opening up C1 for 3rd party plugins?
I wonder why C1 does not open up its software for 3rd party plugins. I am thinking of companies like onOne, Topaz, etc... Sometimes, not often, but sometimes the tools they provide come in handy. They have plugins for Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, .... With the Adobe problem (at least it is a problem for me, I will never go to the CC solution and hence will remain with CS6) it would be great if C1 would open up its software for plugins of these other companies. Well, that is my take on it. What does everyone else think?
Cheers, Bob
Cheers, Bob
0
-
[quote="picman2" wrote:
I wonder why C1 does not open up its software for 3rd party plugins. I am thinking of companies like onOne, Topaz, etc... Sometimes, not often, but sometimes the tools they provide come in handy. They have plugins for Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, .... With the Adobe problem (at least it is a problem for me, I will never go to the CC solution and hence will remain with CS6) it would be great if C1 would open up its software for plugins of these other companies. Well, that is my take on it. What does everyone else think?
Cheers, Bob
Let's look at it another way, tell us what features you are missing in CO, and let's see what we can do in the long run.
By far, the most of the functionality the plugins provide can already be done in CO7 in one way or another.0 -
[quote="picman2" wrote:
I wonder why C1 does not open up its software for 3rd party plugins. I am thinking of companies like onOne, Topaz, etc... Sometimes, not often, but sometimes the tools they provide come in handy. They have plugins for Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, .... With the Adobe problem (at least it is a problem for me, I will never go to the CC solution and hence will remain with CS6) it would be great if C1 would open up its software for plugins of these other companies. Well, that is my take on it. What does everyone else think?
Cheers, Bob
this would be really great, please phase one think about it !0 -
[quote="Christian Gr" wrote:
[quote="picman2" wrote:
I wonder why C1 does not open up its software for 3rd party plugins. I am thinking of companies like onOne, Topaz, etc... Sometimes, not often, but sometimes the tools they provide come in handy. They have plugins for Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, .... With the Adobe problem (at least it is a problem for me, I will never go to the CC solution and hence will remain with CS6) it would be great if C1 would open up its software for plugins of these other companies. Well, that is my take on it. What does everyone else think?
Cheers, Bob
Let's look at it another way, tell us what features you are missing in CO, and let's see what we can do in the long run.
By far, the most of the functionality the plugins provide can already be done in CO7 in one way or another.
ok, for example: still no smart deconvolution sharpening ( nik & topaz... ), only mediocre noise reduction ( noiseware & nik.. ), not enough local adjustment and selection opportunities ( viveza ), better up & down size algorithms....0 -
[quote="Horseoncowboy " wrote:
[quote="Christian Gr" wrote:
[quote="picman2" wrote:
I wonder why C1 does not open up its software for 3rd party plugins. I am thinking of companies like onOne, Topaz, etc... Sometimes, not often, but sometimes the tools they provide come in handy. They have plugins for Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, .... With the Adobe problem (at least it is a problem for me, I will never go to the CC solution and hence will remain with CS6) it would be great if C1 would open up its software for plugins of these other companies. Well, that is my take on it. What does everyone else think?
Cheers, Bob
Let's look at it another way, tell us what features you are missing in CO, and let's see what we can do in the long run.
By far, the most of the functionality the plugins provide can already be done in CO7 in one way or another.
ok, for example: still no smart deconvolution sharpening ( nik & topaz... ), only mediocre noise reduction ( noiseware & nik.. ), not enough local adjustment and selection opportunities ( viveza ), better up & down size algorithms....
Hi Christian,
I totally agree with your point of view. 3rd party plugins are - as far as I know - not compatible with the non destructive work flow within a raw converter. You always have to leave the raw converter by generating a tiff file.
What I'm missing most right know is a proper heal or cloning tool.0 -
[quote="NN634699580033719343UL" wrote:
... 3rd party plugins are - as far as I know - not compatible with the non destructive work flow within a raw converter. You always have to leave the raw converter by generating a tiff file. ...
No, that as such has nothing to do with plugins or not. It depends on the vendor's SDK. For example Bibble Pro (now sadly vanished into Corel Aftershot), actually allowed plugins into the imaging pipe line in a fully non-destructive way. There may be more examples of this, but this is one i know of.0 -
[quote="Christian Gr" wrote:
Let's look at it another way, tell us what features you are missing in CO, and let's see what we can do in the long run.
By far, the most of the functionality the plugins provide can already be done in CO7 in one way or another.
For me its very simple:
-Creative vignetting (see radial filter in Lr 5)
-Grain effect
-Cone Tool
-Heal Tool
-A Blurring effect in to local adjustment
For what concern me I dont see any need to 3rd party app or even to Ps if add those tools !
Thanks
Ettore0 -
[quote="picman2" wrote:
I wonder why C1 does not open up its software for 3rd party plugins. I am thinking of companies like onOne, Topaz, etc... Sometimes, not often, but sometimes the tools they provide come in handy. They have plugins for Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture, .... With the Adobe problem (at least it is a problem for me, I will never go to the CC solution and hence will remain with CS6) it would be great if C1 would open up its software for plugins of these other companies. Well, that is my take on it. What does everyone else think?
Cheers, Bob
+1.
I agree.
I will NEVER EVER move to the Adobe CC solution.
I have purchased a copy of Acorn Editor ($30) which is like Photoshop except it uses Javascript instead of Actions. I have asked them to look at opening up the product to softwares like Nik Software plugins and the like plus also the addition of support for Photoshop Actions. These are now current in-progress enhancement requests.0 -
[quote="HCS" wrote:
[quote="NN634699580033719343UL" wrote:
... 3rd party plugins are - as far as I know - not compatible with the non destructive work flow within a raw converter. You always have to leave the raw converter by generating a tiff file. ...
No, that as such has nothing to do with plugins or not. It depends on the vendor's SDK. For example Bibble Pro (now sadly vanished into Corel Aftershot), actually allowed plugins into the imaging pipe line in a fully non-destructive way. There may be more examples of this, but this is one i know of.
As a Bibble5/Aftershot Pro (ASP) user and tester I can say that this worked well but required a published SDK for the plugin developers to use.
This would mean that Phase One would need to release a SDK for Capture Pro. This is some work for Phase One team but the difference between Bibble/ASP and the rest was the plugins which really aided a good workflow and allowed everything to be done in Bibble/ASP without the need to go to Photoshop.0 -
If you really want to see why Bibble5/AfterShot Pro was as good as it was then look at the plugins on offer.
http://www.aftershotpro.com/plugins/
It would be good to get a response from PhaseOne development team as to whether they think that this is possible in the Capture One product.
It will almost without doubt require them to develop and publish a SDK so that plugin developers can get basic information about the image and also to be able to write to the sidecar file the plugin changes for each image touched. That way the RAW files are pristine and untouched.0 -
I have to admit that, other than Graphic Style editing - replacing backgrounds, skys, etc., or removing/replacing parts of an image I have reservations about the results obtained from plug-ins. What am I missing?
Or, to put it another way, what am I missing if I don't start with a RAW file?
Mostly the plugoins I have looked at seem to work perfectly adequately for the purpose and the end result with a JPG straight out of the camera. Indeed they often have not wanted to start with a RAW file.
Add a border? - who needs a RAW file?
Add a 'texture' ? - who needs a RAW file?
They mostly seem to be based on the PS Layers type of concept when in use but with the edits flattened to a single set of adjustments (which we might think of as a style?) attuned to the capabilities of the hosting application. Or simply applied to the jpg if using the free standing front end that most plug-in program developers now seem to offer.
I assume that there are, ultimately, some choices to be made about how the plug-in adjustemts are appled to the original file. An XMP/cos type file of edits (combined effects from all the edits for each tool instance presumably) would work if the available tools can deliver the changes by that method. But if adding textures or changing backgrounds and so on I would guess that some sort of workfile merge/blend would be required. Not something that already exists in C1 so far as I know, makes more sense to employ an intermediate file for the task. If one accepts that then there is no reason not to create and apply the changes to an output file within the plug-in provider's own application.
Once that is done I don't really see an immediate benefit to bringing the resulting file back into C1. One might argue that it would be for DAM purposes but realistically, as things stand today, using something like Media Pro rather than C1 would make more sense for such a requirement would it not?
So, what have I missed and where does my logic fail?
I'm seeking to learn here.
Grant Perkins0 -
[quote="jknights" wrote:
If you really want to see why Bibble5/AfterShot Pro was as good as it was then look at the plugins on offer.
http://www.aftershotpro.com/plugins/
Bibble/ASP plugins were nothing more than a kludgy, lazy, dishonest way for users to make up for bugs, functional and image quality shortfalls (the number of which in ASP is still staggering) in order to allow the bone-idle developers (no wonder they were sacked by Corel) completely to ignore bug reports, and instead to spend their limited development time sitting on their backsides tweaking the plugin SDK to make it easier for users to produce more plugins!
(And don't be in any doubt - that's exactly what happened).
Sure, there were some (arguably) useful "enhancement" plugins among them (Grant's "why?" comments above refer - doubtless the response will be "less trips to Photoshop, PaintShop Pro, the Gimp...") but when users had to rely on plugins for utterly basic IQ functions like useful NR (unlike the additional cost "enhanced" Noise Ninja solution, the use of which generated random pixel-wide borders around images - a bug that has been known about and ignored for years and years) and decent sharpening, it's obvious that something was very wrong with the native code.
It's a model that has no place whatsoever in any commercial Raw solution. At best it's an "Open Source" approach to limited resource availability, and there's no case for Phase One - or Adobe, or Picturecode, or any other serious player in the Raw converter space - to look to users to do devs' jobs.
We pay for these products, there's no way we should have to fix them (right down to the code level) too - that's a big part of what we pay for.0 -
Keith,
I find that a little cynical but you are entitled to your opinion.
Bibble5/ASP is approximately 3-5 times faster at processing RAW files than ANY other software. There is no perfect RAW processor as it is all code and if you find bugs then it is unlucky for you and if you report them then they should get fixed. I will give you the point that the Bibble/Corel team were not good at fixing bugs rapidly. In fact some of these bug and 'features' were complained about by the testers but we had no control over the release process. Like any commercial product there are balances to be struck between getting a 'perfect product' and getting stuff out the door.
If you want laziness and complacency then look at Adobe and their reluctance to spend money to provide a good solution to the Fuji X Trans RAW conversion. Also the response by users to their new proposal to rent you their Creative Clo(wn)ud product. I will not spend any more money on their products which are monopolistic and overpriced.
As such I have voted with my feet/wallet and moved to Phase One Capture Pro. I will not pay another cent to Adobe in upgrades even though I have used Photoshop since version 5.0.
Anyway back to Capture Pro.
If a SDK was available it doesnt mean you have to use plugins produced but can stick with the set delivered by PhaseOne. Personally I need to finish my images for publication by adding text and borders and occasionally some other special effects and if I can use Capture Pro as my one-stop-shop then so much the better for me.
I think that you opinion is valid but not shared by me.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
I have to admit that, other than Graphic Style editing - replacing backgrounds, skys, etc., or removing/replacing parts of an image I have reservations about the results obtained from plug-ins. What am I missing?
Or, to put it another way, what am I missing if I don't start with a RAW file?
I always shoot RAW so I always start with a RAW file.
Mostly the plugoins I have looked at seem to work perfectly adequately for the purpose and the end result with a JPG straight out of the camera. Indeed they often have not wanted to start with a RAW file.
Add a border? - who needs a RAW file?
You can have a version (rendering) of the image with different sized borders and text additions. All these details are captured in a XMP file so that the RAW is left untouched but the rendered final output can be pushed directly to its final destination, web, customer, archive or printer.
Add a 'texture' ? - who needs a RAW file?
Same rationale as above.
They mostly seem to be based on the PS Layers type of concept when in use but with the edits flattened to a single set of adjustments (which we might think of as a style?) attuned to the capabilities of the hosting application. Or simply applied to the jpg if using the free standing front end that most plug-in program developers now seem to offer.
I assume that there are, ultimately, some choices to be made about how the plug-in adjustemts are appled to the original file. An XMP/cos type file of edits (combined effects from all the edits for each tool instance presumably) would work if the available tools can deliver the changes by that method.
I would not be supportive of a process that required me to produce a derivative JPG/TIFF file that was then edited when the same is possible from the RAW file. Producing derivatives increases storage use. I have 120000 images in my archive and since 2007 I have rarely produced derivative files except to give to a customer, put on my website or to print.
But if adding textures or changing backgrounds and so on I would guess that some sort of workfile merge/blend would be required. Not something that already exists in C1 so far as I know, makes more sense to employ an intermediate file for the task. If one accepts that then there is no reason not to create and apply the changes to an output file within the plug-in provider's own application.
I'm not sure what you mean about changing backgrounds. If you mean putting in different skies where a bland sky exists at present then I agree with you that this is best done in Photoshop, GIMP or Acorn Editor.
Once that is done I don't really see an immediate benefit to bringing the resulting file back into C1. One might argue that it would be for DAM purposes but realistically, as things stand today, using something like Media Pro rather than C1 would make more sense for such a requirement would it not?
So, what have I missed and where does my logic fail?
I'm seeking to learn here.
Grant Perkins
I think I understand the questions you are asking as I was asking these same ones in 2007 when I was producing derivative JPG and TIFF files from my RAW files by default!. I needed someone else to show me their workflow so I could understand how to adjust mine to reduce my disk usage. At the time I was adding 1TB of storage per year with 10 and 12MP cameras, since I now use 16, 24 and 36MP cameras I hate to think what that would have grown to if I hadnt made the change.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
13 comments