I am getting V20 upgrade notices. What are the new features?

Comments

77 comments

  • Robert Farhi
    Sorry, there is a Non Disclosure Agreement, and except if you are beta-testers, no information is available yet.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Kip Vaughan
    Why are they sending out ads for it then?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN636934704713702443" wrote:
    Why are they sending out ads for it then?


    To offer you a discount.

    Or rather to offer existing V12 users a discount for a product that one might assume would be V12 plus some useful additions rather than a totally re-engineered application (since that would attract a lot more PR attention I would suspect.)

    It's how they work things. It also means that if, perhaps for some technical reason dumped upon the developers by an external supplier/influencer, some previously heavily promoted features needs to be dropped at the last minute ... it won't be too much of a problem managing expectations.

    Some companies take a different approach. Other do much the same thing though perhaps with a few leaks along the way.

    Before C1 I used a product (paid for) that went for the Linux market and then attempted an total re-write (forced into it by Microsoft and Mac policy decisions and development tools) It looked like it would have been a great product but they folded before is became more than a UI demo.

    Development took a lot longer than they had hoped. People stopped buying the existing product awaiting the new one. Very sad. It was an excellent tool.

    On the plus side I decided I needed to discover C1.

    That was quite a long time ago now.

    Grant
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Kip Vaughan
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="NNN636934704713702443" wrote:
    To offer you a discount.


    But a discount for what? I can't just assume it's a good update. Affinity Photo offers a number of advantages over C1 as far as basic editing, one example it's easier to edit an extensive number of dust spots without a limit. If C1 took away the limit and caught up to AP I would be tempted to get the update but I don't know if it does that yet.

    Presumingly if they are already advertising the update is just around the corner. If that is the case I can't imagine them cutting massive amounts of features to get it out the door at this point.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Mike Katz
    I'd say it's one of two things:

    1) This is just their quirky way of doing upgrades. I remember last time they announced the upgrade only when it was ready, and the cutoff date for free upgrades for new users upset a lot of people. Perhaps they are trying to ignore that.

    2) The new features are not that explosive, so they are trying to ensure sales. For a long time, RAW developers didn't have to worry about upgrades, because we were all happy to upgrade our cameras more frequently, and so we needed the latest version of the software. There seems to be a cooling off of camera upgrades, as well as a reduction in new sales, hence this issue. (And hence the deals with Fuji and Sony).

    Just in general, though, I think it's getting tougher for Capture One. The new crop of software from developers who used to just make add-ons, such as Topaz, OneOne, Luminar, etc., all now ingest Raw files and perform full pixel editing, a la Photoshop, in one relatively inexpensive package. In these days of fancy filters on your phone and in these packages, Capture One can look a bit like a dinosaur.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Kip Vaughan
    I have noticed that photo browsing tools have come with some advanced Photoshop like tools. For an example the Pixelmator Pro extension in Apple Photos can not only do adjustment like C1 but regular layers. I have to wonder how long they can do the adjustment layer only route. Also Affinity not only has a good iPad photo app out but should have a full suite out by around this time next year. There is a lot of ground to cover.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Kip Vaughan
    Also to address the point about not knowing if a feature will make it into the next major update. Even when this happens they always have the option of adding the feature back into a point release. One of the features I really wanted in the next version of Quark 2019 got cut but they were able to add it back a month or two after the first major release. That is fine. As long as it is coming soon I think most people are ok with doing it that way.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • SFA
    As far as Affinity and PS are concerned there are some very different aspects to the way that they work compared to C1.

    The most obvious, which is probably one of the primary differentiators for how things will develop, is that Affinity (to use that as an example only because I have it) came out of a long lived WIndows package that, like PS, started out as a graphics editor with scanned image capabilities and had digital photo processing added on - typically using a "Develop" model to replace the scanning pre-digital cameras scanning concept and the wider availability of RAW files.

    As users became more interested in ever improving RAW files (and in Phase's case happened also to be camera designers, developers and application integrators) some RAW Convertors became popular.

    In the main the RAW converters and the wider range of editing (and DAM) functions were all separate entities to a greater or less extent.

    PS, for RAW shooters, expect that a front end application has undertaken the RAW conversion effort and provided a usable file - jpeg if you must be TIFF would be better, later in the process PSD and later still the Adobe inspired DNG standard that is available from some camera and phones.

    But before one gets to the main part of Pixel Editing manipulation there is a still a process of 'Develop", as Affinity terms it.

    Once developed the file is passed to the pixel editor. If you want change something about the strating point file for the pixel editor you need to redevelop the RAW file as a starting point.

    Capture one, in that context, is basically an Extended Developer with a DAM facility that allows people to skip the Pixel editor part of things when producing output. Access to the source file is always available. Indeed it's pretty much a requirement for full functionality. (There are some exceptions that allow for basic editing functionality when using a catalogue that is not encumbered with all of its associated source files when, for example, travelling.)

    So you can dig deep into the unmolested RAW data if you need to.

    If you never need to do that for your photographic satisfaction then something else may suit you well.

    Likewise of all of one's output is highly processed and compressed for web use there is probably a case for suggesting that using most of the more complex editing products would be overkill. The world of vast output from phone cameras seems to be leading people that way anyway. JPG is fine for that - who needs a RAW converter anyway?

    But all of that is only a part of what C1 addresses for a photographer's needs in the wider market.

    For pixel editing at scale and significant graphics processing working from the RAW file may be an unnecessary overhead outside of Fine Art and high precision industrial needs.

    However what I like about C1 is its similarity to what I used before (making the transition quick and easy) and the fact that even way back then with very minimal effort I got results that just looked better.

    I could match them with my previous favourite. For some aspects (at the time) maybe even better them, in my eyes. But it almost always took more time and effort. Over a large shoot - a lot more time and effort.

    So that convinced me at the time, though I fully appreciate that other may come to an entirely different conclusion.

    I do, however, very much appreciate the ability to always get back to the source data and change basic settings if I feel a need to.


    Grant
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="NNN636934704713702443" wrote:
    But a discount for what? I can't just assume it's a good update.

    It's daft, isn't it?

    I'm actually on the beta-test list, so I have a pretty good idea of what 20 is about, but there's no way on God's Green Earth that I'd be prepared to consider investing in such an expensive piece of software, sight unseen.

    By the same token, absent the knowledge that beta-testing provides

    [color=#FF0000:254eax8v]*[/color:254eax8v]

    , I wouldn't dream of upgrading to Capture One 12 (I'm actually still on 8 ) in order to get 20 for free: 12 brings nothing to the table over 8 for me, and there's no discount upgrade route from 8 anyway - I'd be paying full price for 12.

    And then we're back to "what's in 20 for me?" anyway.

    An utterly wrong-headed marketing strategy. I don't even (officially) know if 20 will support the files from my most newly-acquired camera, my Canon M6 Mk II!


    [color=#FF0000:254eax8v]*[/color:254eax8v]

    Don't read anything that - I'm not saying that I will be upgrading to 20, thanks to having a beta version of it.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="NNN636934704713702443" wrote:
    I have noticed that photo browsing tools have come with some advanced Photoshop like tools.

    There's a world of difference between having a tool, and it being any good: AfterShot Pro has many of the tools Capture One has, and yet it's an abysmal "alternative".
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Mike Katz
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    As far as Affinity and PS are concerned there are some very different aspects to the way that they work compared to C1.

    The most obvious, which is probably one of the primary differentiators for how things will develop, is that Affinity (to use that as an example only because I have it) came out of a long lived WIndows package that, like PS, started out as a graphics editor with scanned image capabilities and had digital photo processing added on - typically using a "Develop" model to replace the scanning pre-digital cameras scanning concept and the wider availability of RAW files.

    As users became more interested in ever improving RAW files (and in Phase's case happened also to be camera designers, developers and application integrators) some RAW Convertors became popular.

    In the main the RAW converters and the wider range of editing (and DAM) functions were all separate entities to a greater or less extent.

    PS, for RAW shooters, expect that a front end application has undertaken the RAW conversion effort and provided a usable file - jpeg if you must be TIFF would be better, later in the process PSD and later still the Adobe inspired DNG standard that is available from some camera and phones.

    But before one gets to the main part of Pixel Editing manipulation there is a still a process of 'Develop", as Affinity terms it.

    Once developed the file is passed to the pixel editor. If you want change something about the strating point file for the pixel editor you need to redevelop the RAW file as a starting point.

    Capture one, in that context, is basically an Extended Developer with a DAM facility that allows people to skip the Pixel editor part of things when producing output. Access to the source file is always available. Indeed it's pretty much a requirement for full functionality. (There are some exceptions that allow for basic editing functionality when using a catalogue that is not encumbered with all of its associated source files when, for example, travelling.)

    So you can dig deep into the unmolested RAW data if you need to.

    If you never need to do that for your photographic satisfaction then something else may suit you well.

    Likewise of all of one's output is highly processed and compressed for web use there is probably a case for suggesting that using most of the more complex editing products would be overkill. The world of vast output from phone cameras seems to be leading people that way anyway. JPG is fine for that - who needs a RAW converter anyway?

    But all of that is only a part of what C1 addresses for a photographer's needs in the wider market.

    For pixel editing at scale and significant graphics processing working from the RAW file may be an unnecessary overhead outside of Fine Art and high precision industrial needs.

    However what I like about C1 is its similarity to what I used before (making the transition quick and easy) and the fact that even way back then with very minimal effort I got results that just looked better.

    I could match them with my previous favourite. For some aspects (at the time) maybe even better them, in my eyes. But it almost always took more time and effort. Over a large shoot - a lot more time and effort.

    So that convinced me at the time, though I fully appreciate that other may come to an entirely different conclusion.

    I do, however, very much appreciate the ability to always get back to the source data and change basic settings if I feel a need to.


    Grant


    Hi Grant

    I couldn't agree more. Capture One gives me all the processing I need, and it preserves the original file and the changes I make, so I can easily come back to my edits and tweak them. It extends pure raw processing and can accomplish much of what pixel editors can do, for my use at least.

    This is off topic, though, and the way Phase One are handling the upgrade process is unusual, and not in a good way IMO. They clearly have very talented developers, and limited resources compared to some other companies, and it would be a great shame for the marketing of this superb product to get messed up. Many of us are all in with Capture One, and we want it to stay competitive and grow.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:

    An utterly wrong-headed marketing strategy. I don't even (officially) know if 20 will support the files from my most newly-acquired camera, my Canon M6 Mk II!


    Yeah, communications are lacking in several areas. My hope is that this buy 12 now get 20 later at no extra charge is marketing to address the problem in the past that they gave people that bought the old version a month or less before the new one came out a free upgrade. That created a lot of ill will for those that were close but not quite plus a log of confusion about when to purchase. I would not be surprised if sales took a dip in October because people were afraid to get caught by that problem. This offer helps with that.

    If I am right about the above, when 20 comes out there will be an upgrade price for earlier version owners just like they have in the past.

    The problem with that is I have no idea if my supposition is correct - and no one will say - I asked.

    On the new camera support I think they have the communication backwards. Right now they have a we don't pre announce because there are no guarantees attitude. Well it's technically true, that it is possible some new camera will appear that causes them problems and they cannot add support as quickly as they wanted. But has that ever happened? In my opinion a better approach would be to communicate when a new camera is announced the version they plan to support it in. If some problem appears they can then communicate that they had some issues that still need to be resolved and they will have it fixed for the next version. My guess is they will not ever need to say that. Instead they continually have this problem that we are in the dark about even if new camera X is going to be supported. We have to assume they will add support in the next release based on the fact that they have in the past. That's crazy - OK It annoying 😊
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • SFA
    Hi Mike,

    Well I have to say it is a somewhat unusual approach compared to previous years and to what other companies do in this era of almost everything seemingly being leaked in advance. Sometimes a long way in advance.

    That said I am reminded of the old saying that applies in some way to any approach that one might take.

    "One can can all of the people happy some of the time and some of the people happy all of the time but one can't keep all of the people happy all of the time."

    Whatever the strategy may turn out to be this time in the next few weeks it does seem to be trying to addressing some of the issues raised last time. Will people be happy? See my quote above.

    Not knowing what is likely to be included (unless one is a beta tester and the process is some way along process) is probably frustrating for many although my personal observations over the years have been that the new features and functions have generally been worth having - in recent times that was especially the case if one was a Mac user.

    I would imagine it will be the same this time (although the major Mac movement has already been addressed by V12.1.4 for those requiring the OS support update) ... but with the caveat inherent in my quote above.

    The question of pricing compared to perceived value is always an individual matter and generally likely to be quite different from person to person. In general the world (but by no means everyone for every product) is tending towards accepting the sort of "subscription" model for renting ones life - especially where, for example, cars or mobile phones are involved. (Just a couple of examples for certain markets - there are many others.)

    Having accepted that I get the impression that most people, most of the time just go with whatever they have chosen and don't really consider how things are developing very often.

    However, that does not apply to everyone.

    Maybe the C1 team will will offer some guidance before the discount offer concludes. If not one might assume that people really ought not to be too put out if they have decided it's better to not take up the offer if they don't know what is adding to the product. They potentially risk that decision costing them a few units of currency and might feel that is worth it as a precaution for their buying policy. It's not like it a life or death decision or a one off one time opportunity to buy.

    Just my thoughts.


    Grant
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Mike Katz
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Hi Mike,

    Well I have to say it is a somewhat unusual approach compared to previous years and to what other companies do in this era of almost everything seemingly being leaked in advance. Sometimes a long way in advance.

    That said I am reminded of the old saying that applies in some way to any approach that one might take.

    "One can can all of the people happy some of the time and some of the people happy all of the time but one can't keep all of the people happy all of the time."

    Whatever the strategy may turn out to be this time in the next few weeks it does seem to be trying to addressing some of the issues raised last time. Will people be happy? See my quote above.

    Not knowing what is likely to be included (unless one is a beta tester and the process is some way along process) is probably frustrating for many although my personal observations over the years have been that the new features and functions have generally been worth having - in recent times that was especially the case if one was a Mac user.

    I would imagine it will be the same this time (although the major Mac movement has already been addressed by V12.1.4 for those requiring the OS support update) ... but with the caveat inherent in my quote above.

    The question of pricing compared to perceived value is always an individual matter and generally likely to be quite different from person to person. In general the world (but by no means everyone for every product) is tending towards accepting the sort of "subscription" model for renting ones life - especially where, for example, cars or mobile phones are involved. (Just a couple of examples for certain markets - there are many others.)

    Having accepted that I get the impression that most people, most of the time just go with whatever they have chosen and don't really consider how things are developing very often.

    However, that does not apply to everyone.

    Maybe the C1 team will will offer some guidance before the discount offer concludes. If not one might assume that people really ought not to be too put out if they have decided it's better to not take up the offer if they don't know what is adding to the product. They potentially risk that decision costing them a few units of currency and might feel that is worth it as a precaution for their buying policy. It's not like it a life or death decision or a one off one time opportunity to buy.

    Just my thoughts.


    Grant



    Hi Grant

    Agree. I'm an always update kind of guy, the price is low relative to new hardware, and the software is just as important. And upgrades are always worthwhile, even if they are not dramatic - there's also stability and other considerations. So I for one am happy with the pre-order discount option, even though I don't know what's coming.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="IanL" wrote:
    Yeah, communications are lacking in several areas.

    It's not just the lack of communication, Ian - the specific message from Phase One amounts to:

    We won't tell you what's in 20, but you should take a blind leap of faith and - in effect - buy it from us while it's cheap, anyway...

    On what planet is that a fair, sensible offer?
    My hope is that this buy 12 now get 20 later at no extra charge is marketing to address the problem in the past that they gave people that bought the old version a month or less before the new one came out a free upgrade.

    Could be - but then we're back to the point I make up the page that people who are a few versions back (I know fine well that I'm not alone there) have to pay full whack for 12, whether 12 is of any use or not, so as to get free access to a version they know sod all about.

    As a marketing strategy it just bears no critical analysis.
    That created a lot of ill will for those that were close but not quite plus a log of confusion about when to purchase. I would not be surprised if sales took a dip in October because people were afraid to get caught by that problem. This offer helps with that.

    It might - but it also introduces new problems.
    If I am right about the above, when 20 comes out there will be an upgrade price for earlier version owners just like they have in the past.

    But then you have to ask: what's the point of the current approach?
    The problem with that is I have no idea if my supposition is correct - and no one will say - I asked.

    In which case it's as reasonable a supposition as any.
    On the new camera support I think they have the communication backwards. Right now they have a we don't pre announce because there are no guarantees attitude.

    Generally I'm OK with that.

    But are we supposed to trust to dumb luck that 20 will support my new camera? I don't see any reason why Phase One could not stick to the spirit of their "no pre-announcements" rule as far as new bells and whistles are concerned, but still provide an insight into camera support, in this (pointlessly) exceptional situation.

    This "buy blind" situation is of Phase One's making, after all...
    But has that ever happened?

    I can't remember a time.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm not one of those who believes he has a Divine Right to have any camera he chooses to buy, instantly supported - but I absolutely reserve the right to have reservations about throwing £300 at a piece of software I officially know bugger all about.

    (Except to say that Capture One's "converted DNG" support is as flaky and as unreliable as ever, with converted files from the M6 Mk II).
    In my opinion a better approach would be to communicate when a new camera is announced the version they plan to support it in. If some problem appears they can then communicate that they had some issues that still need to be resolved and they will have it fixed for the next version. My guess is they will not ever need to say that. Instead they continually have this problem that we are in the dark about even if new camera X is going to be supported. We have to assume they will add support in the next release based on the fact that they have in the past. That's crazy - OK It annoying 😊

    And self-inflicted.

    DxO pre-announces planned camera support - the emphasis being relevant, because users accept that things don't always go to plan...
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="mikekatz" wrote:
    and the software is just as important.

    Trouble is, Phase One believes its own publicity about Capture One being "the only choice" for serious photographers.

    It ain't, by a long chalk.
    And upgrades are always worthwhile, even if they are not dramatic - there's also stability and other considerations.

    Although I don't make regular use of it any more, 8 is rock solid and fast on my machine: I think the "upgrade for upgrade's sake" argument is over-egged.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • ericnepean
    Its only an offer.

    Now that Capture One 12 supports Catalina, no one is forced to accept the offer.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • SFA
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="mikekatz" wrote:
    and the software is just as important.

    Trouble is, Phase One believes its own publicity about Capture One being "the only choice" for serious photographers.

    It ain't, by a long chalk.
    And upgrades are always worthwhile, even if they are not dramatic - there's also stability and other considerations.

    Although I don't make regular use of it any more, 8 is rock solid and fast on my machine: I think the "upgrade for upgrade's sake" argument is over-egged.


    Same for 12 on my machine Keith, albeit with a lot more functionality since 8.

    The spec. on my Windows 7 notebook was current in 2012. Mostly obsolete by the end of 2013.


    Grant.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Jerry C
    I have upgraded every year since version 8. I am very happy with version 12.1.4. It is a mature product. I would not upgrade for the addition of a few additional bells and whistles. I would upgrade if it supported some of these: Metal rather than just the now deprecated (though functional) Open CL, focus stacking, HDR using multiple exposures, improved cloning and healing brushes, major enhancement of the DAM. Yes, I realize some of these can be done with plugins and others are not the primary reason we use Capture One, but one can wish.

    I would like to see upgrade pricing proportional to upgrade impact. This is absolutely not just a capture One issue. It affects virtually all vendors' software upgrades. Small changes and minor tweaks should not cost as much as or more than major improvements in functionality. Changes to a version number to the left of the decimal point should be an order of magnitude greater than those to the right to justify the price of upgrading.

    Of course, no one is forcing anyone to upgrade.

    Jerry C
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • SFA
    [quote="NN635680879799322049UL" wrote:
    I have upgraded every year since version 8. I am very happy with version 12.1.4. It is a mature product. I would not upgrade for the addition of a few additional bells and whistles. I would upgrade if it supported some of these: Metal rather than just the now deprecated (though functional) Open CL, focus stacking, HDR using multiple exposures, improved cloning and healing brushes, major enhancement of the DAM. Yes, I realize some of these can be done with plugins and others are not the primary reason we use Capture One, but one can wish.

    I would like to see upgrade pricing proportional to upgrade impact. This is absolutely not just a capture One issue. It affects virtually all vendors' software upgrades. Small changes and minor tweaks should not cost as much as or more than major improvements in functionality. Changes to a version number to the left of the decimal point should be an order of magnitude greater than those to the right to justify the price of upgrading.

    Of course, no one is forcing anyone to upgrade.

    Jerry C


    I take your point Jerry but one of the problems with software development is simply the amount of under-the-hood effort, often pretty much invisible to the user, required just to keep products moving along. A decade ago you pick some core aspects of your application that "just worked" and freeze them in time to work on all predictable future systems.

    Then the older development tools the industry was comfortable with reached the end of their life if people wanted to take advantage of new technologies and so developers were, eventually, forced to move on and replace stuff even if really made no difference to the processes their software was running. That changed the dynamics of the industry and, subsequently, the expectations of the customers. The rapid growth of smartphones for all tended to reinforce the needs for change - sometimes for the sake of change.

    Probably 80% of developer time is used for things that are invisible to the user. Maybe more.

    And the second consideration is for things like included secondary services.

    Personalised technical support attention of required.

    Documentation.

    Support information on web sites.

    Tutorials and webinars. (Back in the day the company I worked for covered the cost of user training by charging for it. From memory it produces about 1/3 of our turnover with relatively few staff compared to the development team. I recall being in a meeting where some very early potential for video conferencing was being presented. Probably around the time Tim Berners-Lee was pitching the earliest internet incarnations for mainly academic use to get thing started.

    So as a consumer I agree with you but also see another side to the challenge.

    Also my list of useful additional functionality would likely be very different to some of yours and my guess would be that would be an equally broad based set of choices if all users were asked the question.

    How on earth one might manage to balance extended and integrated functionality and deal with the many factors, whether technical, costs, a constantly changing set of future market expectations or even how to attempt to save some time to market and buy an existing suite of products then try to integrate it ... well, I have no idea.

    Many attempts to take that sort of approach in the last decade or so have resulted in less than entirely convincing outcomes in the tech industry. A classic example with be Microsoft with Nokia but the an example closer to the photo processing market might be that of the Nik plugins and their ownership trail. They are not alone.

    One of the challenges of fast moving technicology driven times is to avoid investing in a product for a likely very short lived speciality market that might be made obsolete by new technology of changing consumer choices. (Unless, of course, you can get in early and make a lot of income and get out before it all fritters away.)


    It might be quite interesting and somewhat in keeping with the idea behind the Workflow and Common Photography Exploration Section of the forum to have some major feature specific discussions going there to see if people can work out where things might be heading in photography in a wider context. I.E. beyond Capture One but not excluding C1.

    Some of the things that would fit into your Major Improvements categorisation perhaps?

    What do you think?


    Grant
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Abbott Schindler
    It seems to me that the thrust of a lot of this thread is, "Phase One just offered a nice discount if I'm willing to upgrade to the next version sight unseen...and I really prefer not to upgrade without knowing what I'm getting."

    I understand that, and the obvious solution is to not accept the discount and wait and see what's in C1 20. Of course adopting that approach, if you then decide that you really want the new/improved features, you'll kick yourself for passing up the offer. And if you accepted the offer and aren't happy with the upgrade, I'm pretty sure that Phase One would issue a refund (or you could kick yourself for not waiting).

    For me: the last several versions didn't, on the surface, seem to offer anything of interest. And then I tried the new features and decided upgraded immediately. "Little things" like radial and editable gradients, three-stage sharpening, more legible interface elements, and being able to apply almost any adjustment to any layer have been huge plusses for me and my output results tend to show it.

    My biggest gripe, frankly, is that Phase One's adopted Apple's approach of fairly limited backward OS compatibility, which will eventually end my ability to upgrade. However, I do understand that supporting more old OS versions requires more engineering and testing—challenging for organizations with smaller engineering and Q.A. resources.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Jerry C
    I really can't disagree with Grant's detailed thoughts. I know from personal experience writing software, a lot goes into what is under the hood. Keeping the software compatible with the current OS while maintaining backward compatibility is an unsung task. Also, it is not fair to expect free tech support for as long as one wants to use a version. Support should apply to a limited number of past versions and so, it is reasonable to link support to upgrades.

    Still from a customer point of view, skipping an upgrade when the upgrade does not result in substantial improvements to functionality, speed, and compatibility with the OS is reasonable. Up until now, I thought each of the upgrades since version 8 have been worth the price. The same may be so with Version 20. My main point was that I find version 12.1.4 to work efficiently, be completely compatible with MacOS Catalina, and to have all of the essential tools I need. I am inclined to wait until I see the release of Capture One 20 to see if sufficient improvements warrant the upgrade.

    Feature specific conversations to which Grant referred, would require active participation of the software engineers to keep those of us who dream of new features firmly grounded to what is possible or even desirable for the price. It would be interesting, though.

    Jerry C
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Nature Isme" wrote:
    It seems to me that the thrust of a lot of this thread is, "Phase One just offered a nice discount if I'm willing to upgrade to the next version sight unseen...and I really prefer not to upgrade without knowing what I'm getting."

    Not exactly. It's actually about this:
    I understand that, and the obvious solution is to not accept the discount and wait and see what's in C1 20.

    By which time the offer will be over - as far as we know - and we'll be paying full price.

    Yes, there may be other offers, but the point is that right now the only deal (let's not forget that Capture One is way more expensive than just about any other Raw converter out there) involves users being cajoled into buying a version they might not want or need, in order to get access to a version they know nothing about.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Same for 12 on my machine Keith, albeit with a lot more functionality since 8.

    Oh yeah, 12 was fine on my machine too - but it does nothing I want that 8 doesn't.

    Although obviously in a minority, I remain firmly of the belief that a Raw converter should be a Raw converter and not a wannabe PhotoShop substitute (I accept that Capture One is doing a good job there), but most of my post-processing involves "Adobe" plugins that Capture One doesn't support, so I'll always be finishing off in a plugin-supporting pixel editor.

    This being the case, the "improvements" in say, version 12, are effectively redundant as far as I'm concerned: and the ongoing lack of such tools as Dehaze (even the cheap and cheerful ACDSee Photo Editor 10 has an effective Dehaze, as well as supporting my favourite plugins) does nothing to persuade me to come back to Capture One as my converter of choice, for all I was once its biggest fan until the "Capture One Colours" debacle irrevocably soured the experience for me.

    So buying 12 to get access to 20 at a "fair" price (if the full price of 12 is "fair") just isn't a persuasive offer.

    Now, if Phase One was to introduce Adobe plugin compatibility to Capture One, I'd be at the front of the queue.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Ken Bates
    It used to be that you could skip one version and still get the upgrade price on the next version. That worked nicely if the functionality increase didn't justify the cost, but with the 'customer unfriendly' approach that went to effect a few versions ago that policy went out the window. Now it appears that the best choice might be to just skip upgrading until a newer version offers functionality that is worth the price. Given the upgrade vs new version cost, it doesn't take long to come out ahead with this approach.

    The downside of doing this is, of course, that an existing version may no longer work with future versions of OSX (assuming that the new version of OSX is trouble free, of course 😂 ).

    The best way might be to sign up for beta testing and try out each new version, then deciding if the new version is worth the upgrade price.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • SFA
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Same for 12 on my machine Keith, albeit with a lot more functionality since 8.

    Oh yeah, 12 was fine on my machine too - but it does nothing I want that 8 doesn't.

    Although obviously in a minority, I remain firmly of the belief that a Raw converter should be a Raw converter and not a wannabe PhotoShop substitute (I accept that Capture One is doing a good job there), but most of my post-processing involves "Adobe" plugins that Capture One doesn't support, so I'll always be finishing off in a plugin-supporting pixel editor.

    This being the case, the "improvements" in say, version 12, are effectively redundant as far as I'm concerned: and the ongoing lack of such tools as Dehaze (even the cheap and cheerful ACDSee Photo Editor 10 has an effective Dehaze, as well as supporting my favourite plugins) does nothing to persuade me to come back to Capture One as my converter of choice, for all I was once its biggest fan until the "Capture One Colours" debacle irrevocably soured the experience for me.

    So buying 12 to get access to 20 at a "fair" price (if the full price of 12 is "fair") just isn't a persuasive offer.

    Now, if Phase One was to introduce Adobe plugin compatibility to Capture One, I'd be at the front of the queue.


    I do take your general point Keith.

    However a lack of some tools - your Dehaze example for instance - does not seem to be a problem for my needs. I can deal with the requirement readily enough without feeling frustrated at the lack of a dedicated tool but I suspect that my needs and irregular pattern of use of such adjustments may make it less of feature focus need for me than for you.

    I've never got to grips with PS. Or rather with the PS principled Affinity. I just don't take easily to how it works. Every time I think I have sussed the basics something happens that I can't work out. It was the same for its predecessors. I don't have that problem connecting with C1.

    IMO C1 has come along well and usefully since V8. Some releases have probably had more relevance to others than to me but on balance things have been moving forward and I have been able to decide when to make the move - which has allowed me to avoid too many of the earlier adopter pitfalls that one tends to get when the development cycles of operating systems and applications tend to drop into the same cycles of release.

    Nevertheless if your cameras are supported and you are happy with the results I agree that V8 gives excellent conversions.


    Grant
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="macbates" wrote:
    Now it appears that the best choice might be to just skip upgrading until a newer version offers functionality that is worth the price. Given the upgrade vs new version cost, it doesn't take long to come out ahead with this approach.

    Yeah - but even though I can afford to upgrade Capture One even at full price, it's still hard to justify doing so "blind" when I've just upgraded from ACDSee Photo Studio Professional 2019 to the 2020 incarnation (which is spectacularly capable and well-specced - the "LIght EQ" function is worth the price of entry on its own. it really is a one-stop solution, and it supports Adobe plugins), for just £46.

    I even got a complimentary extra licence thrown in, which I'm going to give to a pal who is currently (happily, it should be said) subscribing to Lightroom.

    It really does give me pause to wonder: what makes Phase One think that Capture One is worth 6.5 times as much?

    (I'm not trying to persuade people to walk away from Capture One in favour of Photo Studio Professional, but it's legitimate to point out that for my needs it does more than Capture One for a far lower price, as part of the back-story to my current ambivalence and confusion about upgrading Capture One).
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    However a lack of some tools - your Dehaze example for instance - does not seem to be a problem for my needs.

    Yeah, that's fair, Grant - I'm just using it as an example of something that comes up on here on a regular basis as a desirable tool, and which Capture One still doesn't have, despite its near ubiquity elsewhere.
    I've never got to grips with PS. Or rather with the PS principled Affinity. I just don't take easily to how it works. Every time I think I have sussed the basics something happens that I can't work out. It was the same for its predecessors. I don't have that problem connecting with C1.

    I don't use PhotoShop myself, although I was an active user until a couple of years ago. In fact, my standard workflow these days is (on the face of it) decidedly unsophisticated, being conversion in Photo Ninja, then adjustments (resizing, signature, selective sharpening, "Light EQ", maybe a bit of DeHaze, just to make the image pop) using the silly-cheap, but very capable (and Adobe plugin-supporting) ACDSee Photo Editor 10.

    But the results are brilliant. And far, far, less difficult to achieve than via PhotoShop or its clones (I've got Affinity Photo on my machine too - I was an early adopter - but it's simply unnecessary to me).
    IMO C1 has come along well and usefully since V8. Some releases have probably had more relevance to others than to me but on balance things have been moving forward and I have been able to decide when to make the move - which has allowed me to avoid too many of the earlier adopter pitfalls that one tends to get when the development cycles of operating systems and applications tend to drop into the same cycles of release.

    Sure, but it still cannot do the stuff I want to be able to do, nearly as well or as efficiently as other solutions I have to hand.

    If its IQ on Raw conversion was undeniably class-leading, that would bring me back in, all by itself. But it just isn't. And I'm struggling to judge Capture One 20, because its handling of converted DNGs of my M6 Mk II's files is so flaky and unreliable (the native files not being recognised at all).

    I want to be convinced to re-engage seriously with Capture One, but Phase One continues to fail to persuade me: and it's not my job to convince myself.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Abbott Schindler
    Keith,

    With all due respect, I think it actually is your job to convince yourself whether C1 (or any other app) is appropriate for you and whether it's worth the price. A killer feature for me may be a 'meh' for you. High upgrade price for me may be a "who cares; it's OK" for you or someone else. All Phase One and other developers can do, imo, is decide what they want to deliver in a new version and then do their best to deliver it. Goes for macOS, Window, Adobe CC products, C1, and even cheap single-purpose shareware applications. Then the user ("customer") needs to decide whether the developer "done good".

    What seems clear, though, is that so far you're not finding enough in successive C1 versions to make them worthwhile for you, which is fine. If you don't see value, then you can do at least 4 things:

    1. Don't upgrade and wait quietly for the next version—or maybe just give up on the product altogether;

    2. Don't upgrade and send Phase One a support request asking for whatever you want (not successful in my experience, but it doesn't hurt to try);

    3. Buy it anyway just to keep current and help fund future C1 versions and ongoing product support.

    4. Regardless of whether you buy or not, watch some of the "new features" webinars when the version ships, just to be sure that you didn't miss anything.

    Example: I use a database application for a lot of purposes. The developer (a fairly large company) hasn't made any improvements that are relevant to me in a decade or more and they charge more for their upgrades than Phase One does. Being totally frustrated, the only reason I've upgraded is when an OS upgrade breaks their software, and at this point I'm done with them. That doesn't mean their newer versions are (or may be) more useful and worth the price to someone, but they sure aren't worth US$200/year to me.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Wesley
    Sending out emails for upgrade notices and discount without any peep of info on the CO page is just poor taste.

    As someone that owns a version prior to CO12, I didn't receive these emails so when I saw the first CO20 thread on here, I thought it was a joke. I said to myself...the next version is 13 buddy.

    Apparently anyone can sign up for beta to see the new features but can't say what those features are on here? Having NDA seems rather trivial if anyone can sign up.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.