Global De-Saturation

NNN634248485356566063

• February 22, 2016 17:03

Dear Capture One,
I'm writing this post to put forward to Phase One a simple suggestion that will greatly improve their software. As a user of at least 12 years as a digi op and as a photographer this is one of my biggest frustrations. Currently the de-saturation slider in the exposure tab is not global. It would make life so much easier if this was the case. If you input shadow /midtone / highlight colour through curves /levels or even colour balance and then are able to simply de-sat the overall then I would be a very happy man.
There are very few times when you create a tone that you want to de-sat the image colour separately from these inputs. Infact I don't think I have ever wanted it. I know you could do this via local adjustment layers but this is not a solution.
Part of the beauty of using capture one is to quickly create looks. This change would alter the speed and ease of use hugely.
Please consider this change..... Please

0

• 

  SFA

  • February 24, 2016 23:01

  I think you can now do what you want - or at least something close to it - with process recipes and the tokens that are available.
  
  The order of application of adjustments is, as I understand it, not something that matters since the adjustments are additive. There may be exceptions and there may be some adjustments (anything that affects or is affected by the initial interpretation of the data form the original file - to certain layer adjustments for example, auto-masking being thing that comes to mind) that are of necessity treated differently.
  
  But the net result is that you start with value, add a bit, take some away and ultimately the calculation still gives you a value within the original range. You cannot go darker than dark or lighter than light. It's all down to balance.
  
  However, as you know once you start out with multiple tools AND allow them to have ever more additive impact whether by turning up the available adjustment range or providing an option to apply the same adjustment multiple times, things get a little trickier even if the end value calculation is still additive.
  
  So it, say, you start in the middle of a 0 to 100 range at 50, increase the value of RED to 80 and then reduce all colours by 40 the value of red will still be 40 Blue and Green would be 10.
  
  I'm not saying that is precisely what happens - there is I suspect MUCH more to trying to achieve a balance acceptable to human vision than such a basic calculation, but in essence there is the problem.
  
  The adjustment value might be dealt with as a percentage instead - but even then it might not solve the problem since such adjustment requirements tend to be non-linear if they are to look right. Yet we like to work with the logic of linear adjustments.
  
  An alternative Stack method, things like Opacity and Blend modes in play, really implies that the user must take control and indeed would want to since any clever interpretation would almost certainly be trying to double guess the editor's intentions.
  
  So each tool instance in the stack will take input from the previous tool, apply the changes that have been set and deliver the results to the next tool.
  
  Taking a simple context like sharpening that means that, in theory, you can keep adding more and more maximum sharpening and go well beyond anything useful unless you seek an artistic result. If unrequired for output the entire concept of sharpening could be disabled. But you would not be able to use a single tool instance to remove all sharpening if using an additive calculation. You could do so with an overall percentage calculation but predicting the percentage required (assuming you had a well defined critical requirement) might be problematic and the scale for control would likely be different according to where in the stake you positioned you amendment tool and how it affect the result of other tools. It would be perhaps more critical in something complex like colour management rather than something relatively simple like sharpening.
  
  The challenge is not so much about being able to do something as it is about being able to do it easily without too much need for thought to get the result (or close to the result) you want. Which is exactly what you are asking for.
  
  In my experience being handed total control over everything is great fun but not necessarily good for productivity since the possible combination of settings becomes huge and the level of innate understanding required for rapid working if all of the facilities are to be deployed (at some point, not for every image) is high.
  
  I just find the C1 gets closer to ta good sooner (usually much sooner) and with less effort. If I do feel the need to tweak further C1 is a quicker option.
  
  Once in a while (1 in a thousand - perhaps much less - if I am trying to do something specific) I may head elsewhere to work out how best to achieve the look or simply to see what other options may be viable. But for most things I still prefer to return to C1 and work out how to make the adjustments from elsewhere using C1's tool set.
  There is nothing to stop me using both applications side by side in the same (Sessions) file structure but so far after several years I have identified a good justification for doing so. Of course your requirements may well be different to mine.
  
  In summary:
  
  Not at all a bad idea.
  
  May need some smart maths for optimum results from the least user input .
  
  Might be thought of as the digital equivalent of a variable neutral density filter with colour balancing sensitivity?
  
  
  Grant

  0

Post is closed for comments.