memory leaking bad!
Not new topic. I saw the thread about 9.0.1 leak. Supposedly there was a patch too. But this one is 9.0.3. Memory leaks must have been fixed already.
Still leaking, badly too... How to reproduce. Very easy. Load 1000 canon raw files. and go from the first one up, just reviewing, assigning stars. At the start the memory usage is about 3.5Gb, but when you reach the middle of the list, memory usage will be 15Gb.
At which point you will notice delays, visual delays, redrawing the picture when you zoom in and zoom out. Also, if you try to delete a file (Del key - move to trash), it will take 5-6 seconds for each file, and quite likely, you will see also, the preview generation process starting for no good reason (right after a file has been deleted), generating all the previews again.
Also, when at this point (in low memory), the database will get corrupted EVERY time (happened 3 times to me today)
Maybe this database corruption is related to how the low memory condition is handled in C1.
I am thinking about making the first pictures review and in PS bridge now as before, cut down to 30% there and then correct and convert using C1... Until C1 works with large sets. As it is now, it is basically not functional.
Still leaking, badly too... How to reproduce. Very easy. Load 1000 canon raw files. and go from the first one up, just reviewing, assigning stars. At the start the memory usage is about 3.5Gb, but when you reach the middle of the list, memory usage will be 15Gb.
At which point you will notice delays, visual delays, redrawing the picture when you zoom in and zoom out. Also, if you try to delete a file (Del key - move to trash), it will take 5-6 seconds for each file, and quite likely, you will see also, the preview generation process starting for no good reason (right after a file has been deleted), generating all the previews again.
Also, when at this point (in low memory), the database will get corrupted EVERY time (happened 3 times to me today)
Maybe this database corruption is related to how the low memory condition is handled in C1.
I am thinking about making the first pictures review and in PS bridge now as before, cut down to 30% there and then correct and convert using C1... Until C1 works with large sets. As it is now, it is basically not functional.
0
-
And whether the output is as 'good' as C1 or not, other RAW processors that I've used / tested don't seem to struggle so badly. I'm getting to the point (by tweaking settings) where my workflow isn't interrupted by quite so many spinning beachballs but still see very high CPU and memory use. I'm hoping things will improve but keeping my options open... 0 -
[quote="hifimacianer" wrote:
In the end it doesn't matter if Retina iMacs make sense or not - fact is that they are available and apple more and more replaces non Retina iMacs with new Retina iMacs. And in fact they are available with really good specs.
You're right, Retina Macs are there, also HP and other 4k displays, but in my IT world it is the software which "dictates" which hardware to use (software always has system requirements), not vice versa ...
But of course it is not black & white...
btw, I agree for the catalog performance.0 -
Hello,
Actually, C1P in Session mode is pretty fast. I am using a session per pro-project.
Catalog is "average".[quote="peter.f" wrote:
I don't think the PhaseOne crew has to look for specific machines or configurations. C1 is simply slow and a memory hog.
0 -
[quote="hifimacianer" wrote:
[quote="BeO" wrote:
Good post, Grant.
Just a guess, but if Apple (not limited to Apple of course) offers an iMac with such high resolution people think this must be something good and need to have. Which might be true for one or the other use case, but I have seen a video "testing" several peoples ability to distinguish an image on a high-res iMac vs. a non-high-res iMac side by side and they were not able to. The moderator of that video told that after a while he was able to "distinguish" it, but it did not really make a big difference.
Indeed, 4k or 5k pixels need to be computed and it seems obvious that this needs more resources & time than computing an image with a lower resolution.
cheers
BeO
In the end it doesn't matter if Retina iMacs make sense or not - fact is that they are available and apple more and more replaces non Retina iMacs with new Retina iMacs. And in fact they are available with really good specs.
Another thing to mention is, that Apples Photos app is screaming fast on the same machine with a 200GB Library, while C1 lags even with smaller catalogues or sessions. So it has to do something with the used database and/or the code of the Application.
Indeed. As I posted the other day: same machine and effectively the same catalogue: 20 seconds for LR to become available vs 6 minutes for C1 v9.3.
Whatever the issue is, there's a serious problem with C1 as it stands.
Regards
Shane0 -
[quote="ShaneB" wrote:
Indeed. As I posted the other day: same machine and effectively the same catalogue: 20 seconds for LR to become available vs 6 minutes for C1 v9.3.
Whatever the issue is, there's a serious problem with C1 as it stands.
Regards
Shane
Hi Shane,
Although I also critize the time C1 needs to load and show all images (or a lot of images) in C1, I think it is noteworthy that this is the time C1 needs to fully show thousands of them and not the time you have to wait before you can start working. E.. You can switch from "All Images" to any other (smaller) album or set a filter right away, both actions reduce the time considerably, don't they?
In LR, I don't remember, are the thumbnails shown as small previews including crops and adjustments or plain vanilla embedded jpegs? Or do you have the choice between both, and is there a time difference?
Cheers
BeO0 -
Gidday Beo
Not quite sure how to answer that. After 20 seconds (on my iMac at least), LR is ready to rock and there are no delays in finding or loading any particular image. That can't be said of C1 unfortunately.
I emphasise that I'm still running essentially the same set of images on both products and there's a factor of about 18 in the time one takes to load over the other. That's simply not good enough.
Don't get me wrong - I love what C1 is doing with my raw files and I want to use it, but unless PhaseOne comes up with a real solution to this, I'm going to have to retreat back to LR. I don't have the time - or the patience to wait 6 minutes before I can do anything, or to have to pause for 10 or 15 seconds after doing simple things in adjustments or the catalogue.
Not happy about it, but them's the facts.
Regards0 -
Hi Shane,
It would be interesting to know what you do most often.
I want to have access to all my images from time to time, but mostly I work on the most recent imports, or on the images of the current month or so, in the first case I select from the recent imports collection, for the latter I go to my folder structure (organzized by year and month), so these collections are loaded fast as they are much smaller than my full catalog.
Yes, finding one or the other way to achieve good performance looks like (and probably is) a workaround but hey, that's life...
This having said, waiting for 10-15 seconds for doing a simple slider move or local adjustments is certainly not funny, as it seems there is no workaround then, and I would also not want to work with C1 then. But even with my 5 year old notebook this rarely happens, with newer hardware there shouldn't be such long waiting times, at least not on a regular basis.
LR was a catalog software and now can develop raw files. C1 was a raw editor and now can do cataloguing. That might explain the strenghts of each.
I hope you'll become happy with whatever choice you make.
Cheers
BeO0 -
[quote="ShaneB" wrote:
Gidday Beo
Not quite sure how to answer that. After 20 seconds (on my iMac at least), LR is ready to rock and there are no delays in finding or loading any particular image. That can't be said of C1 unfortunately.
I emphasise that I'm still running essentially the same set of images on both products and there's a factor of about 18 in the time one takes to load over the other. That's simply not good enough.
Don't get me wrong - I love what C1 is doing with my raw files and I want to use it, but unless PhaseOne comes up with a real solution to this, I'm going to have to retreat back to LR. I don't have the time - or the patience to wait 6 minutes before I can do anything, or to have to pause for 10 or 15 seconds after doing simple things in adjustments or the catalogue.
Not happy about it, but them's the facts.
Regards
Shane,
One suggestion and a question or two.
I suspect that C1 is doing a lot more up front in real time than other products might attempt. For example back in V1 days of LR it was pretty good, compared to other products, at showing real speed for display but I discovered when doing some comparisons that the total elapsed time for activities was little or not different. It just presented stuff to look faster and then completed its tasks once we had admired its rapidity.
I have no idea if that is the same today. I don't much like catalogs to I abandoned LR and worked with something else and eventually moved to C1 as well.
I use sessions. They may suit you for speed of operation. So the suggestion is that you might try them by way of comparison. Once you have the files done for major editing and regular access, shove them into the catalogue. I can't see the point in always opening a large catalogue when you only want to work with a relative handful of files. YMMV.
The questions.
Are you working with files sharing between LR and C!?
Are you using XMP to share metadata? If so, have you tried turning it off to see what if anything changes in terms of speed?
What size have you set in the preferences for Preview files? If this is a mismatch for the actual default screen area you will be using as the files are displayed C1 may be having to do a lot of recalculating for every image every time you open the catalogue. It's what it does to give you the latest greatest version of you images, taking into account things like the Proof Profile and, in the Pro versions, Process recipes and, possibly, the focus mask and exposure warning features if you have them set on by default.
All of those thing will demand processing time. If you have files on a NAS or external drive of some sort the disk access time may also be challenged by the activity and thus be slowing overall response.
There are, of course, many other possible considerations but those are a few to look into for now.
I'm not a Mac user but based on conversations in the forum I'm pretty confident that Mac users running sessions see much the same levels of performance as we windows users - where specifications are similar.
I think it is generally true for catalogue users as well for those who do not have issues for other, possibly undiagnosed, reasons.
Finally, form memory, a year or so back when LR was at V5 and C1 at V8 I seem to recall reading comments about hoe fast C1 was compared to LR. Both have progressed since then but maybe Adobe are ahead in the leapfrog race at this particular time. However there do seem to be some people who have no significant or regular performance issues and others who do. I'm sure everyone, Phase included through Support Cases, would love to find out how these wide discrepancies originate.
Don't forget to try sessions ....
HTH
Grant0 -
Just to confirm I logged a call on the same subject in early January and this was tech support's reply:
Hi,
I have logged all this with a few other cases into an indepth report called CO-9184 if you get in touch about it again quote this number.
Hopefully our development team will be able to shed some light on the issue.
Kind regards
Phase One Support
So, an 'indepth report' exists and I'm guessing anyone can refer to it when requesting updates...0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="ShaneB" wrote:
Gidday Beo
Not quite sure how to answer that. After 20 seconds (on my iMac at least), LR is ready to rock and there are no delays in finding or loading any particular image. That can't be said of C1 unfortunately.
I emphasise that I'm still running essentially the same set of images on both products and there's a factor of about 18 in the time one takes to load over the other. That's simply not good enough.
Don't get me wrong - I love what C1 is doing with my raw files and I want to use it, but unless PhaseOne comes up with a real solution to this, I'm going to have to retreat back to LR. I don't have the time - or the patience to wait 6 minutes before I can do anything, or to have to pause for 10 or 15 seconds after doing simple things in adjustments or the catalogue.
Not happy about it, but them's the facts.
Regards
Shane,
One suggestion and a question or two.
I suspect that C1 is doing a lot more up front in real time than other products might attempt. For example back in V1 days of LR it was pretty good, compared to other products, at showing real speed for display but I discovered when doing some comparisons that the total elapsed time for activities was little or not different. It just presented stuff to look faster and then completed its tasks once we had admired its rapidity.
I have no idea if that is the same today. I don't much like catalogs to I abandoned LR and worked with something else and eventually moved to C1 as well.
I use sessions. They may suit you for speed of operation. So the suggestion is that you might try them by way of comparison. Once you have the files done for major editing and regular access, shove them into the catalogue. I can't see the point in always opening a large catalogue when you only want to work with a relative handful of files. YMMV.
The questions.
Are you working with files sharing between LR and C!?
Are you using XMP to share metadata? If so, have you tried turning it off to see what if anything changes in terms of speed?
What size have you set in the preferences for Preview files? If this is a mismatch for the actual default screen area you will be using as the files are displayed C1 may be having to do a lot of recalculating for every image every time you open the catalogue. It's what it does to give you the latest greatest version of you images, taking into account things like the Proof Profile and, in the Pro versions, Process recipes and, possibly, the focus mask and exposure warning features if you have them set on by default.
All of those thing will demand processing time. If you have files on a NAS or external drive of some sort the disk access time may also be challenged by the activity and thus be slowing overall response.
There are, of course, many other possible considerations but those are a few to look into for now.
I'm not a Mac user but based on conversations in the forum I'm pretty confident that Mac users running sessions see much the same levels of performance as we windows users - where specifications are similar.
I think it is generally true for catalogue users as well for those who do not have issues for other, possibly undiagnosed, reasons.
Finally, form memory, a year or so back when LR was at V5 and C1 at V8 I seem to recall reading comments about hoe fast C1 was compared to LR. Both have progressed since then but maybe Adobe are ahead in the leapfrog race at this particular time. However there do seem to be some people who have no significant or regular performance issues and others who do. I'm sure everyone, Phase included through Support Cases, would love to find out how these wide discrepancies originate.
Don't forget to try sessions ....
HTH
Grant
Thanks.
To answer your questions:
- the images are shared with LR in the sense that my LR catalogue still exists. It's not in use.
- no, I don't use XMP files. The catalogue was imported from LR using C1's import function.
- preview size is set to 5K in preferences as I have a 5k iMac. This still leaves a delay before opening any image.
Regarding Sessions: thanks but I want a catalogue. It suits my workflow and general needs. Furthermore, according to the Capture One Pro 9 Webinar, Organising your Catalog, there is no limit on catalogue size and the presenter says he has about 15k of images in a catalogue and it loads in seconds. My 35k images take 6+ minutes to be useable.
Regards0 -
Hi Shane,
I was thinking you might like to try out a session from a shoot to see how the performance differs (if at all). You would be working with a subset of files instead of having to open the full catalogue. Once culled and, perhaps, edited just import the results to you catalogue and you will be all set to continue as usual but with the heavy work all or mostly done.
Frankly I personally cannot imagine what the benefit is for opening a large catalogue everytime I want to edit an image - unless it is an image on which I have already completed the work but may be in demand for further use or sales. All of that was one of things that put me off LR when it was first available. But that is a personal thing.
If you are not using XMP files do make sure that the Metadata Sync is Off in the Preferences options. (Mentioned in case you have not considered that.)
From my experiences with testing sqlite databases in a business software environment (and other sources) it is not wise to assume that performance is linear for any size of database. Databases tend to be tuned for speed or volume (number of records and how many useful indexes can sensibly be supported). To achieve both can be tricky even when working with some strictly defined data sets - such as a single highly refined non-variable set of record with a well known structure. The likely very variable use of products like C1 does not really fit a controlled use scenario.
We reckon that that the database response can be made quite fast up to about 30k records. Almost linear speed per record as far as the user is concerned. After that things change.
Interestingly I have read that speeds for typical storage media - SSDs for example - perform in a similar way. Fast at the outset but slowing quite noticeably and the number of files increases. That is for consumer devices. SSDs intended for server use may be specifically programmed for rapid file access or large data transfer activities as I understand things. They are, ultimately, just large databases.
A preview set to 5k for a 5k screen sound logical and as per recommendations BUT I wonder if it is in this case?
That implies some large preview files that will either be moved into memory or processed in some way to make them ready for instant use or, perhaps, have to be downsized (i.e. recalculated from the original) in order to display them less than full screen size. It makes me wonder if there is, for your purposes, a lot of redundant processing activity going on. That would be no problem, perhaps, for a "browse the Catalogue" session but frustrating for just diving in for a quick edit of a recently completed shoot.
I observe something similar with sessions - but at least I am not having to wait for so many files to be made ready since most of my sessions are less than 3k images.
Just some thoughts that might offer you some ideas for making C1 perform as you would prefer it to for you needs.
Grant0 -
Giddy Grant [quote="SFA" wrote:
Hi Shane,
Frankly I personally cannot imagine what the benefit is for opening a large catalogue everytime I want to edit an image - unless it is an image on which I have already completed the work but may be in demand for further use or sales. All of that was one of things that put me off LR when it was first available. But that is a personal thing.
If you are not using XMP files do make sure that the Metadata Sync is Off in the Preferences options. (Mentioned in case you have not considered that.)
...
A preview set to 5k for a 5k screen sound logical and as per recommendations BUT I wonder if it is in this case?
Grant
I can understand why you don't understand why I want access to all my files (that's a complicated thought!!), but it is as it is. As I say: I can do it in LR, and while C1 isn't and shouldn't be LR, there's no reason why a catalogue shouldn't be as capable in one app as another.
I note your comments about XMP and will make that change in a few minutes when I can get into C1. Yep ... minutes.
I hear what you're saying about preview size, but that's PhaseOne's recommendation! It's not exactly instantaneous, but they say waiting for previews to render can take even longer.
Thanks for your advice.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Frankly I personally cannot imagine what the benefit is for opening a large catalogue everytime I want to edit an image - unless it is an image on which I have already completed the work but may be in demand for further use or sales. All of that was one of things that put me off LR when it was first available. But that is a personal thing.
The benefit is, that you can browse trough your whole Library and search for certain pictures, without clicking trough a Folder structure and open session per session to find a certain Image.
Especially if you are not a professional photographer who is also physically working in sessions in his Job, a large library of all your photos is more suitable. Just because Hobby photographers make a lot of day to day photos, of their daily Family life. It's nothing to open a new session.
And to be honest, with other software it doesn't matter if the Catalogue/Library is huge or not. You don't really feel a difference in Speed. So that is really a problem where the developers of PhaseOne have to work on.0 -
One could argue that C1 is mainly focussed on professionals.
However, also professionals have a private life and I assume many if not most of them have a collection of images not related to jobs/sessions 😕 and I also think a catalog is a better fit for such images.
But it is also likely there are many pros which have a separate DAM solution.
As an hobbyist/enthusiast I work mainly on subsets (which have a better performance), i.e. my most recent images looked up via folder structure or with smart albums, only occasionally I work with "all images". So catalog performance is not (yet) a big problem for me, but I only have 4000 images.
(Don't get me wrong I would also very much appreciate a better catalog performance)0 -
[quote="BeO" wrote:
One could argue that C1 is mainly focussed on professionals.
However, also professionals have a private life and I assume many if not most of them have a collection of images not related to jobs/sessions 😕 and I also think a catalog is a better fit for such images.
But it is also likely there are many pros which have a separate DAM solution.
As an hobbyist/enthusiast I work mainly on subsets (which have a better performance), i.e. my most recent images looked up via folder structure or with smart albums, only occasionally I work with "all images". So catalog performance is not (yet) a big problem for me, but I only have 4000 images.
(Don't get me wrong I would also very much appreciate a better catalog performance)
I agree, C1 is mainly designed for professionals who work in sessions.
But since PhaseOne introduced the catalogue, I assume that it should also be implemented in a professional way!
I also use the catalogue with a self created Folder structure, but that doesn't really matter in terms of Speed.
The catalogue gets slower, the more you fill it, even if you don't use the "all Images" view.
If I compare the speed with Apples new Photos App, I can't believe that C1 is a Application designed for pro users.
Image Quality, adjusting tools, all of that is really great in C1 - but when it comes to Speed it feels like a pain compared to Photos or even Lightroom.0 -
Hello,
first, I'm not a professional photographer, but I thoroughly enjoy this beautiful hobby.
Here are my humble thoughts,
I agree with Grant that in order to workflow a set of images (new or archived) I don't need access to all my images. I think the image manipulation capabilities of COP9 to be just outstanding - in most cases it even eliminates the need to have to resort to further purchase 'plugins' as is often required with other raw converters! (and its getting better with every major release).
As in other areas of life, I think each tool should concentrate on its strengths and intention and used as such ( or would you go in your family limousine to pick up a load of building materials rather than use a van or pickup truck?)
I happen to own Media pro too and I think it makes a great complement to the needed DAM functionality in a discrete workflow. (Picasa is also a good, free alternative for that [if set up right 😉]).
The proper implementation of a catalog feature into an image manipulation software seems to be of most demanding technical know how as one has very little to do with the other and the limited computing resources are competing without mercy...
In following camera bits Photo Mechanic attempts to include a catalog feature to their otherwise excellent software tells me, it is not easy- they are working on it for years now and still have not published a release!
I think the introduction of the catalog feature in CO has opened a big can of worms for Phase One which is unrelated to the 'original' purpose of the program as a raw converter with outstanding tethering capabilities.
These problems (memory leaks, crashes, performance, and data integrity) will take some major efforts to be resolved; as I understand it, just the image manipulation and fine tuning aspect of CO is very demanding in computing power requirements. Add to that the 'life' functionality of a full-blown DBMS and you run out of resources quickly.
I am using PhotoMechanic for ingest, culling, rating, renaming and keywording, CO9 in session mode for tethering and raw workflow, and Media Pro for archiving and searching... (well, Picasa I use to connect and upload to 'social networks').
May sound complicated but in daily reality it is pretty simple!
I am well aware the catalog 'feature' is here to stay but hope Phase One keeps on its track to provide an above average image raw converter with amazing nondestructive manipulation capabilities.
Just my non professional opinion.
Thanks for reading.0 -
Using only sessions is workaround, but not a solution of the real issue.
Closing any session does not free the RAM when we close it open another ... etc etc and the RAM will shoot over 20 or 30 Gb. So I learnt that over the time, instead of just closing the session I close C1 as well and only then proceed to next task.0 -
[quote="electrotimba" wrote:
Using only sessions is workaround, but not a solution of the real issue.
Closing any session does not free the RAM when we close it open another ... etc etc and the RAM will shoot over 20 or 30 Gb. So I learnt that over the time, instead of just closing the session I close C1 as well and only then proceed to next task.
Of what I read, this and the catalog memory leak are verified issues by Phase One and they are working on resolving the issue.
But of course you are right, I forgot to mention that particular 'bug' in my previous post - thanks for the heads up...0 -
I have similar problems. Very slow response. I broke my 45k image catalog into 3 catalogs in the hope of getting faster response. It may be slightly faster for each of the 20k image catalogs. It is quite a pain to delete keywords from catalog, for example. I don't know exactly what the problem is but I do know that the current performance of CO9.0.3 is unsatisfactorily slow with periodic random crashes. When will these issues be addressed? 0 -
If using sessions though, can you search all your images via keywords like in a catalog though? 0 -
[quote="NN635607658619116299UL" wrote:
I have similar problems. Very slow response. I broke my 45k image catalog into 3 catalogs in the hope of getting faster response. It may be slightly faster for each of the 20k image catalogs. It is quite a pain to delete keywords from catalog, for example. I don't know exactly what the problem is but I do know that the current performance of CO9.0.3 is unsatisfactorily slow with periodic random crashes. When will these issues be addressed?
Same as you. I run C1 on a retina MacBook pro, early 2015. Just to remove (still ongoing) one keyword from 4200 pictures on the catalog, its quite long, about one hour. Checking the system monitory:
- processor: over 100% ! 🤓 🤓
- Ram: continually increasing, now 20 Go 🤬
Of course, I have periodic random crashes too. C1 has to be optimized0 -
[quote="Donnie" wrote:
If using sessions though, can you search all your images via keywords like in a catalog though?
In MediaPro you can 😉 😄0 -
[quote="NNN635910606303403296" wrote:
Just to remove (still ongoing) one keyword from 4200 pictures on the catalog
Could you describe how are you removing the keyword from 4200 pictures, I somehow doubt you are doing this manually and one-by-one.
Do you have all 4200 images inside the same folder?0 -
Curious to those having the memory problem.
How many of you already bought CO9? What made you buy or upgrade?
To those on the trial, would you buy after it ended in it's current version (9.0.3)?0 -
[quote="Wesley" wrote:
Curious to those having the memory problem.
How many of you already bought CO9? What made you buy or upgrade?
To those on the trial, would you buy after it ended in it's current version (9.0.3)?
The quality make it worth for me. I am more interested what a software can do than what it can`t or have issues with.0 -
Gidday Wesley [quote="Wesley" wrote:
Curious to those having the memory problem.
How many of you already bought CO9? What made you buy or upgrade?
To those on the trial, would you buy after it ended in it's current version (9.0.3)?
I ran the trial of 9.0 and was impressed with the results from my raw files - although C1 was a little clunky.
I bought C1 on that basis, but wouldn't have had I tried 9.0.3, which IMHO is worse than 9.0.
While I'm logged in and referring to some other recent posts: C1 isn't cheap and claims to be a pro product which has full catalogue functionality. So I'm disinclined to either (a) spend more money on supplementary software or (b) use C1 in a limited form as a work-around for what I should have got in the first place.
I hope to see a viable version of C1 soon. No more bells and whistles - just software that "does what is says on the tin/can".0 -
[quote="ShaneB" wrote:
Gidday Wesley[quote="Wesley" wrote:
Curious to those having the memory problem.
How many of you already bought CO9? What made you buy or upgrade?
To those on the trial, would you buy after it ended in it's current version (9.0.3)?
I ran the trial of 9.0 and was impressed with the results from my raw files - although C1 was a little clunky.
I bought C1 on that basis, but wouldn't have had I tried 9.0.3, which IMHO is worse than 9.0.
While I'm logged in and referring to some other recent posts: C1 isn't cheap and claims to be a pro product which has full catalogue functionality. So I'm disinclined to either (a) spend more money on supplementary software or (b) use C1 in a limited form as a work-around for what I should have got in the first place.
I hope to see a viable version of C1 soon. No more bells and whistles - just software that "does what is says on the tin/can".
Same sentiment here. I trialed 9.0.3 and focussed mainly on the image quality for the Fuji X-trans sensor. I was —and still am— impressed by what it can deliver. But I never tried big catalogs, and I should have. That was my mistake.
When I was on a deadline at the end of the trial period I bought it, because the images I delivered were so much better. I then tried importing my full 60K LR catalog and failed miserably. I tried smaller catalogs, and wasn't impressed. 5 minutes to add a keyword to 600 images! I then started reading this forum and my heart sank through the floor. It really felt like I made a huge mistake.
I still use it for the IQ. I still hope P1 can get their act together and solve the catalog and responsiveness issues. In the mean time, I use a small catalog with the most recent images, and when it starts to slow down too much I make a fresh one.
I do wonder what their plans are for the catalog in C1P and the Media Pro product. It's a bit of an odd situation. Maybe they should have left C1P with its sessions, and promote MP as their DAM solution, well integrated with C1P. Now they need to develop and maintain two code-bases that basically do the same thing (well, not yet, but one day, I hope).
Like you, I bought this program under the premise that it was a good RAW developer and a good/decent DAM. Like LR. Like Aperture. At only twice the price… :-/
Like you, I'm no longer willing to spend money on another program that must do what C1P promises to do but doesn't. I was thinking of trying the MP beta, but unless they provide it free of charge for C1P owners, I'm not even bothering anymore.
Sorry for the longish and negative sounding post, but there have been too many posts recently that try to convince the "moaners" like me that C1P is fine and that programming is hard and that there is other software that can do the things C1P can't, etc. And I have had a bad day at work. Sorry. I'll probably regret my post later, but for now, it feels good!
Cheers,
Peter.0 -
[quote="peter.f" wrote:
When I was on a deadline at the end of the trial period I bought it, because the images I delivered were so much better. I then tried importing my full 60K Lr catalog and failed miserably. I tried smaller catalogs, and wasn't impressed. 5 minutes to add a keyword to 600 images! I then started reading this forum and my heart sank through the floor. It really felt like I made a huge mistake.
Having made a similar journey from Lr to CO and based on comparing my experience to yours, I think the main problem was trying to replace Lr, trying to import your full Lr catalogue in one go, in particular if a deadline was looming. But hindsight is 100% perfect vision, unfortunately only happens after the event.
For the past year I have essentially parallel run Lr and CO, first with CO 8 and know CO 9, and slowly let go of Lr, by the way I have not fully let go of Lr yet. My CO catalogue only contains new work and those photographs I thought/think benefit from re-processing with CO. There are 2 reasons for this approach:
a) before the switch I had concluded that my workflow was not as software independent as I once thought it was, it was too tightly coupled with Lr and was not too happy about that, in particular, considering the apparent roadmap of the makers of Lr.
b) it also became very clear early on during the switch that my workflow required significant adjustments to decouple it from Lr and I have spent. I am now satisfied with the revised workflow and think it will work well both in Lr and CO
At some point I might decide to import the whole Lr back catalogue but I have no urgency yet to do this.
The drawback with this approach is that I might have to sacrifice the keywords, captions, and titles I had entered in my Lr catalogue. Not sure if it is a bid loss.
Finally, I find interesting how little information people posting and complaining in this thread are willing to share about things such as:
i) how is the catalogue structured - project based folder structure, hierarchical yyyy, yyyy-mmm, yyyy-mm-dd folder based structure, some other structure
ii) how are the Lr catalogues imported
iii) size of the files, an IQ camera back is not the same as Nikon D810, and this is not the same as Leica T
iv) how certain operations like adding a keyword to 600 images are carried out
If you want Phase One to improve things, you are going to tell them how you those things that are problematic. Their development team, like any other development, does not read minds.
CO is not Lr, the same way Lr and Aperture are different.0 -
Good evening, [quote="NN259560UL" wrote:
[quote="peter.f" wrote:
When I was on a deadline at the end of the trial period I bought it, because the images I delivered were so much better. I then tried importing my full 60K Lr catalog and failed miserably. I tried smaller catalogs, and wasn't impressed. 5 minutes to add a keyword to 600 images! I then started reading this forum and my heart sank through the floor. It really felt like I made a huge mistake.
Having made a similar journey from Lr to CO and based on comparing my experience to yours, I think the main problem was trying to replace Lr, trying to import your full Lr catalogue in one go, in particular if a deadline was looming. But hindsight is 100% perfect vision, unfortunately only happens after the event.
As I said, after my initial attempt to import the whole catalog —which is not an unreasonable thing to do, right?— I gave up on that. I tried sessions, but that didn't fit well with my hobbyist type of shooting. So I started a catalog and intend to keep it small enough to keep it running OK. Not exactly the way P1 sells their 'your whole life in a catalog' feature.[quote="NN259560UL" wrote:
Finally, I find interesting how little information people posting and complaining in this thread are willing to share about things such as:
...
If you want Phase One to improve things, you are going to tell them how you those things that are problematic. Their development team, like any other development, does not read minds.
I agree. Being part of a large software team, I completely agree. I also know that vague reports don't get much attention. So I usually only file a case when I have a firm, reproducible case. As I already did. Maybe we should start a thread were people here can report their configuration and set-up, and then rate the performance in an objective way. Maybe list some tasks that people can execute and time. Let me think about that... It would be very cool if P1 could suggest things to try; I am more than willing to try things out and play QA for them (as I have told them in various crash reports I have sent them).[quote="NN259560UL" wrote:
CO is not Lr, the same way Lr and Aperture are different.
Again, I agree. I find C1P to fit my way of working better than Lr. I'm not complaining about the workflow; I —and many others— are complaining about the speed, or better, the lack thereof. (But at this moment I can't complain.)
OK, back to culling for now.
Cheers,
Peter.0 -
One of my frustrations is that many people seem to be directly reporting issues with P1 and there are definitely some common themes. From my experience, you get a 'thanks for the information, we'll pass it on to the developers' type of response but that's it - no follow-up, requests for more information or suggestions. I know that P1 reps monitor the forums so would it not be possible to put out some form of statement acknowledging some of the more obvious issues - the way C1P refuses to release memory when a catalog is closed for example - and at least give us some indication of what we might expect in the way of fixes?
Thanks
Nigel Turley
Brighton, UK0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
61 comments