Why is the topic 'capture one 5 known issues' locked?
I have 4 more to add!
0
-
everyone has a few to add... I think.
But they may only be present on their particular system.
The list should stick on top of the forum...0 -
If you read the first line of the post Jon says (about Phase One) "I will update as I hear from them" - i.e. HE will update the post with the 'issues' and not make it a free-for-all which will probably get out of control 😊
This obviously means only general reproducible issues seen and recognized by P1 will be included and not every 'quirk' with peoples individual hardware/software combinations...
And yes, it should be a 'sticky' IMO
EDIT - Err.. why has my post count gone back to 1 ?? 🤓 I'm sure it was on 20 or something... 🙄0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
everyone has a few to add... I think.
But they may only be present on their particular system.
The list should stick on top of the forum...
There are plenty of issues that are common to all users;
selection borders that are too small
metadata stripping that is getting worse not better
network performance that is worse than v4 (which in turn was abysmal in comparison to v3)0 -
[quote="Robert71" wrote:
sure? maybe just on certain systems...? I don't know.
There are plenty of issues that are common to all usersselection borders that are too small
this is not an "issue" in the intended sense, this is how it is designed. You may dislike the design and that's understandable, but it's not an "issue".metadata stripping that is getting worse not better
what's the problem here?network performance that is worse than v4 (which in turn was abysmal in comparison to v3)
again: on all networks or just particular networks?0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
[quote="Robert71" wrote:
what's the problem here?
metadata stripping that is getting worse not better
Well we find metadata really useful. Lots of photographers do. We go to some lengths to put metadata in our raw files. Capture One versions 4 and 5 undo that good work by removing metadata. 5 is worse than 4. 4 is worse than 3. v3 was actually very good, all metadata was passed to the processed file.
So to answer your question, the problem is that a valuable part of the image file is being removed by C1.0 -
[quote="Robert71" wrote:
Okay, I see.
the problem is that a valuable part of the image file is being removed by C1.
Never noticed that as the Phase Backs do not pass a lot of data. So there's literally nothing to strip 😊0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
[quote="Robert71" wrote:
this is not an "issue" in the intended sense, this is how it is designed. You may dislike the design and that's understandable, but it's not an "issue".
selection borders that are too small
OK, this is just semantics. Would it make the moderator happy if the topic title used the word "problems" instead of "issues"?
The topic is clearly designed as a single place for C1 users to outline the dramas they're having with v5, whether they be user interface design botches, slow network behaviour which may or may not be their own d**m fault (even though v3 and every other bit of imaging software works fine!) poor metadata handling - whatever0 -
[quote="Robert71" wrote:
no. Jon's issue list is something like half official enhanced release notes. P1 would never print in the release notes that some users may find the selection borders too small.
The topic is clearly designed as a single place for C1 users to outline the dramas they're having with v5, whether they be user interface design botches, slow network behaviour which may or may not be their own d**m fault (even though v3 and every other bit of imaging software works fine!) poor metadata handling - whatever
I am finding the interface shitty dark. However I don't expect that someone will publish that in the release notes.0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
[quote="Robert71" wrote:
Okay, I see.
the problem is that a valuable part of the image file is being removed by C1.
Never noticed that as the Phase Backs do not pass a lot of data. So there's literally nothing to strip 😊
I think you're talking about EXIF data (not sure). EXIF is only a part of metadata, the part that most cameras add. It includes capture time, lens used, exposure details, make and often serial number of the camera.
We also add a myriad of keywording, captioning, location and copyright metadata. Apart from establishing the images as ours, it includes licensing information, talent and talent agency names (to help clients track talent usage). Having all this ripped out of the files is less than happy making 🤬0 -
[quote="Robert71" wrote:
Quite understandable.
We also add a myriad of keywording, captioning, location and copyright metadata. Apart from establishing the images as ours, it includes licensing information, talent and talent agency names (to help clients track talent usage). Having all this ripped out of the files is less than happy making 🤬
Do you write those infos in the RAW files or the processed files? Maybe this issue is related to Phase One's philosophy that an "original", so the RAW, should never be touched. I don't know.
Too, is there actually any binding standard today? Whenever I open my files in different softwares they always show different items (those that match are the same of course, but one software shows tags another software will not show etc.).0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
Do you write those infos in the RAW files or the processed files? Maybe this issue is related to Phase One's philosophy that an "original", so the RAW, should never be touched. I don't know.
We write to the RAW file using PhotoMechanic.
Capture One v 3 behaved perfectly with embedded metadata. Capture One v4 originally wasn't passing the metadata to the converted file, P1 improved matters slightly round v4.8 I think.
Version 5 is a disaster. Not only does it not pass the metadata to the converted file, it strips all the embedded metadata from the RAW files as soon as you open the session! So even if you go back to v3 the metadata is gone and need rebuilding from scratch.
Capture One v5 is worse than useless to me until this is fixed.0 -
Metadata is extremely important to me as well. I use it to sort and file images and I was hoping that C1 v5 took advantage so I could filter, sort and search for the tags I assign (and settings too).
So, this isn't a great solution, but if you're using Windows, it is possible to use Microsoft's Pro Photo Tools (free) to quickly re-assign metadata (tags, ratings, settings, camera stuff, and GPS coordinates via map or device). It's not the best tool, but could get the job done in a semi-batch sort of way.
TTFN
Gregg0 -
[quote="Robert71" wrote:
Not only does it not pass the metadata to the converted file, it strips all the embedded metadata from the RAW files as soon as you open the session!
As I see it, c1-4 and 5 strip the metadata that they claim to support, as well as the "IPTC Photo Metadata Standard's" "IPTC Extended" fields. (see here for definitions http://www.iptc.org/cms/site/index.html?channel=CH0099) Non supported fields survive, which ain't much in c1-5! Therefore the issue is worsening not improving.0 -
[quote="gregger" wrote:
it is possible to use Microsoft's Pro Photo Tools (free) to quickly re-assign metadata (tags, ratings, settings, camera stuff, and GPS coordinates via map or device).
Hi Gregger. (BTW I work for Robert71) Thanks, we do have a piece of software (photomechanic) that makes metadata entry quick and quite painless, the problem is that the library of images is huge and in some cases the information entered would be very hard to track down again, as Robert has said in this or another thread, we embed information about loading periods, model releases, clients licences etc as well as the usual who what where whens. Thanks for the input though. Positivity is always welcomed. Speaking of positive... cue Eric Idle... We have unbeknownst to us already stripped out a lot of information in the course of using C1-4, thankfully due to it's extremely limited metadata support there's enough left to rebuild the missing fields!0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
14 comments