V4.1 - surprise, surprise
Well, I guess it should come as no surprise really, but there are none, yes NONE of the features we've all been moaning about that were missing in v4 from v3LE in the new release.
These include:
- no 'develops' sub-folder option
- no centralised cache
- no cache management capability
- no image tagging
- no 'sticking' profiles
- seriously limited preference options
Keyboard shortcuts have probably not been changed either.
The release notes talk about many new features. Would someone like to list them, or at least the ones that don't involve PO Backs?
I'm on the verge of giving up on PO now after a good few years.
Sad really.
Iain
PS Don't get excited by the 200Mb download, it's all due to multi-language User Guides.
These include:
- no 'develops' sub-folder option
- no centralised cache
- no cache management capability
- no image tagging
- no 'sticking' profiles
- seriously limited preference options
Keyboard shortcuts have probably not been changed either.
The release notes talk about many new features. Would someone like to list them, or at least the ones that don't involve PO Backs?
I'm on the verge of giving up on PO now after a good few years.
Sad really.
Iain
PS Don't get excited by the 200Mb download, it's all due to multi-language User Guides.
0
-
All I wanted was a Centrlised Cache, ah well there's alway 4.2! so it will be back to Lightroom for me now...
☹️0 -
From what I see, 4.1 is targeting P back users, DSLR users have to wait 4.2 to see more features. 0 -
[quote="edb" wrote:
DSLR users have to wait 4.2 to see more features.
That's what was said after the betas, then 4.0, then 4.01 and now 4.1.
It seems quite clear after all this time that PO are moving in a direction that is different to what their old v3 customer base wants.
Shame.0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
These include:
- no 'develops' sub-folder option
- no centralised cache
- no cache management capability
- no image tagging
- no 'sticking' profiles
- seriously limited preference options
Preferences? 😄
There's a new function "copy icc profile from previous"... but I couldn't find out how this might work... works with "copy/apply adjustments" but it's obviously complicated (means: slow).
- still no fixed viewing size smaller than 25% (terrible to adjust something with the borders of browser and tools directly beside the image... oh my...)
- still soft previews (absolute no-no)
- Keybord: CTRL+ 1-9 to jump to the different tools... wow, great idea. WHY DON'T YOU CODE THE TAB STOP KEY TO GO THE NEXT... NEXT... NEXT... tab ... or F1 to F8 or something practicable.
No shortcut to hide/show tools, browser and menu together in one step.
- Does not load all regular icc pofiles from the system folder
(color management is really great in C1. But there are still too much things incompatible as profiles in V4specs, AdobeCMM )
- ...I'm on the verge of giving up on PO now after a good few years.
yes. But there is no real alternative ... unfortunately.
☹️0 -
It maybe a long time coming, but IMO its a small step in the right direction.
Some of the bugs have been ironed out, although the pixelation issues still remain at intermediate zoom sizes. Not good when compared to the competition.
The ability to create your own profiles is back . Good news!
It seems as though there's been some tweaks to the render engine as it focuses differently to v4.01.
My only real gripe is that most of the new features seem to be geared towards PO/Mamiya users, which is one on the eye for existing customers.
I still prefer C14 rendering to LR or ACR, so I'll stay with it for a while longer.
Let's hope we don't have to wait another 3 months to get some of the key bugs fixed.0 -
I give up. Why did I think Phase One even cared about it's loyal users? Time to move on and find a better company who won't screw it's users over. 0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
- Keybord: CTRL+ 1-9 to jump to the different tools... wow, great idea. WHY DON'T YOU CODE THE TAB STOP KEY TO GO THE NEXT... NEXT... NEXT... tab ... or F1 to F8 or something practicable.
Ctrl+Tab will go to the next tab, Ctrl+Shift+Tab to the previous.
The F-keys are already taken for other things, F1 to open the help file, F2 to rename files (like in Win Explorer)
F7 is for making a new Variant (without any changes made), F8 for making a new variant with copying all the change you have made.0 -
It is a tiny bit better.
But it still does not support:- In directory renaming - I need it to merge files from multiple cameras. Renaming on output is no good because I want to rename the RAW and keep the filename consistent through the rest of my workflow
No IPTC support
I have to make extra mouse movements to step through the browser when making adjustments
I will stick with 3.7.8 for my main processing and only use 4.1 to convert my DNG files now my LR 2 beta has expired.
I will continue to wait for Pro but it is now an availability race between Pro and Lightroom 2.0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
I'm on the verge of giving up on PO now after a good few years.
yes. But there is no real alternative ... unfortunately.
☹️
Er, can't agree I'm afraid.
Lightroom is a fantastic product which I have grown to love over the last year, and even ACR with the new v4 engine - same as LR - is light years ahead of C1 in terms of functionality and (arguably) IQ.
Bibble is there for those who can stand the awful UI - good functionality and IQ conversions though.
Iain0 -
[quote="dodgetigger" wrote:
Oh yes - THANK YOU!
Ctrl+Tab will go to the next tab, Ctrl+Shift+Tab to the previous.0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
Due to the seriously limited color management options I'll never use ACR or LR.
Er, can't agree I'm afraid.
Lightroom is a fantastic product which I have grown to love over the last year, and even ACR with the new v4 engine - same as LR - is light years ahead of C1 in terms of functionality and (arguably) IQ.
Too, workflow is quite slow.
But the Camera RAW-4 engine is definitely better as CameraRAW-V3. In terms of picture quality (details) it's very close to C1 (no real differences - but dark tonal values still have better gradation and details in C1... from my point of view).0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
Due to the seriously limited color management options I'll never use ACR or LR.
and what options are you missing in LR that are present in C1 apart from input camera profiles? Just wondering.
Iain0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
Hi Iain,
and what options are you missing in LR that are present in C1 apart from input camera profiles? Just wondering.Iain
long topic...
The short version: the camera profile and the various output options.
I embed the camera profile in output (always with safety reserve in the histogram). This strategy is lossless and I store these files in my archive (as 16bit TIFs beside the raw files). In Photoshop I have all the tools to convert to any other color space with the help of color warning and so on.
Output: In C1 you can convert to any other color space.
First you can use it as a kind of softproof (if you set paper profiles as working space / output profile).
Second in the case of paper profiles or other LUT-profiles it's really perceptual color conversion straight from the RAW-file.
Third you can convert to any color space.
In ACR/LR output is limited to 4 color spaces that I don't need (in Germany we prefer "ECI-RGB" instead of AdobeRGB for print). And color conversion is always relative colormetric as these 4 profiles are matrix profiles. So in the case of sRGB, AdobeRGB and Color Match RGB you can loose tonal differences in deep tonal values (esp. yellow [brown] and blue). Remains ProPhotoRGB. But especially this color space has more or less pure mathematical character. All the high saturated blues are on Lab 0... which is black... Photoshop shows it as blue (on the display) but in reality it's black.
So the best way to work with ACR/LR is to ouptut a desaturated 16bit TIF with soft contrast in ProPhotoRGB and afterwards optimize it in Photoshop with regard to a "real" color space (which means that one should NOT use all the trendy color tools in ACR/LR).
This is quite similar to the workflow with camera profiles (embeded for output). But the camera profile contains all the captured colors and is at once not bigger as needed. ProPhotoRGB is much bigger. So every little step in color correction and especially gradation is a risk. It works, maybe, but it's a challenge and causes a lot of additional work.
Last but not least: in C1 I can output the same picture in different color spaces without re-adjusting the image... in ACR/LR the image changes dramatically if you set another color space as output. So in ACR/LR you have to adjust a new variant for every color space set as output.
Hope it's reasonable explained?
Best Regards.0 -
Phew! Thanks for the reply.
I can see some of your points OK, but for me, I'm happy working with Adobe RGB and if I need anything else, I just convert in PS. So, the limited number of colour space output options is not a problem for me.
Personally I can't see the point in using the camera profile as output then converting in PS to another, but again aRGB is fine for me.
Instead of using the paper profiles as 'softproofing', I use my paper profile in PS in the softproof view, then I don't have to convert profiles each time. But, again, it's because I'm happy with aRGB (or sRGB for web output). BTW, the lack of softproofing in LR is a major issue that hopefully Adobe will address soon.
I was confused by your comments on LR re-adjusting the image when outputting in different colour spaces. Personally, I can't see this. I can output to different spaces without the image being affected at all. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you on this.
Iain0 -
something about the installer size.
210 MB is huge. think about thousands of people out there without broadband-connections.
tons of megabytes of useless manuals in foreign languages packed in this installer is totally bizarre.
maybe this makes it easier for you, but what's a about the idea to make it easier for the customer?
please make optional downloads for the manuals and keep the installer as small as possible.
doesen't help to develop better pictures but saves time, money and nerves for many users out there.
thanks in advance0 -
The installer is quite big, this will be corrected by compression over the next couple of days. 0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
Sure. But you convert the AdobeRGB file... not the original file.
if I need anything else, I just convert in PS.Instead of using the paper profiles as 'softproofing', I use my paper profile in PS in the softproof view
me too. But I use some paper (or other) profiles in C1 to check what is going to happen afterwards. I do not optimize straight to a certain printer in C1 - it's just control.
I know that there are are not so much people caring about this features. But me I like and use them a lot.I was confused by your comments on LR re-adjusting the image when outputting in different colour spaces.
Did Adobe change the rendering strategy? In Camera RAW 4.1 I can't note this anymore, too... in ACR 3x it happend.0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
An exapmle ...[quote="imacken" wrote:
Sure. But you convert the AdobeRGB file... not the original file.
if I need anything else, I just convert in PS.
crop of a picture in the camera profile with histogram:
the same crop converted to AdobeRGB:
Looks the same but the histogram is different (sure)
now the blue chanel of the AdobeRGB-Tif
Here you can see, that parts of the image (or better the blue chanel) are clipped to black. No way the bring the gradations back... except if you start again from the raw file.
This is normal... no real reason to worry about it. And it happens with other color spaces too. In this case even the blue chanel of ProPhotoRGB gets clipped. But it's obvious that I safe all the images details in the camera profile... not in any other color space.
So once the image is converted you may loose data (mostly).0 -
Thowi,
could you be so kind and ive me a hint where did you get the ECI-RGB profile and how you integrate it in PO ver. 4.1
Sincerely Yours0 -
[quote="tib" wrote:
Thowi,
could you be so kind and ive me a hint where did you get the ECI-RGB profile and how you integrate it in PO ver. 4.1
Sincerely Yours
Sure. Here you are.
You should read the short documentation and maybe the whitepaper too.
http://eci.org/doku.php?id=en:coloursta ... olorspaces
ECI Whitepaper (Pdf): http://tinyurl.com/5mvjfc
There are two profiles with the same gamut but different tonalvalue reproduction curve (TRC).
ECI-RGB V2 is a visual equidistant working space for media-independent storage of print data. This version makes sense if your display ist calibrated to a linear tonalvalue reproduction curve (L*).
Otherwise you should take the V1-profile!!
In the case that you use the L* version:
There are 2 versions oft the ECI-RGBV2 color space: one in ICC-specification V2, one in ICC-specification V4.
Previous versions of Capture One crashed when I set the V4spec profile. C1 V4.1 does not list the V4spec profile.
So you should better take the V2spec version.
Profiles:
http://eci.org/doku.php?id=en:downloads
Direct links to the profiles (zip):
ECI-RGB V1 (TRC = Gamma 1.8 ): http://tinyurl.com/59mu8u
ECI-RGB V2 (TRC = L*): http://tinyurl.com/5d7kqy
The profile must be copied to:
c/windows/system32/spool/drivers/color
C1 will load it from the system folder.0 -
del 0 -
Thanks very much Towi!
No problem so far with v2 inside PO 4.1.
Do you have experience with image quality prints - I have an epson 4800 - printing with eci-rgb vs. aobe-rgb profiles for 8 bit tif /jpg files?!?
Best regards0 -
[quote="tib" wrote:
No problem so far with v2 inside PO 4.1.
With the "eciRGB_v2_ICCv4.icc" or with the "eciRGB_v2.icc"?Do you have experience with image quality prints - I have an epson 4800 - printing with eci-rgb vs. aobe-rgb profiles for 8 bit tif /jpg files?!?
I don't know the Epson.
Basically color spaces with high gamma (eg. AdobeRGB with gamma 2.2) causing a loss of tonal differences when converted to printer color spaces (mostly around gamma 1.8 ).
AdobeRGB squanders 25 tonal values for the 5 darkest visible luminance values (L=0 to L=5). For the first two visible luminance values (L=0 to L=2) it need 17 tonal values. So around 10% of the color space differentiates in a range that is more or less unprintable... it's just noise.
If AdobeRGB is converted to a color space with gamma 1.8 the darkest tonal values are compressed - eg. the range of L=0 to L=5 are 25 tonal values in AdobeRGB and just 13 in ISO coated offset print - result: gaps in the gradation.
Gradation L=0 to L=5 in AdobeRGB (RGB 0-0-0 to RGB 24-24-24):
converted to Fuji Chromira RGB photoprinter:
converted to inkjet glossy (average printer):
converted to ISOcoated (offset print):
In a 16bit workflow it's different and you will not have the problems with AdobeRGB. In this case you need the final printer profile, convert the 16bit AdobeRGB file in Photoshop into the printer profile, than switch to 8bit mode and print the converted file without colormanagment.0 -
I think we should wait until the pro version comes out before we start making accusations. As of now I don't care so much for the program but you do have an option to still use the older versions. Still waiting for x3f support. 0 -
[quote="Larry Carter" wrote:
I think we should wait until the pro version comes out before we start making accusations.
Why? It's the missing features from v3 LE that we have been moaning on about for months. Nothing to do with the PRO version.0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
[quote="Larry Carter" wrote:
I think we should wait until the pro version comes out before we start making accusations.
Why? It's the missing features from v3 LE that we have been moaning on about for months. Nothing to do with the PRO version.
Is there a gun to your head making you use 4.0+? Of course you do have the right to gripe but to be fair, PhaseOne also has the right to do what they want with their software. If you don't like 4.0+ use 3.0+ or buy something else. Evidently it seems PhaseOne is saving some of these functions for the Pro edtion for marketing reasons. Pure speculation on my part on that. I think PhaseOne is smart enough to know what their strategy is as far as marketing this product. Whether it is pisses some people off, why would they care if they can pick up a more lucrative market in another direction.
I'm not one who really liked PhaseOne even in the past. I was basically sucked into buying it because of their past SE version and they did have a reputation of great RAW converters, which they smartly stopped SE to lock those users into the Pro version for more money. Now I'm just more or less curious on how they can handle none mosaic type RAWs. Which will probably never happen. But what can I do about that, nothing. Either you can learn to like 4.0+ or go another direction. I don't think whining at this point will change anything, evidently there seems to be more people that do like the new interface.0 -
Sadly Larry, you're missing the point.
There have been many loyal C1 users who have been very annoyed by the PO strategy wrt to v4. We were promised an 'upgrade' from LE and we didn't get it. The improvement to the UI is little comfort for the fact that a lot of the features - that made v3LE workflow great - have gone.
You say that PO are smart and they don't mind 'p**ing off' some people. Well, you are right, but that doesn't excuse their behaviour, i.e. totally ignoring the requests of many users at the beta stage for the 'missing features' to be returned.
Worst of all, not at any stage did they come out and say, 'look guys, these great features are not coming back'. Far from it, there have been hints over the last few months that we should wait for 4.1 and see what'll happen. Well, we have waited, and the answer is nothing has happened. A lot of users have just gone and left PO after this fiasco.
Of course I don't have a gun to my head, and over the last year I have moved 99% to LR/PS from C1/PS in the past. C1 has been left way behind. I still however return to this forum regularly in the vain hope that PO would eventually listen to their loyal (past) users.
You say there are more people who like the new interface. 'More people' than what exactly? If you've read the hundreds of posts here over the last few months, you'll find precious few who are happy with v4, and as I said earlier, it has nothing to do with the interface. The interface is fine - no complaints about it at all - a big improvement over v3.
But, I think you're point about SE users being 'locked into PRO for more money' is about to happen for LE users too.
Still, I won't be one of them, and I know many others who won't either.
A pity really, but there you are.0 -
[quote="thowi" wrote:
Here you can see, that parts of the image (or better the blue chanel) are clipped to black.
Thowi, I'm very interested in what you have said here.
I developed the same image using LR to aRGB and C1 v4 to aRGB and my camera profile.
See the blue channel dumps here
http://www.eyemack.co.uk/comp1.jpg
Both C1s seem similar and the LR doesn't clip. Am I misunderstanding your point here?
Thanks
Iain0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
Sadly Larry, you're missing the point.
There have been many loyal C1 users who have been very annoyed by the PO strategy wrt to v4. We were promised an 'upgrade' from LE and we didn't get it. The improvement to the UI is little comfort for the fact that a lot of the features - that made v3LE workflow great - have gone.
You say that PO are smart and they don't mind 'p**ing off' some people. Well, you are right, but that doesn't excuse their behaviour, i.e. totally ignoring the requests of many users at the beta stage for the 'missing features' to be returned.
Worst of all, not at any stage did they come out and say, 'look guys, these great features are not coming back'. Far from it, there have been hints over the last few months that we should wait for 4.1 and see what'll happen. Well, we have waited, and the answer is nothing has happened. A lot of users have just gone and left PO after this fiasco.
Of course I don't have a gun to my head, and over the last year I have moved 99% to LR/PS from C1/PS in the past. C1 has been left way behind. I still however return to this forum regularly in the vain hope that PO would eventually listen to their loyal (past) users.
You say there are more people who like the new interface. 'More people' than what exactly? If you've read the hundreds of posts here over the last few months, you'll find precious few who are happy with v4, and as I said earlier, it has nothing to do with the interface. The interface is fine - no complaints about it at all - a big improvement over v3.
But, I think you're point about SE users being 'locked into PRO for more money' is about to happen for LE users too.
Still, I won't be one of them, and I know many others who won't either.
A pity really, but there you are.
Maybe I am missing the point. But I do know that no matter how much I complained in the past to C1/PS about v3, nothing was done in reference to my biggest complaint regarding RAW display speed when zooming. So I've come to the conclusion I was wasting my time even suggesting to get better coding. I just wanted the same video performance of Photoshop. I see now in v4 the same delay of redrawing the RAW on the zoom is still there. Either they can't do better coding or they just don't think it's important enough. Basically all I'm saying is no matter how much people complain to these people it won't help and take the program for what it is or get something else. All I can say is good luck in your quest.
If I remember correctly C1 was only going to support so called professional dSLR cameras and when they started to support junk like Canon G type cameras and other crummy P&S and dSLRs, I decided to ask for support to non mosaic format like the X3F, at least this gets pro results. And of course no help there either. Sorry I had to stick this paragraph in my futile attempt for support. 😉0 -
[quote="imacken" wrote:
No, I don't think that you are misunderstanding.
Both C1s seem similar and the LR doesn't clip. Am I misunderstanding your point here?
It depends on the subject. Or better on the subjects colors. For most of the subjects even in highend photography sRGB is big enough and contains (nearly) all the captured colors. Maybe about 10% of photos need more than sRGB.
The problem are basically not the high saturated colors but the dark tonal values especially in yellow (brown).
So you will find a lot of captures without any problems like shown above. But sometimes you will find some. But as I don't want to change my workflow for each single images (after checking which colors it really contains) I always embed the camera profile.
Too it depends on the camera profiles. From my point of view the different camera profiles for my P45 work quite well. For DSLRs (generic camera profiles) the color spaces are huge... a kind of "over gamut" to cover different light temperatures. Nevertheless: they are working, too. And are not as montrous as ProPhotoRGB.
By the way: I like the 2 histograms in C1 V4 - one input, one output histogram 😉0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
30 comments