Zum Hauptinhalt gehen

DAM/image library functions still weak

Kommentare

80 Kommentare

  • Marco Hyman
    Skids wrote:
    Are you aware that C1 is quite picky over the type of TIFF it will import?


    I think it's a color space issue. Capture One doesn't handle Grayscale. You'll have the same problem with Grayscale jpeg images. I opened and re-export such images in a different app with a different color space so Capture One would let me edit them.

    I updated my VueScan profiles to use ProPhoto RGB instead of Grayscale for future scans.
    0
  • HeKoVS
    BerndInBerlin wrote:
    gullevek wrote:
    The DAM in C1 v20 is still bad. Very bad. The only way I could use it is by splitting data out into years or projects. And hope that not too many files are in there. Oh please don't have any files on a NAS because then you will be in beachball heaven. Lightroom, as subpar their RAW convert is in my opinion, their DAM is rock solid. I have all my RAW files in LR either on local SSD or on the NAS and LR starts quick and works perfectly.

    It is truly sad the a so called professional software for that price can't get the DAM working. I really hope they will put double the effort into this for the next very expensive release.


    Hi, you have pretty much the same experience as me.
    My archive lives on a NAS as well connected via 10g and the actual LR catalogue lives on a very fast local SSD Raid. LR handles my entire archive of the last few years this way with way over 500k images including extremely large Master TIFFs. I can't even imagine attempting this with Capture One.
    I can easily rename, reorganise, move files in and out folders, create folders,...all the things a DAM should be able to do. And fast I might add.
    Enough C1 bashing. Great RAW converter but they really need to up their game and completely re-write the DAM part of the software.
    Have you filed a request already as well? I guess the more Phase hears about the more they care.


    Hi there, I want to take part of this disastrous situation of the DAM functionality !

    At LR I worked with a 130k library and the handling was intuitively and logical.Converted to C1 the disaster took its course. I have to split the library in 5 parts in order to avoid a beachball death and this all on a iMAC with 64G and Fusion Drive. I'm a software engineer and in many projects I worked with databases with an extremely amount of data records, but these loss of performance I've never experienced. All the other features of C1 had prompted me to switch to C1 without any great consideration, but this part of the software is a nightmare !
    Another point of criticism ist the change of the copy/paste functionality. In C1v12 the approach was intuitive and convenient, but now in C1v20 when a style at import is attached, pasting different adjustments are not working. First we must reset all the adjustments and then it is working. One step more ! Tethered shooting is not working on Catalina 10.15.2.
    Hey guys which part of the new release is worth 130 € ?
    I've learned that at a new announcement of a SW-release I will never paid in advance - promised !
    0
  • Bernd Ott
    HeKoinVS wrote:
    BerndInBerlin wrote:
    gullevek wrote:
    The DAM in C1 v20 is still bad. Very bad. The only way I could use it is by splitting data out into years or projects. And hope that not too many files are in there. Oh please don't have any files on a NAS because then you will be in beachball heaven. Lightroom, as subpar their RAW convert is in my opinion, their DAM is rock solid. I have all my RAW files in LR either on local SSD or on the NAS and LR starts quick and works perfectly.

    It is truly sad the a so called professional software for that price can't get the DAM working. I really hope they will put double the effort into this for the next very expensive release.


    Hi, you have pretty much the same experience as me.
    My archive lives on a NAS as well connected via 10g and the actual LR catalogue lives on a very fast local SSD Raid. LR handles my entire archive of the last few years this way with way over 500k images including extremely large Master TIFFs. I can't even imagine attempting this with Capture One.
    I can easily rename, reorganise, move files in and out folders, create folders,...all the things a DAM should be able to do. And fast I might add.
    Enough C1 bashing. Great RAW converter but they really need to up their game and completely re-write the DAM part of the software.
    Have you filed a request already as well? I guess the more Phase hears about the more they care.


    Hi there, I want to take part of this disastrous situation of the DAM functionality !

    At LR I worked with a 130k library and the handling was intuitively and logical.Converted to C1 the disaster took its course. I have to split the library in 5 parts in order to avoid a beachball death and this all on a iMAC with 64G and Fusion Drive. I'm a software engineer and in many projects I worked with databases with an extremely amount of data records, but these loss of performance I've never experienced. All the other features of C1 had prompted me to switch to C1 without any great consideration, but this part of the software is a nightmare !
    Another point of criticism ist the change of the copy/paste functionality. In C1v12 the approach was intuitive and convenient, but now in C1v20 when a style at import is attached, pasting different adjustments are not working. First we must reset all the adjustments and then it is working. One step more ! Tethered shooting is not working on Catalina 10.15.2.
    Hey guys which part of the new release is worth 130 € ?
    I've learned that at a new announcement of a SW-release I will never paid in advance - promised !


    Hi, thanks for sharing your experience here as well.
    Have you filed a request with Phase on this one already? It might help if they get bombarded with requests/reports on the issue.
    0
  • mattcohen
    BerndInBerlin wrote:

    Hi, thanks for sharing your experience here as well.
    Have you filed a request with Phase on this one already? It might help if they get bombarded with requests/reports on the issue.


    for literally years.
    0
  • Jerry C
    I have pretty much caved in to the C1 speed limits to get the benefits of how well the software works in producing great images, but there remain a lot of DAM annoyances.

    I do find that the C1 DAM has sped up in many ways and is more efficient since I bought version 8, but that and previous versions set the bar pretty low. I have almost no experience with Lightroom, but I did with Aperture. Aperture 3.6 loaded my 25k images in a few seconds; C1 takes 50 sec for 60k images. Loading the all images folder was near instantaneous in Aperture; the first load of all images is 15-20 sec in C1 (but this is after moving to a much more robust iMac Pro from my 2008 Mac Pro). Entering search terms did not cause pauses between the entry of each letter in Aperture, though this has improved in C1. And the list goes on.

    I have seen explanations for why C1's search entry parses each letter as it is entered rather than waiting for all entries to finish and still cannot figure out why. Yes, it does incrementally reduce the possible images to be searched, but I would rather it held this and all other pending operations until I hit the Done button, but there is no Done button. I would much prefer to enter all search terms and get some coffee than have to wait between letters.

    So after this long-winded predicate, here is my ask: Could C1 explain the logic for the choices made in engineering the DAM as they have? Can they just tell us what it would take to address all of these DAM issues and make it as efficient as Aperture was and Lightroom is? What sacrifices would have to be made to do this? The programming talents needed to design a DAM may be quite different than those that have made C1 such a great image processing application. If so, maybe one more engineer is merited or perhaps just outsource this project.

    Jerry C
    0
  • Emile Gregoire
    ^^^ What Jerry said. Spot on.
    0
  • HeKoVS
    mattcohen wrote:
    BerndInBerlin wrote:

    Hi, thanks for sharing your experience here as well.
    Have you filed a request with Phase on this one already? It might help if they get bombarded with requests/reports on the issue.


    for literally years.


    I will save the bypass with a request because for sure there are Phase One people here with the necessary competence to interact with the company. For me it is incredibly annoying that the "full-flavoured" announcement of the V20 not resist the expected results. I expected a comprehensive change in the DAM functionality and what we see are some cosmetics in already more or less perfect implemented functions. A significant part of the software is really good implemented and it makes a lot of fun to work with. But the complete package has structural weaknesses to become a leader product.
    I bought two years ago Affinity Photo - a really perfect package for less than 50€ and it is worth every euro ! It involves adjusting to the individual wishes of the user and to specific requirements.Thus it appears that the result is a serious rival.
    Enough criticised - I hope of a complete revision of the DAM this year and in C1V20, otherwise I will go other ways.
    0
  • mattcohen
    NN635680879799322049UL wrote:

    I do find that the C1 DAM has sped up in many ways and is more efficient since I bought version 8, but that and previous versions set the bar pretty low. I have almost no experience with Lightroom, but I did with Aperture. Aperture 3.6 loaded my 25k images in a few seconds; C1 takes 50 sec for 60k images. Loading the all images folder was near instantaneous in Aperture; the first load of all images is 15-20 sec in C1 (but this is after moving to a much more robust iMac Pro from my 2008 Mac Pro). Entering search terms did not cause pauses between the entry of each letter in Aperture, though this has improved in C1. And the list goes on.

    I have seen explanations for why C1's search entry parses each letter as it is entered rather than waiting for all entries to finish and still cannot figure out why. Yes, it does incrementally reduce the possible images to be searched, but I would rather it held this and all other pending operations until I hit the Done button, but there is no Done button. I would much prefer to enter all search terms and get some coffee than have to wait between letters.

    So after this long-winded predicate, here is my ask: Could C1 explain the logic for the choices made in engineering the DAM as they have? Can they just tell us what it would take to address all of these DAM issues and make it as efficient as Aperture was and Lightroom is? What sacrifices would have to be made to do this? The programming talents needed to design a DAM may be quite different than those that have made C1 such a great image processing application. If so, maybe one more engineer is merited or perhaps just outsource this project.

    Jerry C


    excellent post. agree 100% on all. there seem to be small ways to fix this (done button) and big (make a real, functioning database) yet version after version goes by with minor if any improvements to DAM/search. 20 is a point release AT BEST. DAM speed, beachballs etc have been solved problems for years. Aperture, Photo Mechanic etc. I can search 500,000 pictures in Photo Mechanic Plus in a second. Searching 50,000 in C120 takes minutes, and crashed half the time.
    0
  • Dave Shillam
    Just upgraded from V11 to V20, I like others on this thread was hoping for some of improvement in the speed which which C1P operated when using for DAM.

    I want to use the keywords and other meta data on my images to search for specific images, this is all bar impossible in C1P at the moment. Struggling to believe Aperture 3.6 was culled way back in 2014, but is still way ahead in the speed stakes compared C1P released less than a month ago.

    I am considering looking at LR to manage the DAM part of my work flow, I have no problems with the quality of images produced by C1P

    Have lodged a support case with PhaseOne, just to see if this is the way C1P should be.
    0
  • Jeff Talbert
    I started using CaptureOne this time last year when 12 came out. I spent days trying to import my LR catalog and get the previews to create and for the catalog to work properly. I opened two support cases with PhaseOne and as other have said, nothing is done. I was REALLY hoping the with the jump from 12 to 20 that PhaseOne would give a DAM about their DAM. But I was wrong. 20 is a nice update. like some new features, but it was a lack luster upgrade overall.

    PhaseOne needs to put more money into development of the Capture One program. I am glad I am using it. Don't want to switch back to LR, but the need to do something. I have broken down my catalogs into smaller catalogs just so I can work better. It works okay for me, but PhaseOne needs to do better.

    I have not seen any release notes from last year on bug fixes or improvements to DAM and there sure was no mention of updates to DAM for 20.

    Phase One does not invest much interest in their users. If they did they would monitor these boards and use comments and reply to questions ragarding to issues. Many companies have people who manage and respond to users.
    0
  • Bernd Ott
    It seems they have very capable programmers there in the area of image manipulation. Wonderful new tools, great quality output. But one could wonder if there is anybody in that team with a clue of how to create a proper image database...
    From looking at this thread it's clear that it is not an isolated problem but there are many users who need a stable, fast and reliable DAM able to handle large numbers of images.
    My point of view at this point is: No more paid upgrades until this is fixed or a new camera purchase forces me to go this way.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    JTalbertPhoto wrote:
    PhaseOne needs to put more money into development of the Capture One program. I am glad I am using it. Don't want to switch back to LR, but the need to do something. I have broken down my catalogs into smaller catalogs just so I can work better. It works okay for me, but PhaseOne needs to do better.

    They've spent their money very wisely in my opinion. Image quality and usability enhancements are clearly a priority over cataloguing for Phase One, and I suspect that this is the priority of most Capture One users, too.
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    Keith Reeder wrote:
    JTalbertPhoto wrote:
    PhaseOne needs to put more money into development of the Capture One program. I am glad I am using it. Don't want to switch back to LR, but the need to do something. I have broken down my catalogs into smaller catalogs just so I can work better. It works okay for me, but PhaseOne needs to do better.

    They've spent their money very wisely in my opinion. Image quality and usability enhancements are clearly a priority over cataloguing for Phase One, and I suspect that this is the priority of most Capture One users, too.

    Well up to a point. The larger my collection of images gets, the more I feel the need of good ways of organising and finding them.

    Ian
    0
  • David Nusbaum
    I have bumped into this same "problem" multiple times over the last couple of years. My frustration usually reaches the point where I decide to move back to Lightroom. I'll get started, but then when I go to work with an image I am frustrated with the weakness of the tools. No layers, no levels and the simulated grain now sees horrible. I feel organized but limited in what I can do with my images. The I will think that maybe session are the answer because they are simple and perform well. I am ok with most of my client work being in sessions, but trying to find that one image from a foggy morning on lake superior is ridiculous when I need to search through a stack of sessions. I know Lightroom is the comparison point here, but look at what Apple can do with replicating really big photo libraries across devices. I don't know why we can't get at least a little bit of attention on the scalability of the catalog system.

    Oh, and worst of all... worrying about this vs shooting is a terrible use of my time.
    0
  • Bernd Ott
    Keith Reeder wrote:
    JTalbertPhoto wrote:
    PhaseOne needs to put more money into development of the Capture One program. I am glad I am using it. Don't want to switch back to LR, but the need to do something. I have broken down my catalogs into smaller catalogs just so I can work better. It works okay for me, but PhaseOne needs to do better.

    They've spent their money very wisely in my opinion. Image quality and usability enhancements are clearly a priority over cataloguing for Phase One, and I suspect that this is the priority of most Capture One users, too.


    If it's in there it should work properly. Otherwise don't bother.
    I own no other software where I watch the rotating beachball on my Mac as often as with Capture.
    A DAM is so much more than cataloguing. And it is something where the user should barely notice it's there because it gets out of the way and lets me do the more important things like perfecting the image effortlessly. With C1 it makes the process slow and cumbersome and needs to be addressed.
    I am just glad so many people chimed in. Maybe Phase will take notice and makes the necessary adjustments.
    0
  • photo by FA
    BerndInBerlin wrote:
    Keith Reeder wrote:
    JTalbertPhoto wrote:
    PhaseOne needs to put more money into development of the Capture One program. I am glad I am using it. Don't want to switch back to LR, but the need to do something. I have broken down my catalogs into smaller catalogs just so I can work better. It works okay for me, but PhaseOne needs to do better.

    They've spent their money very wisely in my opinion. Image quality and usability enhancements are clearly a priority over cataloguing for Phase One, and I suspect that this is the priority of most Capture One users, too.


    If it's in there it should work properly. Otherwise don't bother.
    I own no other software where I watch the rotating beachball on my Mac as often as with Capture.
    A DAM is so much more than cataloguing. And it is something where the user should barely notice it's there because it gets out of the way and lets me do the more important things like perfecting the image effortlessly. With C1 it makes the process slow and cumbersome and needs to be addressed.
    I am just glad so many people chimed in. Maybe Phase will take notice and makes the necessary adjustments.


    Sorry to tell you but they are not going to make necessary adjustments. We have discussed this issue many times, alas no result. Maybe and that's a huge maybe, if every single person contacts to TS, then again maybe they might change.
    0
  • Bernd Ott
    fatihayoglu wrote:


    Sorry to tell you but they are not going to make necessary adjustments. We have discussed this issue many times, alas no result. Maybe and that's a huge maybe, if every single person contacts to TS, then again maybe they might change.


    I guess it's wishful thinking on my side...
    I have been joking somewhere in this or another thread that Capture One should be made available as a plug in for Lightroom.
    Maybe it wasn't a joke after all. I might start using it almost as such. Do importing, cataloguing and culling in Lightroom and export my selections as DNGs and then work on them in Capture. That would at least work on smaller projects with a limited number of images.
    Sad state of affairs.
    0
  • Herwig Niggemann
    I like Capture One. Even the Catalogue system is great for normal work. Importing large amounts of photos like in the 20 to 40k should not really happen so often. And a large catalogue once established behaves fine for me.

    But...

    I think they should consider that importing large catalogues, in my case from Aperture, should at least work! Crashing the system after 50% of the import should be something, the software should avoid.
    Therefore: please make imports of large amounts reliable and possible. I think there are many more people who have to migrate their Aperture catalogues now, after Catalina stops Aperture to run in this environment.

    Please!
    0
  • SFA
    nigbo wrote:
    I like Capture One. Even the Catalogue system is great for normal work. Importing large amounts of photos like in the 20 to 40k should not really happen so often. And a large catalogue once established behaves fine for me.

    But...

    I think they should consider that importing large catalogues, in my case from Aperture, should at least work! Crashing the system after 50% of the import should be something, the software should avoid.
    Therefore: please make imports of large amounts reliable and possible. I think there are many more people who have to migrate their Aperture catalogues now, after Catalina stops Aperture to run in this environment.

    Please!


    It's a reasonable point to at least offer best practise advice even if coding around all possible anomalies and large data volume issues is not considered a practical proposition.

    However this is intended to be a User to User forum and as such is not 'officially' a regular part of the C1 staff monitoring and response task.

    A good suggestion like yours needs to be proposed as a Support Case. These days that is possible through the "Submit Request" option found near the top of most support page screens on the right hand side.



    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • Thomas Kyhn
    Top Commenter
    BerndInBerlin wrote:
    I have been joking somewhere in this or another thread that Capture One should be made available as a plug in for Lightroom

    That is actually a very good idea, considering the limitations of Capture One. This way you could also make use of Lightroom's much superior keystone correction.
    0
  • Gert Klaus
    Hello everybody,
    I´m so glad (but so sorry on the other hand!) that you're sharing my problems. I had a support case last year because of this problem (Converting an Aperture Cat, trying to import photos and so on,).
    For a database for my pictures I'm still clinging to aperture. But I'm using "Media Pro" for my "Raw" files since ages and its fast, reliable and much better in finding certain pictures. As long as it´s working on my system, I'm using C1 as a RAW-converter and leave the catalogue where it is - in the nirvana!

    Why they bought Media Pro and made their own catalogue - a riddle which can't be solved!

    Good luck everybody!
    Gert
    0
  • Eric Valk
    The reality is that discussing this issue here has limited effect at best.

    This is a long standing issue (since Capture One 7). There was a step forward in release 10.1 but since then not much. This is a clear illustration of the low prioritisation DAM performance.

    Discussing it here isn't going to change the mind set of any decision maker in Capture One. If they read anything I expect its to count the number of vocally annoyed users - which isn't that big

    The only people who really read this stuff are Capture One users who have already paid for a license por subscription.

    IMO there would be a far larger impact if threads like this were to be on other forums like DPReview, where the information is exposed to poetntial buyers and third party reviewers
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    Eric Nepean wrote:
    IMO there would be a far larger impact if threads like this were to be on other forums like DPReview, where the information is exposed to potential buyers and third party reviewers

    No, it won't - Capture One is no secret in this regard, and frankly it's not a big deal on other forums either. It's a minority issue wherever you read about it.

    Why do people do this? Buy a product known not to do things in a certain way, then throw far more energy than is healthy, into pointlessly moaning online that it doesn't do the thing they should know it doesn't do?

    I have zero sympathy. We're allowed enough time to test before we buy, and as I say, this approach to DAM is anything but a secret.

    So to buy Capture One anyway, when it should be obvious to anyone who has done their due diligence, that it's not "fit for purpose"?

    Not Capture One's (or our) problem that they didn't research and test adequately, and whining about it on here and other forums, is the epitome of pointlessness.
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    Eric Nepean wrote:
    Discussing it here isn't going to change the mind set of any decision maker in Capture One. If they read anything I expect its to count the number of vocally annoyed users - which isn't that big


    Good point. But this issue *is* having an effect on users choices. Witness this post from someone who is trying the free Fuji version and finding the performance an issue with his 6000 image catalogue:
    [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]
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    Keith Reeder wrote:
    I have zero sympathy. We're allowed enough time to test before we buy, and as I say, this approach to DAM is anything but a secret.

    So to buy Capture One anyway, when it should be obvious to anyone who has done their due diligence, that it's not "fit for purpose"?

    Not Capture One's (or our) problem that they didn't research and test adequately, and whining about it on here and other forums, is the epitome of pointlessness.


    It is clear you have zero sympathy 😊 The thing is I am aware of the slowness and I have workarounds that help me deal with it. On balance I like the processing capabilities and the editing work flow a lot so I am sticking around.

    But I am going to advocate for improvements both here and with support. You can call that whining if you like but I'll be providing constructive feedback.
    0
  • Thomas Kyhn
    Top Commenter
    Keith Reeder wrote:
    No, it won't - Capture One is no secret in this regard, and frankly it's not a big deal on other forums either. It's a minority issue wherever you read about it.

    Why do people do this? Buy a product known not to do things in a certain way, then throw far more energy than is healthy, into pointlessly moaning online that it doesn't do the thing they should know it doesn't do?

    I have zero sympathy. We're allowed enough time to test before we buy, and as I say, this approach to DAM is anything but a secret.

    So to buy Capture One anyway, when it should be obvious to anyone who has done their due diligence, that it's not "fit for purpose"?

    Not Capture One's (or our) problem that they didn't research and test adequately, and whining about it on here and other forums, is the epitome of pointlessness.

    Moaning pointlessly are we?
    0
  • mattcohen
    Keith Reeder wrote:
    Eric Nepean wrote:
    IMO there would be a far larger impact if threads like this were to be on other forums like DPReview, where the information is exposed to potential buyers and third party reviewers

    No, it won't - Capture One is no secret in this regard, and frankly it's not a big deal on other forums either. It's a minority issue wherever you read about it.

    Why do people do this? Buy a product known not to do things in a certain way, then throw far more energy than is healthy, into pointlessly moaning online that it doesn't do the thing they should know it doesn't do?

    I have zero sympathy. We're allowed enough time to test before we buy, and as I say, this approach to DAM is anything but a secret.

    So to buy Capture One anyway, when it should be obvious to anyone who has done their due diligence, that it's not "fit for purpose"?

    Not Capture One's (or our) problem that they didn't research and test adequately, and whining about it on here and other forums, is the epitome of pointlessness.


    "far more energy than is healthy"

    like writing this nonsense in the first place? do you have any idea what it means to set up a professional workflow? that testing something with one day's worth of pictures is much different than loading 10 years' worth?

    let me ask you and the other ones who get off on shielding this company from the consequences of their actions: if all of these limitations are so well known, why doesn't C1 provide guidance on catalog size? don't put more than 10k pictures in a folder, we have a known limitation. they don't do this, they just keep requiring more and more computing power which they then squander.
    0
  • Thomas Kyhn
    Top Commenter
    mattcohen wrote:
    let me ask you and the other ones who get off on shielding this company from the consequences of their actions: if all of these limitations are so well known, why doesn't C1 provide guidance on catalog size? don't put more than 10k pictures in a folder, we have a known limitation. they don't do this, they just keep requiring more and more computing power which they then squander.

    Good point.
    0
  • Robert Farhi
    mattcohen wrote:

    let me ask you and the other ones who get off on shielding this company from the consequences of their actions: if all of these limitations are so well known, why doesn't C1 provide guidance on catalog size? don't put more than 10k pictures in a folder, we have a known limitation. they don't do this, they just keep requiring more and more computing power which they then squander.


    I have 22k+ images in my catalog, and I know people who have 70k images, without any issue. I can find an image within less than 5 seconds (4 seconds to display all of the thumbnails after having clicked on "All images", and 1 second to fulfil the filter request). It strongly depends on the computer configuration of your hardware/software.
    But I admit that C1's catalog is far from having the same level as the LR's one.
    0
  • photo by FA
    tenmangu81 wrote:
    mattcohen wrote:

    let me ask you and the other ones who get off on shielding this company from the consequences of their actions: if all of these limitations are so well known, why doesn't C1 provide guidance on catalog size? don't put more than 10k pictures in a folder, we have a known limitation. they don't do this, they just keep requiring more and more computing power which they then squander.


    I have 22k+ images in my catalog, and I know people who have 70k images, without any issue. I can find an image within less than 5 seconds (4 seconds to display all of the thumbnails after having clicked on "All images", and 1 second to fulfil the filter request). It strongly depends on the computer configuration of your hardware/software.
    But I admit that C1's catalog is far from having the same level as the LR's one.


    Out of interest, what is your setup? Because my catalog with 35k images are not so fast.
    0

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