HEAL layers should ADD UP, instead be transparent (read description)
Implemented
When using CLONE or HEAL brush it operates as in Photoshop. You need to repeatedly sample small sample area to patch large unwanted area. PROBLEM is that no matter how much you already perfectly healed, sample area still looks original image instead of new patched. I love Corel PHOTOPAINT over Adobe PHOTOSHOP for cloning since Corel decided patched area can be sampled again and so work is much faster - true, it can create pattern of repetition. Here C1 is in great advantage.
C1 can be both; always sampling original image or merged image. I would expect that if I sample within one HEAL layer it will look original image, but if I make layer on top it will look layer below, so it will use fixed image as base for new sampling. This will make work easier and better. Using one layer to 1st heal some stuff, tan use this as base for next healing for larger area. Patterns would be greatly reduced. As we know, heal sometimes return weird hue shift and can't be used at all, while clone is not what it suits.
Also that would FIX very long going and ANNOYING problem in C1, when you clone something and it clones moles/dots/dust back!! You clone out (before with "O", now with "Q"), perfectly and than use heal/clone for something but you can't use area since something tiny else will be cloned too. NEXT layer which would sample image from layer below (flattened) instead of bottom bare original image, would solve this.
Example: Jewellery captured on black cloth - some wrinkles and a lot of dust. Layer 1 - fix dust -> make perfect black dot free base
Layer 2 - fix wrinkles -> use large sampling are to smooth wrinkles and shadows from it. No worries from dust being introduced back.
-
I like the new versions of the heal and clone tools, and I have been using them a fair bit, and managing to do more without resorting to an outside editor. But there are still instances where I will find it quicker and easier to retouch in Affinity Photo (AP) or Photoshop (PS). I don't expect Capture One to become a pixel editor to rival them. And the nature of the layers in Capture One is different. If I were doing the sort of thing you are talking about in AP or PS, I would be doing my retouching on a separate pixel layer using the option to sample from current layer and below, but it would then, of course be sampling pixels. But C1 is not a pixel editor and you can't add pixel layers. They are not at all the same thing as layers in AP or PS.
Ian
0 -
@Ian Wilson,
You said C1 is not bitmap editor; it is. But it is metadata based editor, instead shifting real bits permanently. That is the beauty. It does exactly what Ps, or any layer capable software does, until they flatten image. Layers works exactly the same in both programs. C1 edits are saved in metadata and rendered on the fly each time you open the editor, while Ps effects on layers are rendered on the fly, but layers are saved as TIFF files if you save PSD. Even smart object is workaround to not bake edits permanently.
I mostly stopped using Ps since C1 version 10. 99,5% of clonig / healing I did in C1 alone. I dislike having bunch of large TIFF files along DNG's (my camera's native raw format). I could even fix lazy eye or reposition body feature. It just took me a bunch of layers. Version 20.1 broth important difference: sampling now can't be outside image as it was before. Before I could get interesting effects or cloning solutions by dragging node FAR out from image edge.
But as I said most frequent example is when I remove garbage from backgrounds: portrait on parking lot and removal of small stuff like chewing gums, spits, cigarette butts, etc, than fix one large shadow from item outside of frame. Well, as soon as I try to sample area where asphalt structure match, it will introduce all cigarette buts back, since it is cloned from base image.
Heal layers are rendered as new pixels, it could not be different. As soon as you use clone/heal, new pixels are generated, just as it is in Ps. Next layer could than sample from previous layer, not from the base image. I would like to have an OPTION in preferences, for those who prefer (or when I prefer) to have it current way.
Example: You have image projected to white wall. Base image. Than you place hands in front of the projector beam and shadow is cast to the wall (layer 1). This is patch and part of image is black in shape of your hands. Now you record this "patched" image from a wall with a camcorder and projecting this image to another wall (layer 2). That new image is again solid, and contain shadow baked in. So if I now do something with it, shadow is part of it. OK?
Since cloning creates new previously non existent pixels, we can now sample it further and use it in next layers as sampling area combined with previous layers - like you stack transparencies in analog projector. It's also like editing text with copy machine: you placed a white stripe over unwanted text, than make a copy of that, and than than replace white space with new text. It is decision. I believe it is technically possible very easy.
Current method once was only possible way, since old layer system. Now we have more open options with new layers. But SOMETIMES current way is still better. That is why I always say it need to be optional, and not forced changes as in Adobe always are. We can get both ways and better in any way.
EDIT: I corrected typo mistakes that might confuse readers and my language lacks.1 -
@Ian Wilson,
Mihael's request is a very reasonable one.
It does not require a move to Photoshop-type layers and destructive operations.
Mihael's statement that "layers works exactly the same in both programs" is not correct either because C1 layers compare very directly to Photoshop's "adjustment layers", but are very different to Photoshop's regular layers which contribute new image content (along with a mask, etc.).
However, Mihael's proposal does not require adopting regular Photoshop layers, it only requires C1 to work in a staged manner when calculating healing/cloning operations.There is an efficiency advantage to the current (non-staged) approach because there is no need to hold multiple stages in memory which are suitable as healing/cloning sources, but I agree with Mihael that changing the approach to a staged one would be very beneficial for cloning/healing.
In general, one should not create a divide between parametric editors like C1 and "pixel-based" editors like Photoshop (which feature destructive operations) because there is nothing you cannot replicate in a parametric editor. The challenge is efficiency -- as operations have to be replayed on certain occasions -- as opposed to feasibility.1 -
Well...
Mihael says I dislike having bunch of large TIFF files along DNG's (my camera's native raw format). I agree. But, as a comparison, I have noticed when trying out ON1 (which I have given up on) that it tries to be both a parametric editor and a pixel editor. As long as you do all the usual parametric adjustment layer type things, it stores the adjustment information in a modest-sized sidecar file. But as soon as you create actual layers, it has to create a humungous-sized additional file (PSD format, I think). One of the reasons I like using Capture One is that it doesn't do that. If it switched to doing layers the way that is being suggested, would it not end up having to create large additional files like that?
Ian
0 -
@Ian Wilson
Capture One wouldn't have to create additional files because what Mihael proposes does not allow the user to paint new content that would have to be stored somewhere.
There is only one source which is the original image (potentially with adjustments). Then you have brush strokes/masks (which currently already need to be stored).
All C1 needs to do is to apply the brush strokes/masks in a staged manner, calculating intermediate results. Since these intermediate results are 100% determined by the original image and the brush strokes/masks, they can always be recreated on-demand without causing additional storage requirements.
In short, Mihael's proposal does not require a paradigm shift to regular Photoshop layers, which contain image data of their own and hence need additional storage.1 -
@Ian Wilson
ON1 is very messy system I tried when it was launched. It might be more polished now, but than never returned me top quality, and I disliked approach, roughness at every step and speed was only there for basic things. Also I agree what you say about it.I Like(d) Photoshop for being destructive bitmap editor. Than they wanted to hack it into metadata editor (you all say parametric). This introduced of all sort of workarounds. Most important it is the PSD file fattens into "gigabytes" when you work on it. I can't understand people advocate Lr+Ps workflow - they need a week to finish small wedding and use ton of storage and workflow is linear. C1 on the other hand add very small XML file for edits.
So we BOTH love C1 is tiny and nondestructive and nonlinear, without additional files, editor. And my proposal does NOT change that. I never said or thought C1 must save layers like Photoshop into physical files; there is no need for that. This is what Photoshop does because it is bitmap editor in the essence, while C1 is metadata editor. It renders those bitmap layers on the fly each time you open it. It re-renders them when you add lens distortion or crop or any change, after it, every time. Since they are rendered on the fly out from metadata instructions it will never create bigger file than it is original, no matter how many layers one have. It is just decision how you sample additional layers. Example: all 3 clone layers can be sampling from base image or decide to render layer one, than render layer two based on what layer one shows, than layer three... This would not even take additional reader time.
@Class A
Exactly! You shortened my proposal in few sentences.
Also corrected my about comparing to Ps layers where I was not precise enough.0 -
What I don't know, Mihael, is whether it is technically possible for C1 to do what you suggest without creating huge files. I certainly wouldn't want that!
Ian
0 -
A staged rendering is probably not how the whole C1 application is designed, at least not as far as layers are concerned. But I might be wrong.
Anyway, if the performance or the rendering suffered noticably, I would not be a fan of this request.
regards
0 -
@Ian Wilson and @BeO,
my knowledge of how software works says it is high probability* that C1 already works on a way I described. I always position myself it what I believe it is current method and suggest only stuff that are slight tweak not turning house on roof. I believe the program calculates and renders layers already sequentially, since this is only logic. It is blazing fast in few latest versions. So it is only decision if sampling from pixels from ground image (which is already rendered on the fly each time out from raw image!) or sampling from pixels (already rendered on the fly) from layer above. They need to say how much that would cause to integrate, maybe it is trivial, maybe some unknown side problem could prevent it. But as always I say it needs to be optional.
If it is optional, we can have it like now, with o impact on performance, and we can choose to have it different for special cases, even if for some reason would take a split second longer.
Options are key. Some other company already had only THEIR way, so I chosen highway :)
* + I'm confident that changing sampling layer would not cause any bigger file. As I said, C1's layers are saved as metadata in project, not rendered and stored "files". They only live in memory until you close program. When you open it, they are re-rendered again each time already. We too much see this from PS perspective. :)0 -
Hi Mihael,
Thank you for your feedback.
Your suggestions will be taken on board and sent to the Product Management team.
0 -
Just to add to Mihael's suggestion, we should have this for both heal and clone layers. Users should be able to choose between "sample background layer" which is the current default and "sample all lower layers" which is what Mihael is asking for (and which I would also very much like as well.
Sample workflow:
User creates an adjustment layer and increases the exposure on an object.
User clones that object to another area of the image.Existing "sample background layer" behavior: Cloned area does not reflect brighter source area.
Proposed "sample all lower layers" behavior: Cloned area reflects the brighter source area.User changes layer ordering to put the adjustment layer above the clone layer.
Existing "sample background layer" behavior: No change.
Proposed "sample all lower layers" behavior: Cloned area changes to no longer reflect the brightness adjustment.0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
11 Kommentare