MikeFromMesa]

The German side of the forum has a topic for this type of thing (Suggestions and Wishes) but the English side does not. Hence this post.

I am a new PhotoLine user and have found that the software is both very good and relatively complete functionally. I used to be a Photoshop user and then, when Adobe went to the subscription mode, I became an Elements user. I was pointed to PL by one of the posters on Elements Village (and am grateful for the post that pointed me to PL).

The more I look into PL the more I find that I did not know existed before so it is with some trepidation that I broach the subject of a "wish list" for future PL releases. Among other things I worry that I will find that some of the stuff I think is missing may actually exist somewhere in PL.

Nonetheless I thought it might be useful to the developers, who I think have done a wonderful job for a photo editor this complete and this inexpensive, to see a list of what users might want in the software in future releases and I am asking users who would like to see new functionality to add items that they would like to see to this thread. If anything I have listed is available and I don't know it, I would like to know, but I believe the items I have listed do not exist in my Mac version (18.52).

• 1) Scripting plugin to allow users to script functionality that does not currently exist (this is separate from creating actions)

• 2) An extra command to Save All As which would allow the user to specify how and where to save all currently open files so it would not be necessary to individually save each file. there is already a Save All but this would save all open files with a single dialog box instead of one for each file. People who have used Image Processor Pro in Photoshop or Elements will know what I am referring to.

• 3) The ability to use a raw pre-processor plugin, like ACR, on files before directly loading into PL. One non-Adobe example of this is the ACR replacement made by PictureCode (PhotoNinja) that can replace ACR for Photoshop. This is a file format plugin which can be automatically called by PS when loading raw files.

• 4) On the Mac I have not been able to find a way to set the Simple Browse window, which I use as a "mini bridge", to be a single row. It defaults to multi-row format and I have not been able to find a way to change it to single row. I would like to be able to have it work as I am told it does on the Windows side as a single row.

I would like to know if any other users also have a "wish list" for PL. If I am the only one who has a "wish list" I apologize for staring a thread that no one has any interest in.

[photoken]

I would like to know if any other users also have a "wish list" for PL. If I am the only one who has a "wish list" I apologize for staring a thread that no one has any interest in.

A long time ago, I had the same idea and started a "Feature Request" thread for it. Over time, it became obvious that such a discussion thread (as opposed to an actual Feature Request forum) is not a good idea because the discussion thread becomes filled with so many requests that it is impossible to track the requests and later search for and find the one you were interested in.

So, now I simply add each request as a new discussion in this forum (or the beta test forum) and preface the subject line with "Req" so the developers and everyone else knows it's a request. That makes it real easy for me to later review all the requests I made to see if they have been addressed in beta releases. It's also much easier to review all the replies (for or against) regarding a specific request.

Regarding your specific requests, I'm going to split them for my comments about them in this thread.

[Hoogo]

Sure I have a wish list, but I'm quite inactive for the last 1, 2 years, so I don't bother that much. I'm even unsure if I can still find the file with all my notes...

But from time to time I still find it unnecessary difficult to blur layers of text or vector, PL should just automatically create a child adjustment layer when I call a filter for such layers.

[photoken]

Scripting plugin to allow users to script functionality that does not currently exist (this is separate from creating actions)

When I first started using PL, I also thought that scripting (as I was used to from PSE and PSP) ought to be implemented, but now I'm not so sure.

In PSE, the scripting is used by add-ins (such as the excellent Elements+) mostly to access hidden features and enable "forbidden" functionality. Just about all of those features are already available in PL.

In PSP, the scripting is used try and bend and force PSP to do some things which, again, are readily available in PL.

In short, I'm thinking that PL probably only needs to run a script for certain relatively limited cases and that those cases could be addressed by adding a new "feature" rather than going to the trouble of opening the PL object model to scripting and documenting it.

Like I said, I've got somewhat mixed feelings about scripting in PL and am leaning towards the thought that it might not be needed as such. Just my two cents....

[photoken]

The ability to use a raw pre-processor plugin, like ACR, on files before directly loading into PL. One non-Adobe example of this is the ACR replacement made by PictureCode (PhotoNinja) that can replace ACR for Photoshop. This is a file format plugin which can be automatically called by PS when loading raw files.

I prefer using RawTherapee as my RAW image processor, so I simply open the RAW image in RT first and export it as a 16-bit TIF that I can open in PL. If I happen to first be working on a RAW image in PL, I can always call RT as an external program with a merged 16-bit TIF passed to it.

[MikeFromMesa]

When I first started using PL, I also thought that scripting (as I was used to from PSE and PSP) ought to be implemented, but now I'm not so sure.

In PSE, the scripting is used by add-ins (such as the excellent Elements+) mostly to access hidden features and enable "forbidden" functionality. Just about all of those features are already available in PL.

In PSP, the scripting is used try and bend and force PSP to do some things which, again, are readily available in PL.

In short, I'm thinking that PL probably only needs to run a script for certain relatively limited cases and that those cases could be addressed by adding a new "feature" rather than going to the trouble of opening the PL object model to scripting and documenting it.

Like I said, I've got somewhat mixed feelings about scripting in PL and am leaning towards the thought that it might not be needed as such. Just my two cents....

For me the most important first step would be to find some way to save all currently open files with specified options. Image Processor Pro, from Dr Brown's, does this for both Photoshop and Elements and is a java script. My normal editing method is to select a group of image files, perhaps a dozen or so, load them, adjust each according to what it needs, and then save all at the same time. The process of going through each dialog box for a dozen images (repeatedly because I often have hundreds of images to process) is just too much of a pain to put up with.

Since there is no equivalent to Image Processor Pro for PL I looked into creating an action that would close the currently selected file as a jpg at some specific folder so I could more easily save every open file that I have edited. Sort of a "poor man's Image Processor Pro". Unfortunately that did not work for a couple of reasons. First, recording an action to save a file apparently saves and reuses the file name so you end up getting a dozen files, all saved as the save jpg. Second, you apparently cannot close a file in an action (seems a bit odd).

Since I cannot use what already exists and since I cannot save that work as an action my next thought was to script the sequence of key strokes and hence the request for scripting. I assumed I could whip up a java or perl or python script and just use it if PL supporting scripting. Hence the request.

As it is this is my main issue with PL. The editor is just wonderful but the pain of individually saving hundreds of images is just that, a pain. I thought I might be able to use the Save All as an intermediate but that just brings up all of the individual dialog boxes and does not save all of the open files according to a base template of options.

My wife and I often come back from our trips with as many as 2000 images (or more) and while I like editing them down to what we want I just don't like having to individually go through 2000 dialog boxes to save them after adjustment. If the developers would just extend the File commands to include something like "Save All As" it would solve my problem.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[Alan9940]

Hello Mike,

I agree with Ken that if we (the users of PL) hope to affect implementation of requested features, there should be some formal way of making such requests to allow for tracking, perhaps voting, and documentation. IMO it's just too difficult for the developers to cull through a bunch of responses on something like this thread; I know I wouldn't do it. Just sayin'...

Like Ken, I mostly use an external converter, such as DxO Optics Pro or Capture One Pro, for all my RAW conversions passing a TIFF to PL and really have no need calling on these programs internally to PL (though that could be done, if desired.) But, to play along... I really, really, R-E-A-L-L-Y would like a tool similar to PS Refine Edge dialog allowing me more precise capability to mask hair, bridal veils, and other difficult areas of semi-transparency. Just in case I haven't said this enough in the "other" multi-page thread!

Best regards,
AlanH

[photoken]

My normal editing method is to select a group of image files, perhaps a dozen or so, load them, adjust each according to what it needs, and then save all at the same time. The process of going through each dialog box for a dozen images (repeatedly because I often have hundreds of images to process) is just too much of a pain to put up with.

Just a thought, but perhaps an enhancement + additional functions to the PL Batch Converting feature could accommodate that?

[photoken]

I really, really, R-E-A-L-L-Y would like a tool similar to PS Refine Edge dialog allowing me more precise capability to mask hair, bridal veils, and other difficult areas of semi-transparency. Just in case I haven't said this enough in the "other" multi-page thread!

Do I detect an oncoming Feature Request?

[MikeFromMesa]

I agree with Ken that if we (the users of PL) hope to affect implementation of requested features, there should be some formal way of making such requests to allow for tracking, perhaps voting, and documentation. IMO it's just too difficult for the developers to cull through a bunch of responses on something like this thread; I know I wouldn't do it. Just sayin'...

Well, perhaps. But then again the German side of the forum has a thread specifically for tips and suggestions so I assume the developers pay attention to it. Why is there not one of those on the English side of the forum?

[MikeFromMesa]

Like Ken, I mostly use an external converter, such as DxO Optics Pro or Capture One Pro, for all my RAW conversions passing a TIFF to PL and really have no need calling on these programs internally to PL (though that could be done, if desired.)

The problem is that the tools do not integrate well if you are working with raw images. CaptureOne requires that images be imported so, if you pass an image to PL, adjust it and then save it, you still will not have it back in CO unless you specifically import the new image and, if you do, you will lose all of your current imported images.

As for Dxo, if you are working with raw images you can export in dng format to PL and do your work there. But, when you save it, you cannot do so in dng format (why not?) and thus you will have to change your image selection. The integration with Dxo is not as bad as with CO, but it is still not seamless.

Perhaps I just want too much. I have some plugins that I use a lot (meaning perhaps 25% of my images, perhaps more, and since I cannot access them from Dxo or CO, I was hoping to get some kind of good integration between the tools allowing me to work seamlessly. That was why I ended up doing most of my editing in PS and then in Elements until I found PL. Both PS and Elements allowed me to access all of the tools I wanted to use. PL is a much better editor than Elements and I do like it, but it does not provide me with some of the functionality (like the ability to save multiple files easily) I would like.

Whine, whine, whine ...

[Alan9940]

Do I detect an oncoming Feature Request?

Um, now that you've raised that thought... How does one do a Feature Request such that I feel confident that the developers will see it? I think I remember seeing somewhere that you put "Req:" in the subject line, but is that enough?

Best regards,
AlanH

[Alan9940]

Why is there not one of those on the English side of the forum?

Hello Mike,

No idea why, but I sure wish there was one!

Best regards,
AlanH

[Alan9940]

The problem is that the tools do not integrate well if you are working with raw images. CaptureOne requires that images be imported so, if you pass an image to PL, adjust it and then save it, you still will not have it back in CO unless you specifically import the new image and, if you do, you will lose all of your current imported images.

Not exactly...this is true only if you're using a catalog in CO. However, if you use sessions (which is how I use it) there is no importing involved. You could, if desired, process the RAW in CO producing a TIFF in the original image folder, post-process in PL and save to this same folder, then open that result in CO for any further processing. For me, though, I work unidirectional; RAW converter-->TIFF output-->image editor-->typically print output.

As for Dxo, if you are working with raw images you can export in dng format to PL and do your work there. But, when you save it, you cannot do so in dng format (why not?) and thus you will have to change your image selection. The integration with Dxo is not as bad as with CO, but it is still not seamless.

Yeah, OP is a funny thing when it comes to DNG. Personally, I've never messed with it and, same as CO, I generate TIFF out of OP.

Perhaps I just want too much. I have some plugins that I use a lot (meaning perhaps 25% of my images, perhaps more, and since I cannot access them from Dxo or CO, I was hoping to get some kind of good integration between the tools allowing me to work seamlessly. That was why I ended up doing most of my editing in PS and then in Elements until I found PL. Both PS and Elements allowed me to access all of the tools I wanted to use. PL is a much better editor than Elements and I do like it, but it does not provide me with some of the functionality (like the ability to save multiple files easily) I would like.

Whine, whine, whine ...

Whine away...I do it all the time!! The trouble I've had over these past nearly 15 years that I've been trying to tame the digital beast is that no single product satisfies even 1/2 my needs, let alone most of 'em! That's why I own waaaay more software than I should!!

Best regards,
AlanH

[photoken]

Do I detect an oncoming Feature Request?

Um, now that you've raised that thought... How does one do a Feature Request such that I feel confident that the developers will see it? I think I remember seeing somewhere that you put "Req:" in the subject line, but is that enough?

Just post a message here in this forum. It's all very informal -- that "Req:" as a preface in the subject line is just something that I do for my own convenience, and hopefully it benefits the developers and other users, too. Similarly, when I report a bug, I preface the subject line with "Bug:", again for my own convenience and to make it easier for the devs to look at the overall listing of messages and see which ones are being considered as bugs.

I've been participating in these forums for about 15 months and I've seen many cases where a message in here has had its request implemented -- rest assured that the developers do read all the messages in here. They do not usually comment on them (can't blame them for that -- they've got enough on their plate with running a company, providing support and writing code), but they are very much aware of what's being discussed.