Still no side by side before and after view in 20??
I can't understand why they don't have this most basic feature at such a late date. Can someone explain the hold up? With most photo editing software this is there in version one. I like staying up on the latest versions but I can't believe I would be paying for an update with such a strange set of priorities like this. I feel funny paying for lesser features while this isn't in place. It is hard to judge how much progress you have made when you can't see both versions of the photo at the same time.
0
-
Before and after at what point in the process?
I can compare multiple versions on screen at the same time if I choose to. Or a single image on screen and move back and forth between two or more versions overlaying one over the other.
No problem using variants.
Or, alternatively, layers in some situations.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Before and after at what point in the process?
Usually you would compare the way the photo started out. I suppose you could compare another point in the history panel if you didn't want to go so far back. The important thing is to switch between split view and side by side. Sometimes split view even lets you pick between left and right or top and bottom too. Only having a before and after toggle is lame. It doesn't utilize large screens people have these days that can show a before and after side by side easily.
I am not sure how variants and layers fits in. I just want to click one button like in LR, Affinity and then when I am done switch back easily. I can't do that with the way things are currently set up.0 -
Unless making a very minor change to an out of the camera jpg or a tiff from part way through some sort of extended editing activity I long ago lost interest in only being able to compare to an image in its original state.
For the first base changes it may have some merit but not for fine tuning - at least in my opinion.
Likewise the split view. Nice to compare effect, say, on a small image posted as part of a blog or and advert for an editing product on a web site but otherwise not really much use most of the time. They really only work when the changes are quite dramatic - at which point I'm not entirely sure why the comparison is so necessary.
Similarly Histories. If you make a lot of changes finding the exact point to return to is rarely easy. Far better to get to a point in the edit that you want to set as "Keep" point, clone a variant of it and then continue work from there with the option for instant side by side or overlay compare at any time without having the system recalculate all the time. Plus your saved point is safe. No chance of accidentally eliminating it with an edit activity unless one is very careless.
Still, everyone has different preferences.
Grant0 -
I second Grant.
When I need to compare side by side I just create a new variant (otherwise I Alt+click the reset button in toolbar to have a temporary reset of all the edits and go back and forth) or I clone a variant to try different versions and compare them to, eventually, mix them in a new one. Actually I find this more versatile than Lightroom's compare function 'cause you can even compare an unedited version with multiple variants at the same time but I'm aware that it is just a personal preference. I have no feeling with LR.0 -
If a person's preferred workflow is to spend extra time setting up variants they could still do that if there was a split view or side by side view. You wouldn't need to pick between one or the other. I would rather not fill up browser view with tons of copies of the same photo if I didn't need to. To me a variant makes the most sense if I wanted an black and white version of a photo or a very different crop or some very different effect. I can't imagine if every single image that needed an adjustment (which is essentially all of them) also needed a variant. 0 -
[quote="NNN636934704713702443" wrote:
If a person's preferred workflow is to spend extra time setting up variants they could still do that if there was a split view or side by side view. You wouldn't need to pick between one or the other. I would rather not fill up browser view with tons of copies of the same photo if I didn't need to. To me a variant makes the most sense if I wanted an black and white version of a photo or a very different crop or some very different effect. I can't imagine if every single image that needed an adjustment (which is essentially all of them) also needed a variant.
It takes a fraction of a second to create a variant (or indeed hundreds of variants but that's not a typical way to work).
You don't have to have them on display in the browser unless working with them.
But yes, it's a matter of personal preference as ClauS wrote.
Back in my early days of reasonably serious digital image editing I bought Lightroom when it was launched and also used another application, now somewhat out of the frame sadly, and used both for a while.
The 'other' application was in many ways quite similar to the concepts used by Capture One now. I much preferred it compared to LR. It had a full edit history feature but realistically the option to create multiple edit versions of the same image in more or less the same way that C1 does with variants was one of the features I enjoyed a lot. When I first looked at C1 I was pleased to see that is offered something almost identical. That and not forcing the use of a catalogue concept.
Just my opinion of course.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="NNN636934704713702443" wrote:
But yes, it's a matter of personal preference as ClauS wrote.
Right, and no one is losing their current preferred workflow by adding this basic feature.0 -
[quote="NNN636934704713702443" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="NNN636934704713702443" wrote:
But yes, it's a matter of personal preference as ClauS wrote.
Right, and no one is losing their current preferred workflow by adding this basic feature.
You're right about this. Have you ever opened a support case to suggest it to Phase one?0 -
[quote="NNN636934704713702443" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="NNN636934704713702443" wrote:
But yes, it's a matter of personal preference as ClauS wrote.
Right, and no one is losing their current preferred workflow by adding this basic feature.
But it's not a no cost option since it needs to be developed and then supported, possibly at the expense of something more interesting.
But ClauS is right. Create a suggestion for the Capture One development team to add to their list of options to consider for the future.0 -
[quote="ClauS" wrote:
You're right about this. Have you ever opened a support case to suggest it to Phase one?
Probably, I usually write into a developer when I start using software to get the issues resolved as early as possible.
It's also other really basic things like the zoom only being 400% when Affinity has a zoom in by the thousands I think. Or why is there a such a small limit to the dust spot tool? It seems like the kind of limits you would see in the really early days of computing when the hardware specs were really small.0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
10 Kommentare