Skip to main content

Re-importing files automatically from PS CC

Comments

17 comments

  • PhaseoneUser55657
    All I can say is good luck. People been asking for this for more than a year, and it seems to just fall on deaf ears.

    Robert
    0
  • Richard Oliver
    Thanks Robert. I've done a little more investigating and also had a reply direct from Phase 1. It seems their current mindset for C1 is as a RAW converter and cataloging piece of software only; they also said they would pass on my request. I've also discovered that it's not possible to re-import PSD files only TIFF. It's a shame as I really like the RAW conversion aspect of the software.

    Richard
    0
  • SFA
    I'm slightly puzzled about expectations here.

    PSD is, basically, an Adobe proprietory file format the standards for which support certain features, often drawn from graphics manipulation origins, that Capture One (amongst others) does not support and for its intended purpose would not really need to support.

    In addition C1's DAMware is OK and improving in stability and depth of ability as development progresses but is not about to be marketed as an open market DAM tool intended for stand alone use. There are other applications for that especially for organisations working on an industrial scale.

    Why would anyone have expectations, at this time, that C1 should support PSD files (to use one example) just because it has started to possess a Catalog function?

    I can understand that passing on a message that it would a nice things to move towards even if that would make a large part of the functionality offered little more than a me-too clone of a number of pre-existing products. But nice as such a wish would be does anyone have a good business reason for making that direction a top-of-the-list proposal that cannot be avoided if Capture One is to survive? I am aware of at least one commercial application in the field that died as a result of trying to make that move. Admittedly they had no other products (just software) to fall back on when development overran- but then why put all the farms at risk by betting heavily on developing one then sending it into an already crowded market?



    Grant
    0
  • PhaseoneUser55657
    My only point, is then why did they create a catalog. I understand no handling Layered PSD files (But if you can generate it, you should be able to view it), but even TIFF files, you have to manually re-import them to be in the catalog. If they just wanted a RAW converter they should of stuck with just sessions. It also looks like their MP application, is going to be dead soon, as they don't even have support for the new CO8 engine in it, and by the sounds they are not going to add it.

    So they put a catalog system in CO, and (OK not the best DAM support, but there is some support, and actually works OK for what I do) leave out one of the thing a Catalog system must do, handle the information in and out of it.

    As CO gets more popular, one of two things are going to happen, PhaseOne is going to have add better Catalog support, as people are not going want to use multiple programs, and step through the hoops, or PhaseOne is going to get a lot of negative reviews, ya good raw conversion, but crappy DAM support. It seems like this is already starting.

    Robert
    0
  • SFA
    I hear what you are saying Robert and understand the direction you would like to go. It's the same sort of thing I have said of products in the past so I'm not unsymapthetic. On the other having spent some years sitting in the developer camp and listening to 'must have' requests for clients who never ever used the functionality when it was eventually provided taught me to be somewhat sceptical.

    The problem is the developer will always be subject to criticism from some quarter for things that their product lacks and form other for becoming to big and bloated for purpose. Add in "too expensive" and "too complex" and "not enough free documentation and training" and one is left not really knowing which way to turn.

    This applies to nearly all applications - even in Open Source Land - with the possible exception of some sorts of techie utility developments that only technical people ever really use in anger.

    The danger is that you end up with a 5 legged camel with 3 humps that requires a constant supply of water and can only live on the edge of a desert. You have to price the product in the middle of nowhere which leave nobody happy and everyone expects a $10000 product support regime from a product typically priced somewhere around $200 for the average first sale and much less than that for subsequent upgrades.


    In the middle of all of that and the advice about future direction for development coming from all angles the developer's management have to try to run business and double guess what the market my look like 2 and 5 years out. Maybe longer.

    In some ways the recent extra interest in the C1 DAM might be tho9ught of as a nice problem to have as part of a business opportunity. But one then has to wonder why (and IF) people seem to be so keen to jump ship from products they currently know and clearly like in many ways - else why ask for features that the other products have? It's not as if the changes are being enforced tight now for some reason.

    And that's one of the big problems - trying to understand what people are doing swapping tools at the moment and why they are doing it.

    If one can get a real feeling for what is happening and who really needs what how often one has a better chance of finding some way to work towards the required results whilst still running a worthwhile business. If one gets the strategy wrong we may all suffer a loss of availability.

    My thoughts for what little they are worth.



    Grant
    0
  • Richard Oliver
    You make some interesting points Grant.

    My original query comes from the fact that Apple have stopped supporting Aperture which I have used for a number of years for my photographic business. I was happy with their RAW conversion but have had to start to look elsewhere for something similar. I found that the RAW conversion of C1 was as good, in fact better, in some cases to my (subjective) eye. LR is the other choice but I'm not as keen on the conversion currently that they deliver. I'm obviously not privy to why Apple have decided not to continue to support Aperture so won't speculate on this. Their new software Photos is, at least to me, an unknown and will apparently not be ready till sometime in 2015 so in the meantime I want to find a different solution as a safety net in case Photos does not meet my needs.

    Like any business Phase One will need to decide where their best interests lie and building a strategy on people like me who are primarily jumping from the sinking ship of Aperture may not be very wise. Having said that if other formats could be re-imported back into the C1 catalogue it would be very helpful. I would not expect to be able to do any manipulation on them in C1 but holding them with the RAW file would be so useful. In the meantime I'm looking at PhotoMechanic for initial culling / rating, referenced files in C1 for RAW conversion for further processing in PS CC and then, well.....I'm still working on it. In the mean time Aperture will have to do the leg work.

    Richard
    0
  • SFA
    NN173064UL1 wrote:
    You make some interesting points Grant.

    My original query comes from the fact that Apple have stopped supporting Aperture which I have used for a number of years for my photographic business. I was happy with their RAW conversion but have had to start to look elsewhere for something similar. I found that the RAW conversion of C1 was as good, in fact better, in some cases to my (subjective) eye. LR is the other choice but I'm not as keen on the conversion currently that they deliver. I'm obviously not privy to why Apple have decided not to continue to support Aperture so won't speculate on this. Their new software Photos is, at least to me, an unknown and will apparently not be ready till sometime in 2015 so in the meantime I want to find a different solution as a safety net in case Photos does not meet my needs.

    Like any business Phase One will need to decide where their best interests lie and building a strategy on people like me who are primarily jumping from the sinking ship of Aperture may not be very wise. Having said that if other formats could be re-imported back into the C1 catalogue it would be very helpful. I would not expect to be able to do any manipulation on them in C1 but holding them with the RAW file would be so useful. In the meantime I'm looking at PhotoMechanic for initial culling / rating, referenced files in C1 for RAW conversion for further processing in PS CC and then, well.....I'm still working on it. In the mean time Aperture will have to do the leg work.

    Richard


    That reads like a good open appraisal of where things stand Richard.

    In the specific Aperture arena (I'm agnostic on that being a Windows user) there is the great unknown concerning what Photos will offer. It is sort of interesting that so far as I know Apple have decided to leave it as a great unknown. Does that send a message? If so what is it? But what if Photos turns out to be Aperture Super + ? Would the currently worried Aperture user base return to Apple with Photos and desert whatever products they have discovered since earlier in 2014 when the eventual removal of further developments from Aperture was announced?

    In terms of competitor investments and time to market planning to say nothing about a replacement product when announcing the death throes of what one has is an interesting strategy!

    One of the more recent software development concepts, love it or hate it, has been "agile" development. Agile implies the ability to develop and change direction or tools quickly. Or, in another sense, to avoid building monolithic applications that would struggle to be agile. Hence the plug-in market to gain market presence quickly by making an attractive feature or function available on the back of (but not necessarily always restricted to) another product. Such an approach may or may not provide the best solution but if well chosen can produce a well accepted solution for the marketplace - something that is easier if you land on the back of a dominant player.

    To become a bigger player in the broader field (though perhaps with fewer teams playing the league) the Adobe concept of multiple variants of a product but with a high shared code count work n the short to medium term once the core "product" is mature. In the long terms there may be a strategic risk to being suddenly overtaken by a new and disruptive approach to delivering a birth to maturity product suite.

    Unless there are completely clear and compelling ways to integrate cross functionality of the core code for, say, RAW conversion into some part of a DAM tool that is not itself about RAW conversion is seems to me that you offer potentially greater product flexibility by keeping them available for stand alone use but with string inter-working potential or full integration.

    My feeling here is that a DAM needs to be a DAM tool that would work for all sorts of DAM user and a RAW convertor need to be a tool that can offer image manipulation as its core feature and string integration to related applications.

    In Phase terms that would seem to be the original strategy with C1 and Media Pro. Whether the current and predicted future markets (and the Phase Management view of it) seems to be supportive of such an approach for future development remains to be seen. If one decided to put a lot of additional effort into Media Pro to make a class leading and flexible DAM product would it have enough appeal to DAM users who are not dedicated mostly to photography when going head to head with other options in the market? And could it be done without and adverse effect on the prices of the products?

    Should it be re-integrated to a single product and offered to the marketplace as a fix all prospective users is an interesting question. I lean toward a "keep them separated but offer strong integration" approach. But then I don't have to run a company where such decisions are a part of a wider stream of strategic decisions that the managers for the portfolio's development need to get right for longevity of the product.


    Grant
    0
  • Berny
    Hi,

    quick note on how I handle that. I work with 16bit TIFF files. I created a recipe to export the TIFF files to a subfolder inside the folder containing the raw files. That folder I have to manually add once to the session/catalog. Once the images are exported I work on them in PS CC and save them as (multi-layer if needed) TIFF files. C1 then has the images already in the session/catalog after adding the folder. It also picks up new files added to that folder. Since TIFF works just fine I don't really care for PSD support. Since I onlz have to add the folder once I don't really see that as a big issue.

    Bernd
    0
  • Richard Oliver
    Hi Bernd

    Thanks for sharing this. I think I'll try this on a small job I have to see how it works. I had not really thought through what possibilities using the recipe facility in C1 might give me.

    Many thanks

    Richard
    0
  • NNN635158767546269381

    Why would anyone have expectations, at this time, that C1 should support PSD files (to use one example) just because it has started to possess a Catalog function?


    Well, it would b very nice. I still have many PSDs.

    Actully, Lightroom can not open "complex" PSD, but only "saved with maximal compatibility" ones. I request again PhaseOne to support PSDs (if possible) because it is an industry standards. Moreover, only "saved with maximal compatibility" PSDs would be enough.

    Thanks for listening.
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    NNN635158767546269381 wrote:

    Why would anyone have expectations, at this time, that C1 should support PSD files (to use one example) just because it has started to possess a Catalog function?

    Actully, Lightroom can not open "complex" PSD, but only "saved with maximal compatibility" ones. I request again PhaseOne to support PSDs (if possible) because it is an industry standards.

    That is exactly the point. PSD is not an industry standard, although Adobe tried you to believe otherwise. The PSD format is proprietary to Adobe. TIFF and JPEG are industry standards. There is no advantage to PSD above TIFF. Use TIFF.
    0
  • mli20
    NN173064UL1 wrote:
    I'm new to C1 and have been using Aperture and sometimes LR5. I"m on Mac Pro running Yosemite. I do some basic adjustments in C1 then export PSD files to PS CC for additional work. I would like to be able to save the files in PS so that they then automatically re-import C1 and are stacked with the originals. Is there a way to do this or if not a work-round that anyone has found? Many thanks.


    I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "re-import C1":

    Does it mean psd file known and accessible from within C1, or should it also be editable in C1?

    The psd file processed in C1 is accessible from C1 as long as the filename and location has not been altered after being created from C1.

    Access it from <Adjustments>/<Process History>. Expand the branch until the filename is shown and click on it. The file will open in Photoshop.

    I hope this is of some use.

    Cheers,
    Mogens
    0
  • mli20
    Paul_Steunebrink wrote:
    .... PSD is not an industry standard... There is no advantage to PSD above TIFF. Use TIFF.


    Paul, if this is the case, what then might be rationale for having this option (to generate psd files) in C1?

    Cheers,
    Mogens
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    mli20 wrote:
    Paul_Steunebrink wrote:
    .... PSD is not an industry standard... There is no advantage to PSD above TIFF. Use TIFF.


    Paul, if this is the case, what then might be rationale for having this option (to generate psd files) in C1?

    Cheers,
    Mogens

    I assume PSD output was done on user request. Some workflows rely on that format (read: some people insist on using it). It is a free world... 😉
    0
  • mli20
    The psd format is proprietary to Adobe, and the specs are published by Adobe.

    The tiff format was originally proprietary to Aldus/Adobe, subsequently relinquished to the public domain.. It is an extensible format; anyone may define new tags, and they may or may not register such new tags with Adobe. So there will be tiffs out there with any number of tags.

    Let's agree to still call the tiff format a "standard". The problem with standards though is that their interpretation and implementation may differ from one software purveyor to the next; a tiff created by one might not be readable by the other:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/cwmeds8d234om05/tiffdifs.PNG?dl=1

    Oh dear. The tiff "standard" obviously does not protect us from at times hitting a brick wall.

    So it may very well be that to some the proprietary psd file format appear to be the more robust of the two.

    Cheers,
    Mogens
    0
  • arnoldbelohlavek
    My workflow consists of a two stage processing. I do my overall work in C1-8. I do everything in Sessions. I process via receipt as TIFF 16bit to output folder, via opening PS CC to further work like heal clone and output sharpening. I have two kind of tiffs. With layers that C1 can not open , and without layers. Those tiffs without layers are on demand available via the opened C1 Session. C1 can open TIFFS, but only without layers and/or not ZIP compressed. LZW compressing is supported. I like to have the tiffs in C1 for maybe vignette and grain ...
    0
  • Berny
    C1 works just fine with multi-layer TIFFs created in PS CC for me. What problems do you experience? I must admit I hardly have more than a couple of layers, but so far never any problems.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.