Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Starting a subsequent trial

Ross Collins
I gave CO a serious trial (spent a couple of weeks on it full-time) back in v8.x days, but it didn't meet my needs by a long way.

I've been a Lightroom user since LR v1.0 but I need to get off the increasingly emasculated standalone version of LR before I'm forced into the cloud version. I've attended a number of CO 9 webinars and studied endless video tutorials, reviews and forum posts and believe v9.0.x might be a viable replacement for my present Lightroom/Macphun CK setup. However, moving to CO Pro will not be without risk and I will need to invest considerable time to be thoroughly satisfied it can now meet my needs without adverse and unexpected consequences.

The trial period is 30 days, which is not unreasonable, though barely enough to achieve the level of intuitive understanding I will need before betting my future (including my 250,000 image archive) on CO. I'm prepared to commit the investment of my time in a trial over that short period but wonder, if it doesn't work out, what the earliest next CO release would be for me to start a further trial to test later CO enhancements. Would this be v9.1 or am I locked out until v10?
0

Comments

28 comments

Date Votes
  • Franz J Wenzel
    Hi,
    my unqualified guess is, it would be version 10.

    In reading your post, and not using the catalog feature (using PhotoMechanic and MediaPro,) and having said above, here are my thoughts,
    You seem to have a well established LR stand alone working system with about 250k images.
    If you do the trial period now, you could use the time to get a feel for the new version of CO9 without 'messing' with your current set up. If you come to the conclusion that CO9 improved well to your liking you then can do your purchase and set your new workflow tailored around the new software. I would then set a 'cut off' date for LR and start with my new pictures in CO9. Since all your old pictures are already processed in a working copy of LR - you are not under any time pressure.
    Once you are comfortable with your new workflow it is up to you to migrate your old archive to the new system...
    On the other hand, if for any reason you don't go with CO9, no harm is done and you can still remain with LR. You current set up will stay functional at least until a major update of your operating system.

    Hope that helps in your decision making process...
    Cheers,
    Franz
    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter
    In the past each minor version of 8.i resetted the trial. If this does not change then 9.1 could be you next trial. Or you might want to subscribe for 3 month if that's possbile (I know you don't like subs but for the sake of a short term trial....)
    0
  • Ross Collins
    [quote="C-F" wrote:
    In reading your post, and not using the catalog feature (using PhotoMechanic and MediaPro,) and having said above, here are my thoughts ...

    Hope that helps in your decision making process...

    Thanks for your thoughts Franz. Your thinking on an evaluation/migration strategy isn't too different from the way I had been imagining it might potentially pan out. I just need to satisfy myself that any changeover can be successful, and a lot of work will be required to get to that point. Effectively, I will need to shut almost everything else out of my life for several weeks!
    0
  • Ross Collins
    [quote="BeO" wrote:
    In the past each minor version of 8.i resetted the trial. If this does not change then 9.1 could be you next trial. Or you might want to subscribe for 3 month if that's possbile (I know you don't like subs but for the sake of a short term trial....)

    Thanks Beo. Maybe someone in authority can verify the 'point release' retrial assumption (which I thought I had read in these forums somewhere was the case, at least at some time previously). It will give me the comfort of knowing that, if for some reason I don't get to a final decision in the trial period (whether I can't get the work done in time, or some feature or functions found to be are deficient during the trial), I wouldn't have to wait until v10.0 to pick up where I left off.

    But I'm not averse to adopting the subscription approach in the very short term to cover my bets, and hadn't thought of that. I appreciate your input.
    0
  • idbirds
    They no longer reset the trial period after a point release (i.e., from 9.0 to 9.1). It's 30 days and that is it for free trial until the next major version (10.0).

    You might want to check out this free e-book, which was mentioned by David Grover, in a recent webinar, entitled, "Moving to Capture One Pro":

    http://www.rockynook.com/free-ebook-on- ... one-pro-9/

    I recently moved from Aperture to COP9. I really like how my photos look, a lot better than in Aperture! After all, COP is a raw converter. And, a damn good one!
    0
  • Ross Collins
    [quote="idbirds" wrote:
    They no longer reset the trial period after a point release (i.e., from 9.0 to 9.1). It's 30 days and that is it for free trial until the next major version (10.0).

    That's what I'm trying to clear up once and for all, as there seems to be around 14 - 24 months between major releases (albeit trending towards the shorter end of this range most recently). So if I start but can't complete my trial now, I'm looking at, perhaps, a 12 month trial stand down unless I sign up to a subscription.

    [quote="idbirds" wrote:
    You might want to check out this free e-book, which was mentioned by David Grover, in a recent webinar, entitled, "Moving to Capture One Pro": http://www.rockynook.com/free-ebook-on- ... one-pro-9/

    Thanks, I already have and have read this e-book as part of my research to date!
    0
  • harald_walker
    I guess the question is how you expect to work with 250,000 images. C1 performs very poorly with large catalogs (10% of your size is already a pain to work with) and at the moment I'd predict that version 9 is not right for you and since Phase One does not communicate future plans, no one can tell you if a 9.1, 10 or 11 version would improve things. It didn't improve between 8 and 9.
    0
  • Michael Sonshine
    [quote="idbirds" wrote:
    They no longer reset the trial period after a point release (i.e., from 9.0 to 9.1). It's 30 days and that is it for free trial until the next major version (10.0).

    I am curious as to where you learned this. As a user since CO 6 I have frequently gone through .X trials before buying the new release so this is news to me.

    I am now questioning your statement, only asking where you found this out. It was certainly not true in version 8.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="MikeFromMesa" wrote:
    [quote="idbirds" wrote:
    They no longer reset the trial period after a point release (i.e., from 9.0 to 9.1). It's 30 days and that is it for free trial until the next major version (10.0).

    I am curious as to where you learned this. As a user since CO 6 I have frequently gone through .X trials before buying the new release so this is news to me.

    I am now questioning your statement, only asking where you found this out. It was certainly not true in version 8.


    Mike,

    I guess "now" should be "not"?

    I share your curiosity.

    Going back a week or so there seemed to be no change in policy suggested.

    viewtopic.php?f=61&t=22025&sid=f189fa6d3031811407b305838acdfbbf#p104362


    On the other hand, we live in rapidly changing times (it seems) so what was correct one day may have changed for the next.

    For the OP:

    The obvious thing to do would be create a Support Case and ask Phase directly for a current policy. (But see my comment above .... 😉 )

    Grant
    0
  • Michael Sonshine
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="MikeFromMesa" wrote:
    [quote="idbirds" wrote:
    They no longer reset the trial period after a point release (i.e., from 9.0 to 9.1). It's 30 days and that is it for free trial until the next major version (10.0).

    I am curious as to where you learned this. As a user since CO 6 I have frequently gone through .X trials before buying the new release so this is news to me.

    I am now questioning your statement, only asking where you found this out. It was certainly not true in version 8.


    Mike,

    I guess "now" should be "not"?

    I share your curiosity.

    Going back a week or so there seemed to be no change in policy suggested.

    viewtopic.php?f=61&t=22025&sid=f189fa6d3031811407b305838acdfbbf#p104362


    On the other hand, we live in rapidly changing times (it seems) so what was correct one day may have changed for the next.

    For the OP:

    The obvious thing to do would be create a Support Case and ask Phase directly for a current policy. (But see my comment above .... 😉 )

    Grant

    Yes. I meant to write "not". Darn that spell corrector! 😄 This time I previewed the post carefully for misspelled words.

    It is not that it is so important to me as I have a current version 9 license (which I bought after trial-ing 9.0), but the PhaseOne policy has been a trial for every "." release since I started using it and I am curious as to how the poster knows this has changed. I have not seen anything indicating a change.

    Of course the trial period also used to be 60 days and is now 30 days, but at least it has not dropped to 15 days as with some software, so I guess I should be thankful for that.
    0
  • Tom de Meadows
    Like you I have used LR extensively, since version 3. Like you I do not want to be forced into the cloud version. Like you I have sizeable LR catalogue, although smaller than yours. I will also add that I have never been entirely satisfied with LR raw conversion capabilities, CO is, in my opinion, better and more capable raw converter; the colour editor is awesome and the fact that it can be combined with layers opens a lot of creative opportunities.

    For the past year, I have been running CO 8 and now 9 in parallel with LR 5. In a nutshell, this is what I have done:

    1) I am running 2 catalogues, an LR catalogue and CO catalogue with exactly the same folder structure: folders organised chronologically by capture date using a hierarchical folder structure Year/Month/Day

    2) CO has become my primary editing tool, I rarely do any editing with LR

    3) I now rely heavily on producing TIFF derivatives, using CO Process functionality, to send any photographs to the printers and to upload images online. When I was using only LR, I was using plug-ins to upload "directly" from LR; please note the quotes and italics, because LR creates a derivative that you do not see

    4) I have only imported into the CO catalogue a small part of the photos in the LR catalogue, they are primarily the photos that I thought will benefit more from being edited and processed using CO. I have not imported the catalogue, I just just imported the relevant folders. I am not sure if this is a good idea or not, the drawback is that I have chosen to loose, at least temporarily keywords, titles and captions. At the moment this is not a big deal because I have only imported a small part of the photos in the LR catalogue.

    5) Up until recently I used to keep both catalogues in sync, this means the following:
      a) all new photos were imported in both catalogues
      b) any new derivatives created in CO were imported into the LR catalogue
      c) I was still using LR catalogue to upload images only

    However, I am in the middle of changing this and trying to see if I can free myself from LR.

    6) The most difficult part so far is not learning how to process images with CO but to devise a new workflow. CO does not support the same collection (Album and Smart Album in CO parlance) workflow I used to have in LR. For instance, CO 9 for MAC OS does not support the creation of a Smart Albums with all Adjusted photos, with photos Adjusted in the last 7 days, and so on. Hopefully, they will add this functionality soon (before CO 10).

    Because I now heavily rely on derivatives I have adjusted my workflow as follows: all derivatives go into a derivatives folder with the same path as in the catalogue - i.e., a derivative of a photo on 2016\201602\20160214 in the raw branch of the catalogue, will go under an identically named folder on the derivatives\CO branch of the catalogue. When using LR, all my derivatives where in the same folder as the original. It is only when I started using CO that I felt the need to separate with LR work from my CO work.

    I could keep going on. The only thing I would add is that if you are going to make that transition, I would recommend a parallel run.
    0
  • Ross Collins
    [quote="NN259560UL" wrote:
    Like you I have used LR extensively, since version 3 ... For the past year, I have been running CO 8 and now 9 in parallel with LR 5. In a nutshell, this is what I have done ...

    Thanks, NN, for going to the trouble to recount your process and experience to date. I had considered a somewhat similar path, but the detail you have provided is extremely helpful.

    [quote="NN259560UL" wrote:
    I could keep going on. The only thing I would add is that if you are going to make that transition, I would recommend a parallel run.

    You have been more than helpful in what you have already provided. I would certainly undertake a parallel run, probably using my 2016 images, and migrating backwards year by year from there later, depending on the outcome of the trial. However my thinking is still evolving and your input is adding to that.

    Thanks again!
    0
  • Ross Collins
    [quote="idbirds" wrote:
    They no longer reset the trial period after a point release (i.e., from 9.0 to 9.1). It's 30 days and that is it for free trial until the next major version (10.0).

    [quote="Christian Gruner in the 'Trial should last until 9.1' thread" wrote:
    The trial period is there to allow new users to try out the new features in X.0 or X.X versions before deciding to buy. There are no plans to change this.

    Can someone at Capture One kindly confirm the present policy?
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="W.W. Webster" wrote:
    [quote="idbirds" wrote:
    They no longer reset the trial period after a point release (i.e., from 9.0 to 9.1). It's 30 days and that is it for free trial until the next major version (10.0).

    [quote="Christian Gruner in the 'Trial should last until 9.1' thread" wrote:
    The trial period is there to allow new users to try out the new features in X.0 or X.X versions before deciding to buy. There are no plans to change this.

    Can someone at Capture One kindly confirm the present policy?


    Bearing in mind this is primarily intended as a User to User forum and that Phase do not usually respond officially in a public forum nor would they wish to set a precedent by doing so.

    That said a comment was made a few weeks ago and I linked to it in a post above.

    Nothing has been seen to suggest that situation has changed other than an unreferenced comment by another poster in this thread.

    If you really do feel that you need confirmation of some sort then you should contact Phase - probably via a Support Case from where your question will be redirected to those who may be able to provide an answer.

    Realistically I think C1 is a great RAW converter but if you feel feel you need an industrial scale archive then you should buy an industrial scale archive application that is likely to work well with external editors and have a planned future path and support available as a "proper" archive not just a catalogue. Doing that, once set up, should subsequently save several weeks and possibly months of detailed testing all of which would be wasted if you do not then adopt the product tested.

    Moreover, unless you are going to revisit 250k images and re-edit them I'm really not sure what you are hoping to gain from importing everything. It would not be my objective under the circumstances. I might, however, consider using a product something like Media Pro and make use of an ability to manage a wider range of documents and file types.

    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • Ross Collins
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Bearing in mind this is primarily intended as a User to User forum and that Phase do not usually respond officially in a public forum nor would they wish to set a precedent by doing so ... If you really do feel that you need confirmation of some sort then you should contact Phase - probably via a Support Case from where your question will be redirected to those who may be able to provide an answer.

    Good point, I will! Indeed, getting clarity on that point was the purpose of this thread in the first place. The ongoing fund of wider comments and suggestions on trial and transition processes and issues is an unexpected bonus.

    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Moreover, unless you are going to revisit 250k images and re-edit them I'm really not sure what you are hoping to gain from importing everything.

    I certainly would not have planned to do that. My intention would just be to have a single catalogue/DAM that I could search for and retrieve any image(s) from. However, given your comments and also hearing there are significant question marks over the performance of CO catalogues referencing more than a few tens of thousands of images at most, maybe I should just leave my existing images in LR and start afresh with CO from this point forward. I might be able to get my mind around that. The risk would be that my legacy version of LR might be incompatible with a future version of OSX.

    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    I might, however, consider using a product something like Media Pro and make use of an ability to manage a wider range of documents and file types.

    Media Pro has always seemed to me to be "a spare bride at a wedding", with an entirely different UI, look and feel, and which is looking more and more an oddball as CO appears to have finally begun to face up to the reality that serious photographers want an integrated image management and manipulation solution. CO is not that yet, but the direction seems clear.

    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    HTH

    It has. Thanks!
    0
  • Jim_DK
    [quote="W.W. Webster" wrote:
    [quote="idbirds" wrote:
    They no longer reset the trial period after a point release (i.e., from 9.0 to 9.1). It's 30 days and that is it for free trial until the next major version (10.0).

    [quote="Christian Gruner in the 'Trial should last until 9.1' thread" wrote:
    The trial period is there to allow new users to try out the new features in X.0 or X.X versions before deciding to buy. There are no plans to change this.

    Can someone at Capture One kindly confirm the present policy?



    To confirm, Current policy (as stated by Christian Gruner) is to reset the trial for dot releases (that is .1, .2 etc) and the trial lasts 30 days.

    The quote above about it being 1 per major release only is totally misinformed.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="W.W. Webster" wrote:

    Media Pro has always seemed to me to be "a spare bride at a wedding", with an entirely different UI, look and feel, and which is looking more and more an oddball as CO appears to have finally begun to face up to the reality that serious photographers want an integrated image management and manipulation solution. CO is not that yet, but the direction seems clear.



    I think it is very difficult to be one think to everyone. In my experience it never happens for one reason or another.

    I would share you fears about LR's longevity subscriotion free at some point - but that point has many influencing factors just as Aperture users have with their chosen application.

    If you excluded the cameras in iPhones and the like neither of the vendors have camera production of any sort as the origin of their business model.

    Starting out in the days of mainly "business" computers and the beginnings of electric documents they had a (mostly) strong multi decade foundation in document creation and management which led then to digitisation of images sourced from film via scanning.

    Once digital imaging emerged it was a logical step to accept digital files and them work towards offering "development" of RAW versions which could then be brought into the document management arena if required.

    Many other products have started out from the other direction seeking to offer alternative image editing approaches often from a RAW starting point. This opportunity mainly arose because the camera manufacturers were, if they offered anything, only supporting their own files, often had separate processes for RAW and non-RAW processing, rarely attempted to fully integrate editing and managed image storage at any level and were often considered not to be offering the best possible overall outcome or, indeed, anything close to it. Presumably they viewed the provision of the functionality as mainly a chore or at best a useful marketing tick box. It was largely outsourced to others to develop.

    There are and have been not a few digital photo editors offered independently since the internet made such things viable. Some went well and a few seem to (until bought by others), some survive as open source or freeware, some have disappeared.

    Many have sought to add enhanced DAM functionality but how successful they have been for the additional effort and overhead is not clear.

    There seem to have been a few products recently that have sought to address the DAM challenge for a "lower price expectation" market. I'm not sure that there is a general market for Document administration - it's not really high on a list of many people although with everything now going "on-line" that may change over time. On the other hand I can't really see a mass market based upon "on-line" and sharing across multiple devices types making use of a very sophisticated high volume fully indexed and document type specific functionality UNLESS that functionality was in the Cloud and accessible to all (for a data handling charge of course..).

    Now that will probably be fine at some point and must work well enough economically for people today sending small images and files to each other. 50Mb RAW files are a different matter in my opinion. Huge TIFFs too. Compressed jpgs to a Cloud based DAM and shared with you favourite photo display web sites ... a different matter perhaps. Viable partly because for most people only a tiny proportion of what they shoot and experiment with for editing will appear in those places.

    The exceptions are the major image Agencies. As fas as I know they use some rather specialised applications that come with commercial scale charges. While they can attract the majority of the images that their target user want to use they will probably survive and be able to afford to pay the suppliers.

    I doubt the scale they have would transfer to smaller systems at this point in time. It might in the future but lower end hardware in the computing world is geared mainly to smallish scale multiple application type demands rather than large scale somewhat dedicated systems. Thus there are compromises to deal with.

    I know from recent peripheral observation of established business application developers how challenging anything even close to integration can be when attempting to make two evidently different systems that individually address different operational requirement fit together. The requirements do not have to be far apart in what they do and what will need to do to make this a challenge from a technical and product management perspective.

    For the product I am referring to, add in the opinions of the end users about "Usability" and "GUI" and "it's not what I am used to" (in my example that coming from legacy users) and the apparent rush to "agile" development (which probably cannot be resisted) and I feel for the poor guys in the middle who are attempting to advance their product against the flood of external pressures.

    That company is now some years down the road of re-development for changing computer architecture forced upon them, partly as file sizes grew, and integration of another product that they bought. It has been a challenging journey that could not always be planned ahead effectively. If one considers the overall market in which they operate one might think they would have been better served as a company had they carried on without the purchase or with the purchase but keeping the product as arm's length and "integrating" in a more simple way to start with. Which is sort of what has happened but that was not "the dream" and therefore appears to have created a less than efficient approach to their activities.

    Whether or not what they wish to do is technically viable against the background of constantly moving targets is another consideration. By that I mean is it technically viable and yet still commercially viable? I have no observed answer to that question - yet.

    I stick with sessions. They suit my needs and fit with other applications I occasionally deploy.

    I have considered creating a master catalogue based on small jpg output files. I don't feel I need to have a RAW and edits "live" in a catalogue if I have not touched it for a number of years. However a small overhead that allowed my to identify a file and then find it fairly quickly by identifying the file name and session might become useful. The computer can do that through the file system. Carrying the overhead of a dead-weight catalogue every day just seems unnecessary.

    Or I might adopt an external DAM - though electronic document storage and filing has always seemed like an overhead to me for personal use. Even working with large organisations, from time to time I would see DAMs that were slavishly maintained and very rarely accessed other than perhaps one or two percent of the filing that was active every day and would have been anyway. That was fine if you had a strict regulatory policy to follow and might be subject to draconian retribution for failure and even better if they were actively seeking to do something useful with the information in the documents archived. However mostly it just seemed like a tick-box activity undertaken at some expense and lost opportunity.

    Some of my further thoughts, for what they are worth.

    I would always suggest that people take to Capture One for what it can do very well - which is offer outstanding results and a mainly highly productive work flow. It used only sessions when I joined in. That was just what I wanted. The decisions were simpler then!


    Grant


    ETA. I see James has answered the specific point as I have been typing my extended missive.
    0
  • Ross Collins
    [quote="Jim_DK" wrote:
    To confirm, Current policy (as stated by Christian Gruner) is to reset the trial for dot releases (that is .1, .2 etc) and the trial lasts 30 days. The quote above about it being 1 per major release only is totally misinformed.

    Thanks James!
    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    Some of my further thoughts, for what they are worth.


    All true Grant!

    Cheers,
    BeO
    0
  • Ross Collins
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="W.W. Webster" wrote:

    Media Pro has always seemed to me to be "a spare bride at a wedding", with an entirely different UI, look and feel, and which is looking more and more an oddball as CO appears to have finally begun to face up to the reality that serious photographers want an integrated image management and manipulation solution. CO is not that yet, but the direction seems clear.

    I think it is very difficult to be one think (sic) to everyone. In my experience it never happens for one reason or another.

    Thanks for making the considerable effort to respond and express your views as comprehensively as you have done.

    The only point I would make is that LR has done it - provided a DAM capability that meets the needs of perhaps 80% of serious photographers, and also integrated this in a single product with a photo manipulation solution that, even on its own, can meet the needs of at least the same proportion of users. It's only now that Adobe is taking the strategic option to plateau the capabilities of LR to preserve the myth (and the related revenues) that 'real photographers use Photoshop' - and offering LR and PS as a package at an 'unbelievable' value by subscription (also a myth).

    I don't know what Phase One's strategy was in acquiring Media Pro but, unless there are some ducks paddling furiously under the water somewhere, there has been no indication its functionality (or any reasonable subset) will manifest itself in CO. The preliminary, but very welcome and promising, keywording and related functions introduced in CO 9 appear to have come from different origins. But Phase One may figure it risks facing the same kind of problem as Adobe if CO revenues were to begin to erode those from Media Pro (if the latter are at all significant), in the event CO's DAM capabilities were to eliminate the need for Media Pro for many CO users.

    In considering a move to CO, I recognise the very first market focus and obligation for CO must be to Phase One camera users, whose preoccupation is high quality images rather than high volumes of images! It seems to me that market alone will not drive CO towards enhancing its starter-DAM solution, or even well-performing high volume catalogues for that matter.

    But I like what I see in CO and want to find a way for it to be the cornerstone of my post-production workflow. I realise these forums are not for product comparisons but for user-to-user help and I do not want to transgress. Your comments and those of others here were not expected from the narrow scope of my original question, but are very helpful and much appreciated.
    0
  • SFA
    When did LR come out? Was it 2007 or 2008 somewhere?

    I bought LR1 and upgraded as far as 1.4.

    However I disliked the enforced use of a Catalogue since that meant I was having to store everything twice in order to be able to use my favoured application alongside. In the end I stopped using LR since the other application was far more powerful for editing - but no real DAM to speak of.

    I had another look at LR when V3 came out. It left me underwhelmed in terms of overall functionality although it was beginning to get some decent features. Stuck with the catalogue concept again though so it was not for me.

    Adobe used to (and probably still do) switch people around within development teams depending on which current projects had most focus and what skill sets it was felt the project might need. Re-using or, if the time was right for it, re-working existing code to extend or update functionality seemed to be a common approach and that work, perhaps further changed, could well find its way back into other products.

    That said I used to wonder at some of the convoluted processes people would report themselves as using in order to produce an image. Had to wonder whether it was really necessary to pass the poor old file around quite so many applications in order to get a vaguely acceptable output. My preference it to use just one application from start to finish although I might process some images using more than one application (separately) in order to compare the results.



    Grant
    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    My preference it to use just one application from start to finish
    Grant

    Me too.

    I know I am getting off topic, sorry for that, but how do you sharpen for output for critical work? That's nearly my only need for PS. And have you noticed improvements in JPG processing/downsizing in v9?

    Thanks,
    BeO
    0
  • Ross Collins
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    When did LR come out? Was it 2007 or 2008 somewhere?

    19 February 2007. The full timeline to the present day is at .
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="BeO" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    My preference it to use just one application from start to finish
    Grant

    Me too.

    I know I am getting off topic, sorry for that, but how do you sharpen for output for critical work? That's nearly my only need for PS. And have you noticed improvements in JPG processing/downsizing in v9?

    Thanks,
    BeO


    Hi BeO,

    I will start by saying that I have not undertaken any "rigourous" tests (in fact nothing like that at all) but a few basic experiments seemed to suggest that output to smaller size images was clearly improved in V9. However I am not trying to compress huge and detailed files to a fraction of their size ...

    For sharpening, given that my main camera is not recent or especially high resolution, I just sharpen during edit. Slightly above the default values offered in most cases but it depends what I am trying to do with the image. The main camera seems to have nice pixels that are quite forgiving.

    Bear in mind that what you may need to do about sharpening requirements (other than your personal opinion) probably depends more on the target viewer than the image.

    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • Tom de Meadows
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    However I disliked the enforced use of a Catalogue since that meant I was having to store everything twice in order to be able to use my favoured application alongside. In the end I stopped using LR since the other application was far more powerful for editing - but no real DAM to speak of.


    In an ideal world, I would prefer to have my editing software and my DMA software as 2 separate software products with different development pipelines and loosely integrated. Having used LR extensively, I do find somehow distracting having to deal with metadata when I am editing images.

    I would not mind at all buying and using 2 products, CO for editing and Media Pro for DAM.
    0
  • WEST GMBH
    Have you considered Photo Supreme as a DAM. It is much more likely to be able to cope with your number of images and their divorce procedure is easy, unlike most.
    0
  • Tom de Meadows
    [quote="NN635356811825979550UL" wrote:
    Have you considered Photo Supreme as a DAM. It is much more likely to be able to cope with your number of images and their divorce procedure is easy, unlike most.

    I haven't but will give it a try.

    Thanks
    0
  • Ross Collins
    [quote="NN259560UL" wrote:
    [quote="NN635356811825979550UL" wrote:
    Have you considered Photo Supreme as a DAM. It is much more likely to be able to cope with your number of images and their divorce procedure is easy, unlike most.

    I haven't but will give it a try.

    This looks a very interesting option that I should also take a look at. Thanks.

    At first glance it appears Photo Supreme can replace LR for my catalogue and DAM needs, while providing an efficient platform for round-tripping to C1 for photo editing - without the C1 performance risks if I had a 200,000+ image C1 catalogue. Have I got that right? Am I being realistic?

    BTW, just so I'm on the same wavelength, what is the "divorce procedure" you are referring to?
    0

Post is closed for comments.