How can I view only RAW files and not jpeg?
Hi guys
just loading C1v4 up and I have been shooting RAW + JPEG and obviously I could just move the jpeg files to another folder, but isn't there a way to view just RAW files?
thanks
Henrik
just loading C1v4 up and I have been shooting RAW + JPEG and obviously I could just move the jpeg files to another folder, but isn't there a way to view just RAW files?
thanks
Henrik
0
-
Nope. Phase one did not think this was a valuable feature so they left it out of v4 0 -
😊 thanks 😊
it looks like the left a lot of things out - it will have to be better then Adobe Camera RAW 4.x and lightroom if they are to be a viable option, with better integration with some DAM.
I know I can just move all the jpegs to a seperate folder manually but...
I hope the version of C1v4 is not final, I have high expectations and would like to support PhaseOne for various reasons, but they need to come with the goods here.
Henrik0 -
Hey buddy, don't be a wiseguy.
The answer is obvious, as you stated: move the jpgs to a separate folder. The dev team left out this option for a good reason: Because you can do it yourself -- no need for them to include a feature when user can perform the task themselves.
OK?
Now move them....[quote="tived" wrote:
:-) thanks 😊
it looks like the left a lot of things out - it will have to be better then Adobe Camera RAW 4.x and lightroom if they are to be a viable option, with better integration with some DAM.
I know I can just move all the jpegs to a seperate folder manually but...
I hope the version of C1v4 is not final, I have high expectations and would like to support PhaseOne for various reasons, but they need to come with the goods here.
Henrik0 -
What a stupid answer. I can create web pages but the developers included that. Why should we not expect the features of 3.x to be included in v 4? The answer is obvious, as you stated: move the jpgs to a separate folder. The dev team left out this option for a good reason: Because you can do it yourself -- no need for them to include a feature when user can perform the task themselves.
0 -
I hope Paul's reply is a "workaround" more than an "answer".
Given how many pros shoot in RAW+JPEG mode (ok, with the 1-series Canons you can split them across two memory cards if you wish, though I'm not sure how many actually use that feature), it really makes me wonder how much PhaseOne have thought about how people are going to use the software...0 -
Phase 1 has taken the important things into consideration. RAW viewing is not necessary as the user can separate them using the move command, or split raw+jpg feed to two cards.
Simple solution that doesn't beg resources geared for more important tasks P1 pros demand.
Next question.[quote="photogenix" wrote:
I hope Paul's reply is a "workaround" more than an "answer".
Given how many pros shoot in RAW+JPEG mode (ok, with the 1-series Canons you can split them across two memory cards if you wish, though I'm not sure how many actually use that feature), it really makes me wonder how much PhaseOne have thought about how people are going to use the software...0 -
Sorry, I am a pro and Phase One has put such little effort into creating a usable app it isn't even funny. Not showing JPG files would take a good programmer about 15 minutes to accomplish. Phase one does nothing with JPG files so why show them at all? If C1 could alter JPG files such as ACR then fine show them, otherwise hide them as they did in 3.x. Phase 1 has taken the important things into consideration. RAW viewing is not necessary as the user can separate them using the move command, or split raw+jpg feed to two cards.
Simple solution that doesn't beg resources geared for more important tasks P1 pros demand.
Next question.0 -
❓ Why shoot RAW + jpeg if one doesn't want them visible in the app and they can't be processed ❓ 0 -
Are you a programmer? It wouldn't just take 15 minutes to implement this trivial feature. Code would have to be tested for stability etc.
The P1 programmers are very busy with the important requests. They don't have time for the trivial stuff when users can separate the JPGS and RAWS.
Enough is enough.[quote="dmendlik" wrote:
Sorry, I am a pro and Phase One has put such little effort into creating a usable app it isn't even funny. Not showing JPG files would take a good programmer about 15 minutes to accomplish. Phase one does nothing with JPG files so why show them at all? If C1 could alter JPG files such as ACR then fine show them, otherwise hide them as they did in 3.x.Phase 1 has taken the important things into consideration. RAW viewing is not necessary as the user can separate them using the move command, or split raw+jpg feed to two cards.
Simple solution that doesn't beg resources geared for more important tasks P1 pros demand.
Next question.0 -
Hello
It tryes to read EVERYTING
Got this error message
Error trying to load image : xxxx.xls
So it radher guess what to read than knew what to read.
Roine0 -
FWIW I found being able to choose whether to view jpegs or not, useful as well.
This is just one of many aspects to V4 that have had a negative affect on how much time I spend at the computer. I'm essentially a 2 man operation and time is very important so, for me, V4 is a step backwards.
Pity, cos I absolutely love V3.0 -
Paul, I am a programmer in various languages (eg. been programming assembly language, one of the hardest, for 22 years now), and am currently the support lead for an application of approx 5 million lines of code, and yes, this would take them 15 minutes. (ok, maybe 20, and you'd put 1 hour on a quote, but you get my drift). Remember they already had the code to do this in v3 and it was working (you can't tell me that all of v4 has been rewritten?!) They can filter it when they call the OS to get a directory listing (a wildcard has to be provided anyway, may as well provide the right one!) or, as that is commonly a recursive call to the OS, filter each entry they get back by testing it against a regular expression. The latter would take longer in testing, whereas the former is using a feature which has existed in most OS's for decades now and would have an extremely low risk of failing initial testing if they got the requirements right in the first place. To use the expression you used in the "images are slow to load in capture v4" thead, "this is not rocket science".
The reason P1 staff are so inundated with feature requests at the moment is, in part, due to lack of foresight in v4 with items like this one which got dropped off the feature set from v3. In other words, if the feature reduction hadn't been so steep, they wouldn't be so busy now. So you could argue that they have made a 'rod for their own back' in that department. It is not the users' fault that P1 have "trivial" features such as this, so don't take it out on the users. I know you want to see v4 Pro out ASAP, and I do too, but if it's going to increase my workflow, then what's the point?
Not all RAW+JPEG cameras have two memory cards (eg: Canon 5D), and not all people like to use them (eg: SDHC cards have caused some issues for some users in the 1-series).
To SteveCa, many people who do RAW+JPEG do so because immediate proofs are available (and ironically is even more important with v4 seeing the QuickProofs feature has been removed in v4!), allowing clients to get a good feel for the images immediately after a shoot. (or even in the middle of a shoot, which really inspires the clients and helps them give interim feedback as to what other things they'd like etc - this has been quite handy for me doing photos for magazine ads and I'm sure it has increased the clients' satisfaction).0 -
Stop second guessing the P1 programmers -- they know what they are doing and they know what is good for you.
If V3 is good for you stick to it. When you are ready for C4 it will be there for you. Don't blame the programmrs if you need 2 men to do the job -- C4 is a tool, if you need two hands to operate a hammer, well....[quote="Tony Tervoert" wrote:
FWIW I found being able to choose whether to view jpegs or not, useful as well.
This is just one of many aspects to V4 that have had a negative affect on how much time I spend at the computer. I'm essentially a 2 man operation and time is very important so, for me, V4 is a step backwards.
Pity, cos I absolutely love V3.0 -
[quote="photogenix" wrote:
Paul, I am a programmer in various languages (eg. been programming assembly language, one of the hardest, for 22 years now), and am currently the support lead for an application of approx 5 million lines of code, and yes, this would take them 15 minutes. (ok, maybe 20, and you'd put 1 hour on a quote, but you get my drift).
You are a progammer-- C4 was designed for photographers. P1 programmers are looking to serve the needs ot that market. Don't second guess their intentions. they know what they are doing and many photographers are happy.
Remember they already had the code to do this in v3 and it was working (you can't tell me that all of v4 has been rewritten?!) They can filter it when they call the OS to get a directory listing (a wildcard has to be provided anyway, may as well provide the right one!) or, as that is commonly a recursive call to the OS, filter each entry they get back by testing it against a regular expression. The latter would take longer in testing, whereas the former is using a feature which has existed in most OS's for decades now and would have an extremely low risk of failing initial testing if they got the requirements right in the first place. To use the expression you used in the "images are slow to load in capture v4" thead, "this is not rocket science".
The reason P1 staff are so inundated with feature requests at the moment is, in part, due to lack of foresight in v4 with items like this one which got dropped off the feature set from v3. In other words, if the feature reduction hadn't been so steep, they wouldn't be so busy now. So you could argue that they have made a 'rod for their own back' in that department. It is not the users' fault that P1 have "trivial" features such as this, so don't take it out on the users. I know you want to see v4 Pro out ASAP, and I do too, but if it's going to increase my workflow, then what's the point?
Not all RAW+JPEG cameras have two memory cards (eg: Canon 5D), and not all people like to use them (eg: SDHC cards have caused some issues for some users in the 1-series).
.
If you don't have a two card slots get one with dual slots. Or shoot RAW. Don't expect us to baby sit your programming/performance issues. C4 is built for photographers with the right tools. Adapt or use something else if C4 doesn't fulfill your needs. Thanks.0 -
[quote="Paul Isi Rick" wrote:
If you don't have a two card slots get one with dual slots. Or shoot RAW. Don't expect us to baby sit your programming/performance issues. C4 is built for photographers with the right tools. Adapt or use something else if C4 doesn't fulfill your needs. Thanks.
Capture One 4 is just another tool built for photographers, it's much easier for Capture One 4 adapting for all others than for all others adapting for Capture One 4.
BTW, Paul, are you sure that the function listed below is, like you said, built for photographers?
http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?t=5152
http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?t=51510 -
There are many RAW processors out there. You can switch to another application if C4 bothers you so much.
We don't expect C4 to be perfect, do we? But please ask P1 programmers to tweak the few, but major, issues.[quote="edb" wrote:
[quote="Paul Isi Rick" wrote:
If you don't have a two card slots get one with dual slots. Or shoot RAW. Don't expect us to baby sit your programming/performance issues. C4 is built for photographers with the right tools. Adapt or use something else if C4 doesn't fulfill your needs. Thanks.
Capture One 4 is just another tool built for photographers, it's much easier for Capture One 4 adapting for all others than for all others adapting for Capture One 4.
BTW, Paul, are you sure that the function listed below is, like you said, built for photographers?
http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?t=5152
http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?t=51510 -
Photogenix:> am currently the support lead for an application of approx 5 million lines of code, and yes, this would take them 15 minutes.
Agreed. That kind of filtering is not exactly coding so "cutting-edge" as to make it prohibitively expensive. Nor would testing it end up being prohibitively expensive.
> Remember they already had the code to do this in v3 and it was working (you can't tell me that all of v4 has been rewritten?!)
As unlikely as that seems, sometimes I have wondered if it was. At the very least the devs spent a lot of time re-working the UI. I'm sure you'd know better than most of us how much work putting together a UI can be. The inclusion or removal of a previously available feature is clearly a matter of intention. Would someone actually have thought: "Nah, users don't need this sort of thing -- let's just leave it out and nobody will ever notice it's gone"? Well...they've noticed it's gone. (The PC version's lack of toolbar customization also strikes me as pretty strange. The response is: menu bar or toolbar customization is not in the PC version because it's built into the Mac o.s. and not into Windows ... but aren't there about a trillion Windows apps that have toolbar-customization features? Of course there are.)
> if the feature reduction hadn't been so steep, they wouldn't be so busy now.
This seems spot-on to me. Even a cursory examination of the threads here shows that quite a few of them are of the "whatever happened to...?" variety. It is puzzling that certain features v.3x users loved were simply dropped. As I didn't use version 3, they aren't all features I myself miss -- but the frustration due to the lack of them in v.4 certainly has been eye-opening.
> It is not the users' fault that P1 have "trivial" features such as this, so don't take it out on the users.
The other party's "Little People, others (Big People) know what's good for you, so stop whining, shut up, and drink your kool-aid" messages are so odd that for a while I wondered if those messages aren't actually intended as parodies of a "true believer" attitude. I work in the software industry and have heard far too much of that kind of thing. If I were a dev manager and one of my reports had such an attitude about the company's customers, that person would be looking for work elsewhere in short order. (Despite often-expressed frustration with current shortcomings in C1v4, I find it hard to believe P.O. would have that kind of attitude toward their customers. It would be a, how-do-you-say, very maladaptive mind-set in a business with strong competition such as we see now among the major "big-ticket" raw-processing apps...)
Of course, there's always "move *.jpg some-other-directory\\" and other workarounds. But as you note, the filtering people have been asking about has got to be fairly trivial stuff to code. I can't think of any good reason not to offer it at least as an option, via the Preferences dialog.0 -
There are many options for RAW conversions -- but only one is the best in the business for RAW conversions. Whether you chose to use that one is your choice.
P.S. Nothing (that is tested to be 100% error-free) is trivial.
[quote="MikeArst" wrote:
Photogenix:> am currently the support lead for an application of approx 5 million lines of code, and yes, this would take them 15 minutes.
Agreed. That kind of filtering is not exactly coding so "cutting-edge" as to make it prohibitively expensive. Nor would testing it end up being prohibitively expensive.
> Remember they already had the code to do this in v3 and it was working (you can't tell me that all of v4 has been rewritten?!)
As unlikely as that seems, sometimes I have wondered if it was. At the very least the devs spent a lot of time re-working the UI. I'm sure you'd know better than most of us how much work putting together a UI can be. The inclusion or removal of a previously available feature is clearly a matter of intention. Would someone actually have thought: "Nah, users don't need this sort of thing -- let's just leave it out and nobody will ever notice it's gone"? Well...they've noticed it's gone. (The PC version's lack of toolbar customization also strikes me as pretty strange. The response is: menu bar or toolbar customization is not in the PC version because it's built into the Mac o.s. and not into Windows ... but aren't there about a trillion Windows apps that have toolbar-customization features? Of course there are.)
> if the feature reduction hadn't been so steep, they wouldn't be so busy now.
This seems spot-on to me. Even a cursory examination of the threads here shows that quite a few of them are of the "whatever happened to...?" variety. It is puzzling that certain features v.3x users loved were simply dropped. As I didn't use version 3, they aren't all features I myself miss -- but the frustration due to the lack of them in v.4 certainly has been eye-opening.
> It is not the users' fault that P1 have "trivial" features such as this, so don't take it out on the users.
The other party's "Little People, others (Big People) know what's good for you, so stop whining, shut up, and drink your kool-aid" messages are so odd that for a while I wondered if those messages aren't actually intended as parodies of a "true believer" attitude. I work in the software industry and have heard far too much of that kind of thing. If I were a dev manager and one of my reports had such an attitude about the company's customers, that person would be looking for work elsewhere in short order. (Despite often-expressed frustration with current shortcomings in C1v4, I find it hard to believe P.O. would have that kind of attitude toward their customers. It would be a, how-do-you-say, very maladaptive mind-set in a business with strong competition such as we see now among the major "big-ticket" raw-processing apps...)
Of course, there's always "move *.jpg some-other-directory\" and other workarounds. But as you note, the filtering people have been asking about has got to be fairly trivial stuff to code. I can't think of any good reason not to offer it at least as an option, via the Preferences dialog.0 -
[quote="Paul Isi Rick" wrote:
There are many options for RAW conversions -- but only one is the best in the business for RAW conversions.
Er, and in your very humble opinion, which one would that be then?0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
[quote="Paul Isi Rick" wrote:
There are many options for RAW conversions -- but only one is the best in the business for RAW conversions.
Er, and in your very humble opinion, which one would that be then?
The one that fits your needs.0 -
[quote="Paul Isi Rick" wrote:
The one that fits your needs.
That is the correct answer, unfortunately it doesn't fit in with[quote="Paul Isi Rick" wrote:
(full quote) There are many options for RAW conversions -- but only one is the best in the business for RAW conversions. Whether you chose to use that one is your choice.
One would have to be pretty silly not to choose 'the one that fits your needs'!0 -
Others might not come close on the subject of RAW converstions. But chose a RAW converter that fulfills your needs in terms of the functionality.workflow you are comfortable with in the long run. [quote="imacken" wrote:
[quote="Paul Isi Rick" wrote:
The one that fits your needs.
That is the correct answer, unfortunately it doesn't fit in with[quote="Paul Isi Rick" wrote:
(full quote) There are many options for RAW conversions -- but only one is the best in the business for RAW conversions. Whether you chose to use that one is your choice.
One would have to be pretty silly not to choose 'the one that fits your needs'!0 -
I give up! 0 -
> I give up!
But at least now we know that one should use the best in the business and that the best in the business is...well, the one that best suits your needs. And which one is that? The one that's the best in the business, of course. So a competing product that turns out to suit person "B's" needs better, must therefore also the best in the business. A third, meeting "C's" needs better than the other two, is clearly also the best in the business. Do try to cherish this moment, as we have just observed a major breakthrough in Besting. :-)
But enough of this mind-bending excursion to find the core meaning of Best. If the feature in question involves a simple API call or two -- possibly, pre-existing and previously tested code that was removed in the new version? -- followed by a couple of experienced testers giving the routine a hard enough workout for about 20 minutes...then despite our correspondent's, ah, supremely compelling statement to the contrary, this particular kind of coding would be pretty trivial stuff.0 -
Well done, Mike! The most amusing post I've seen on this forum for a long time. Certainly brightened up my day! 0 -
Perhaps you should join the programming team at P1 since your optimistic programming timeframe could clear the entire backlog of support requests in 72 hours or less. [quote="MikeArst" wrote:
> I give up!
But enough of this mind-bending excursion to find the core meaning of Best. If the feature in question involves a simple API call or two -- possibly, pre-existing and previously tested code that was removed in the new version? -- followed by a couple of experienced testers giving the routine a hard enough workout for about 20 minutes...then despite our correspondent's, ah, supremely compelling statement to the contrary, this particular kind of coding would be pretty trivial stuff.0 -
[quote="Paul Isi Rick" wrote:
Perhaps you should join the programming team at P1 since your optimistic programming timeframe could clear the entire backlog of support requests in 72 hours or less.
Fabulous concept. I'll submit my CV any day now. Well, just as soon as I'm done determining which one is The Best In The Business. Which one did you say that was, again? We know, at least, that it's the one that is, because clearly per definitions supplied earlier it couldn't possibly be the one that isn't. But only in a sort of relativistic fashion, of course. (Stop me if you've heard all this before.)
But wait . . . wouldn't the new-hire have to join the support team for this to occur? Oh, gosh, it's all so confusing and going by in such a mad whirl...a new job across the ocean...reaching new heights in Besting...
But never mind all this breathless anticipation. Consider re-reading Photogenix's message and replying to it in substance -- substance tending to be somewhat more, well, substantial than mere sloganeering. Just a thought. :-) :-) :-)0 -
Mike,
If I were you, I wouldn't rise to the bait. Paul Isi Rick's posts are all full of arrogance and taunts. Don't bother with them.
Iain0 -
> Certainly brightened up my day!
Fifty cents, please. :-) The other party having apparently switched off his conceptual GPS, his posts had wobbled so far off into Silly that it seemed to me an absurdist sort of response might be the ticket. I have never understood that mind-set. Forum participants request a new feature or changes to existing features; then along comes someone who seems to feel that his role is to insult the people who posted the messages and order them to stop whining and eat what they've been fed, since it must be the best possible stuff. He has now done this in several threads -- a few quick slogans and nasty one-liners...then move on to some other thread and do it there.
Strange stuff. But that's cyberspace for ya. And no matter, because at least now we have the most important information we could possibly have: his opinion of other people's messages. All other information downright pales by comparison. :-)
But enough of this mesmerizing punditry. I'd be interested to hear from other v4 users (with the possible exception of...well, never mind [color=blue:pv170ocx]:-)[/color:pv170ocx] what other sorts of options, not found right now in the Preferences dialog, should be added. That'd be a (collective) feature-request worth making into a support-ticket, methinks. I'll certainly vote for an "only show RAW images in browser" feature...0 -
[quote="MikeArst" wrote:
I'll certainly vote for an "only show RAW images in browser" feature...
Been mentioned many many times already Mike. It's on the list of the top 5 or 6 feature requests TO BRING BACK from v3.
Iain0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
36 comments