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⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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. ⚠️

Why i can't...

Permanently deleted user
I checked out my C1 pro for a while and want to give some feedback.

- it's hard to start with capture one many things an strange and not intuitive. I never need to search such a lot for simple things.

- Why is the file management so bad?
- Why i can't view files from multiple folders?
- Why i can't edit/open with files from intelligent folders?
- Why is there no before/after view?
- Why C1 can't handle Photoshop files?
- Why are 1,5 GB TIFF are so slow to view?
- Why does the Local Adjustment controls with Wacom works so other than in PS (Zoom/Scroll)
- Why does the rubber on pen doesn't work and do undo the mask on layer?
- Why i can't set ocupacity to layes?
- Why i can't do repairing from several spots on one layer?
- Why i can't stack equal Images?

I think C1 is great in the core abilities (RAW Converter) and the ability to work on layers in the converter is great, but the way isn't gone until the end. Sessions are good, but the file management needs really to be improved. Also the workflow to Photoshop or other external tools is not so good as it can be.

If C1 would be a car it had a very powerful engine, but the car body feels weak.
I buyed C1 pro now and traded some IQ vs workflow performance. But i wish and hope P1 will do there homework.

Regards
Enrico
0

Comments

13 comments

Date Votes
  • David Tavan
    Same question for me about tiff files, I already contacted support they told me that multilayered tiff files aren't supported by c1 ???
    Support of these tiff files is planned or not ???
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    This is what happens when a company like Phase One bows to pressure (usually from a small but vocal minority of its customer base) to make a solid Raw converter into a Photoshop replacement.

    In the UK we use the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none"...
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    to make a solid Raw converter into a Photoshop replacement


    No, i don't see so, a raw converter these days is also a image management system. And if i bring options to do a basic PS work into the converter is very great, but it needs to be useable. Ok it's useable but it could be much better and i think those improvements are easy to do without to lose focus on the basics.

    And a easy connection to PS and back and performance are major things, what every1 need.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="E.Heller" wrote:
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:


    And a easy connection to PS and back and performance are major things, what every1 need.


    Well, I don't need it. I don't have and have never had PS. (Except for PSE V2 (iirc) which came with a rather nice little Pentax pocket camera but I don't think I ever used it.)

    Am I unique?



    Grant
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    Grant.

    No you are not unique. I don't have Photoshop, and I very rarely use any other external application - when I do it is more likely to be something affordable like GIMP, PSE, or more recently Affinity Photo. And if there is something I can't do in C1, and need to go out to something else, I don't really see why I would want to round-trip it.

    I agree with you that I don't want a great RAW converter to try to be a Photoshop replacement.

    Ian
    0
  • HansB
    My workflow is
    1st step) RAW development
    2nd step) Retouching

    I do the RAW development in CO. And, usually, that's all I do. But some images, like fashion- or beauty shots, sometimes need some retouching. Here I go for AP or PS. PS and AP allow me to maintain the original skin texture while still giving me the retouch I need. I also go AP or PS to remove objects from nature shots. A retouching software can do it better than a RAW development software.

    One great software for RAW development and one great software for retouching. That's the way I think it should be. I don't like these blown up all in one programs. Too many tools for too many and too different purposes. Unhandy in use, distracting, and never as good as a specialized software.

    Let PS be PS, AP be AP, and CO be CO. Please!

    Nevertheless, I like the idea to bring the final image back into CO to store and view it side by side with the RAW and the developed version. A TIFF is fine. But I don't need layers for that. And it's not really a round trip, because I never use CO again on images that I exported to PS or AP.


    Regards,
    Hans
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Am I unique?

    Nope, same here. I export and save my conversions, then - seperately - PP them. No need here for "round-tripping".

    Actually, this underlines my point: when everyone (like Enrico) assumes that if he wants something, everyone else "must" want it too, you get a sense of the pressure that software companies come under to add more and more bells and whistles.

    [quote="E.Heller" wrote:
    a raw converter these days is also a image management system

    Again, just because you say it doesn't make it true, Enrico. I don't use Capture One (or any other converter) as an "image management system": I use it (and Lightroom, which as you know, also provides DAM functionality) only as converters; and in fact my favourite converter - Photo Ninja - doesn't even come close to trying to provide DAM functions: it's a Raw converter only, and all the better for doing only one thing, extraordinarily well.

    And (before Phase One pulled the plug on it for non Sony users) I much preferred Capture One Express over Pro, again because it was just a converter.

    My image management is separated from my Raw conversion and PP, which means I can be "converter agnostic" and use Capture One, Lightroom, Photo Ninja or DxO Optics Pro (all of which provide their own strengths and weaknesses) without becoming tied in to a single converter out of habit, because it also happens to be my DAM.

    And crucially, I can do everything I want with regard to layer opacity, local adjustments, big tiffs, object removal and so on, in Photoshop - which has been designed, and developed over many years, to excel at these tasks.

    Trying retrospectively to shoe-horn stuff like this into a converter invariably falls short...

    [quote="HansB" wrote:
    My workflow is
    1st step) RAW development
    2nd step) Retouching

    Yep, me too, Hans.
    0
  • Andriy.Okhrimets
    This so ridiculous 😊
    C1 is a great RAW converting and tethering software, other feature are extra, like DAM, file managment, layers etc.
    They are there to simplify your workflow, in way how C1 thinks it is most suitable.
    If you need something else C1 greatly integrates with file based aproach, or with Lightroom as DAM.

    Personally I do use a lot C1 catalogs and find it useful, for sorting out RAW files from single client and filtering them.
    And then I store C1 catalogs per client. But again C1 will never be a PhotoShop replacement.
    0
  • NN635770922769309595UL
    Agree with the "this is ridiculous" sentiment in the later posts. First of all, C1 has a great RAW engine, a very nice and flexible DAM, and works like a dream calling Affinity Photo as external editor for the relatively few tasks where the current version of C1 is a somewhat limited.

    However, my main problem with some of the posts is their "Why can't/doesn't C1 do X like Photoshop" mantra. Why in the name of all that's wonderful should it? If anyone finds PS so great, good for them - just go use it and stop wasting space here.

    But I'm not holding my breath on that - I've been an Affinity Photo user since well before moving to C1 (another case of R.I.P Aperture ...) and the same happens in their beta development Forum, sad to say.
    0
  • Andriy.Okhrimets
    Yeh, hatters gonna hate, but C1 is C1. I keep hearing same stuff about limited layers since they appeared in raw editor.
    But hey for example Photoshop lacks that feature at all. It starts to work with image when it is converted into DNG while C1 supports layers on top or RAW file data which is a beast.
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    [quote="E.Heller" wrote:
    ...
    And a easy connection to PS and back and performance are major things, what every1 need.

    Works fine as long as you work with TIFFs, not PSD and no alpha channels
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    If the majority of C1 user, love to use multiple tools to do a job, then should c1 remove bonus feature and everything is fine. But i really think most of the users want to have file management, raw converter, basic correction in one tool.

    I can't really imagine that if c1 would do everything perfect until to the connection to ps (or every other tool), that ppl still would prefere multiple tools.

    Generally and thats the point of my feedback, the tool is great with some weaks, whichone can easy adjusted to make a better tool.

    I'm not a professional photographer, in this case i would search workarounds to do my job. I'm a software developer and in this case i try make things better. I really like C1 and because of this i waste my breath to give feedback in the hope the software will be improved.

    Personally I do use a lot C1 catalogs and find it useful, for sorting out RAW files from single client and filtering them


    I use sessions for this, and this is great but i still can't stack shoots from the same setting


    But again C1 will never be a PhotoShop replacement.


    It never can be a PS replacement

    Works fine as long as you work with TIFFs, not PSD and no alpha channels


    as long as
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    [quote="E.Heller" wrote:
    ...
    I'm not a professional photographer, in this case i would search workarounds to do my job. I'm a software developer and in this case i try make things better. I really like C1 and because of this i waste my breath to give feedback in the hope the software will be improved.

    Hi Enrico,
    As a personal note I wanted to let you know I appreaciate your feedback on CO8. I find it in particular well articulated. Different kind of users have their unique point of view from which we all benefit in the long run. Thanks.
    0

Post is closed for comments.