Zum Hauptinhalt gehen

Layer madness

Kommentare

81 Kommentare

  • Abbott Schindler
    Maybe it would be nice to have a Preference where "layer copy behavior" could be set to "add" or "replace", but for whatever reason it wasn't implemented like this. I personally prefer the new method, which works as I've long wished it would.

    Maybe send a feature request. They accommodate both old and new scrolling behavior via prefs settings, and maybe they'd consider adding it to a dot upgrade in v20 or even v21.
    3
  • ---
    Paul_Steunebrink wrote:
    You are obviously free to have an opinion, about layers in this example. Apparently this change does not work to your advantage.

    For some people it does. It was one of the most requested features.

    One can not make everybody happy.


    ..and your are also entitled to not fully understand the impact of this change for whatever reason but maybe you simple never worked with more than a handful of images at a time because it is not as others suggest just t a little more work when you prepare hundreds of images.

    the new behaviour is simply illogical and it makes no difference if you copy one or multiple layers. there is also no need to add an extra option the only thing needed is that layers with the same name get replace instead of added. this would also overcome the 16 layer limitation issue.
    2
  • Corin
    A few things that have surprised me, and some thoughts:

    1. The whole management and synchronisation of layers between images has never been perfect. But it is powerful.
    2. I remember being frustrated at being unable to copy/add layers from one to another properly in older versions when I started using layers. But I got used to working with it.
    3. I was surprised when the such a significant way of handling copy/paste in layers CHANGED. Not "Improved" but fundamentally changed. When a core function in a workflow changes then it going to cause frustration and annoyance. This is clear from some of the replies in this post. I believe this was quite a big oversight and it brings into question how the developers beta test - if they had beta tested with photographers, like myself, who work with large numbers of images and do a lot of back/forward on colour matching/grading etc., then it would have been flagged. But the current system would suggest that the developers are still quite firmly focused on a single image-single edit workflow. But this is only an opinion/thought, I've science to back that up.
    4. Because this change was so 'workflow' altering it has cost me time. Quite a bit. I've spent at least a day figuring how to change my super fast workflow to work with the new system. That could have been avoided with a simple Layers handling preference tab. Legacy option perhaps?
    5. C1 is still an amazing tool. I hope their beta testing takes on a more robust approach which represents a more diverse group of photographers/workflows. Yes, I'm annoyed with this change and the time it cost, but I'll get over it.
    6. Belated Happy New Year.
    2
  • Tibor
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    but what is totally unusual with software is that you end with the same name for different layers containing different adjustments this is just bad design nothing else.


    I agree. You should initiate a support case, because this would be a good solution to this problem. I use the same technique as you are, I name my Layers under mine naming convention (i.e. Lips Saturation, Hair Clarity, Eyes Sharpen, ...) and copy / apply adjustments on layers from master file to others. Now it duplicates these layers instead of replacing them.
    1
  • Eric Staudenmaier
    I prefer the previous version of copy and paste. I only use copy and paste to match ALL the settings from one image to another. Once I've made adjustments to my primary image I copy and paste those settings to the other images. If I go back and make a change to the primary image, I copy and paste again. Then maybe I'll make another change and then copy and paste again. With the new tool behavior, each time I copy and paste settings, the layers double on all but my primary image.

    With the new behavior, I must first select all the secondary images, Reset Layers adjustments, then paste from the primary. Not the end of the world, but definitely more steps to get to the same outcome.
    1
  • ---
    Ian3 wrote:
    At least the new behaviour is non-destructive in that the old layers are not automatically lost as they were before, though you can remove them manually if you want to.

    Ian


    so following your logic all other copied and applied adjustments are destructive because they overwrite the old setting no ? and as a result LR is the only nondestructive raw converter because it offers a history ...😉
    1
  • Jerry C
    Clearly they already have the code to replace layers (version 12) or add them (version 20). All we need is a choice of which to execute.So, could C1P layer copying be modified to provide a choice between adding or replacing layers in the target image(s) when copying layers?

    Maybe if we all make the request, it will get some action, after they resolve the installation problems, tethering problems from OS10.15.2, and other bugs.

    Jerry C
    1
  • Keith Reeder
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    the argument you can make it work is theoretically BS and tells me you have no first hand practical experience.

    Lost your copy of "How To Win Friends And Influence People", I guess?

    Regardless of your opinion, Ian is right - you can make it work. Nothing "theoretical" about it.

    Just because you don't like the answer, that doesn't make it BS.
    1
  • Tim Walters

    I agree this is a HUGE problem when you are on a busy set.Now you have to delete the old layers and then apply the new layers.I understand that for some the new way is better.I think there should be a option to add or overwrite

    1
  • ---

    for me this whole thing doesn't matter anymore they decided to ignore the issue they have created but had time to add BS like the before/after which is in fact useless and only a pimped version of what was already there for years.  capture one is like the  titanic in a market with more competition and better solutions. working with this software got also more cumbersome with each version, maybe this is fun and entertaining for some but this definitely not what I want and need. the layer problem is also a very telling sign of a development going on since a few years now, the central focus are amateur user which are less demanding, more loyal and easier to manipulate with marketing, understandable but sad. 

    1
  • Mark Astle

    Ian, that’s just semantics. Point is, it was a huge change that’s clearly affecting people’s existing workflow. Adobe did this with the shift transform behaviour recently, but very soon added a checkbox that gave people the choice. That’s all we’re asking for. This is a fundamental change and it sucks for people who process lots of images rather than just one or two. Which is what I always thought C1 was designed for - if I was just processing a few images I’d use Photoshop. Either way, a choice would have been nice.

    1
  • ---

    ian, don't take it offensive but I´m curious do you actually work with large amount of files and lot of layers or are you only interested in the theoretical discourse ? 

    not being an native speaker what would be the better word to describe a problem which leads to extra work is an unnecessary source for mistakes and does nothing to improve the experience ? 

    1
  • Eric Staudenmaier

    I prefer the older method by far. I wish I could check a preference to use the old behavior.

    1
  • Mark Astle

    Beta testing - who does it? Has anyone ever been offered? I’ve been using C1 for over a decade, I’ve put hundreds of thousands of files through it, I’d be happy to beta test. They’re clearly not that bothered about long time users....

    1
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter

    @CSP - if you insist on a reply, then here is one, which I suppose you won't like. I didn't respond because there seemed to be nothing more to say that would be constructive. I have agreed that there would be value in an option (check-box or in Preferences) to choose between the two possible layer-copying behaviours. Beyond that, if you want me to agree that Capture One suffers from "very bad software design" as you said yesterday, or several of the other negative things that you have said, I won't. I am sick of people using this forum for complaining about almost everything about Capture One. If we have something useful to say, to help other users, or to suggest improvements in a constructive spirit, let's say it. If it's only a case of sounding off about things you don't like, I am not up for it. And if anyone finds Capture One is so bad, there are other apps out there that they could use instead.

    And no, you're right, my photography generally does not involve copying layers on large numbers of files. 

    Ian

    1
  • ---

    .......this would need that they listen to us and understand the problem which they are obvious incapable. 

    1
  • ---

    mark sadly no,

    seems only a kind of online riot and change.org  petition makes them move a little and respond. the layer issue effects less user so they keep on doing what they do best ignoring the needs of user.  the ones utilising the coming HDR and Pano tools will also very much appreciate this great change.... ;-)

    1
  • Paul Steunebrink
    Nature Isme wrote:
    Maybe it would be nice to have a Preference where "layer copy behavior" could be set to "add" or "replace", but for whatever reason it wasn't implemented like this. I personally prefer the new method, which works as I've long wished it would.

    Maybe send a feature request. They accommodate both old and new scrolling behavior via prefs settings, and maybe they'd consider adding it to a dot upgrade in v20 or even v21.

    Such a feature request makes sense, I think.
    0
  • SFA
    It's tempting to suggest that one simply keeps the old variant and adds a new variant or a cloned variant and delete the layers before copying the new layers in.

    On the other hand since layers can be disabled easily enough just make the copy and figure out what to do with the same named layers later.

    The biggest problem I can foresee would be that of exceeding the maximum number of layers allowed.


    Grant
    0
  • SFA
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    Paul_Steunebrink wrote:
    You are obviously free to have an opinion, about layers in this example. Apparently this change does not work to your advantage.

    For some people it does. It was one of the most requested features.

    One can not make everybody happy.


    ..and your are also entitled to not fully understand the impact of this change for whatever reason but maybe you simple never worked with more than a handful of images at a time because it is not as others suggest just t a little more work when you prepare hundreds of images.

    the new behaviour is simply illogical and it makes no difference if you copy one or multiple layers. there is also no need to add an extra option the only thing needed is that layers with the same name get replace instead of added. this would also overcome the 16 layer limitation issue.


    You are assuming that people in general are effective at controlling their layer naming conventions consistently and, taking your example, over a large number of images.

    That may be the case for some, possibly many people. But it's not something I would assume when creating specifications for this sort of functionality UNLESS I was using adjustment sets over which I had control.

    Complete control.


    Grant
    0
  • ---
    SFA wrote:
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    Paul_Steunebrink wrote:
    You are obviously free to have an opinion, about layers in this example. Apparently this change does not work to your advantage.

    For some people it does. It was one of the most requested features.

    One can not make everybody happy.


    ..and your are also entitled to not fully understand the impact of this change for whatever reason but maybe you simple never worked with more than a handful of images at a time because it is not as others suggest just t a little more work when you prepare hundreds of images.

    the new behaviour is simply illogical and it makes no difference if you copy one or multiple layers. there is also no need to add an extra option the only thing needed is that layers with the same name get replace instead of added. this would also overcome the 16 layer limitation issue.


    You are assuming that people in general are effective at controlling their layer naming conventions consistently and, taking your example, over a large number of images.

    That may be the case for some, possibly many people. But it's not something I would assume when creating specifications for this sort of functionality UNLESS I was using adjustment sets over which I had control.

    Complete control.


    Grant


    for those who are able to use layers in c1 this should really not be much of a problem and for the stupid they could add a warning like in very os : do really want to overwrite layer xy.... but what is totally unusual with software is that you end with the same name for different layers containing different adjustments this is just bad design nothing else.
    0
  • ---
    Tibor wrote:
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    but what is totally unusual with software is that you end with the same name for different layers containing different adjustments this is just bad design nothing else.


    I agree. You should initiate a support case, because this would be a good solution to this problem. I use the same technique as you are, I name my Layers under mine naming convention (i.e. Lips Saturation, Hair Clarity, Eyes Sharpen, ...) and copy / apply adjustments on layers from master file to others. Now it duplicates these layers instead of replacing them.



    they did not listen during the beta when I reported the issue s so I´m sure they don't listen now...... but maybe after some time when there real "experts" have comprehended what bad software design this is and report back we have a chance for a fix....
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    but maybe after some time when there real "experts" have comprehended what bad software design this is and report back we have a chance for a fix....

    And what's a real "expert" in this context?

    Anyone who agrees with you?

    You might wish to consider that changes like this will not have been made arbitrarily, but because of the perception that it is an improvement.

    The fact that one or two users don't like it, doesn't make that perception less legitimate.

    As Paul says:
    One can not make everybody happy.

    Probably best for your blood pressure for you to accept that you might be in a minority here, and that most users don't much care about the impact of the change on convoluted, esoteric workflows...

    Personally, I'm thoroughly appreciating the new way.
    0
  • ---
    Keith Reeder wrote:
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    but maybe after some time when there real "experts" have comprehended what bad software design this is and report back we have a chance for a fix....

    And what's a real "expert" in this context?

    Anyone who agrees with you?

    You might wish to consider that changes like this will not have been made arbitrarily, but because of the perception that it is an improvement.

    The fact that one or two users don't like it, doesn't make that perception less legitimate.

    As Paul says:
    One can not make everybody happy.

    Probably best for your blood pressure for you to accept that you might be in a minority here, and that most users don't much care about the impact of the change on convoluted, esoteric workflows...

    Personally, I'm thoroughly appreciating the new way.



    it is simply telling that I have not read one sentence why this change is so great and useful maybe you are the first one which enlightens me.
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    It's not a feature that I use, but I recall that when it worked the old way and existing layers were lost, there were a lot of complaints about that.

    Ian
    0
  • Emile Gregoire
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    it is simply telling that I have not read one sentence why this change is so great and useful maybe you are the first one which enlightens me.


    It’s not telling at all. People flock to forums mostly when they encounter problems - not because they’re busy finishing their work because the product simply delivers. There’s a lot of complaining at the moment, but I haven’t encountered any of the bugs described here in the forum since v20 launched.

    I even like the implementation of copying and applying layers, which is not to say I can’t comprehend your problem. Asking for a confirmation to overwrite existing layers with the same name (with the option to apply the same answer to all instances in the same paste action and maybe even a ‘do not ask this question again’ checkbox) would seem a great solution for your particular problem, without it bothering the way I work with C1. Win-win.

    However, blanket statements about something one doesn’t like being “just bad design†is sort of a non-starter for any helpful discussion - not only this one.
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    it is simply telling that I have not read one sentence why this change is so great and useful maybe you are the first one which enlightens me.


    LOL how about eight posts above. Here is a link if you have trouble finding it [The Capture One forum has migrated to a new platform, as a result all links to Capture One related postsstopped working and have been removed]&p=172533#p172533

    Where I point out why the new way is better and strongly state:
    IanL wrote:

    Sorry they moved your cheese but there is no successful argument that this is worse than the old way!


    So in case you missed my point here is once sentence on why this is so great: "The new way of copying layers is great, it is now possible to usefully copy layers to new images. This will save me so much work."

    Sorry that was two sentences. 😂
    0
  • ---
    ericstaud wrote:
    I
    With the new behavior, I must first select all the secondary images, Reset Layers adjustments, then paste from the primary. Not the end of the world, but definitely more steps to get to the same outcome.


    ... but in the eyes of p1 this has made working with layers much faster (YouTube) . funny no ? but in their layer tutorial not one word about this wonderful improvment......

    maybe I have not discovered what the benefit of being able to copy just one layer is because working with layers and masks extenssivly in the past years i always use C1 to make images with similar contained look similar which demands that all layers and mask are copied too.

    but I´m open to learn so what is a practial scenario where the new behaviour outweighs the disadvantage ?
    0
  • Jerry C
    ericstaud wrote:
    I prefer the previous version of copy and paste. ...With the new tool behavior, each time I copy and paste settings, the layers double on all but my primary image.

    With the new behavior, I must first select all the secondary images, Reset Layers adjustments, then paste from the primary. Not the end of the world, but definitely more steps to get to the same outcome.


    Perhaps what is needed is an option to replace versus add layers not the mandatory add layers behavior. That should not be a difficult programming change for version 20.1
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    At least the new behaviour is non-destructive in that the old layers are not automatically lost as they were before, though you can remove them manually if you want to.

    Ian
    0

Bitte melden Sie sich an, um einen Kommentar zu hinterlassen.