Skip to main content

Layer madness

Comments

81 comments

  • Paul Steunebrink
    You are obviously free to have an opinion, about layers in this example. Apparently this change does not work to your advantage.

    For some people it does. It was one of the most requested features.

    One can not make everybody happy.
    -1
  • Abbott Schindler
    Maybe it would be nice to have a Preference where "layer copy behavior" could be set to "add" or "replace", but for whatever reason it wasn't implemented like this. I personally prefer the new method, which works as I've long wished it would.

    Maybe send a feature request. They accommodate both old and new scrolling behavior via prefs settings, and maybe they'd consider adding it to a dot upgrade in v20 or even v21.
    2
  • Paul Steunebrink
    Nature Isme wrote:
    Maybe it would be nice to have a Preference where "layer copy behavior" could be set to "add" or "replace", but for whatever reason it wasn't implemented like this. I personally prefer the new method, which works as I've long wished it would.

    Maybe send a feature request. They accommodate both old and new scrolling behavior via prefs settings, and maybe they'd consider adding it to a dot upgrade in v20 or even v21.

    Such a feature request makes sense, I think.
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    LOL no one can with us photogs 😊

    A couple of points. First while I appreciate that this change effects people who were making use of the previous behaviour, it should be noted that the new behaviour means that people that want to add layers can and those that want to replace layers still can (agreed with a small amount of more work). The old way basically blocked adding layers. The workaround involved creating temporary styles to apply to new layers to creating layers manually and figuring out what adjustments to copy and paste over.

    Sorry they moved your cheese but there is no successful argument that this is worse than the old way!

    On the subject of preferences or options etc. to put the old way back. I, personally, am against that. How many preferences are they going to be to revert new behaviour to old behaviour? At some point will we ask them to bundle them up into a single setting "make the product old again"?

    They moved the cheese. Learn the new cheese location - it's not that different - we can all learn it.

    I my not so humble opinion 😊
    0
  • SFA
    It's tempting to suggest that one simply keeps the old variant and adds a new variant or a cloned variant and delete the layers before copying the new layers in.

    On the other hand since layers can be disabled easily enough just make the copy and figure out what to do with the same named layers later.

    The biggest problem I can foresee would be that of exceeding the maximum number of layers allowed.


    Grant
    0
  • ---
    Paul_Steunebrink wrote:
    You are obviously free to have an opinion, about layers in this example. Apparently this change does not work to your advantage.

    For some people it does. It was one of the most requested features.

    One can not make everybody happy.


    ..and your are also entitled to not fully understand the impact of this change for whatever reason but maybe you simple never worked with more than a handful of images at a time because it is not as others suggest just t a little more work when you prepare hundreds of images.

    the new behaviour is simply illogical and it makes no difference if you copy one or multiple layers. there is also no need to add an extra option the only thing needed is that layers with the same name get replace instead of added. this would also overcome the 16 layer limitation issue.
    1
  • SFA
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    Paul_Steunebrink wrote:
    You are obviously free to have an opinion, about layers in this example. Apparently this change does not work to your advantage.

    For some people it does. It was one of the most requested features.

    One can not make everybody happy.


    ..and your are also entitled to not fully understand the impact of this change for whatever reason but maybe you simple never worked with more than a handful of images at a time because it is not as others suggest just t a little more work when you prepare hundreds of images.

    the new behaviour is simply illogical and it makes no difference if you copy one or multiple layers. there is also no need to add an extra option the only thing needed is that layers with the same name get replace instead of added. this would also overcome the 16 layer limitation issue.


    You are assuming that people in general are effective at controlling their layer naming conventions consistently and, taking your example, over a large number of images.

    That may be the case for some, possibly many people. But it's not something I would assume when creating specifications for this sort of functionality UNLESS I was using adjustment sets over which I had control.

    Complete control.


    Grant
    0
  • ---
    SFA wrote:
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    Paul_Steunebrink wrote:
    You are obviously free to have an opinion, about layers in this example. Apparently this change does not work to your advantage.

    For some people it does. It was one of the most requested features.

    One can not make everybody happy.


    ..and your are also entitled to not fully understand the impact of this change for whatever reason but maybe you simple never worked with more than a handful of images at a time because it is not as others suggest just t a little more work when you prepare hundreds of images.

    the new behaviour is simply illogical and it makes no difference if you copy one or multiple layers. there is also no need to add an extra option the only thing needed is that layers with the same name get replace instead of added. this would also overcome the 16 layer limitation issue.


    You are assuming that people in general are effective at controlling their layer naming conventions consistently and, taking your example, over a large number of images.

    That may be the case for some, possibly many people. But it's not something I would assume when creating specifications for this sort of functionality UNLESS I was using adjustment sets over which I had control.

    Complete control.


    Grant


    for those who are able to use layers in c1 this should really not be much of a problem and for the stupid they could add a warning like in very os : do really want to overwrite layer xy.... but what is totally unusual with software is that you end with the same name for different layers containing different adjustments this is just bad design nothing else.
    0
  • Tibor
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    but what is totally unusual with software is that you end with the same name for different layers containing different adjustments this is just bad design nothing else.


    I agree. You should initiate a support case, because this would be a good solution to this problem. I use the same technique as you are, I name my Layers under mine naming convention (i.e. Lips Saturation, Hair Clarity, Eyes Sharpen, ...) and copy / apply adjustments on layers from master file to others. Now it duplicates these layers instead of replacing them.
    0
  • ---
    Tibor wrote:
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    but what is totally unusual with software is that you end with the same name for different layers containing different adjustments this is just bad design nothing else.


    I agree. You should initiate a support case, because this would be a good solution to this problem. I use the same technique as you are, I name my Layers under mine naming convention (i.e. Lips Saturation, Hair Clarity, Eyes Sharpen, ...) and copy / apply adjustments on layers from master file to others. Now it duplicates these layers instead of replacing them.



    they did not listen during the beta when I reported the issue s so I´m sure they don't listen now...... but maybe after some time when there real "experts" have comprehended what bad software design this is and report back we have a chance for a fix....
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    but maybe after some time when there real "experts" have comprehended what bad software design this is and report back we have a chance for a fix....

    And what's a real "expert" in this context?

    Anyone who agrees with you?

    You might wish to consider that changes like this will not have been made arbitrarily, but because of the perception that it is an improvement.

    The fact that one or two users don't like it, doesn't make that perception less legitimate.

    As Paul says:
    One can not make everybody happy.

    Probably best for your blood pressure for you to accept that you might be in a minority here, and that most users don't much care about the impact of the change on convoluted, esoteric workflows...

    Personally, I'm thoroughly appreciating the new way.
    0
  • ---
    Keith Reeder wrote:
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    but maybe after some time when there real "experts" have comprehended what bad software design this is and report back we have a chance for a fix....

    And what's a real "expert" in this context?

    Anyone who agrees with you?

    You might wish to consider that changes like this will not have been made arbitrarily, but because of the perception that it is an improvement.

    The fact that one or two users don't like it, doesn't make that perception less legitimate.

    As Paul says:
    One can not make everybody happy.

    Probably best for your blood pressure for you to accept that you might be in a minority here, and that most users don't much care about the impact of the change on convoluted, esoteric workflows...

    Personally, I'm thoroughly appreciating the new way.



    it is simply telling that I have not read one sentence why this change is so great and useful maybe you are the first one which enlightens me.
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    It's not a feature that I use, but I recall that when it worked the old way and existing layers were lost, there were a lot of complaints about that.

    Ian
    0
  • Emile Gregoire
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    it is simply telling that I have not read one sentence why this change is so great and useful maybe you are the first one which enlightens me.


    It’s not telling at all. People flock to forums mostly when they encounter problems - not because they’re busy finishing their work because the product simply delivers. There’s a lot of complaining at the moment, but I haven’t encountered any of the bugs described here in the forum since v20 launched.

    I even like the implementation of copying and applying layers, which is not to say I can’t comprehend your problem. Asking for a confirmation to overwrite existing layers with the same name (with the option to apply the same answer to all instances in the same paste action and maybe even a ‘do not ask this question again’ checkbox) would seem a great solution for your particular problem, without it bothering the way I work with C1. Win-win.

    However, blanket statements about something one doesn’t like being “just bad design†is sort of a non-starter for any helpful discussion - not only this one.
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    it is simply telling that I have not read one sentence why this change is so great and useful maybe you are the first one which enlightens me.


    LOL how about eight posts above. Here is a link if you have trouble finding it [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]&p=172533#p172533

    Where I point out why the new way is better and strongly state:
    IanL wrote:

    Sorry they moved your cheese but there is no successful argument that this is worse than the old way!


    So in case you missed my point here is once sentence on why this is so great: "The new way of copying layers is great, it is now possible to usefully copy layers to new images. This will save me so much work."

    Sorry that was two sentences. 😂
    0
  • Eric Staudenmaier
    I prefer the previous version of copy and paste. I only use copy and paste to match ALL the settings from one image to another. Once I've made adjustments to my primary image I copy and paste those settings to the other images. If I go back and make a change to the primary image, I copy and paste again. Then maybe I'll make another change and then copy and paste again. With the new tool behavior, each time I copy and paste settings, the layers double on all but my primary image.

    With the new behavior, I must first select all the secondary images, Reset Layers adjustments, then paste from the primary. Not the end of the world, but definitely more steps to get to the same outcome.
    0
  • ---
    ericstaud wrote:
    I
    With the new behavior, I must first select all the secondary images, Reset Layers adjustments, then paste from the primary. Not the end of the world, but definitely more steps to get to the same outcome.


    ... but in the eyes of p1 this has made working with layers much faster (YouTube) . funny no ? but in their layer tutorial not one word about this wonderful improvment......

    maybe I have not discovered what the benefit of being able to copy just one layer is because working with layers and masks extenssivly in the past years i always use C1 to make images with similar contained look similar which demands that all layers and mask are copied too.

    but I´m open to learn so what is a practial scenario where the new behaviour outweighs the disadvantage ?
    0
  • Jerry C
    ericstaud wrote:
    I prefer the previous version of copy and paste. ...With the new tool behavior, each time I copy and paste settings, the layers double on all but my primary image.

    With the new behavior, I must first select all the secondary images, Reset Layers adjustments, then paste from the primary. Not the end of the world, but definitely more steps to get to the same outcome.


    Perhaps what is needed is an option to replace versus add layers not the mandatory add layers behavior. That should not be a difficult programming change for version 20.1
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    At least the new behaviour is non-destructive in that the old layers are not automatically lost as they were before, though you can remove them manually if you want to.

    Ian
    0
  • ---
    Ian3 wrote:
    At least the new behaviour is non-destructive in that the old layers are not automatically lost as they were before, though you can remove them manually if you want to.

    Ian


    so following your logic all other copied and applied adjustments are destructive because they overwrite the old setting no ? and as a result LR is the only nondestructive raw converter because it offers a history ...😉
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    Ian3 wrote:
    At least the new behaviour is non-destructive in that the old layers are not automatically lost as they were before, though you can remove them manually if you want to.

    Ian


    so following your logic all other copied and applied adjustments are destructive because they overwrite the old setting no ? and as a result LR is the only nondestructive raw converter because it offers a history ...😉

    No, I suppose what I am saying is that if the situation were the opposite way round (so that it used to add extra layers but had now changed to replacing existing layers) work could be lost. At least this way round, if you find the new way it works annoying, at least your work is not over-written.

    It is difficult, because users used to complain that the old way could only copy all the layers as a job lot, and replace the ones that were already there - they would have liked to be able to copy a layer from one image to another in addition to what was already there. And now that is what we have and other users don't like it. You can't please all of the people all of the time, it seems.

    Ian
    0
  • Jerry C
    Clearly they already have the code to replace layers (version 12) or add them (version 20). All we need is a choice of which to execute.So, could C1P layer copying be modified to provide a choice between adding or replacing layers in the target image(s) when copying layers?

    Maybe if we all make the request, it will get some action, after they resolve the installation problems, tethering problems from OS10.15.2, and other bugs.

    Jerry C
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    Ian3 wrote:

    No, I suppose what I am saying is that if the situation were the opposite way round (so that it used to add extra layers but had now changed to replacing existing layers) work could be lost. At least this way round, if you find the new way it works annoying, at least your work is not over-written.


    A point that has been made a few times now. He disagrees so adamantly that he is not really paying attention to that clear fact that the new way can be made to work for people that want to replace exiting layers and those that wan to add them. But the way it was could only satisfy those that want to replace exiting layers.
    0
  • ---
    IanL wrote:
    Ian3 wrote:

    No, I suppose what I am saying is that if the situation were the opposite way round (so that it used to add extra layers but had now changed to replacing existing layers) work could be lost. At least this way round, if you find the new way it works annoying, at least your work is not over-written.


    A point that has been made a few times now. He disagrees so adamantly that he is not really paying attention to that clear fact that the new way can be made to work for people that want to replace exiting layers and those that wan to add them. But the way it was could only satisfy those that want to replace exiting layers.


    the argument you can make it work is theoretically BS and tells me you have no first hand practical experience. yes of course you can make it work, when you think wasting time to delete hundreds of useless layers with the same name every time you made a change of the layer settings is great. I very much think working with layers should be easy for everyone, for those who never process more than a handful of images and those who need to work with a few hundred and a lot of layers especially when a software is featured as the best "professional" tool.
    0
  • SFA
    If putting forward a proposed enhancement should the rules for replacement be based solely on the Name given to a layer?

    A question.

    If one wishes to mass replace one of more layers for a large number of files, what sort of adjustment are being applied?

    I quite regularly copy and paste 2 or 3 layers from one image to several others (as initial layer adds rather than revisions) but only on the basis that the images are all similar enough in the basic editing to accept the new layers without making them a huge mess. In many cases I will be adding the layers knowing the adjustments will be acceptable but the mask will need editing.

    Most of my shoots are outdoors so things can change from shot to shot in ways that mean a single mass change exercise probably will not work over a large number of images in a way that might work wel for a controlled studio environment.

    Now I could see a studio shoot having enough consistency in the files produced to allow a standard "Background" (in C1 terminology) level of settings which in turn would allow a standard set layers to be applied and maybe even using standardised masks - especially if Luminosity masking could be applied. Additionally a studio situation might well offer the best opportunities for deploying controlled and accurate naming conventions for layer replacement selection actions.

    Is that the sort of situation that this overwrite mass change applies to?

    If so it suggest that all images will end up being processed in the same way other than lens adjustments, cropping and similar.

    So one approach would be to simply start from the basic image and copy and past all settings other than, perhaps, composition, and apply them to a new variant. With that done, checked and approved simply promote the new variant to be Primary or select and delete all of the original variants.

    No complications with layer naming and matching using that approach.

    Available now.

    However, if the practical operational need is somewhere between that and the development of a layer name based replacement process then there may be some additional complexity to cover off in the design of the enhancement.

    That would be especially true if layer masks need to be edited image by image or, perhaps more likely, the existing layers that are to be replaced are suitably masked but the settings need to change. In such a situation I don't think replacing the layers OR adding new ones would clearly be the best route to obtaining the desired result.


    Grant
    0
  • ---
    grant,

    here are two real world scenarios :

    1. outdoor product

    part of the look we are after includes real motion blur so we shoot with models moving in the scene, a lot of times, with the camera on a tripod. later I or the graphic designer will make a composition in PS. but even when we only use a few images for the final composition everything needs to be processed to have the same look and appearance for the client and others in the creative process.


    2. product studio

    in the past I used the actus but now I moved to image stacking. the benefit of image stacking is I can use the optimal aperture of the lens and still get everything in focus and this makes a huge quality difference with todays high res cameras. but with this comes a shallow deep of field. the parts I shoot are often small too so I need a lot of images for just one still. i also shoot variants from slightly different angels or do small light adjustments. it is very easy to get a huge amount of images this way.

    for the first scenario I use basic / HDR adjustments often with very selective masks to improve the product. in the studio shot I use the same type of adjustments but with gradients or soft brushes to balance contrast and apply some early D&B. a lot of the adjustments I apply during this process are subtile so it is normal for me to rework them, same goes for the layer masks and other settings.

    the easiest solution to fix the problems for my type of workflow would be replace layers with the same name add layers with a different name. same logic as every OS uses.
    0
  • SFA
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    grant,

    here are two real world scenarios :

    1. outdoor product

    part of the look we are after includes real motion blur so we shoot with models moving in the scene, a lot of times, with the camera on a tripod. later I or the graphic designer will make a composition in PS. but even when we only use a few images for the final composition everything needs to be processed to have the same look and appearance for the client and others in the creative process.


    2. product studio

    in the past I used the actus but now I moved to image stacking. the benefit of image stacking is I can use the optimal aperture of the lens and still get everything in focus and this makes a huge quality difference with todays high res cameras. but with this comes a shallow deep of field. the parts I shoot are often small too so I need a lot of images for just one still. i also shoot variants from slightly different angels or do small light adjustments. it is very easy to get a huge amount of images this way.

    for the first scenario I use basic / HDR adjustments often with very selective masks to improve the product. in the studio shot I use the same type of adjustments but with gradients or soft brushes to balance contrast and apply some early D&B. a lot of the adjustments I apply during this process are subtile so it is normal for me to rework them, same goes for the layer masks and other settings.

    the easiest solution to fix the problems for my type of workflow would be replace layers with the same name add layers with a different name. same logic as every OS uses.


    That is pretty much what I would expect.

    How do you deal with the masks you have already edited for existing layers when you replace the layer with another from a revised edit that may be using a different mask?

    Or are the masks not critical to your needs for copying?


    Grant
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    the argument you can make it work is theoretically BS and tells me you have no first hand practical experience.

    Lost your copy of "How To Win Friends And Influence People", I guess?

    Regardless of your opinion, Ian is right - you can make it work. Nothing "theoretical" about it.

    Just because you don't like the answer, that doesn't make it BS.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    Horseoncowboy wrote:
    I very much think working with layers should be easy for everyone, for those who never process more than a handful of images and those who need to work with a few hundred and a lot of layers especially when a software is featured as the best "professional" tool.

    And I very much think that you should be using software specifically designed to do the kind of work you apparently do, instead of expecting Phase One (and everyone else) to bend to your personal preferences and make Capture One into a PhotoShop substitute.
    0
  • ---
    Graant,

    for every set of images with the very same content masks and layers have to be linked. so I almost never have the case that I want to copy just a single layer. but when some of the layers seem to work with a new set of images too I start by copying the whole stack of layers and masks to the first image of the groupe and adjust delete or add layers and masks as needed.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.