compliments to PO
Compliments to PhaseOne for this release. When reading the posts in this forum you'd get the impression that the program it is not very good or even bad. I don't understand why so many posters (and I'm sure they will feel the need to post in response to this as well) keep hanging on to version 3.7 or to features that are missing.
First the current version is a LE version, so not Pro. Second, when you bother to take the time to read the user guide, you discover a lot of nice new features. Some are different then before, maybe you need to change your workflow a bit, but nothing is really missing imo. The program also got a lot faster. C1 4 renders excellent files and I can get even better results then with the previous version. Ofcourse it has no DAM options, HSL tweaking etc, but I don't need that. I simply want to render my files in a quick and easy way and get the best possible conversion. Tweaking and DAM can be done in other programs.
For me C1 stays my favourite rawconverter!
Michel
First the current version is a LE version, so not Pro. Second, when you bother to take the time to read the user guide, you discover a lot of nice new features. Some are different then before, maybe you need to change your workflow a bit, but nothing is really missing imo. The program also got a lot faster. C1 4 renders excellent files and I can get even better results then with the previous version. Ofcourse it has no DAM options, HSL tweaking etc, but I don't need that. I simply want to render my files in a quick and easy way and get the best possible conversion. Tweaking and DAM can be done in other programs.
For me C1 stays my favourite rawconverter!
Michel
0
-
[quote="mvd" wrote:
For me C1 stays my favourite rawconverter!
Capture One will be my RAW-Converter also
i am coming from RAW-Shooter and am happy about C1 4.0
it works very good and fast
there are only three show-stoppers at the moment
1.) the keyboard-shortcuts Ctrl+Shift+Alt+L for Rotating left is a way to much - sorry
2.) the Cache files spread around on my HDD
3.) and the missing relative output directory
the rest is built very solid and usable - I like it a lot0 -
I'm not sure you're reading the other (more angry) posts correctly or completely. Most of us who are not thrilled with PO are upset not because of performance related issues. We are pissed because of PO's utter distain for what we related to them when they asked for our opinions. C4 still renders the best RAW conversion on the market IMO, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy having PO piss on my leg and then tell me it's raining. If they had simply added the very nice new features without complicating the older ones, or in some cases, removing them all together, then I would consider this an actual "upgrade" instead of just an guinea pig version for them to work out the kinks for the "coming later" PRO version.
Will I continue to use C4? You bet, unless a comprable program comes out. Will I continue to be pissed at PO for the way it treats it's customers? You bet. I will also no longer recommend Capture One to anyone in the future, simply because of CO's lack of customer service, customer response, and their corporate arrogance. the most perfect example of this is the fact they haven't even bothered to comment concerning all the upset users on the forums. You know why - they don't care!!! Plain and simple, they don't give a damn if people like it or not.
I have been an extremely vocal "fan" of C1 for a long time, even though I recognized their customer service was perhaps the worst in the industry, but this whole beta ruse is the straw that broke the camel's back. They should have never asked for people's advice and input if they had no intention of listening. End of rant! 😁0 -
[quote="mvd" wrote:
Compliments to PhaseOne for this release. When reading the posts in this forum you'd get the impression that the program it is not very good or even bad. I don't understand why so many posters (and I'm sure they will feel the need to post in response to this as well) keep hanging on to version 3.7 or to features that are missing.
First the current version is a LE version, so not Pro. Second, when you bother to take the time to read the user guide, you discover a lot of nice new features. Some are different then before, maybe you need to change your workflow a bit, but nothing is really missing imo. The program also got a lot faster. C1 4 renders excellent files and I can get even better results then with the previous version. Ofcourse it has no DAM options, HSL tweaking etc, but I don't need that. I simply want to render my files in a quick and easy way and get the best possible conversion. Tweaking and DAM can be done in other programs.
For me C1 stays my favourite rawconverter!
Michel
Michel,
You need to read the posts more closely. PO has REMOVED features from this release. Features that to most of us are an important part of keeping our workflow productive. Features that I suspect will find their way into the Pro upgrade version forcing everyone to fork out more money just to gain back basic features we already paid for.
BTW: speeding up the actual conversion process is useless to me if it take twice as long to manipulate the software.
And one other note: Had PO been up front from the begging by not promising a FREE upgrade to 3.x users, clearly stating that current 3.7 users upgrade path is to Pro V4 and offered a heavy discount on the cost of that upgrade, all would be fine and dandy. After all I would usually expect to pay for a major version upgrade. However, that’s not at all what PO has done. They offered a free "upgrade" and provided a free "downgrade" with no acknowledgment of the issues and no clear upgrade path defined.
Poor business practices if you ask me.
Rob0 -
I asked myself if the soft, wishy-washy previews in the viewer may be an individual problem of mine. First I didn't think so because several people mentioned it with regard to the betas.
But today I installed V4 on my regular machine again (first version was installed on my laptop). But here it is the same: previews are generated sharp from 66% viewing size upward. Just as in the betas.
So I ask myself how people can talk about adjustments, functions or shortcuts if they can not see NOTHING as ugly mash. Or do all you people adjust images when viewing a 100% crop?? Unbelivable!
When I want to finish an image straight from the RAW-converter I need 50% viewing size as it is the best comparable size to the print dimensions in 300dpi.
If I want to adjust the image - the look and feel - I want to view the entire image. So I have to go down to 25% in the case of all the tools and the browser hidden (P45-files on 24'' screen).
If I want to adjust something with regard to the general appearance of the image I even have to go down to 12,5% viewing size sometimes (tools and/or browser on screen).
And in all these cases I want to have what every nameless freeware picturebrowser can give me: I want to see a clean picture and not an accumulation of pixel trash.
So what in the world you are talking about if you say that there is something better or just working in this software? Do you adjust pixels or do you create images?
I'm honestly speachless about that.
edit:
Exactly this was the reason why I gave up "testing" the beta. They did not incorporate sharp previews and fixed viewing size of 12,5% from beta 1 to beta 2.
Maybe the day will come they incorporate a working preview.
Than I will come back to V4 and will continue testing.
And afterwards I will talk about the keyboard shortcuts (not on the F-keys... oh my) and about folders and about color managment and about preferences ...0 -
[quote="rkircher" wrote:
[quote="mvd" wrote:
Compliments to PhaseOne for this release. When reading the posts in this forum you'd get the impression that the program it is not very good or even bad. I don't understand why so many posters (and I'm sure they will feel the need to post in response to this as well) keep hanging on to version 3.7 or to features that are missing.
First the current version is a LE version, so not Pro. Second, when you bother to take the time to read the user guide, you discover a lot of nice new features. Some are different then before, maybe you need to change your workflow a bit, but nothing is really missing imo. The program also got a lot faster. C1 4 renders excellent files and I can get even better results then with the previous version. Ofcourse it has no DAM options, HSL tweaking etc, but I don't need that. I simply want to render my files in a quick and easy way and get the best possible conversion. Tweaking and DAM can be done in other programs.
For me C1 stays my favourite rawconverter!
Michel
Michel,
You need to read the posts more closely. PO has REMOVED features from this release. Features that to most of us are an important part of keeping our workflow productive. Features that I suspect will find their way into the Pro upgrade version forcing everyone to fork out more money just to gain back basic features we already paid for.
BTW: speeding up the actual conversion process is useless to me if it take twice as long to manipulate the software.
And one other note: Had PO been up front from the begging by not promising a FREE upgrade to 3.x users, clearly stating that current 3.7 users upgrade path is to Pro V4 and offered a heavy discount on the cost of that upgrade, all would be fine and dandy. After all I would usually expect to pay for a major version upgrade. However, that’s not at all what PO has done. They offered a free "upgrade" and provided a free "downgrade" with no acknowledgment of the issues and no clear upgrade path defined.
Poor business practices if you ask me.
Rob
I keep reading this about things being removed... can someone provide a detailed list about things that have been removed, without replacement? Many things *changed*, ie, the Tagging system has been replaced with a more thorough and useful rating system, however for actual removal with no replacement I have seen thus far:
1- Can't specify which monitor profile to use
2- Central cache has been replaced with the Mac-like placing the cache in the individual job folder (I prefer this, makes cleaning up easier than the "get rid of the whole thing" that you had to do with the central system)
3- Quickproof setting
What else is actually missing? Are you sure it is really missing and have you read the manual front to back to see if it moved or changed?0 -
Doesn't bother me because I didn't use them, but there were a lot of keyboard shortcuts removed, like one for adjusting the exposure. If you relied on that, it could be a real pain for you...
So far I haven't run into anything I used to use that is missing. I actually kind of like the version...0 -
[quote="craig_washburn" wrote:
What else is actually missing? Are you sure it is really missing and have you read the manual front to back to see if it moved or changed?
Craig, have you read the posts here and the many on the beta 1 and beta 2 forums?
Main missing features compared to v3 (again) are
1) no image relative folder for output
2) no 1-key press to send multiple images to batch. Used to be 'ins', now it's 'ctrl-shift-d'
3) no central preview cache. Now they are scattered everywhere, and have to be deleted selectively when doing regular backups unless you want hundreds of megabytes used up unnecessarily
4) no sharp previews until 67%. 50% is horrible!
5) profiles don't 'stick'
6) preferences are now a joke. No saturation etc. settings, no option to switch off jpg browsing, no clearing up of preview cache, etc. etc.
Show us where they are in the manual please.0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
12,5% don't stick - smaller than 25% is always "to fit" ... and if you then hide/show tools or browser the image jumps in it's dimensions. Reminds me on Photoshop Elements... drives me nuts.
4) no sharp previews until 67%. 50% is horrible
[quote="thowi" wrote:
I asked myself if the soft, wishy-washy previews in the viewer may be an individual problem of mine. First I didn't think so because several people mentioned it with regard to the betas.
But today I installed V4 on my regular machine again (first version was installed on my laptop). But here it is the same: previews are generated sharp from 66% viewing size upward. Just as in the betas.
So I ask myself how people can talk about adjustments, functions or shortcuts if they can not see NOTHING as ugly mash. Or do all you people adjust images when viewing a 100% crop?? Unbelivable!
There is still hope. MIchael Tapes and Magne Nilsen, under the new
company name, Etcetera Consulting, will be releasing their new raw
converter very soon. It's supposed to incorporate all the great features
of v3.7x and Raw Shooter.
Rob0 -
[quote="Robert Hoffman" wrote:
[quote="thowi" wrote:
I asked myself if the soft, wishy-washy previews in the viewer may be an individual problem of mine. First I didn't think so because several people mentioned it with regard to the betas.
But today I installed V4 on my regular machine again (first version was installed on my laptop). But here it is the same: previews are generated sharp from 66% viewing size upward. Just as in the betas.
So I ask myself how people can talk about adjustments, functions or shortcuts if they can not see NOTHING as ugly mash. Or do all you people adjust images when viewing a 100% crop?? Unbelivable!
There is still hope. MIchael Tapes and Magne Nilsen, under the new
company name, Etcetera Consulting, will be releasing their new raw
converter very soon. It's supposed to incorporate all the great features
of v3.7x and Raw Shooter.
Rob
Thanks for the info Rob.
Read your post on DPR too, do you have any details? Links to feature sets?
Another Rob0 -
[quote="Robert Hoffman" wrote:
There is still hope. MIchael Tapes and Magne Nilsen, under the new company name, Etcetera Consulting, will be releasing their new raw converter very soon. It's supposed to incorporate all the great features of v3.7x and Raw Shooter.Rob
I didn't realize Etcetera was still around. You pull up their web site and it looks like a ghost town, with no recent entries and updates at all. Will be interesting to see what happens.0 -
[quote="Robert Hoffman" wrote:
Thanks for the information! 😊 Very good to know... because ACR and Lightroom are absolutely no alternative for me (first of all due to the miserly color management options).
There is still hope. MIchael Tapes and Magne Nilsen, under the new company name, Etcetera Consulting, will be releasing their new raw converter very soon. It's supposed to incorporate all the great features
of v3.7x and Raw Shooter.0 -
Thanks for the information! 😊 Very good to know... because ACR and Lightroom are absolutely no alternative for me (first of all due to the miserly color management options).
I'm with you all the way. I have to say that C1 has ALWAYs been my
gold standard, with regard to color and detail extraction. I have CS3
and do not feel ACR is even close to the raw output quality of C1, including
v4.
I will be beta-testing for Etcetera, when it is available. I hope it goes better
than it did for CO, because I really did my best to offer good, constructive
criticism. I tried hard to get the controls enlarged, to have a central cache,
to improve the previews at 25% and 50%, but nothing happened.
A lot of people on the beta forums spent countless hours evaluating
v4. But, based on the fact that the final release is almost exactly like
the betas, I'd have to say that PO didn't care much about the input
received from their testers(and THAT is a shame).
I'll continue using 3.7x, as long as it supports the cameras I use.
When it doesn't, it's time to check out the competition.
Rob0 -
[quote="Robert Hoffman" wrote:
Yes! They just wanted us to test the hardware configuration and tried to correct the bugs. The result is the first beta that is now running on different machines (but still buggy). They didn't care about anything else. The best thing they bulit in - to come back to the tilte of this thread - is the "deinstaller" in the start/programms-folder.
A lot of people on the beta forums spent countless hours evaluatingv4. But, based on the fact that the final release is almost exactly likethe betas, I'd have to say that PO didn't care much about the input
received from their testers(and THAT is a shame).
It's hard to talk like this because I always loved V3 (still do) because of its flexible and really elaborated workflow. And I always tried to convince people (and was sucessful with that) of C1s quality. But this chapter of customer friendliness is blameful.0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
[quote="craig_washburn" wrote:
What else is actually missing? Are you sure it is really missing and have you read the manual front to back to see if it moved or changed?
Craig, have you read the posts here and the many on the beta 1 and beta 2 forums?
Main missing features compared to v3 (again) are
1) no image relative folder for output
2) no 1-key press to send multiple images to batch. Used to be 'ins', now it's 'ctrl-shift-d'
3) no central preview cache. Now they are scattered everywhere, and have to be deleted selectively when doing regular backups unless you want hundreds of megabytes used up unnecessarily
4) no sharp previews until 67%. 50% is horrible!
5) profiles don't 'stick'
6) preferences are now a joke. No saturation etc. settings, no option to switch off jpg browsing, no clearing up of preview cache, etc. etc.
Show us where they are in the manual please.
Why would I read posts on a beta forum when the final version is out?
I have read the posts here. Seems like many of them are about things that are there, and in many cases written about in the manual.
I'm looking at the preview on my screen right now...it's as sharp as 3.7 and its below 50%.
Global saturation, I see what you mean. You could create a preset though in the tool itself (which is where it should be)
A central preview cache is a bad idea. This nagged me more than anything about the Windows version of 3.7 vs. the Mac (which kept them with the images). The problem is when you're freeing up space by archiving, with Mac yes you have to delete the folder, but then its done.
In the windows version you backed up the data, but the Previews were still eating up tons of space in the central cache! You only option was to clear the cache, and the previews of all the other jobs you are currently working on! This meant they had to regenerate and when you've got a 900+ shot catalog shoot, that's no small amount of time.0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
[quote="craig_washburn" wrote:
That is what I see set to 25%:
I'm looking at the preview on my screen right now...it's as sharp as 3.7 and its below 50%.
V4:
V3:
Okay... there is a color fringe issue in the V3 preview... but as I have the focus tab on the right side that's okay.
Try clicking the little man to the left of the slider, so that it reads "Fit" instead of 25%
You are using final version yes? I tried beta 1 for a couple of days and it did this, but the final version is fine now.0 -
[quote="craig_washburn" wrote:
What??? "To fit" is something...
Try clicking the little man to the left of the slider, so that it reads "Fit" instead of 25%
It's always the best to scale 100%, 50%, 25%, 12,5%.
And even if it would work - I don't want to "try" around, I just want to see the picture clean (and not border to border with tools and browser).
So 25% is quite the right width for a 7216 pixel wide image on a 1920x1200pixel display (tools and browser hidden).
I don't know what you are doing there... but I'm not willing to make compromises like that. Never! The software has to help me - not the other way around!
edit: yes, final version. re-installed to show this.0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
[quote="craig_washburn" wrote:
What??? "To fit" is something...
Try clicking the little man to the left of the slider, so that it reads "Fit" instead of 25%
It's always the best to scale 100%, 50%, 25%, 12,5%.
And even if it would work - I don't want to "try" around, I just want to see the picture clean (and not border to border with tools and browser).
So 25% is quite the right width for a 7216 pixel wide image on a 1920x1200pixel display (tools and browser hidden).
I don't know what you are doing there... but I'm not willing to make compromises like that. Never! The software has to help me - not the other way around!
edit: yes, final version. re-installed to show this.
What makes you think that to Fit doesn't work right? Because photoshop doesn't do well at odd %'s?
I've used C1 "to Fit" for years, on big budget shoots with the pickiest of art directors standing around and preview quality rarely comes up. Actually when it does come up, its always because the Preview doesn't have anti-moire processing done to it and fabric sometimes moire's. A quick zoom to 100% always allays those fears.
As you say though, this is one of those things where it should work with you. I'm not sure why any arbitrary zoom setting wouldn't be sharp.0 -
[quote="craig_washburn" wrote:
Why would I read posts on a beta forum when the final version is out?
Didn't ask you to. I merely asked if you had read them, but obviously you haven't. If you had you would understand why a lot of people are pretty annoyed with PO. They asked for our help during the public beta 1 and 2 phase and ignored what was said.[quote="craig_washburn" wrote:
I have read the posts here. Seems like many of them are about things that are there, and in many cases written about in the manual.
True, but the main points - like I mentioned are not.[quote="craig_washburn" wrote:
Global saturation, I see what you mean. You could create a preset though in the tool itself (which is where it should be)
And your point is? So, I should create a preset, then load that up every time I want to apply it to an image. That is so much easier than having a global setting like in v3, isn't it?[quote="craig_washburn" wrote:
A central preview cache is a bad idea. This nagged me more than anything about the Windows version of 3.7 vs. the Mac (which kept them with the images). The problem is when you're freeing up space by archiving, with Mac yes you have to delete the folder, but then its done.
You don't have to delete THE folder, you have to search through and delete MANY folders EVERY time you want to make a backup, which in my case is an automated weekly task.[quote="craig_washburn" wrote:
In the windows version you backed up the data, but the Previews were still eating up tons of space in the central cache! You only option was to clear the cache, and the previews of all the other jobs you are currently working on! This meant they had to regenerate and when you've got a 900+ shot catalog shoot, that's no small amount of time.
Backing up image data in v3 did not include huge number of unwanted megabytes of previews. Clearing the cache was a one-click operation in v3 or it was cleared out automatically after several days.0 -
[quote="craig_washburn" wrote:
However...
As you say though, this is one of those things where it should work with you. I'm not sure why any arbitrary zoom setting wouldn't be sharp.
This is "to fit" (browser hidden):
And this is a 100% crop:
If you can't see enough details you don't have to start with tonal values, curves or anything else.
For me it's impossible to accept this, no way! This way the software is unusable for me.0 -
FWIW, best way to view a file and make all adjustments is at 100%, true of Photoshop also...especially sharpening. Personally, I have always worked with the Focus window enlarged....that's because in V1, that was the only correct view....
I personally think V4 is so much faster by providing the fast 100% view AND all the tools on one pane, that I'm willing to revamp my workflow to accomodate the cache issue.
I think COne has been very responsive over the years...one of the major complaints has been the slow shutdown while writing workfiles, that's solved with the caching model. I'd like the choice, but given the hundreds of complaints from folks who forced a shutdown...then loosing data...rather than allowing PhaseOne to shut itself down....well, be careful what you wish for...0 -
[quote="John Malloy" wrote:
How do you select images? How do you judge about the impression of an image? How do you judge about DOF?
FWIW, best way to view a file and make all adjustments is at 100%
If you look at a close portrait shooted with P45 in 100% even on a big screen... you can see eyelashes. But you can't see the portrait. But me I'm not interested in biology. I'm interested in images.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
23 comments