Great! I can confirm that for Mini 4 Pro the issue has been fixed with LrC 14.0   Many thanks for your support to get this solved, Rikk! ... View more

I'm on Lightroom Classic version: 13.5 [ 202408062022-6258095b ].   Adobe color profiles cannot be chosen for DJI Mini 4 Pro raw files.   Here is a sample image captured with latest drone FW V01.00.0600: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/90en84li2oa26xml5ldrb/DJI_20240831101915_0001_D.DNG?rlkey=mdgzfka31xkj3q9sbnhb8ev0x&dl=0 ... View more

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-discussions/adobe-profile-missing-when-editing-dji-mini-4-raw-images/m-p/14824590#M376895  ... View more

Before DJI Mini 4 Pro FW v01.00.0300 (from 2023.12.21) Adobe RAW profiles (Color, Landscape, Vivid etc.) were available in Lightroom for editing Mini 4 Pro RAW images. After FW update (more updates have been released meanwhile) Adobe RAW profiles are not offered anymore. Same in Lightroom Classic, Desktop and Camera RAW. I did some investigations and found that the root cause is a change of EXIF tag IFD0:UniqueCameraModel which was "DJI FC8482 Mini4 Pro" before the FW update and "DJI FC8482" after. Mini 3 Pro has the same camera; its RAW files are tagged with "DJI FC8482" and here the Adobe RAW profiles are available.   Who should be addressed to look into (and hopefully fix) this issue, DJI or Adobe? ... View more

I noticed this months ago and reported this issue in DJI forum, even telling them about the root cause: https://forum.dji.com/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=298226&pid=3214915    Now, that we are two I can perhaps open a separate topic 😄     As a workaround you can patch you image files' EXIF data. I use the famous exiftool for this: exiftool -overwrite_original -m -UniqueCameraModel="DJI FC8482 Mini4 Pro" <filespec> ... View more

@Bob Trlin  In fact the plugin does not calculate the location of the focus point but it retrieves AF information from the so-called "maker notes" section in EXIF data. This information is not available inside LrC (Adobe skips maker notes data entirely) that's why it needs to be read from the file on disk (using exiftool). This is what happens while the progress bar is displayed. I agree that the text "Calculating focus point" can be misleading here - it's not a calculation in terms of determining the focal area / focus point but mapping the focus point coordinates from EXIF AF data to the displayed image (which can be cropped, rotated, flipped).    I also agree that invoking the plugin can be a bit cumbersome because you need to go to the menu everytime (as it is for any other plugin).  I'm using AutoHotkey to automate my LrC workflow and have assigned ShowFocusPoint and MetadataViewer to specific keys so I can invoke them at the press of a button.   Even though I would be happy to see Adobe implement focus point visualization in LrC I don't think we will ever see this. Thist would require interfacing with EXIF maker notes data which is proprietary to every camera maker. Some parts are known, others are undocumented. I would be very surprised if Adobe would be willing to deal with this.   The camera maker's RAW converters can make full use of this proprietary information. BTW, if you carefully compare the focus point display in OM workspace and the plugin for OM-1 you will notice that there are slight deviations. Which indicates that the EXIF fields used by the plugin as part of "known" maker notes data do not contain precise AF information which is very likely kept in the undocumented part.  ... View more

@JohanElzenga This was my first thought as well. But looking at my files, I can reproduce that "unreadable" HDR DNG files already started with LrC 12.3. Also, the problem does not exist with the DNGs created by AI Noise Reduction. ... View more

That's too bad. Anyway, thank you for your answer, John! ... View more

Just found this - describes exactly the problem I'm having: Photoshop won't start (shows up in Task manager) - Adobe Support Community - 12689126 ... View more

At least for me and my (rather simple and uniform) application of semi-transparent watermarks, things seems to be back to normal with the new release. Glad, this one has been fixed, even if Adobe has been truly testing our patience. Thank you! ... View more

Ok, I was not aware that you included the time to perform moving and stacking actions in the 1.5min/image.    As for my optimized workflow: PhotoLab comes with its LR import plugin in (Lua) source format, so I was able to tweak the code to 1. not create and maintain the unwanted "DxO" collection set 2. stack the processed image "above" the source image (and not vice-versa) in the catalog 3. add the processed image also to the LR collection from which DxO PL had been called (if so) LR SDK doesn't support stacking in collections, otherwise I would have added this too. So basically, the plugin does (almost) all the work that you otherwise would need to do manually.   Unfortunately, the PureRAW plugin is compiled Lua, which makes it impossible to carry-over my tweaks from PhotoLab. I made a few quick attempts to check whether PR can work with a modified version of PL plugin; while this does not seem to be a futile undertaking, it requires more time and effort that I'm not willing to spend.   If someone wants to dig into this, I am happy to share the changes I did to the PL plugin (just 15 lines of code added, 1 changed). ... View more

This manual process saves me almost a minute and a half of waiting for Lightroom Classic to import and update the catalog.    It's a shame that DxO obviously has not reused in PureRAW what Photolab is doing. After processing has finished in PL, I can immediately see the processed file in Lightroom.  ... View more

First, there is no code for setting in PureRAW that would cause Lightroom to place its processed photos into a collection. This is entirely controlled by Lightroom.   This statement by DxO is definitely nonsense. PhotoLab shows the same behavior; imported files are being imported under a collection set "DxO PhotoLab", with an individual collection for every export to DXO / import to LR.   Unlike PureRaw, PhotoLab comes with uncompiled Lua code for the export/import plugins, so you can easily spot function(context) dxoCollection = catalog:createCollectionSet("DxO PhotoLab", nil, true) end I didn't like this from the beginning, so I removed this part, along with some other "enhancements" like  - stacking the processed image "above" the source image (and not vice-versa) - adding the processed image also to the LR collection from which DxO PL had been called (if so)   Unfortunately, with compiled Lua code it's impossible to share how to carry-over these tweaks to PureRAW.   As far as I'm concerned, I'm hoping that for future PL releases DxO will at least not change any interfaces, so I can continue to use my patched plugin 😊 ... View more

Thank you, Jane. below is a screenshot of my notification settings. Anything wrong with that?   Karsten     ... View more

I haven't been very active in the past 15 months since I posted this, so I haven't seriously followed-up. Now I visiting and contributing more frequently, and I notice that actually nothing has changed in my account with respect to notifications: I don' get mail nofications (although I checked the box) a visual indicator at the notification bell (if there is one - can't tell coz I have never seen one).   Everytime, I need to login and open the notification feed to check if there is any news. Is that's the way it's meant to be? ... View more

This is add another aspect of the isuse described in P: Watermarks rendering darker than preview.   I was wondering why the suggested workaround (to not use watermarks with transparency) worked on some images but not on all. Especially for those, where the watermark (white color font) is placed over a bright part of the image. For such images the visual appearance of watermarks looks somehow "crippled".   Now I found that this effect has to do with the fact, whether the image is downsized during export or not. As an illustration see the two images attached. Original full image size is 3876x5178px. downsized.jpg is a 355x122 watermark crop of a 1078x1440 export from LR 11.4.1 fullsize.jpg is a watermark crop of 3876x5178 export, resized to 355x115 (using IrfanView) Note the difference in visual appearance. fullsize is "expected behaviour". ... View more

I saw this post, unfortunately for me it doesn't fix the problem. ... View more

The structure of this data is quite cryptic, far from self-explanatory. I'm thinking of creating a small plugin that reads the "History" entry from XMP-photoshop metatata section, extracts and decodes the relevant values and displays them along with their meaning. Or to put them into a separate XMP-topaz section, similar to what Photomatix does (see below example).   I'm afraid the use of this may be questionable though, at least in the long run. Topaz (DeNoise and Sharpen) models and effect of parameterization have significantly changed over the past few years' releases, so this data is probably just "FYI" and won't be of help in reproducing same or similar results.   ... View more

Great suggestion, thanks! ... View more

No matter which external program you use, you won't be able to see any details in Lightroom. Some programs like eg Photomatix create EXIF entries to reflect the settings used for an image, but Topaz don't do this.   If you want to keep track of such information, you need to manually do so. There is a plugin that supports this within Lightroom: Adding Your Own Custom Photo-Metadata Fields to Lightroom   ... View more

I'm experiencing the exact same problem with PS 23.4. I can work around this by clicking "Try again" and "Continue", but it's annoying. ... View more

Thank you, Bob. Here is the original file I'm using. It still worked properly when I published an image to Flickr yesterday. ... View more

Window 10. ... View more

I noticed that OM-1 "camera matching profiles available" has been changed from NO in 11.2 to YES in 11.3, and wondered why this information can be found on the US site, but not on German or Japan Camera RAW pages which still say NO. So it seems the documentation bug has not been fixed everywhere.   Does "camera matching profiles available" also mean that OM-1 camera support in Lightroom has been completed, or is there still work (fine-tuning etc) going on? ... View more

If you uncheck "Noise Filter" in OM Workspace, then still noise reduction is applied; this is same or at least very similar to STANDARD. If you want to completely turn off NR then check Noise Filter and set it to OFF. ... View more

Is there already a planned date when to include support of the new OM-1 camera (by OM Systems, formerly Olympus) ? ... View more