Gaussian blur as a local adjustment?
I find myself frequently going to a external image editor just to be able to minimize background distractions with a blur. Is there the possibility that blur could be added as a new feature in the future?
Richard
Richard
0
-
It's always puzzling to me how much resistence comes from some users when it comes to nearly any feature beyond just RAW conversion. I'd tend to call it cognitive dissonance, but hey - it is at least a very conservative and stubborn view to me. I definitely see the purpose of a blur tool as local adjustment and don't think that such a tool completely changes what C1 is or is not.
I really like thinking out of the box and it DOES make sense to think of things that could be done within C1 instead of some other tool. Change is mandatory to getting better. This doesn't always mean that it is a good idea but I really think that this attitude to point to Photoshop/Affinity/Whatever for anything beyond RAW conversion does much more harm than it could help.
just my 0.02$0 -
[quote="Neonsquare" wrote:
It's always puzzling to me how much resistence comes from some users when it comes to nearly any feature beyond just RAW conversion. I'd tend to call it cognitive dissonance, but hey - it is at least a very conservative and stubborn view to me. I definitely see the purpose of a blur tool as local adjustment and don't think that such a tool completely changes what C1 is or is not.
I really like thinking out of the box and it DOES make sense to think of things that could be done within C1 instead of some other tool. Change is mandatory to getting better. This doesn't always mean that it is a good idea but I really think that this attitude to point to Photoshop/Affinity/Whatever for anything beyond RAW conversion does much more harm than it could help.
just my 0.02$
I would rather C1 focus on making what they have rock solid before adding features.0 -
[quote="Neonsquare" wrote:
It's always puzzling to me how much resistence comes from some users when it comes to nearly any feature beyond just RAW conversion. I'd tend to call it cognitive dissonance
You can call it anything you like - after all, the world need more cod psychobabble.
😕
It's a damn' sight more straightforward than that, though - (as has been explained time after time after time) - and it's what Jimmy has just written. No more, no less.
But I'll break it right down to First Principles, for the avoidance of any further confusion.
Quality before quantity.
Don't add unnecessary functions to Capture One simply to pander to those who (because they're too cheap, too lazy or too anti Adobe) aren't prepared to use software solutions which already provide those same functions, almost certainly to a higher standard than would be made available in Capture One.0 -
It is really interesting to watch this debate from the sidelines.
It is very interesting to see how users wanting new features, usually gets what i lovingly will call "The raw converter user bashing treatment" 😉
I have used C1P for 1,5 years now, i am by no way a pro and i also come from a aperture and lightroom background, which means, that i have now lost half of the people on this forum.
I can understand why wanting a blur tool would be very useful in C1P. Heck i want that tool. That would save me from the round trip to photoshop or similar every time i need something "more".
I do however also understand the arguments of C1P, being a raw converter, and wanting to do all, almost always means, you get nothing complete. Jack of all trades.....
However.......
C1P has over the last couple of years, started to attract and invite non-professionals, Aperture and Lightroom users to the fold. And by doing this, you also must expect more demands for tools like blur etc. which these users are used to have in their software.
Now - my reasons for wanting more tools inside C1P, is because C1P does not support any other file formats than RAW and Tif files, which breaks the "one program to rule them all (images) approach. (catalog/sessions)
If C1P supported PSD files, then all files could be kept inside the C1P workflow instead of having files scattered all over the place. Coming from Aperture/Lightroom this is a big deal to me and a lot of other users. I do not want C1P to edit these other files, only to show them in the file browser. That way you can keep everything together in the same package and have you non-destructive raw and retouch workflow intact.
I understand why C1P should focus on being the best raw converter and not have too many other features, but P1 has already put in a lot of retouch features, so that seems to be the future as i see it. Therefore blur is not far fetched.
Although adding new features, and not making them really really great (Heal layers i am looking at you!!!!) is bad.
My point is this - C1P started as a raw converter, but is now more than just that. P1 pushed retouch features all the time.
So it seems a bit unfair that almost every time a user wants features commonly found in other apps, that they get the "Raw converter user" treatment.
Whats wrong with wanting more? - Maybe more features would get even more users onboard, making P1 more money. More money could lead to bigger development teams. Bigger development teams could lead to what everybody wants?
Best...Jan0 -
[quote="NN635396322977093750UL" wrote:
Whats wrong with wanting more? - Maybe more features would get even more users onboard, making P1 more money. More money could lead to bigger development teams. Bigger development teams could lead to what everybody wants?
Best...Jan
Nothing wrong with hoping for more - although you do run the risk that you start to make use of what is offered just because it is there rather than because you really "need" it. Whether that ends up being a good thing or a less than good thing will always be a matter of opinion.
I'm not sure about the "Making more money" suggestion. More users grappling with more features, in my experience, adds to the overhead cost of supporting and developing software and at some point, even in Business to business licence model with required annual maintenance contracts for support and continuity purposes, the financial model can be severely tested.
So there may not be more money to throw at development teams - and even if there is bodies (and I assume suitable brains) at keyboards will not always (or even often) deliver good results just through numbers. There are other complications and external influences - technologies for example; core development tool changes, OS changes, the challenges of trying to integrate products and, possibly, the need to completely redesign an entire product and its internal processing concepts in order to move forward.
I have no idea whether such things might apply to Phase One but I have seen the issues in play for other companies in other business markets and it can be very messy and is extremely easy to get to a point where everything that has gone before is compromised at some point. After that recovery becomes difficult. There are no winners, at least not for some time.
Just my opinion of course.
Grant0 -
What's wrong with wanting the "more" to be more stability, more speed, more usable camera profiles?
What's wrong with wanting the best basic functionality and IQ that Phase One can deliver in Capture One, before banging on about gimmicky bells and whistles which - let's be absolutely clear about this - appeal only to a small and vociferous subset of Capture One's users, and which are readily available elsewhere right now?
What's wrong with the idea that bloat is never welcome in software, especially when - as it always does - it damages performance, reliability and overall usability?
What's wrong with the lack of comprehension being shown by some on this thread, of the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none"?0 -
simply to pander to those who (because they're too cheap, too lazy or too anti Adobe) aren't prepared to use software solutions which already provide those same functions
No, it doesn't. You are completely wrong, and needlessly rude.0 -
I would rather C1 focus on making what they have rock solid before adding features.
Which is great as a goal. But, at what point does everyone agree that all the current features work exactly as they need them to? Answer: never.0 -
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
simply to pander to those who (because they're too cheap, too lazy or too anti Adobe) aren't prepared to use software solutions which already provide those same functions
No, it doesn't. You are completely wrong, and needlessly rude.
That's what I thought... I was quite surprised too, not what you would expect around here.
On the other hand, I just read K's replies again what's his problem? Is he on the development team? It's coming on quite dominant / intimidating / patronizing.
Quality before quantity, how about usability?
Anyway, great 'discussion' 😊0 -
@Keith Reeder
You're fun - perhaps you always wondered why they always build in those bugs if nobody wants or needs them. How nasty developers can be!
Seriously:
- Fixing Bugs is always on the plan
- Getting the best quality is certainly also an important point
The sad thing is that just fixing bugs alone doesn't sell software and better quality is certainly better, but not necessarily easy to show off besides the competition. Truth is that commercial software has to compete and that also means implementing features which make a difference.
I know this "you better first fix the bugs before implementing new features" attitude very well. It often comes from frustrated customers who had the bad luck to run into a couple of bugs in their daily work. Not all of them take the time to notify the vendor about that providing valuable information. I even had a customer on a big project who had a secret big list and didn't want to offer info on that because he was of the strict opinion that we "should find those bugs on our own". It's not easy to get along with non cooperative ego-customers.
I have to say that I very seldom run into Bugs in C1 - maybe I just have luck or the software is better than some people tend to claim. Is it bug free? Certainly not - what software of that complexity is bug free?
I as a paying customer have the same right to ask for certain new features like you have to get your bugs fixed. The developers will plan for all of that and decide what can be done. No customer should forbid other customers to make feature requests or insult their expertise based on stubbornness and narrow view points.
Besides of that - I really hope the developers don't care for such attitudes and just do what they analyze to be the right thing to do.0 -
My original request is perhaps is out of the normal processing workflow for many people, but I doubt using selective blurring is rare. I do understand that the multiple skin retouching features in C1 are much more useful for most people and I love them myself too.
To provide some context, I shoot a lot of figure skating, and I find it very useful to be able to blur the background boards and stands to help give more pop to the skaters and remove all the black marks on the boards that are seen in rinks that are used for hockey (I'm in Montreal, Canada). I always shoot at f/2.8 and it does most or all of the background blurring job when the skaters are towards the middle of the ice, but if they are close to the boards, it is not nearly enough. I can get the approximate amount of blur I would like with 4 stacked layers of -100% clarity, but I prefer the look of gaussian blur for this application.
My current workflow is to export a Tif and go into Affinity Photo (previously PS) where I end up producing large layered files with complex masks. This is the best solution for the key shots that will be printed large and it does give lots of flexibility, but it is too time consuming to apply to a large number of images. Now admittedly retouching backgrounds with a tablet may not be so fast either, but at least the files sizes stay small.
I only asked because my guess is that a gaussian blur algorithm isn't very complex and if it was only exposed in the local adjustment tab for those few of us that wanted it, it wouldn't irritate too many people.
Best,
Richard0 -
The issue isn't abut how many people need to apply a blur and how often they need to do it - it's about whether Capture One should be the solution to the requirement.
There are any number of tools out there right now - including some free ones - that will do exactly what you want to do, so why should Phase One pander to a request which is certainly not a necessity for Capture One, just to allow a handful of people a supposedly slightly easier life?
There's simply no legitimate case for Phase One to waste (and yes, I use the word intentionally) limited dev resources on the development of unnecessary "gadgets", especially when there are some absolutely fundamental things in Capture One that need to be fixed, before resources are expended on undeniably limited-appeal (and more limited-benefit) bells and whistles.
I don't know how many different ways we can make this point - but here goes...
Look at it another way: if Phase One was to pander to every last arbitrary "wouldn't it be good if Capture One could..?" thread, what do you think we'd end up with? A broken, bloated, unreliable, useless tangle of code that nobody would want to use.
And if selective blurring, why not any and everything else that somebody's whim comes up with?
Use the right and best tool for the job - not just the one that happens to be to hand...
Frankly, a far better enhancement to Capture One would be the introduction of Adobe plug-in compatibility: then we could all add whatever additional bells and whistles we would like to see in Capture One...0 -
As soon as LR has that functionality first/too, why not?
The decision if a feature request is fullfilled is up to PO and not the users (I'm glad for that).
We can only ask them to take it into consideration and elaborate why it should be...
You might have your reason to believe it's going to bloat C1, well I disagree.0 -
Frankly, a far better enhancement to Capture One would be the introduction of Adobe plug-in compatibility: then we could all add whatever additional bells and whistles we would like to see in Capture One...
Ha ha ha ha. Ha.0 -
So basically what you are saying Keith is that anyone else's idea, no matter how small, relevant or actually within Capture One's lossless RAW workflow is (like, a blur tool) shouldn't be done ... but a huge, paradigm-changing, non-lossless, non-RAW, addition that will take myriad more development hours to implement (and likely 12 months to perfect) is AOK, and a better way to spend development time on an application that is a RAW conversion product at it's core?
And one of the reasons for the difference in that reasoning is that there are other tools that can blur stuff already.
Why are they called "Photoshop plugins" again?
...
And look, I know you are going to say it's all being discussed and worked out over and over ... but generally all that is is the four old loudest yelling guys aggressively telling people their idea is dumb and they need to shut up, so they do.0 -
Wow, such a long thread keep going about just a feature request.
@Keith - and all, just stop that aggression.
As already mentioned early, this a valid feature request, just it makes low priority for someone like PO, and the reason for that is quite simple. Firstly they develop product, mainly for their cameras. And their Cameras workflow is concentrated around DAM, and RAW features of a product. And layers are just side feature for them.
Feature request is perfectly valid, but will be implemented (if will) later then potentially other more important DAM features.
But basically again, it is an great idea for editor not RAW conversion.
Because currently DAM is features of product are much less competive then LR counterparts.
And peace for all 😄0 -
Respectfully disagree, Andriy. Phase One have made it pretty clear that local adjustments are an important part of the C1 toolset, and I'm very glad they are both expanding their features, and are improving their quality. They are a pretty capable bunch, I don't think they'll have any problems implementing improvements in more than one area. DAM improvements will come, tool improvements will come.
I just don't think there is any need to try and shutdown conversations because you don't want something that others may want. There are plenty of features in C1 I don't use, and others people ask for that I have no need for, but I don't go into those threads and tell people they are wrong (or lazy, or stupid) for wanting that.0 -
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
So basically what you are saying Keith is that anyone else's idea, no matter how small, relevant or actually within Capture One's lossless RAW workflow is (like, a blur tool) shouldn't be done
It never fails to amaze me how easily and willfully a perfectly legitimate point like the one I've made repeatedly - that Cap One doesn't need pixel-editor style bells and whistles that can be found elsewhere - can be be presented as something utterly diferent in order to score a cheap point.
Never let the facts get in the way..., eh?
The point about plug-ins is simply that if we could use plug-ins, we could have additional functionality at any time without Phase One needing to add gimmicks into the core code.
And you know fine well that's all I was saying.
I remember now why you're in my "ignore" list.0 -
[quote="Andriy.Okhrimets" wrote:
@Keith - and all, just stop that aggression.
No aggression here, Andriy - none: I'm just getting tired of the amount of deliberate, dishonest twisting of my words that's going on in this thread.
Oh - and until you're moderating here, you don't get to decide what's appropriate for this forum.0 -
@Keith - I am not moderating, I just also expressing opinion shared with others.
And you keep doing the same thing over and over again, disturbing others.
I do agree with thoughts - but it would be much beneficial for community if thoughts are expressed without any hateful speech. Everyone one has opinion and right to argue about it.
"
3 Posts that are inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, *censored word* oriented, threatening, rude, mean, nasty, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violate of any law are not permitted. "0 -
[quote="Andriy.Okhrimets" wrote:
3 Posts that are inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, *censored word* oriented, threatening, rude, mean, nasty, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violate of any law are not permitted. "
I'm well aware of the rules, Andriy - and if any of my posts fall into that category, show me. It's entirely possible to be robustly to the point without crossing those lines, and I haven't crossed them.0 -
it never fails to amaze me how easily and willfully a perfectly legitimate point like the one I've made repeatedly - utterly diferent in order to score a cheap point.
Never let the facts get in the way..., eh?
and most specifacally I remember now why you're in my "ignore" list..
@Keith it is really hard to be a devils advocate, but your posts are "hateful", and not only I consider that. Sorry for keeping that public in someone else thread.0 -
"It never fails to amaze me how easily and willfully a perfectly legitimate point like the one I've made repeatedly - that Cap One doesn't need pixel-editor style bells and whistles that can be found elsewhere - can be be presented as something utterly diferent in order to score a cheap point "
Well... Prepare to stay amazed because whether it's needed or not is not up to you 😉0 -
Please put me back on your ignore list, Keith. I won't ever say "How high?" when you demand I jump. pixel-editor style bells and whistles
Pixel editors don't work at the RAW level, in C1. Not even close to the same thing. Never let the facts get in the way..., eh?And you know fine well that's all I was saying.
Plenty of apps already support Photoshop plugins. Use those.
That way Phase One don't have to "add gimmicks into the core code".0 -
Perhaps the Sharpness tool could be expanded to just allow negative values (like Lr)? That way users get the extra utility without adding another separate tool. Not sure if that would be less work for Phase One though, or if the results would be the same quality.
Given the existence of unsharp masking already in C1, there must already be some gaussian blurring going on somewhere that could perhaps be repurposed.It never fails to amaze me how easily and willfully a perfectly legitimate point like the one I've made repeatedly - that Cap One doesn't need pixel-editor style bells and whistles that can be found elsewhere - can be be presented as something utterly diferent in order to score a cheap point.
Everyone thinks their own points are "perfectly legitimate", Keith, and it wasn't presented as something utterly different at all. Nobody here could be unclear as to your position on the issue. You've stated it loudly over, and over, and over - about any feature you don't want.
And you are right, it is "perfectly legitimate". It's a perfectly legitimate opinion. Not a fact, or a truth. Just an opinion. Others disagree with your opinion, including to some extent (given the expansion of the functionality of local adjustments) Phase One.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
55 comments