very disapointed by V10
Hi,
I am very disapointed by C1 V10.
on my opinion this is not a version of C1 but more a release.
Of course there is some improvement on sharpening tools, and probably improvement for phase one and sony users.
but more than stuff like tangent panel interface I shhould prefer a real improvement on:
- catalog management, to beable to manage heavy catalog and virtual catalog
- interoperability with other phototools
- more optics reference or the ability use external tools or presets
moreover if some bug I previously seen are corrected in V10, I think we should have to have these corrections for V9 users
I am very disapointed by C1 V10.
on my opinion this is not a version of C1 but more a release.
Of course there is some improvement on sharpening tools, and probably improvement for phase one and sony users.
but more than stuff like tangent panel interface I shhould prefer a real improvement on:
- catalog management, to beable to manage heavy catalog and virtual catalog
- interoperability with other phototools
- more optics reference or the ability use external tools or presets
moreover if some bug I previously seen are corrected in V10, I think we should have to have these corrections for V9 users
0
-
Welcome to "PhaseOne's Hidden" subscription model. Come out with a new version every year, to correct bugs in the previous version, and never update the old version again.
Robert0 -
[quote="JMR" wrote:
moreover if some bug I previously seen are corrected in V10, I think we should have to have these corrections for V9 users
Do you know of any other software vendor who does this consistently (other than those who provide operating systems and security flaw fixes.)?
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Do you know of any other software vendor who does this consistently (other than those who provide operating systems and security flaw fixes.)?
No, but I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that the broken release would be fixed before a new version - containing the fix(es) - is then released, Grant.
We didn't knowingly buy a broken version of the software, after all - nor did we pay a reduced "slightly damaged" price for it.0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Do you know of any other software vendor who does this consistently (other than those who provide operating systems and security flaw fixes.)?
No, but I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that the broken release would be fixed before a new version - containing the fix(es) - is then released, Grant.
We didn't knowingly buy a broken version of the software, after all - nor did we pay a reduced "slightly damaged" price for it.
Keith,
I understand what you are saying but I'm not entirely convinced the analogy is entirely correct.
For example, for my use there is very little indeed that I can fault and term as "broken".
To me there is nothing "slightly damaged" that would be of concern. On the contrary I might have concerns that I was paying over the top for a lot of functionality that don't need and don't want.
However, recognising that possibility I can still look at the value offered and make up my mind about whether the value is reasonable for what is available that I do need. So long as that answer continues to be a "yes" I'm happy with the deal.
If, as has happened of over the years with other software, the value proposition no longer justifies the cost in my opinion, I may make a different decision.
The cost of the optional upgrade, even if it becomes and annual cost that one accepts, is about the same as a tank of fuel for my car. Or half the cost of a family meal at an average restaurant. Or, from where I live, a one way 1hr 15 minute train journey to London at a time of my choosing.
It's less than my business pays for a subscription for 1 person to have access to MS Office 365 with the facilities that we may need once in a while but rarely use. There is no option for a highly flexible pick and choose and the "purchased" licence for Office is incredibly expensive.
I don't do a lot of self printing but I probably spend more on ink than I do on C1 software in the course of a year.
As for the cost of photographic "hardware" that people seem happy to indulge in ... regularly yet reject the "free" software that comes with it ... what can one say?
Looking at it from a different perspective - what if the pricing model for the 21st century "Agile development" concept for software actually assumes that most applications will be less than 100% at time of release?
In other words we ARE paying the price for goods that are imperfect for some people but not others and we know we are because the "Agile" model tells us that that is very likely to be the case.
How much more would we need to spend to buy the "A++" Grade version with no faults - assuming that it could be developed at all and still keep up with the other influences like new cameras, new computers, new operating systems and peripherals and so on and on?
Moreover, if you pay the "premium" are you guaranteed something very close to the perfect product?
I seriously doubt it unless you have deep pockets and a lot of patience.
In fact not even just that. At the higher end of the scale of costs and full proof delivery, such as it is, total influence over development direction and priority would be a pre-requisite to any chance of obtaining the output one might desire.
Frankly one is more likely to gain that sort of influence of an Open Source project than a commercial development. Even then the chances of having both control and continuity are not that good.
Grant0 -
I too would say, that v10 is a pretty underwhelming release. But if I look at the .x updates for v9, than there were some very nice new features, like proper color management for the viewer with jpeg and tiff, or sorting enhancements such as sort by variant number. These .x updates are part of the upgrade package as I see it, and if v10 were to stay as it is now throughout its cycle, than I would not find it worth the upgrade price. But I upgraded because I expect some very nice enhancements in the .x updates, and you cannot expect Phase one to supply these for free forever after purchasing a version license.
Chris0 -
SFA, I am not sure we share the same reference on the cost of the upgrade compare to the life cost. But it is another topic.
To be more precise, what I want to explain is I could be ready to pay for the release if this release have a real value for my own use of C1.
I am neither a professionnal user nor a sony user, and tangent device looks like a costly useless gadget for my personnal use. So many of the remaining improvement should have à real value to lead me to buy the upgrade. Unformtunatly it is not the case.
If you look on the forum you will see many user have the same profil as mine and I guess they expected V10 with usefull improvements regarding their use.
About bugs, I would like to add 2 remark:
-When you buy something, I guess we all expect it run without any default, or at least this default were corrected quickly. For software many editor send many correction by year, and they also send corrections for previous versions
-As many other user When I found a bug, I have spend lot of time to provide information and to answer to C1 support, with the hope these bug will be corrected.
Today I see somme of these bug are corrected but I would have to paid if I want to get back any benefit of my work.
So you can understand my position. I consider phase one offer unfair and I am very disapointed because C1 is basicaly a good tool but this situation could lead non professional and non sony user to look for another solution.
regards0 -
[quote="ChrisM" wrote:
I too would say, that v10 is a pretty underwhelming release.....and you cannot expect Phase one to supply these for free forever after purchasing a version license.
Chris
You right, and it the reason why I will wait until these hypothetical major évolution before buing the release.0 -
[quote="JMR" wrote:
You right, and it the reason why I will wait until these hypothetical major évolution before buing the release.
Which is fine, of course, though you may then find that there ends up being a short time between when you go for version 10 and when they bring out version 11, starting this kind of discussion all over again!
I really wonder why we get all these complaints about the software upgrade not amounting to much. Nobody is forcing us to buy the new version, if we don't think the new features are worth it. If someone were to buy a new camera that is not supported by the old version, they would then be obliged to go for the newer version of C1. But if you spend hundreds (possibly rather more!) on a new cutting edge camera, it would not be much more to factor in €99 for a software upgrade that could use its files. I think we forget that developing software costs money which has to come from somewhere. Companies like Microsoft or Apple make a lot of money out of their huge customer bases (and in Apple's case out of their hardware) so maybe they can afford to provide free upgrades for Windows or for MacOS. It's not obvious how a smallish company like Phase One would be able to do the same.
Ian0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
[quote="JMR" wrote:
You right, and it the reason why I will wait until these hypothetical major évolution before buing the release.
Which is fine, of course, though you may then find that there ends up being a short time between when you go for version 10 and when they bring out version 11, starting this kind of discussion all over again!
I really wonder why we get all these complaints about the software upgrade not amounting to much. Nobody is forcing us to buy the new version, if we don't think the new features are worth it. If someone were to buy a new camera that is not supported by the old version, they would then be obliged to go for the newer version of C1. But if you spend hundreds (possibly rather more!) on a new cutting edge camera, it would not be much more to factor in €99 for a software upgrade that could use its files. I think we forget that developing software costs money which has to come from somewhere. Companies like Microsoft or Apple make a lot of money out of their huge customer bases (and in Apple's case out of their hardware) so maybe they can afford to provide free upgrades for Windows or for MacOS. It's not obvious how a smallish company like Phase One would be able to do the same.
Ian
Exactly Ian.
Another puzzle ....
The camera manufacturers - even Nikon these days I think - supply software "free" with their cameras and it typically works quite well for converting RAW files and adding some value in things that are not generally available elsewhere.
Of course it's not really free. We pay for it somewhere in the cost of the cameras and accessories.
But is seems, from comments made in a number of places, that no one uses it.
There may be some exceptions for the Capture One/Sony arrangement by comparison with the other majors but I have never seen any comparative analysis. Presumably no one knows who uses what? Nor cares much?
Why do we not have camera buyers seeking better value from their camera purchases by being able to avoid paying for things they will not be using? Things like the "freely" supplied software.
And why is that "free" software never mentioned when very early adopters of some manufacturer's new body complain that they are "unable" to use their new camera because their RAW converter of choice does not yet support it? Maybe not, but what is wrong with the manufacturer supplied program to fill the availability gap? After all, the supplied software has been paid for somewhere along the the purchase path.
Every now and then in software development there is a need to do some fundamental under the hood work that sets the product up ready for the next stages of development. V10 may well fit into that category. Given time we will find out.
For some the new features may be very exciting. For others perhaps not, at least for now.
It is what it is.
Grant0 -
[quote="ChrisM" wrote:
But I upgraded because I expect some very nice enhancements in the .x updates, and you cannot expect Phase one to supply these for free forever after purchasing a version license.
Fixing bugs is not adding "nice enhancements", Chris - it's delivering what we've already paid for.0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
Nobody is forcing us to buy the new version, if we don't think the new features are worth it.
If the only way to see a bug fixed is to buy a new release of the software, then - assuming that the user wants to stay with Capture One - he is being forced to buy the new version.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Every now and then in software development there is a need to do some fundamental under the hood work that sets the product up ready for the next stages of development. V10 may well fit into that category. Given time we will find out.
I think this is an important point. If you keep adding functions you can get to the point where the code is inefficient (read slow) and difficult to maintain. Lightroom is a good example. It is a very capable application that has become a slug performance-wise. It desperately needs to be re-coded. I think (hope) Phase One has done that with V10 before the performance became obviously affected.0 -
[quote="Luke_Miller" wrote:
It is a very capable application that has become a slug performance-wise.
No, it hasn't - it performs superbly on my machine, as it does for many: those who find otherwise usually trace their problems to a local issue with that machine.0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="Luke_Miller" wrote:
It is a very capable application that has become a slug performance-wise.
No, it hasn't - it performs superbly on my machine, as it does for many: those who find otherwise usually trace their problems to a local issue with that machine.
that's it +10 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="Luke_Miller" wrote:
It is a very capable application that has become a slug performance-wise.
No, it hasn't - it performs superbly on my machine, as it does for many: those who find otherwise usually trace their problems to a local issue with that machine.
And therein lies Adobe's problem, because Lightroom performs well on some machines and not on others. It is more than a local issue since too many experience it.
My i7 PC works well with many resource intensive applications including 4K video processing, but is painfully slow with Lightroom. In my case the application resides on an SSD and its catalog on a second SSD. Even loading the images to be processed on an SSD did not speed things up. Since I am a subscriber my Lightroom version is regularly updated so it is not an version specific installation issue. When I moved from Windows 7 to Windows 10 I did a complete HD format and re-install. The performance issues that existed in Win7 carried over into Win10.
Capture One, on the other hand, is very speedy with the same images Lightroom struggles with. I've used Lightroom since the pre-Version One Beta and it has been my processor of choice for my digital images, while C1 has been my secondary processor for images that didn't seem to work well in Lightroom. At this point I use Lightroom's catalog function to keep track of all my images, but Capture One is now primary. I am no longer willing to wait on Lightroom. I'm confident Adobe will eventually get it sorted out, but in the meantime I need to get on with shooting.0 -
[quote="Luke_Miller" wrote:
Capture One, on the other hand, is very speedy with the same images Lightroom struggles with.
On your machine, Luke.
How do you explain these?
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=24913
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=24964
viewtopic.php?f=68&t=24991
I don't have memory leakage problems on my machine, yet these folk do, and among the symptoms of memory leaks can be exactly the kind of "struggle" you attribute to Lightroom.
How about these?
viewtopic.php?f=68&t=24968
viewtopic.php?f=68&t=24973
viewtopic.php?f=68&t=24977
Remember - this isn't Lightroom...
Here's the thing: perversely, Lightroom is known to work worse on high-spec machines than it does on relatively modest kit like mine. It's not down to coding faults, nor is it bloat: it's a weird set of dependencies that Lr's coders can't possibly have anticipated.
And some Capture One users clearly have the same issues you seem to assume are the sole preserve of Lightroom.
I'll say it again: there is no basis whatsoever to conclude that the problems you have with Lightroom indicate a pervasive - much less ubiquitous - problem that can be laid at the door of its coders.
Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Capture One is free of exactly the same issues. Your personal experiences (even those of a vociferous minority on an internet forum) are not "proof" of a problem.
I was until fairly recently a very active contributor to Adobe's own Lightroom forum - active for several years, and on the Adobe Certified Professional (ACP) programme - and I'll say right now that pretty much all of the useful available evidence pointed to user error/unrealistic expectations/local issues as the explanation for the vast majority of "Lightroom is slow..!" complaints.
Here's an absolutely typical exchange:
https://forums.adobe.com/message/8981984#8981984
You want slow? Try DxO Optics Pro - I was a beta tester for that lot too, before I gave up in disgust: and Optics Pro's problems are down to inefficient coding.0 -
Hey Keith
I wasn't trying to rattle your cage. As a computer geek I was just trying to make the point that, sometimes, it becomes necessary to re-code an application that has been significantly modified over time. I think this is particularly true when the input data has dramatically evolved. I was not suggesting that Lightroom was a slug on every machine. If it were the hue and cry would be deafening. I'm a fan of Lightroom and probably have used it as long as anyone. But as my bodies have increased in resolution, Lightroom's performance (on my machine) has progressively worsened to the point that D810 images are unbearably slow. I wish it were otherwise, but it seems improving it (on my machine) is beyond my control.
Nasim Mansurov has done a comparison showing how performance has changed with each Lightroom version. Note the point regarding 1:1 previews. I need them to determine focus and they can take forever.
https://photographylife.com/lightroom-2 ... comparison
Capture One has been rock solid (on my machine) and performance seems unaffected by image file size and D810 images zip right along.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="JMR" wrote:
moreover if some bug I previously seen are corrected in V10, I think we should have to have these corrections for V9 users
Do you know of any other software vendor who does this consistently (other than those who provide operating systems and security flaw fixes.)?
Grant
No, but I don't know many software vendors (for non-pro) who force you to pay €100 a year (or so) to get your bugs fixed.
I paid Microsoft a tidy sum for its Office suite; that was three years ago and I continue to get updates and will continue to do so for quite a few years, even though the next version is out.
Someone said a small company like Phase One must be able to make money. Yes! I love Phase One, its products, its software, and I want them to be successful! Even if I didn't love them it would still be in my interest that Capture One's installed base is as large as possible.
So when I see a commercial behaviour that I feel is going against PO's and my interest---in this case upgrades that are expensive, frequent and underwhelming, bringing few new really useful features* and very few bug fixes---, I get a little concerned. And, personally, annoyed. I am still on V8 and wondering why I didn't remain on V7 (the three colour adjusters, the major addition in V8, have too much overlap to be much use).
* Like auto-selection on Luma (or better: on u-points), white balance on a region, a virtual frequency-split view, locking variants against accidental changes...0 -
[quote="NN635464888934308424UL" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="JMR" wrote:
moreover if some bug I previously seen are corrected in V10, I think we should have to have these corrections for V9 users
Do you know of any other software vendor who does this consistently (other than those who provide operating systems and security flaw fixes.)?
Grant
No, but I don't know many software vendors (for non-pro) who force you to pay €100 a year (or so) to get your bugs fixed.
I paid Microsoft a tidy sum for its Office suite; that was three years ago and I continue to get updates and will continue to do so for quite a few years, even though the next version is out.
Hmm.
Well, there is of course the question of business size here ....
But MS do no always fix things unless they have to to keep major corporates happy or the fix is related to security.
For as long as your Office version does not cause you any problems you should keep it.
I run a small BI data mining company and we have an MS Office 365 subscription for the 4 people involved.
We carefully selected an option that suited our requirements at a cost that the business could justify. We use the email regularly but the rest of the Office suite we have somewhat sporadically.
The deal we opted for in late 2015 was the closest we could get to the previous deal available in 2014 in terms of what was to be available and what we had been paying.
This year all the deals had changed. I could either keep the price more or less the same (although slightly higher) but drop the availability of Access and force all of use to uninstall the software in place and then install the same stuff under a different licence ... or pay over twice as much for the year and retain the rights to use Access and avoid the uninstall/re-install activity. True we can also install on a number of mobile devices (some of which might work) but we really don't need that and will be unlikely to benefit from the offer.
To "buy" the Suite, as you have, would have cost about 4 years of rental at current prices but since the prices are only set for a year there is no certainty about how they might move at next review. Or, indeed, that the marketing mix of products will not be changed again next year.
My point is that there is no certainty to anything in the market EXCEPT that everyone is in need of a way of turning a profit and maximising cash flow and customer buy-in. Even if you have a "bought" product its longevity may be limited if you need to update hardware or other software and so end up with something that is not fully supported due to its age.
Developments (or lack of them for older products) in the mobile phone industry are conditioning us to accept such limitations as "normal". And so they probably are from a technical progress point of view - perhaps more through desire than necessity.
Phase did provide a retro update, as I recall, for V8 when certain new products arrived just at the point a number of changes and there were some timing issues to resolve.
None of the other software vendors I currently use, other than MS in some situations mostly related to security or problems with integrated use of their own products, have a policy of updating old products. The only exceptions might be where some component updated for a later version also happens to work with an older version and so might be user installable or offered as an optional solution by technical support.
That assumes, of course, that one still has access to technical support for older products. Especially free technical support. Not all developers are generous with their End of Life programmes.
The typical upgrade cycle (even for B2B developers) for desktop products used to be about 18 months. 2 years of the development hit some challenges.
With "Agile" development and download rather than boxed disk sales being the norm now progression can be faster and freezing a release point much more flexible. People expect faster release of updates. The Version control comes in when there are significant changes to the underlying technologies or the functionality offered AND/OR, more simply, the need to generate some cash flow to pay for it.
Traditionally that cash flow would have come from a maintenance fee (in B2B world). The fee would often be in the 15 to 25% of "List Price" even for boxed desk top applications. For Enterprise software on a server there were other expectations.
Personally I see nothing to complain about with respect to the C1 approach.
As it happens there is not much in the V10 release that has instant "must have now" appeal for my immediate needs (without buying the Tangent hardware ... hmm, maybe next year ....) so I might choose to hold back for a while - although the new 3 stage sharpening is most interesting. At least I have that flexibility to make my own decision about when to update. And that is "when" rather than "if".
My thoughts, for what they are worth.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="NN635464888934308424UL" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
But MS do no always fix things unless they have to to keep major corporates happy or the fix is related to security.
Grant
Anyone else still waiting for proper color management in Windows? Waiting for this since I bought my Eizo wide gamut screen years ago. Microsoft latest browser (Edge) STILL is not properly color managed.
Better not use Microsoft as an example on how Phase one should "fix" CO1.... a team the size of Microsoft's should be able to fix their color management issues over the weekend....if only they saw the sense in that...
Phase one however.... dÃd fix their color management issues in their viewer... and a very nice rewrite of the viewer b.t.w., it works much more fluently and snappy now on my system.
Chris0 -
[quote="JMR" wrote:
Hi,
I am very disapointed by C1 V10.
on my opinion this is not a version of C1 but more a release.
Of course there is some improvement on sharpening tools, and probably improvement for phase one and sony users.
but more than stuff like tangent panel interface I shhould prefer a real improvement on:
- catalog management, to beable to manage heavy catalog and virtual catalog
- interoperability with other phototools
- more optics reference or the ability use external tools or presets
moreover if some bug I previously seen are corrected in V10, I think we should have to have these corrections for V9 users
This really upsets me as well and is a step back after being charged to upgrade. I have to wait 30-45 seconds after copying and applying adjustments when V9 was pretty much instantaneous. WTF is going on with this company? Do they even test this software before release? Using A7Rii on Sony pro version. I am a professional and don't have the damn time to fuc around with this incompetence.0 -
[quote="NN635467681590091084UL" wrote:
This really upsets me as well and is a step back after being charged to upgrade. I have to wait 30-45 seconds after copying and applying adjustments when V9 was pretty much instantaneous. WTF is going on with this company? Do they even test this software before release? Using A7Rii on Sony pro version. I am a professional and don't have the damn time to fuc around with this incompetence.
Your experience is not that of many others.
Have you logged a Support Case?
Remember your personal tech support is a free service.
Hopefully the log files will allow the Phase team to work out what is happening on your system and advise on how to overcome the problem.
Grant0 -
I have not logged a support case and shouldn't have to. I see from the other users that they are struggling with delays as well. BS. When I have some time on my hands but it's just nonsense. Some brilliant software engineer who doesn't give a crap forgot a damn line of code. 0 -
[quote="NN635467681590091084UL" wrote:
I have not logged a support case and shouldn't have to. I see from the other users that they are struggling with delays as well. BS. When I have some time on my hands but it's just nonsense. Some brilliant software engineer who doesn't give a crap forgot a damn line of code.
There are also others who are not struggling with delays - probably the majority.
Still, it's your call as to whether you seek official assistance.
This is just a User to User forum. If it's important to you spend the time you spend posting here on creating a Support Case. It's very likely to be more productive so it is what I would do if I had the problem.
Grant0 -
100% with Grant on this. Ranting here is totally useless. If you want tech support to look into the issue, then you NEED to file a support case. If you don't, then your angry posts here are just a waste of time. 0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="NN635467681590091084UL" wrote:
I have not logged a support case and shouldn't have to. I see from the other users that they are struggling with delays as well. BS. When I have some time on my hands but it's just nonsense. Some brilliant software engineer who doesn't give a crap forgot a damn line of code.
There are also others who are not struggling with delays - probably the majority.
Still, it's your call as to whether you seek official assistance.
This is just a User to User forum. If it's important to you spend the time you spend posting here on creating a Support Case. It's very likely to be more productive so it is what I would do if I had the problem.
Grant
FWIW - I did log a support case and the tech asked if this is happening with any other catalogues. I decided to open an older catalog and then come back to my working one and presto, all is fixed. However, now it takes 5 seconds for a rating star to appear after hitting a number. Ugh. In any event, I'm good to go on copy and paste adjustments.0 -
[quote="NN635467681590091084UL" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="NN635467681590091084UL" wrote:
I have not logged a support case and shouldn't have to. I see from the other users that they are struggling with delays as well. BS. When I have some time on my hands but it's just nonsense. Some brilliant software engineer who doesn't give a crap forgot a damn line of code.
There are also others who are not struggling with delays - probably the majority.
Still, it's your call as to whether you seek official assistance.
This is just a User to User forum. If it's important to you spend the time you spend posting here on creating a Support Case. It's very likely to be more productive so it is what I would do if I had the problem.
Grant
FWIW - I did log a support case and the tech asked if this is happening with any other catalogues. I decided to open an older catalog and then come back to my working one and presto, all is fixed. However, now it takes 5 seconds for a rating star to appear after hitting a number. Ugh. In any event, I'm good to go on copy and paste adjustments.
Hmm.
Some progress then.
In terms of your star rating ... are you using any of the inter-application Synchronisation facilities using XMP sidecar files?
Grant.0 -
For my business, I see no reason to upgrade. I'll wait for version 11 or 12. Maybe they will include an auto upright feature in the software. Great for architecture photography. 0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
No, it hasn't - it performs superbly on my machine, as it does for many: those who find otherwise usually trace their problems to a local issue with that machine.
Just wondering do you do more post production work in photoshop utilising TIFF files ? I can assure you myself and many others who have large TIFF files (>2GB), have experienced performance issues in C1 v10 and it has been acknowledged by C1 Support.0 -
[quote="col_du_aspin" wrote:
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
No, it hasn't - it performs superbly on my machine, as it does for many: those who find otherwise usually trace their problems to a local issue with that machine.
Just wondering do you do more post production work in photoshop utilising TIFF files ? I can assure you myself and many others who have large TIFF files (>2GB), have experienced performance issues in C1 v10 and it has been acknowledged by C1 Support.
But for the majority of the world who are not using such large TIFF files there should be nothing to be concerned about.
My 200Mb tiff scans seem to work very well.
Bearing in mind that whenever I have investigated TIFF system usage in the past the memory requirement was many times the file size and whatever you are doing with the image is going to have a lot of data to process I think you may be expecting quite a lot from an application that is primarily intended to produce high quality RAW file interpretation from files that are somewhat smaller to start with.
Photoshop, being a different sort of application, may be tuned to appear to be a faster solution. But then its market presence and its target clients are not completely comparable to C1.
In my view it's a matter of using a tool suitable for the job. If PS works better with huge TIFF files - then use it. After all, they are TIFF files so any RAW aspect they may once have had has already been dealt with. Therefore the quality and performance of a RAW converter is no longer of interest really.
Just my opinion of course. I'm sure people will disagree.
Grant0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
36 comments