Zum Hauptinhalt gehen

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Simple suggestions for variants

joshkuhn
I am not sure where to post suggestions for Capture One, but I have a couple simple things that would improve my workflow.

1. Naming variants. This would be very helpful. Let's say I create a cloned variant to adjust for a certain ICC profile. Of course I would export for a certain size right away, but if I want to go back and export again at a different size I will have to try to figure which variant is which, or start over.
This seems like a super simple fix.
Any other work around ideas?

2. Viewing the photo pre single adjustment. I would love to be to have an easy way to toggle the view back and forth from the default, of a single adjustment, to my current adjustment setting. This would be especially helpful for tone curves, where I like to compare what I adjusted to no adjustments on the curve while still seeing all the previous adjustments. Creating presets or variants just to do this is a major pain.

Any thoughts welcome.

Please C1 give me these simple things in a future update or version! They both sound super simple to me.
Is there somewhere I can send the suggestions, or something I can do to actually get them noticed?

Thanks
0

Kommentare

8 Kommentare

Datum Stimmen
  • John Doe
    1/ File a feature request (see my signature)
    2/ alt + click the reset button of the relevant tool (see the "Temporary reset" section at )
    0
  • joshkuhn
    Thanks, the alt+click works great.
    0
  • SFA
    The variant edits, as used in a session and presumably similar in a catalogue environment, are all held in the same edit instructions file.

    Currently there is no "name" or "notes" feature for the various edit combinations saved in the file but there are other options for identification since each variant has its own set of keywords (for example).

    Some of the fields available for IPTC data recording may also be suitable for the sort of variant identification you are seeking. (Bear in mind that IPTC fields are intended for specific purposes often with a controlled set of allowed inputs BUT, if you are unlikely to ever use them for the specific purposes for which they are intended, they are yours to do with as you see fit.

    One immediate benefit of the fields available is that they can be deployed as filters thus, in theory and likely in practice, selection by type of output should be relatively easy to establish and implement when required.

    In fact I suppose it is really the same sort of functionality that might be provided to add a new "name" field anyway so hopefully some part of the IPTC data will fulfill your need.

    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • joshkuhn
    Thanks, I had not thought of using keywords. That should work pretty well I think.
    0
  • peter Frings
    Be able to rename a variant would also be very advantageous when outputting the files. At least you would have a way to control the file name, rather than the meaningless suffixes you now get. E.g., add BW for a b/w version, or the crop, or whatever. This is not something you can do with keywords, nor by using some kind of token that I'm aware of.

    Cheers,
    Peter.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="peter.f" wrote:
    Be able to rename a variant would also be very advantageous when outputting the files. At least you would have a way to control the file name, rather than the meaningless suffixes you now get. E.g., add BW for a b/w version, or the crop, or whatever. This is not something you can do with keywords, nor by using some kind of token that I'm aware of.

    Cheers,
    Peter.


    If one were to set up a recipe for B&W (as an example) printing one could establish the output file naming convention there, thus giving a permanent defined selection.

    Obviously it's possible to change any recipe to name as one desires but it must surely be easier to set up some predefined recipes for things that are regularly used and just select what one needs when required.


    Grant
    0
  • peter Frings
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    If one were to set up a recipe for B&W (as an example) printing one could establish the output file naming convention there, thus giving a permanent defined selection.

    Obviously it's possible to change any recipe to name as one desires but it must surely be easier to set up some predefined recipes for things that are regularly used and just select what one needs when required.


    Hi Grant,

    I'm finding output recipes OK, but their static nature leads to a "combinatorial explosion". Say I have 3 recipes, one for my archive, one for Facebook and another for Flickr, and I then need to create 3 more just to add BW to the name, and another 3 to add something else (square crop and original, whatever). I then have 10 images, some of them in color only, some in BW only, some of them in both, some of them cropped, etc. Can you count the number of clicks I need to do to get all 10 exported with the proper names and to the right place? Compare that with simply clicking on the file name (display name? It's in the filter) and adjusting it to taste. Much simpler!

    Cheers,
    Peter.
    0
  • John Doe
    You define output naming and location within each recipe. No need for further clicks afterwards.
    0

Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.