Hire a dedicated lens profile creator – that would be a great feature!
Implemented
Did you fire your lens profile programmer and not ever hire back a new one? Do you have none and need one? Do you have one and actually need two or three? Not sure what the deal is, but Capture One is woefully behind Lightroom, which has a profile for every available RF lens. This seems to be a common request which you should be reading as a complaint.
Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 – no profile after 6 months – this lens really needs a profile to properly correct the optical distortions
Canon RF 85 f/1.2 – no profile for almost a year since release date
Canon RF 15-35 f/2.8, Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8, etc.
-
Jim,
Why abuse people when the two companies have no evident commercial arrangement.
Have you chased Canon to see if they have supplied lenses to C1 for them to urgently assess?
Are Canon's own adjustments, presumably provided by the lens like most of the other manufacturers are doing these days, just not very good?
Your best option - as has been the case for some years - is to create direct requests as a support case (Submit a request link on most of the Support system pages).
That is one way that C1 can assess "what's hot and what's not" in terms of lens use and so likely demand from users and so allocate resources accordingly (assuming they can get hold of the lenses for testing purposes).
The feature requests forum is an interesting recent facility here and does appear to be monitored. But if you really want to stand up and be counted create a Support Request.
HTH.
-1 -
Abuse, lol! Who made you the C1 hurt feelings guardian? It’s not my job as a license holder to do the work for them. Lens profiles of common, popular lenses is a basic requirement for image processing software. And I have in the past made more than one tech support case to ask for a profile — the answer was milktoast “I’ll send that on to the team”.
You may think you’re helping here, but you’re not.
0 -
I'm sure the team will enjoy reading your suggestion.
Is it so difficult for you to be civil?
Do you think you are helping? Or are you just helping yourself to feel better by having a rant?
Interesting to read that the RF 70-200 is so poor in your opinion.
My EF - L version is excellent, even with a 2x extender.
Seems like a move to RF is not in my interest.
Sorry Canon.
-1 -
Jim,
as a license holder it is also not your job to rant. Period.
-1 -
It would be beneficial to all involved if the SFA’s and Keith Reeder’s of this forum just up and disappeared.
This is a direct personal attack. Ban me for all I care.
1 -
SFA,
Never used the EF version, but I have used the EF 100-400 II L and EF 70-300 L – great lenses, but like all zooms, they have compromises with distortion. Most shots it's not apparent, but if you put a straight horizon at the very bottom of the frame, at 70 and 200 you can see some curvature. I can certainly fix it using the generic lens distortion tool if it bothers me, but I shouldn't have to.
I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread that my original post is sarcastic with intent – the intent being to bring attention to the issue since tech support emails didn't get me anywhere.
What I don't get is why you feel the need to post in every thread where someone asks for a profile and why you take a defensive posture. Are you the person on the C1 programming team responsible for profiles and you're here posting as a third party? I can't see another reason outside of some sort of personality issue.
--
BeO – not your job to tell me what I can or cannot be passionate about. Having proper lens profiles for current, popular lenses is not asking that much. Just like SFA, your post is completely unhelpful and putting your nose in business where it doesn't belong.
2 -
Also find it curious that combative, self-righteous posters like SFA/BeO do not use their real names, while many of us asking for profile support do.
1 -
It's not exactly curious, Jim -- it's obvious...
1 -
Jim, your second last post starts with a meaningful paragraph, that's great, seriously.
I don't care what you are passionate about, but why don't you directly copy&paste your initial rant in a one to one request to C1? Then they can deal with it. You know exactly C1 does not answer here.
I don't care about the content, you may or may not be right, especially with popularity, the number of requests from users for these particular lenses, as this certainly influences the priority for C1.
Like it or not, I do care about the tone and I do care care if you write in public space, and if more people did, we would see less harrassment in the internet. This, at least in my eyes, would be a good thing. Granted, your post could be read as sarcasm instead of harrassment, but it's on the edge.
Using real names does not wipe all harrassment, mobbing and insulting from the internet, apparently, Grant Hodgeon, so what's the point then.
If this sounds like an invitation to discuss or continue ranting for one of you, go ahead, I'm done with this thread.
-2 -
Oh boys, get a room please :)
On a series note;, Jim, does Canon include lens profiles in their RAW files with new cameras. I have heard Nikon is doing something like that so no Z mount lens profile needed. I might be wrong though, just checking.
Also giving the fact that, they have annonuced a specific edition for Nikon but don't have all the Nikon F or Z lenses, I wouldn't hold my breath on lens profiles.
However, in the past I have issues with Leica lenses, granted they are the most corrected lenses already. What I have done back then was, writing to Leica and Phase One separately, requesting support for lenses. Soon they have added 3 out 4 lenses into their catalogue, granted the other lens was out of production already and replace with a new model while ago.
0 -
Grant Hodgeon wrote:
"It would be beneficial to all involved if the SFA’s and Keith Reeder’s of this forum just up and disappeared.
This is a direct personal attack. Ban me for all I care."
Leaving the field to you alone Grant?
What is it that bothers you so much about personal opinions that only your personal opinion matters?
-1 -
Jim,
You wrote:
"I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread that my original post is sarcastic with intent – the intent being to bring attention to the issue since tech support emails didn't get me anywhere."
I would just point out that that is not necessarily the case even to English speakers.
Those whose native language is not English, even if they appear to understand English very well, may not get the subtle nuance even when it exists. Sarcasm, as a weapon to get a message across, can be less than helpful in my experience and observation. Especially across language and cultural differences, some of them in Scandinavia.
It's not that I do not understand your particular frustration; rather that I doubt it will make much headway if you take that approach.
Attack the company if you must for what you perceive as corporate failings. That's fair game. Personalising it to an individual and specific specialist roles in a public forum does not seem to be appropriate, especially when corporate policy does not allow those criticised any voice to respond.
As for why I post - to offer some background introductory observations to those who appear to be newcomers - mainly so that they can make more effective use of the site and their time from understanding how things work around here. And to help prevent them cluttering up the posts with repetitive questions rather than using the search facilities which will often provide quicker answers when they need them.
Obviously there are times when new names appearing are not always newcomers and may already know very well how things work or do not seem to work in C1 world. Not always easy to spot especially with continuity between old and new forum broken.
As for lens profiles in particular - I often wonder whether people are asking just because they feel there should be a profile rather then because they have a problem to solve. With so many developments in recent times, especially since the mirrorless era and Micro4/3rds, that require digital correction to work effectively at all, the concept of manufacturers providing built in correction seems to be prevalent. That raises the question about whether should be any need for a second correction profile independently produced. I have no idea about the Canon lenses in that respect but would be surprised if they did not provide something given their specialisation.
Maybe what they offer is as good as one can get across a number of production samples of the lens in question?
Pure speculation of course but something to take into account.
I recall some discussions a few years ago where it was pointed out that for a particular lens there was an availability problem due to popularity (apparently) and the manufacturer being reluctant to provide a sample or two for profiling.
Someone suggested hiring a couple of copies but it was pointed out that, at least back then, using lenses previously shipped around a lot and potentially abused a little as hire items might not be a great base point for highly detailed assessment. From memory it was about 9 months before a couple of samples of the lens could be obtained and compared.
I have also read of situations (not just for C1) where multiple samples of the lense gave such varied results that no "works for all" profile could be developed.
Given advanced in onboard computing options these days I wonder if some lenses become may have been created with self analysing features that correct certain aspect of the individual lens rather than for the model. That would allow a loosening of manufacturing tolerances and so, presumably, produce other business benefits (maybe even some profits!). However it would also pretty much ensure that producing a consistently successful third party profile would be pretty much impossible in the absence of being able to use, understand and improve on the manufacturer's effort. I suppose one might be able to take that and add a few tweaks or some sort and publish it as a different correction profile if one wanted to offer a total coverage for marketing purposes. Users could then choose their preference and be happy whether it made any real difference or not.
To some extent to produce a different profile is to tell the manufacturer that what they have done is deficient. On the other hand not to produce one seems to suggest that one has dropped the ball for one's clients. To comment, wearing a corporate hat, on either situation is probably going to upset someone.
A bit like this thread.
Copenhagen has, historically, chosen to stay silent.
Not everyone likes that. Taking that position is not unreasonable. But it's a corporate led frustration rather than something associated with individuals undertaking a specific and specialised task who may be just as frustrated that they are unable to offer status updates for aspects of their work.
With Nikon seemingly joining up in some way with C1 it leaves Canon as the only big 4 manufacturers not to offer a special version of C1. Whether that is also affecting product availability for testing and profiling is something we can speculate about but are unlikely to discover any information.
It would be interesting to know how many people are owners of and have raised personal requests for C1 profiles of lenses that have been around for a while but do not yet have profiles.
-1 -
To all (since similar things are being said),
As far as I know, Canon does not embed lens correction profiles in their RAW file. Some lenses like the RF 24-240 are nearly unusable without one (at least at the wide end), so it's great C1 has a profile for it. Some RF lenses like the 50 and 85 don't need a profile for optical distortion since there is almost no optical distortion to correct. But for lenses like the RF f/2.8 "trinity" lenses like the 15-35, 24-70, and 70-200, they can benefit greatly at some focal lengths from a one-click correction (or the correction is already active in C1 if the C1 team deemed it important enough to the final image). I don't know what the process is for creating a profile, but if Lightroom has a profile for all current RF lenses, it stands to reason C1 could do the same. I can't imagine Canon providing Adobe a profile and snubbing C1. But I don't really know anything about how or why, only that it's a need for me personally. I prefer my zooms to be fully-corrected so that horizons are perfectly straight in the lower portion of the image. Saves me a lot of time.
I really doubt (as was postulated in a post above) they are holding off on Canon profiles because of any sort of arrangement with Canon. I pay yearly for the full version for all brands, and I use Canon RF lenses – not exactly an obscure brand or product line :) And it's about to get crazy with RF lenses as soon as the R5 is released. Hopefully the almost-certain popularity of the R5 will raise some internal awareness with the Capture One team.
I do appreciate how C1 lets the user turn off lens corrections when the manufacturer flags them as "mandatory" in the RAW file. Lightroom will not let you turn off corrections in those cases, which can be frustrating. With the Leica Q, depending on distance to subject and aperture, turning off some of the flagged crop can regain usable lost image area.
1 -
And just as a general thought, lens profiles aren't really "features" in the same sense as most of the requests here. And they really don't fall under "technical support", either. Getting visibility around this issue is frustrating as it seems to fall through the cracks no matter what route a user takes to raise awareness.
0 -
What I know is, CO requires cameras or lenses to create profiles and that’s why sometimes it takes a very loooong time for them to do that. I don’t know exactly how Lr gets their profiles as sometimes they announce comparability or corrections even before cameras or lenses hit the market.
0 -
^ It sounds like in cases where there is no embedded profiles, the LR team may get a prototype of the lens and create their own profile in advance. Perhaps they have a system set up to photograph test charts and generate profiles using some sort of machine-learning software.
But I'm not convinced that the C1 team is entirely relying on the embedded profiles – Some C1 profiles seem to be custom and depart from the built-in profiles. For example, the C1 distortion correction and cropping for the Leica Q is more refined (IMO) in C1 than what LR is using directly from the embedded RAW. I first noticed this by seeing how C1 RAW distortion corrections differ from SOOC JPEGs that have the corrections already applied.
0 -
They don’t reply only on the embedded profile, quite contrary, they need the actual lens to create one. No lens, no profile. No camera no support.
0 -
^ That supports my original frustration, which is these RF lenses have been available for retail sale for six months (RF 70-200) to a year in some cases (RF 85). Sounds like then it truly is a resources issue for C1 team.
0 -
I wrote so many times to support with feature request: One of them ws also to make "feature request pool" and they did it. I love Phase One to listen to the users and develop software way before competition will force them. LIke Adobe, not listening for years, "we know best" attitude and just thhrow a fist of candies to the users every year (cansies are sweet, nice smell, looks good but useless for ones health - meny "upgrades" of Adobe software was just that - like rounded buttons or blue on grey instead of amber).
I agree C1 cant compare to Lr for lens database. But they can compare to DxO. After I broke my love to Adobe, I tested anything capable of developing image before came to C1, including DCRAW). C1 is second best in Q (after DCRAW), but miles ahead of anything regarding speed, workflow refinement, adjustment finesse, attention to details - and in customer appreciation. (Don't spoil now!)
* DxO measure everything in existence - almost, by them selves. Lens prifiles are their key selling point. Image quality is not my favorite
* C1 measures themselves, profiles are superb, but they test only lenses they think are tje most popular among number of users having them. I use Pentax so go figure how I deal with 5 profiles of lenses I do not have.
* Lr does NOT measure anything at all. They "support" every camera and lens that is supported in DCRAW. Yes, Lr uses DCRAW under the hood so they can open any raw file exists. Same for lenses: They rely on metadata, so their profiles are approximate.
I love C1 for having proper measured profiles. (or maybe way better metadata derived as Lr). What I would love even more would be to also include metadata profiles as Adobe, so users of not "important" gear would at least have someting. Better than nothing. Now we have nothing. It could be differentiated in color or name, which profile is calculated and which measured.
This is utterly important for lenses that have pincushion distortion since C1 generic tool only works outside for barrel distortion. Which is also lacking and it would be usefull many times. I edit iphone images a lot and there software correct barrel too much. I can't fix it with C1. Also Jpegs can't be fixed for lens or noise, ...Please provide metadata profiles!
1 -
I am willing to send them my camera and lenses to make profiles. :)
0 -
Hi Jim,
Your request was submitted to the development team asking to support the following lens profiles:
Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8
Canon RF 85 f/1.2
Canon RF 15-35f/2.8
Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8, etc.Meanwhile, please check this page - Working with an Unlisted Lens Profile
0 -
Thank you, Lily! :)
0 -
"It would be beneficial to all involved if the SFAs and Keith Reeders of this forum just up and disappeared.
This is a direct personal attack. Ban me for all I care."
It would be beneficial if you were to grow up, princess...
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
23 comments