While balance picker size
Hi all,
I am relatively new to Capture 1 and testing it to find out if this could be become my RAW tool of choice for most of my work, mainly because I find that the color produced by C1 is much better than other converters. However, one thing that I am already missing dearly is being able to change the size of the White balance picker, or better yet, being able to select an arbitrary area to average for the measurement. I find this one of the few useful features of ACR for instance, so I find myself at a loss already. Is this simply not possible in C1, or am I missing something. If it is not, is there a feature wish list where I can post this? I am continuing my testing, but already I feel that this could be a deal breaker for me, since I find I use this a lot.
One example would be a cobble stone path that is grey on average, but has lots of different shades. Using the picker in C1 makes me click all over the place until you get a lucky hit. In ACR, simply selecting a large area in the path does the job. But I do not like ACR for the lousy way it treats color. RPP is better and has the area selection, but lacks other features. Now C1 seems to lack this...
Any suggestions ?
TIA, Bart van Hofwegen
I am relatively new to Capture 1 and testing it to find out if this could be become my RAW tool of choice for most of my work, mainly because I find that the color produced by C1 is much better than other converters. However, one thing that I am already missing dearly is being able to change the size of the White balance picker, or better yet, being able to select an arbitrary area to average for the measurement. I find this one of the few useful features of ACR for instance, so I find myself at a loss already. Is this simply not possible in C1, or am I missing something. If it is not, is there a feature wish list where I can post this? I am continuing my testing, but already I feel that this could be a deal breaker for me, since I find I use this a lot.
One example would be a cobble stone path that is grey on average, but has lots of different shades. Using the picker in C1 makes me click all over the place until you get a lucky hit. In ACR, simply selecting a large area in the path does the job. But I do not like ACR for the lousy way it treats color. RPP is better and has the area selection, but lacks other features. Now C1 seems to lack this...
Any suggestions ?
TIA, Bart van Hofwegen
0
-
is there a feature wish list where I can post this?
Pull down the Help menu, click on Capture One Support, and put in a feature request via the support system. Phase One gauge the demand for new features by how many users ask for it.
Ian0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
Pull down the Help menu, click on Capture One Support, and put in a feature request via the support system. Phase One gauge the demand for new features by how many users ask for it.
Ian
Thanks Ian, done that. Got an immediate response also that it is forwarded to R&D and development.
For those interested, it is not that simple to make such a request. There is no option for it in the "Contact support" section of the Support part of the P1 website. You need to log in under the "My pages" option on the Phase One website, and then click on "Support cases". If you do not have any cases pending, you can pick "Feedback / Future development" directly from the "Contact customer support" page that is shown. If you DO have pending requests, this is not shown, but there is a link "Contact customer support" in the middle just below the "Support cases" captions on the overview page that brings you to the form again.
I would appreciate if anyone interested in this feature issues a request!0 -
[quote="NNN636565544772184008" wrote:
One example would be a cobble stone path that is grey on average, but has lots of different shades. Using the picker in C1 makes me click all over the place until you get a lucky hit.
Out of curiosity, why not use the color picker and fine tune by eye in this sort of a situation?0 -
[quote="cdc" wrote:
Out of curiosity, why not use the color picker and fine tune by eye in this sort of a situation?
Speed of workflow, mainly. Tuning by eye is fine, of course, but in that case I would not pick at all to begin with. In my experience, picking with a very small area (point), you have to try and err at least a couple of times to get anywhere near, especially in noisy pictures. Waste of time. It is also my experience that area selection is very useful and fast in other tools I use and have used. Since it is not that hard to implement on top of point picking, and it is available in lots of other raw tools, frankly I am surprised that a mature tool such as C1 does not have this already.0 -
Have you tried zooming to 400% to allow more selective picking?
I understand what you have come to feel comfortable with before C1 and have had similar desires in the past.
However whilst the picking accuracy is likely to be quite significant for any result I have come to the conclusion the averaging over a wider area is not certain to promote better results. YMMV.
Grant0 -
Thanks for you reply Grant. [quote="SFA" wrote:
... I have come to the conclusion the averaging over a wider area is not certain to promote better results. YMMV.
Grant
Interesting... I have actually come to the exact same opposite conclusion over the years, in any RAW tool, that point picking is very imprecise and area picking always comes up with better results (better, but not perfect in many cases), even with grey targets that are deliberately included in a test shot. I found this out when using grey targets in the past and after that extended the use to other areas. Almost certainly by now workflow habits will have influenced my judgement, but I can not imagine that this accounts for 100% of my dislike of point picking at this time. I immediately see the drawbacks of point picking being demonstrated by being forced to use it in C1 (which I otherwise very much like). And of course I am testing on photos that I have done in the past in other tools, and that yield excellent results with one single area selection.
Going to 400% does not seem to help much and even takes more time. Speed is important to me. I will keep trying to adapt and see if I can live with it.0 -
Given an image with a sensible and consistent white or black area (preferably white of course) I don't usually find any problems for my use - although sometimes there can be a slight colour cast that is "lost" in the eye/brain interpretation of the rest of the image until one becomes aware of it.
Apparently Grey areas, however, can be a very misleading guide in much of the subject matter I tend to shoot - hence my reticence about trying to interpret a wider area. A WB grey card should be quite consistent of course but in the wider world grey tends to be made up of all colours. I recall a demo of rudimentary network based video screen sharing capabilities way back in the early days and how the presenter explained that the then standard Windows mid-grey screen backgrounds were a huge problem for them because they needed to use heavy compression to make things workable with the communication speeds then possible and grey was almost impossible to manipulate for good compression as there were almost no large "blocks" of screen colour data that could be compressed to any significant degree for compression.
In theory, therefore, the grey, averaged over as large an area as possible, might be seen as the best averaging option available but the chances are it introduces its own variability in all but the most controlled environments, especially outside a studio. Sometime it can be perfect for the job since colour casts in daylight (for example) are often about a judgement of preferred balance. But at other times it can take one around in circles.
If I have a particularly critical assessment to make I like to keep and eye on the histogram (to observe variability) when assessing a potential target area for consistency and also the colour values display above the viewer. When using White or black targets the expectation would be that RGB values as as equal as possible at the point under the cursor. If the area is not blown out or totally underexposed AND it is in "clean" light, not too subject to reflections of nearby colours, then matching or very nearly matching values suggest that the point should be a good reference basis for a colour cast free WB for the ambient light.
Of course that tells us nothing about the rest of the image and how that will look but at least we should, in theory, have a sound light "colour" basis to work with. Proofing needs to be turned off when doing any "pure" WB work.
But that's just my conclusion based on my experiences. You may see things (literally) differently.
One option for a different interpretation of the WB (compared to the camera's interpretation) would be to use the C1 WB tool's "Auto" facility. It's not something I use but I assume that it will be performing some sort of wider and averaged analysis of the image. It might offer another way to save some time in the right circumstances.
Grant0 -
Thanks again Grant, for the in depth reply. I agree most of what you mention and the theory behind it. I think I may have developed some sort of unconscious eye for areas that are good candidates for WB averaging over the years due to the fact that that has been my approach for a long time. For me it works, almost all of the time, and I know several others who use area picking, even in less expected ways (Ming Thein for instance uses it in a rather counter intuitive way, something I would not have considered, but he gets very nice results)
I have just now retried a few older shots with a WhiBal target (in ACR and RPP) and I do get visually better results from area picking, consistently. Better in the meaning of the look of rest of the picture of course... When using C1, I have to pick the target several times and watch the results closely. I have tried auto, in C1 as in others, but I find it not very predictable as yet although RPP gets close.
Regardless of personal preferences and results, or any theory, I believe that my request is not unreasonable. Implementing area picking is relatively simple (former developer...) Furthermore, doing so does not break any existing workflow that relies on point picking, and brings an option to C1 that other RAW processors already have. Hence my request.
That being said, post WB tweaking for me only starts to play a role in less than ideal lighting, or with cameras that not too well at guessing the correct capture WB setting. For instance, in good daylight, the Nikon D810 does a great job and hardly ever needs a change. Picking most of the time does not improve things, sometimes I use a deliberate manual adjustment. The Leica Q is another thing, I find I use WB picking much more for that one even in "good" light. Any remaining casts that are hindering I usually remove with RGB curves in PS, sometimes coupled with masks based on L or otherwise. But that extends workflow time considerably, so it is reserved for special photos. When I know on forehand that a photo will be worth it and/or I have the time, I use a WB target.
My next move will be to keep using C1 for a while and see if I will adapt to a point that is satisfactory. If not, I will have to judge how that balances out with the better colour I get in C1, and other differences. (Even with very carefully produced hand crafted profiles for my cameras, or "untwisted" standard profiles, ACR still does not perform well in my opinion, and colour shifts are unpredictable when making adjustments. RPP is a bit better but C1 is clearly superior). Also, it depends on the camera. With the Leica, the improvement in colour is dramatic and in itself worth using C1. The D810 less so. In fact, for that camera I get better colour in AccuRaw, but using that really extends workflow time... And keeping up with all these tools is cumbersome. I was (and still am) hoping that C1 could be a one stop solution.0 -
The is a lot of "tailoring" possible with C1 but as with everything the first 80% of information gathering experience and development for your needs is the easier part. The remaining 20% is where the fun starts!
Yes the idea seems reasonable as you say but then it may also require some level of educational documentation about which approach to use and when to avoid, shall we say, user confusion.
Any suggestions for future enhancements are best sent to Phase in the from of a Support Case. Using the Case system means they have managed approach to all user interaction and can assess interest levels in particular subjects, features and functions.
Then one can try to work out which ones are really meaningful in terms of the investment of time and cash for their development. I'm guessing that as a former developer you will have come across the "we built it they never used it" syndrome more than once?
😉
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
... Any suggestions for future enhancements are best sent to Phase in the from of a Support Case. Using the Case system means they have managed approach to all user interaction and can assess interest levels in particular subjects, features and functions.
I already have done that. This makes a lot of sense. My own standard answer was always: "create a support ticket first and then we will see".
[quote="SFA" wrote:
I'm guessing that as a former developer you will have come across the "we built it they never used it" syndrome more than once?
Grant
haha, yeahh... but mostly with features we ourselves thought that would be appreciated and then turned out not to be. And there is no "the user", preferences and desires vary greatly and are more than often contradictory.0 -
[quote="NNN636565544772184008" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
I'm guessing that as a former developer you will have come across the "we built it they never used it" syndrome more than once?
Grant
haha, yeahh... but mostly with features we ourselves thought that would be appreciated and then turned out not to be. And there is no "the user", preferences and desires vary greatly and are more than often contradictory.
So true.
In my historical experience of Business Admin software ideas that we had (like whole modules of some very clever stuff for its day) were too complicated for the potential users to persuade their staff to use it no matter how simple we made it.
And for stuff requested by (and paid for by) individual clients (we had a number of them who would happily find a part of the development close to their corporate hearts if they then got things that others were paying for in the next releases) what was presented was very often never used by the requestee but would be used, usually in a way not originally envisaged, by others.
It's easy to conclude that such things are just a "typical problem of the industry" but in reality they are a typical challenge of understanding humans and the way we do things.
Grant0 -
[quote="NNN636565544772184008" wrote:
Thanks for you reply Grant.[quote="SFA" wrote:
... I have come to the conclusion the averaging over a wider area is not certain to promote better results. YMMV.
Grant
Interesting... I have actually come to the exact same opposite conclusion over the years, in any RAW tool, that point picking is very imprecise and area picking always comes up with better results (better, but not perfect in many cases), even with grey targets that are deliberately included in a test shot.
my expirance too and don´t Listen to the p1 defense army on this forum it is always the same - everything c1 does not offer is not need in their view or works better for them as it is.0 -
[quote="Horseoncowboy " wrote:
my expirance too
Maybe you'd want to file the same request with Phase One through the support system... it might help.[quote="Horseoncowboy " wrote:
Listen to the p1 defense army on this forum it is always the same - everything c1 does not offer is not need in their view or works better for them as it is.
I did not get that feeling at all in this thread and in general I am immune to that sort of talk anyway. Sharing views and opinions can be very interesting. What works for some does not for others. In this case, if catering for both tastes can be done without harming either, so much the better.0 -
I can only think of one reason why a company buries the user feedback option so deep on their web site: they actually are not very interested in user feedback and when you look at the last updates it becomes clear that user feedback can not have played a big roll in their decision making. over the years user have brought up many good ideas to improve c1 and I have no doubt they filed a lot of feature requests but instead of for example a radial gradient tool we got a annotation tool, really ? 0 -
The feedback option is not really buried very deep. You just have to go to the Help menu in Capture One, and Capture One Support.
Ian0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
The feedback option is not really buried very deep. You just have to go to the Help menu in Capture One, and Capture One Support.
Half true. If you do that, there is no option "Feedback / Future development" in the dropdown under "Contact Support". This option is only available when you proceed as I wrote, and indeed not easy to find. I am sure that this is not intentionally hidden though, it just a typical inconsistency that stems from ongoing evolvement of the site. I did not mention it as a negative remark but as a hint to a possible improvement to the support site. If others think different, it is not my concern. For the record, I get a fast response from P1 on the support request I made.0 -
What I have a major problem with is the fine and extremely low contrast type that is displayed on the support case page.
I'm slightly astigmatic. When I have to read a case reply I start seeing unicorns murdering each other.
There's the frustration behind the initiation of the support ticket in the first place. Then there's language barrier. The thorough misunderstanding of my point. With added squinting and self doubt enhanced by the poor text contrast.
I lose it and have to go for a 10 mile hike to recover. I keep fit though so maybe it's a positive experience.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
17 comments