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⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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. ⚠️

Genuinely don't understand the motivation for changing processing

Kommentare

17 Kommentare

  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    I fully agree, whatever C1 thinks they have improved in the new exporter does not outweigh what they have ruined by removing the former processing tools.

    For me this is nothing less than breaking the consistency with the simple user interface concept of one browser, one viewer, a tool bar on top and all the details are done with tools in a tool tab or with floating tools. Consistent over all tools inclusive soft-proofing and exporting, which could be done in less clicks and less mouse movements than with the new exporter and new proofing icon.

    I certainly do not understand everyone's workflow which exists in the user base and that is because the former processing tools including its handling in the UI were quite flexible in so many regards and thus supports probably countless use cases, but I know the omission makes the handling much less efficient for how I work with C1.

    My guess is that they will hear to one or the other complaint and incorporate a fix into the new exporter (e.g. order of exports, location of the settings in the exporter window) but they still will keep the modal exporter as a replacement of the former processing tools, thus only satifying the most often heard complaints and leaving us (at least me) still frustrated about this user interface.

    C1, please keep the exporter simple and bring back the great processing tools, with improvements but without taking away functionality or ease of use. Having to use an additional window with an additional brower and viewer in itself is a step backwards.

     

    P.S.

    pop over to here and consider voting. You are not alone in your thinking:

    https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/4404472272273-Bring-back-the-Output-Panel-

     

    https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/4404833354385-Bring-the-Output-Tab-Back-for-Advanced-Users-Petition

     

    http://change.org/captureone

    3
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    They could regain my respect if they admitted they misjudged how much the client base values the processing tools and tell us that they

    (a) want deliver the best software and care about their existing client base and

    (b) at the same time keep and finetune the new export dialog for those who rather would like to see a rather typical modal export window and / or to welcome new clients who are used to such a software paradigm.

    Actually, at least in most western countries, it is generally appreciated if someone admits a mistake/misjudgement rather then defending a perceived wrong position.

    win/win

    Let's see...

    2
  • Rory T Seddon

    Agreed.....What a mess!

    Unfortunately I have done a few shoots now that I need to access so can't go back to the previous versions. All my staff have gone back until this is rectified. The new version has add so much time onto processing. It makes no sense.

    PLEASE CAPTURE UNDO THIS MISTAKE ASAP!

     

    1
  • ---

    .. and incorporate a fix into the new exporter (e.g. order of exports, location of the settings in the exporter window) but they still will keep the modal exporter as a replacement of the former processing tools, thus only satifying the most often heard complaints and leaving us (at least me) still frustrated about this user interface.

    yes that's very likely what we will see,  they have brought themselves without need in a lose - lose situation and now whatever they do will left some dissatisfied.  congratulations ! 

     

    1
  • ---

    ...you are aware that they already made an announcement at their blog which sounds more like a typical political statement which mean beside nice words they did not say anything substantial and it is also not an real apology.  

    1
  • JoJu

    I do understand the motivation of processing. This part of the app was exclusively focused on the use case of exporting a lot of pictures, with a lot of recipes, to a lot of different customers. Some C1 users have use cases for this and will always need this possibility. But I really wonder, how big the percentage of C1 users with this kind of massive export options is. The options have grown over time and I'm sure at the beginning of C1 it was less than even the new export functions offer. But growing options can be a mess, too, especially if the necessary functions are spread over multiple tabs which also contain tons of other stuff and for me not always logically placed. I find the new export much better than the old, but admittedly I don't have the need to address multiple output formats for multiple recipients.

    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    What percentage of other than you users would be acceptable for you before you would remove such an important feature? 

    Do you really understand all the use cases? *)

    I have no customers, not a lot of pictures, but indeed quite a few print proofing and export recipes. The options the proccessing tools offer are just right for me. They are not a mess in my view and if they are too much spread around for you, you can always create your own tab and workspace without "tons of other stuff".

    You like the new exporter, fine, I don't argue to remove it, I argue to get back the better (for quite a big percentage of users) processing tools.

    EDIT:

    *)  btw, I do not know or understand all the use cases from all users, and so didn't C1, apparently.

    0
  • JoJu

    BeO, if I say "I wonder how big the percentage of C1 users with this kind of massive export options is.", I'm NOT saying "for this few people the bright dev minds of C1 can always kill everything in the way" ;) Like you, I don't understand all use cases, but I also don't understand the in my eyes weird concept of two different tabs for the same task area.

    I really wonder how many of the existing C1 owners use this batch processing tab. And why – in case there are a lot – none of them took part in the beta program which lasted a couple of weeks? Many people reacted surprised and upset, but guys, you could have seen it coming and you didn't mind to take a look! Which is perfectly understandable: If someone wants me to play test-pilot for any software, I want something in return. Be it cheaper update fees, workshop or whatever - except the for me extremely useless style packs.

    You say, I could create a new tab. Problem with that idea is, each new update will bring kind of a reset of the customized tabs. Be it thumbnails or order because some functions were added. I experienced that a couple of updates and now I stand back and try to keep it as simple as possible.

    I understand the testing capacities of a team delivering software for hundreds of RAW types, different OS and now also different processors are limited and will at best cover the most common cases. But since the update C1 is crashing on a daily bases multiple times per day, of course without warning. There are so many quirks and bugs in the software since a couple of big main versions that I already scratch my head when someone calls it a "professional software". To me it's a RAW converter, delivering pleasing results, if it's in the mood. But if my daily use professional software would crash that often like C1, I'd go and search for a better product.

    0
  • ---

    "I already scratch my head when someone calls it a "professional software"

    very true.   when user are already confused with the export than what is with the rest ?  I always thought that c1 being a totally quirky software is part of the fun amateurs are after ? one example, this software has 4 places to apply some kind of sharpening but user are overwhelmed with 2 export options...really ? 

    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    Joachim,

    Batch tab
    I use it very seldom. I guess it was set as a separate tab because it is not needed as much or as often as the other output tools and because the tools' content i.e. list of images is very long. Thus I think it is not weird; but it does not matter much as one can change it.

    Changing workspaces
    Nothing wrong if you work with the default workspaces. And assuming that the user base's requirements are Gaussian-distributed maybe you are right in the middle and thus the perfect role model / standard target user for the C1 designers. The good thing about C1 is that the deviating users in that Gaussian distribution can customize their own workspaces and establish their own workflow, across all tools, big and small options in C1. One of its strengths, really.

    I cannot remember that a new version has corrupted my workspaces (I don't say it did not happen). But sSometimes I re-think my workflow and change my workspaces, especially with a new version I am interested to see an updated perspective from C1 designers.
    Also very interesting was Drews arcticle https://learn.captureone.com/blog-posts/customized-workflow-workspace-tips-and-tricks/ 

    Beta testing
    Once in a while I participated in beta testing. My motivation was not a financial incentive though, my motivation and reward was a release with as less bugs as possible, and to give feedback to development in order to have some mild influence on (imo) wrong decisions. I was not very successful in preventing the increase of complexity with the layers tool in the past though. Could I have prevented the loss of the output tools? I have some doubts. They probably did not anticipate the number of users who are upset about this...

     

     

     

     

     

    0
  • Marco Hyman

    And why – in case there are a lot – none of them took part in the beta program which lasted a couple of weeks?

    Guess: the people who use the batch facility do not have the time or manpower to test a new version of the software.  They are business people who are trying to make money running their own business.  They are not being paid to act as part of the Capture One QC/Test department. Some small businesses might not even have a spare machine to check out new software -- beta or otherwise -- before putting it into production. Oops!

    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    I thought so too.

    0
  • JoJu

    Of course, I also think that people selling their photographic work for a living are depending on stable software and expect rightfully to get that with an update, without taking part in the beta program. And honestly would I want to test a beta software with a critical job, including deadlines and quality expectations? That could go wrong spectacularly even if beta testers got some sort of compensation for their efforts.

    But then, if I have concerns to not leave my established workflow and jump into a new version without knowing what's it about – who can I blame for if the software company decided to go another way because obviously there were not that much bad feedbacks from beta testers? Why is anybody expecting a new update will be/do the same as the previous version? So, when do I have to bother about new functions, when is the right moment to update? Last Thursday probably was too early.

    0
  • ---

    "who can I blame for if the software company decided to go another way because obviously there were not that much bad feedbacks from beta testers?"

    first this is just speculation but do you really believe that they trash their work at this state and start over because some of the beta tester do not like it ?  this is more than naive considering the removal of features passed there in-house testing and qc. 

    it should be easy for c1 to establish a network of professional user which get acsess to early alpa/beta software if they are really interested in feedback but I guess this is not the case and it seems the photographers associated with them doing the internal testing do either not have the right professional background, understanding  or do not have the balls to speak up. 

    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter

    CSP - as I expect you actually know, any of us is able to sign up to the beta programme, and help improve the product, and particularly to identify issues with new features, by feeding back on beta versions of the software. It is just misleading to say that it's only "the photographers associated with them doing the internal testing".

    Did you participate in the beta testing?

    Ian 

    0
  • ---

    ...and you probably also know what they asked in the beta release for,  don´t remember they asked the question  - is it a good idea to remove long established features ?  you know also the difference between alpha and beta testing, right ?  I guess that under 25% probably even much less of the c1 user are actually real working pros and from this groupe an even smaller section is shooting tethered and / or need the removed features.  so even in an ideal world they would have been always the minority voice.  it is the responsibility of c1 alone to consider what impact such a change will have on this kind of user and if it is important to them to provide the needed tools,  obvious they decided they are not important. 

    0
  • Gbeb

    Chiming on agreement. I don't understand the need to clutter the screen with an additional window in order to queue output. Please bring back the original output and batch tool tabs as options.

    0

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