Local adjustment high dynamic range controls
I added the High Dynamic range tool to the Local adjustments pallet, but any changes to highlights or shadows
change the whole image ignoring the mask.....
Why is this happening?
change the whole image ignoring the mask.....
Why is this happening?
0
-
Hi FredBGG,
You can use only a limited number of tools with the local adjustments; High Dynamic Range is not one of them. When you add the Local Adjustments Tool Tab for the first time, it comes right away with all the tools that can be used in combination with the local selection (Exposure, Clarity, Sharpening, Moire, Color Editor). In other words, it is not because you can add any tool to the Local Adjustments Tool Tab that the tool will be effective only on your selection.
You should also have a look at . A way to see if a certain tool is compatible with the local adjustment is to click on the arrow on the top-right corner of the tool and check whether "Adjust Selected Layer" is available.
I personally opened a ticket to the support of Phase One to request HDR to be available as a local adjustment tool in a future version of Capture One.0 -
Thanks for the clarification Jaques.
This is extremely limiting.
The high Dynamic Range tool is already quite limited and while correcting highlights it screws up
the rest of the image. It is pretty much unusable if there are medium to light skin tones in the image.
On top of that the stability with layers is not good. Makes it embarrassing to work in front of a client.
I already have GPU acceleration off. (one PC installation and one MAC installation)
Just one layer and it's to likely to crash.
I have no problems with Photoshop stability, even with files from 8x10 film scans and printing 44x120ins.0 -
Extending the number of controls that can be applied locally is on Phase One's radar. 0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
Extending the number of controls that can be applied locally is on Phase One's radar.
Extending the number of controls.... it should be a simple layer method that allows all adjustments. Just treat the layers like images.0 -
[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
Extending the number of controls that can be applied locally is on Phase One's radar.
Extending the number of controls.... it should be a simple layer method that allows all adjustments. Just treat the layers like images.
I wish the World was as simple as you can make it sound 😉0 -
Why the sarcastic comment. I never said the world was a simple place.
I'm only saying keep it simple for the user. Make all adjustments available on layers rather than forcing the user to
only used a very limited set of adjustments for any local corrections.0 -
Engineers are rarely sarcastic. 😊
From the noises coming from those close to PhaseOne, this is coming.0 -
Fred,
I think what Christian is pointing out is that it may seem easy to work out what the User Interface might look like but making that interface simple means the underlying code probably is not simple at all if it is to do things the way C1 is designed to do things. And quite possibly to compromise that basic under the hood design will either cause challenging issues for image quality or performance or require some serious (i.e. yet another) re-writing.
I can point you to a product that does the "every tool has local adjustments" option if you are interested. The way it applies them seems to be quite different to the way C1 deals with handling the numbers. It gives decent results - sometime great results. However for volume 'standard work' and out of the box quality with shortest time expended and least effort C1, mostly, has an edge. I assume that is due to the effort that has gone into the core design. Disrupt that at your peril.
That said to have local adjustment capability for all tools (or at least most of them - some may not be very relevant or useful as they have been conceived) would be a good objective and one that I would like to see available if it can be done without affecting stability, quality and processing efficiency.
My few cents for what they are worth.
Grant.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Fred,
I think what Christian is pointing out is that it may seem easy to work out what the User Interface might look like but making that interface simple means the underlying code probably is not simple at all if it is to do things the way C1 is designed to do things.
Grant.
Well first of all absolutely no change to the interface is required for this as it is already possible to add other tools into the local adjustments tab, even if they won't work on the layer. Rather illogical. At least the tools added should have some indication that they won't work despite being in the local adjustment tab.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
And quite possibly to compromise that basic under the hood design will either cause challenging issues for image quality or performance or require some serious (i.e. yet another) re-writing.
It would be interesting to know why exposure/clarity/sharpening/moire/ and color editor work but highlights and shadows (high dynamic range) tool for example cannot.
It seems to me that the whole layers/local adjustments function is poorly implemented.
For example if I am using a curves correction on the base image and I want to make a local adjustment on (on a layer) it is compromised by the curves applied on the base layer. For example trying to make an area black and white using saturation of zero will result in a black and white area that is not neutral as it will be thrown off by the curve editor. This even happens if the curve editor is used after setting up the desaturated local adjustment.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Fred,
I can point you to a product that does the "every tool has local adjustments" option if you are interested. The way it applies them seems to be quite different to the way C1 deals with handling the numbers. It gives decent results - sometime great results. However for volume 'standard work' and out of the box quality with shortest time expended and least effort C1, mostly, has an edge. I assume that is due to the effort that has gone into the core design. Disrupt that at your peril.
Grant.
Thanks for the sales pitch, but I have used Capture One for years... pretty much had to having had a Phase One back.
One thing I have learned is to get out of Capture One as soon as possible in the post workflow.0 -
[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
It would be interesting to know why exposure/clarity/sharpening/moire/ and color editor work but highlights and shadows (high dynamic range) tool for example cannot.
Maybe because Christian was right to say:I wish the World was as simple as you can make it sound
Maybe he knows more about it than you?Thanks for the sales pitch
Do you actually come here to discuss, Fred, or purely to be obnoxious?0 -
[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Fred,
I can point you to a product that does the "every tool has local adjustments" option if you are interested. The way it applies them seems to be quite different to the way C1 deals with handling the numbers. It gives decent results - sometime great results. However for volume 'standard work' and out of the box quality with shortest time expended and least effort C1, mostly, has an edge. I assume that is due to the effort that has gone into the core design. Disrupt that at your peril.
Grant.
Thanks for the sales pitch, but I have used Capture One for years... pretty much had to having had a Phase One back.
One thing I have learned is to get out of Capture One as soon as possible in the post workflow.
That was a comparison Fred, based on experience of the two applications and much longer with the other, older, product which is fully capable of multiple local adjustments with a full range of in-tool settings. Comprehensive but potentially time consuming.
I suspect the UI is the easier part of the task though no doubt still difficult to satisfy everyone even then.
More difficult is likely to be getting the underlying Maths to work successfully in every scenario that users will expect to be perfect.
Maybe, with the advent of 4k screens, the designers could ignore re-scaling concerns (for one example) and only seek visual quality when viewed at 100% in order to make life a little easier all round.
But then if you only convert the RAW and ship the result out to something else in your workflow for further editing surely the C1 features, including local adjustments, are not of primary importance to you anyway since you can make the changes you need elsewhere?
I may be missing something here.
Grant0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
Do you actually come here to discuss, Fred, or purely to be obnoxious?
So I bring up a legitimate issue taking the effort to describe it in detail in my opening post.
All I get from Phase One is a short sarcastic comment and I'm the obnoxious one......0 -
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
I don't believe Christian was being sarcastic at all. He was just answering your question as to whether this issue is being resolved in the positive without actually breaking any NDAs. It's on the radar, it's been asked for many times, including recently by me.
Your request is a valid one to almost all here as near as I can tell, it's your attitude and methods that are being questioned, not your motives. Maybe get some fresh air, have a nice coffee or a nap? The world isn't as bad as it sometimes feels, if these are the kinds of problems that you are struggling to solve.0 -
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
Your request is a valid one to almost all here as near as I can tell, it's your attitude and methods that are being questioned, not your motives. Maybe get some fresh air, have a nice coffee or a nap? The world isn't as bad as it sometimes feels, if these are the kinds of problems that you are struggling to solve.
I don't know who you think you are.
When I make a post on a forum regarding a purchased product that I use proffessionally and some one from the company replies I simply expect a response with some valid information, not some sarcastic comment. A simple reply like... "we are working on it" or "here is a work around" or a link to a previous thread.
As for you kindly keep your condescending comments to your self. I don't have a fresh air problem (I live in the Santa Monica Mountains with fabulous ocean breezes). Also if you really want to be a wannabe moderator on the forum you might want to read the rules of the forum.
Rule 13:
13 Do not post questions or comments relating to the appropriateness of another member's post.0 -
[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
When I make a post on a forum regarding a purchased product that I use proffessionally and some one from the company replies I simply expect a response with some valid information, not some sarcastic comment. A simple reply like... "we are working on it" or "here is a work around" or a link to a previous thread.
Fred,
a) This is and always has been intended to be a user to user forum kindly provided by Phase One.
b) Phase One have a policy of not announcing future releases and plans, only what is being delivered today.
Recently there has been a little more interaction in the forum by more Phase One staff that there used to be - certainly since I joined at least. I think that should be encouraged but every now and then I see responses from posters, professional or not doesn't matter, that make me think I am wrong.
You may criticise the corporate policy but it is the policy currently and so in the main you should not expect to see any "We are working on it" promises for anything specific UNLESS, perhaps, at affects something that is in place but has become broken - drivers for Mac graphics cards for example or maybe addressing anomalies between features in Mac and Windows versions.
We often do see suggested workarounds where something may exists to help a process (possibly in advance of any potential (but unconfirmed) code change). I can't see how that could be the case for your HDR controls post. Can you?
Sometimes, if there is something specific to point to, people will provide links to other posts. One might also search of course. But in both cases there may be nothing specific to post to other than, as in this case, a general 'wish list' or two.
Speaking personally I would rather have Phase staff working on directly requested support issues or new developments than scouring the forum for links. In any case this particular response was directed at the part of your comment that suggested the UI should be easy and implying that the entire process ought to require very little effort (if I understood your intended statement correctly.)
The response, as I read it, was that the developers would very much like it to be that way but indicated that to make things work would be more complicated. Or at least that's how I read it.
That's not sarcasm, it's an observation of fact as seen by someone with access to the intricacies of the code in use.
This is not the first time the subject has come up as you probably know. So why push it again now and then drive things off at a tangent with your response to a reply from someone working at the sharp end of trying to satisfy the many and varied requests from users?
Grant0 -
Fred,
While we would love to implement every possible feature and functionality in the first version of a given CO release, this is simply not possible because of available resources.[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
it should be a simple layer method that allows all adjustments. Just treat the layers like images.
Treating layers as RGB pixels is simply not possible for quality-reasons. CO is'nt Photoshop , so you are not working on rasterized layers, but on 16 bit raw bayer/xtrans sensor-data. In short, you don't want to use the easy solution.
Speaking of features, you are most welcome to give us your input by filing a feature Request with our Support guys. That way Phase One can run statistics on most requested features in an easy way, when planning new functionality.[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
Your request is a valid one to almost all here as near as I can tell, it's your attitude and methods that are being questioned, not your motives. Maybe get some fresh air, have a nice coffee or a nap? The world isn't as bad as it sometimes feels, if these are the kinds of problems that you are struggling to solve.
I don't know who you think you are.
When I make a post on a forum regarding a purchased product that I use proffessionally and some one from the company replies I simply expect a response with some valid information, not some sarcastic comment. A simple reply like... "we are working on it" or "here is a work around" or a link to a previous thread.
As for you kindly keep your condescending comments to your self. I don't have a fresh air problem (I live in the Santa Monica Mountains with fabulous ocean breezes). Also if you really want to be a wannabe moderator on the forum you might want to read the rules of the forum.
Rule 13:
13 Do not post questions or comments relating to the appropriateness of another member's post.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
b) Phase One have a policy of not announcing future releases and plans, only what is being delivered today.
Yep - a long-standing, long-published policy:
Rule 1 in fact, which applies to what's going on here; with maybe just a hint of Rule 2.
A rule directly related, no doubt, to the risks implied by the Osborne Effect - a standard position adopted by most (if not all) commercial Raw software providers.
And Fred, as we're quoting from the rules, let's be a bit less selective than you've been. Number 10 might have significance too, given the initial motivation and subsequent thrust of the thread:10: Do not post a message merely to blow off steam or otherwise get something off your chest. This is a support, user to user help and resource area, if you have something to take up with a dealer then take it up with a dealer, if you have something to take up with Phase One then please take it up with Phase One.
The fact that there is a direct, official route into Phase One (a communication strategy which is desperately lacking from some Raw software providers I could name) is something to be appreciated and exploited fully, not ignored.0 -
Keith can you please keep your fanboy wannabe moderator behavior out of the thread. 0 -
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
Fred,
While we would love to implement every possible feature and functionality in the first version of a given CO release, this is simply not possible because of available resources.[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
it should be a simple layer method that allows all adjustments. Just treat the layers like images.
Treating layers as RGB pixels is simply not possible for quality-reasons. CO is'nt Photoshop , so you are not working on rasterized layers, but on 16 bit raw bayer/xtrans sensor-data. In short, you don't want to use the easy solution.
Christian
RAW files are RGB files unless they have pixels that are something other than Red Green or Blue.
Actually photoshop lets you work with many layers of RAW through smart objects, you must know that.
Also if CO is actually working right from RAW for each layer why do adjustments made to the base layer destructively effect local adjustment layers.
For example a curves adjustment (shifting color) on a base layer will make it not possible to make a local adjustment layer
fully desaturated. So the adjustment a least behaves like it is not digging back into the RAW file.
Can you please explain why the is happening and if there is a work around.
And yes I have opened a support case.0 -
RAW files are RGB files unless they have pixels that are something other than Red Green or Blue.
Raw files are a bayerpattern (or xtrans, or some other mosaic), where as a RGB image is a de-mosaiced image consisting of RGB-values.
Also if CO is actually working right from RAW for each layer why do adjustments made to the base layer destructively effect local adjustment layers.
For example a curves adjustment (shifting color) on a base layer will make it not possible to make a local adjustment layer
fully desaturated. So the adjustment a least behaves like it is not digging back into the RAW file.
Can you please explain why the is happening and if there is a work around.
Again, design-choices.
Our pipeline has a certain layer-order, and that is why you see color when using the curves tool channels on image desaturated by the Exposure tool.
Workaround is to enable the black&white tool, and you can then use Curves/Levels to manipulate the BW conversion (and not tint it).
Nothing in CO is destructive. Everything can be undone or removed without loss. If you apply i.e. +1 ev exposure in one layer, and then -1 ev in another, it will equal 0 ev in the pipeline. It will not apply the adjustment sequentially, only the summed adjustment.Actually photoshop lets you work with many layers of RAW through smart objects, you must know that.
From what I can read, and from experiments I don't see Smart Objects working directly on raw-data. If you open the image as a smart object from ACR, you are working on a RGB version of the raw image.0 -
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
Workaround is to enable the black&white tool, and you can then use Curves/Levels to manipulate the BW conversion (and not tint it.
Does not work.
Adding the black and White tool coverts the background/base per to black and white.
My question was how to get neutral black and white on a local adjustment layer without it being effected by adjustments to the base layer.0 -
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
Nothing in CO is destructive. Everything can be undone or removed without loss. If you apply i.e. +1 ev exposure in one layer, and then -1 ev in another, it will equal 0 ev in the pipeline. It will not apply the adjustment sequentially, only the summed adjustment.
I am referring to the "destructive" nature of some tools when layers and local adjustments are used.
Make a color correction that is desired for the whole image with curves and it cannot be reversed locally.
IF the curves are adjusted towards green a desaturation on a layer for a local corruption with be "stuck" with the correction.
So from a practical standpoint the local adjustment layers are manipulating modified data.0 -
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
Actually photoshop lets you work with many layers of RAW through smart objects, you must know that.
From what I can read, and from experiments I don't see Smart Objects working directly on raw-data. If you open the image as a smart object from ACR, you are working on a RGB version of the raw image.
A RAW smart object lets you modify it raw setting totally independantly of other layers in Photoshop.
Any adjustments done in raw are updated from the original RAW file and are non destructive.
Base layer can have one curve adjustment in raw while another layer can have a different curve adjustment, each fully independent.
Masks, layers styles and adjustment layers can be laid over the smart object and they to will update when the RAW conversion of a smart layer is updated. For those familiar with RAW smart objects it is a very powerful tool.
It also works cross application. Images in Lightroom can be treated as a smart object in Photoshop.
For particularly tricky situations the Raw adjustment can be previewed in context (with masks, bending modes and layer styles) with the RAW filter (in destructive mode). Settting can be saved.... the Raw filter undone... and applied in Raw converter nondestructively to the smart object. Smart objects can also be instances that are adjusted together in tandem or independently.0 -
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
RAW files are RGB files unless they have pixels that are something other than Red Green or Blue.
Raw files are a bayerpattern (or xtrans, or some other mosaic), where as a RGB image is a de-mosaiced image consisting of RGB-values.
RAW are either RGB RAW files or variations there of if there are differently colored pixels such as while or an additional different greed (emerald)
Raw files from black and white cameras are not RGB RAW files.0 -
I did notice an inconsistency with the behavior of color balance vs curves when working with local adjustments.
While a correction with curves results in tinted saturation set to 0 local adjustments,
Color balance adjustments allow for untinted saturation set to 0.
It may be simply a bug in the way curves are treated with subsequent saturation adjustments in an adjustment layer.
Also when making Color Balance tool adjustments however the brightness of the local adjustment layer where areas are desaturated change in brightness and quite significantly, even areas that have no significant color to them. Why is this
happening if the adjustment layer is working on RAW data?
This behavior makes doing precise work tricky to do as one setting on the base layer alters finely set adjustments on local adjustment layers.0 -
[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
Workaround is to enable the black&white tool, and you can then use Curves/Levels to manipulate the BW conversion (and not tint it.
Does not work.
Adding the black and White tool coverts the background/base per to black and white.
My question was how to get neutral black and white on a local adjustment layer without it being effected by adjustments to the base layer.
With the current design, the way you describe it, it is not possible.0 -
[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
Nothing in CO is destructive. Everything can be undone or removed without loss. If you apply i.e. +1 ev exposure in one layer, and then -1 ev in another, it will equal 0 ev in the pipeline. It will not apply the adjustment sequentially, only the summed adjustment.
I am referring to the "destructive" nature of some tools when layers and local adjustments are used.
Make a color correction that is desired for the whole image with curves and it cannot be reversed locally.
IF the curves are adjusted towards green a desaturation on a layer for a local corruption with be "stuck" with the correction.
So from a practical standpoint the local adjustment layers are manipulating modified data.
I have to repeat myself here, nothing in CO is destructive. We cannot satisfy everyone with regards to our internal layer-order, and this a pretty good case of that.0 -
[quote="FredBGG" wrote:
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
RAW files are RGB files unless they have pixels that are something other than Red Green or Blue.
Raw files are a bayerpattern (or xtrans, or some other mosaic), where as a RGB image is a de-mosaiced image consisting of RGB-values.
RAW are either RGB RAW files or variations there of if there are differently colored pixels such as while or an additional different greed (emerald)
Raw files from black and white cameras are not RGB RAW files.
RGB implies that you store each pixel with RGB data (R=0-255, G=0-255, B=0-255). That is not the case with raw files. They are stored with their individual luminosity values. They can be computed into RGB taking into account the bayer/xtrans/etc pattern. Essentially a black&white camera is a normal sensor without the colorfilter (which will also increase the sensitivity 2 stops using the same sensor).0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
37 comments