It's hopeless - after half a year Drew says: Be patient!
May 6, 2011 I wrote this to Customer Support:
From C1 PRO!! 6.1 to 6.2 the Lens information has disappeared from the generated tif-files.
One ARW and two tif-files are attached:
The first tif #2965 is generated with 6.1 the second (2965 1) with 6.2 (even with Process Recipe Advanced the Lens information is not included).
It seems to be a little give and take each time a new version is released. I have just been waiting a few months for the f and focal length information to be available with arw and nef files. Now a new error is introduced.
...long time passed with more or less arrogant or evasive answers..
July 7, 2011 I asked (for the 5th time at least) how the solving of this problem was progressing (in the meantime 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 had passed without a solution):
A new lame answer:
Eigil,
I cannot say. The concern has been reported to R&D as per your concern (thank you) and we will look into it further when time allows. Currently there is no ETA.
Kind Regards,
Drew
Phase One Support
To day is the 28th of August 2011 - and I still have to work around the derived problems from this error. I am sure the problem could be solved without using much time and effort, but the impression grows that as a simple full frame user, my problems with C1 PRO!! are put in the “can wait until the IQ180 guys are happy†box.
Seems that the 2011 Phase One don't gives a damn about its roots.
From C1 PRO!! 6.1 to 6.2 the Lens information has disappeared from the generated tif-files.
One ARW and two tif-files are attached:
The first tif #2965 is generated with 6.1 the second (2965 1) with 6.2 (even with Process Recipe Advanced the Lens information is not included).
It seems to be a little give and take each time a new version is released. I have just been waiting a few months for the f and focal length information to be available with arw and nef files. Now a new error is introduced.
...long time passed with more or less arrogant or evasive answers..
July 7, 2011 I asked (for the 5th time at least) how the solving of this problem was progressing (in the meantime 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 had passed without a solution):
A new lame answer:
Eigil,
I cannot say. The concern has been reported to R&D as per your concern (thank you) and we will look into it further when time allows. Currently there is no ETA.
Kind Regards,
Drew
Phase One Support
To day is the 28th of August 2011 - and I still have to work around the derived problems from this error. I am sure the problem could be solved without using much time and effort, but the impression grows that as a simple full frame user, my problems with C1 PRO!! are put in the “can wait until the IQ180 guys are happy†box.
Seems that the 2011 Phase One don't gives a damn about its roots.
0
-
Eigil,
I imagine that this "Missing Exif" bug - while clearly very important to you - is something that most Capture One users will not consider to be a problem to them.
It's an unavoidable fact of life that if there are more serious issues to address - relating for example to stability or image quality - and limited resources with which to address them, then your Exif problem is going to spend a lot of time getting moved back to the bottom of the bugs pile.
Not saying it's a good thing, but it was ever thus...0 -
This is a setback from 6.1 to 6.2. I am just waiting for a normalization. And considering the time - it should happen about now. I actually used this part of the exif data in my work-flow, when this damage happened. For how many years has C1 been for sale...? 0 -
Eigil,
I am sorry if you feel we have neglected you, have been arrogant, evasive or otherwise lame.
The truth of the matter is that we have reported your concern, the proper departments have been notified and if it has not been addressed there is likely a good reason.
I'll touch base with the guys in charge of these adjustments on your behalf to see where we stand. However, there is no ETA of a fix.0 -
Just curious...as this has not and is not a problem with Canon files...do you show that EXIF info from the RAW in COne BEFORE the file is developed? 0 -
Drew,
â€Sorry†is a widely used insult nowadays, if you don't do anything. The fact that nothing has happened for too long time regarding this (by PO) self inflicted error is not just a feeling with me but a fact. Furthermore ETA is a strange concept to use, when nothing is moving! If you were flying – you would have crashed by now due to lacking fuel or a revolt among the passengers. Unfortunately I seem to be the only one traveling with ARW files. Shame on me – why didn’t I buy Nikon or Canon…!
John4,
The ARW file contains the right information from the camera (a900) as the following comparison shows:
If the ARW raw file (earlier some NEF-versions too) is edited in ADOBE’s CAMERA RAW the Vendor Specific - Lens information is:
“24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM†(correct).
If the same ARW raw file is edited in C1 PRO 6.2x, the Vendor Specific - Lens information is:
“24 mm f/2.8†(useless in e.g. PTLens). This is generated into the TIFF.
Later in C1’s Metadata list the actual focal length is given in “EXIF – Exposure†as e.g. Focal length: “24 mmâ€.
Before 2011 this focal length had been a problem too. It was – after months - finally corrected. At the same time the earlier correct working Vendor Specific Lens information was harmed.
C1 is a good product in many ways, but it is extremely frustrating to witness new errors that should have been spotted during a normal pre-release-test.0 -
I'm going to take exception to your tone...this is a user-to-user forum that many find valuable. I for one appreciate occasional participation from PhaseOne associates...and in my world sorry is far from an insult. You might review the TOS for the forum, it makes for a more pleasant environment for all of us. Take that comment for what it's worth, please. I don't really want to start a flame war....
You should realize COne does not develop RAW files, it needs to reengineer them from every single manufacturer...and perhaps at times assume they don't change in any way while camera manufacturers have a proprietary approach to their files. They actually make that a less than transparent process, that really does not benefit the enduser...but it is what it is.
Software development is not linear, so any stated ETA becomes a promise that may or not be kept. Early on, PhaseOne used to give best guesses as to updates (helpful to many of us), but became bogged down by flaming (see above) when a date was not met (most were). They are UNDERSTANDABLY leery of stating a date, best guess or otherwise.
This is something new to me, a camera that was supported at one time and functioned well (did it?) not moving that info forward. I'd suspect a change in the file (camera firmware?), but perhaps the original parsing of the file is faulty or (the possibility exists) an EXIF error in a processed went unnoticed because hardly anyone uses that data in a processed file.
I do think there are beta testers with a900s that missed this (I would never catch it), and even if they did...that would probably not move the camera to even a partially supported list. It is what it is, but if PhaseOne has it as an issue, it will be reviewed, sooner if more users put forward support cases.0 -
John4,
I answered your question. Thought you were serious.0 -
By including exif data, e.g. Vendor Specific lens information, in C1, PO made a promise to its users: “Exif data will be available with this product - for all supported cameras (period)". To make exif data available for some users and not others is really bad behaving.
I don’t know if I am the only independent user (read: not a beta-tester), that find the exif data useful in my work-flow. Even if I was, this information should be available, as I paid good money for the product and its built-in promises.
I hope that the development department is not entirely dependent of beta-testers with a practice like the one John4 reveal (“oh.. an exif error.. not important to me.. not worth reportingâ€). In that case I understand why nothing happens regarding the exif-information in question here. I hope, that CO’s testing of C1 PRO is better organized and more efficient than that – and I hope that other independent users of C1 PRO agree in my opinion, that a function, which is an integrated part of C1 PRO, should not be missing for HALF A YEAR. If such a lifetime for an error is due to deliberate prioritizing.. then the development crew is too small.0 -
Eigil,
is it possible that the "missing" Exif you're so concerned about is within the Exif "Maker notes" of your image files?
If it is, then it's pretty normal that it will only be fully recognisable by the camera manufacturer's own software, or specialised Exif software like Exiftool or Photome.
And I've also noticed that some RAW converters display Exif that other converters don't - they're all different.
There's quite a lot of really useful Exif in my Canon 7D files that RAW converters can't decode (active AF point, for example).
The problem with catching this kind of error is that it's simply not an error that can realistically be trapped in testing: short of the development team comparing every single Exif value generated by the camera software with the "equivalent" Exif generated by Cap One, for every single camera Cap One supports and every lens they're compatible with - which would be a ridiculous thing to expect - Exif differences are going to slip through.
And again, like it or not, you're in a minority here, Eigil - this isn't an issue for most people, so it's not going to get the priority you want it to have. That's the Real World. I've been critical of some pretty fundamental IQ issues with Cap One (relating to demosaicing/high ISO noise handling) and have been supported by other users in my observations and have had acknowledgement from Phase One that the issues I talk about have been recognised, and I'm still patiently waiting for a fix: I would expect this to take priority over a piece of missing Exif.0 -
Keith,
I have no problems with understanding the diversity of exif data and the problems that all kinds of formats could represent. But at the end it’s a matter of how consistent and reliable you want your product to appear on the market. My camera is not from yesterday neither is the file-format. Actually the information - as earlier mentioned here - was extracted and presented correctly during 2010 with C1 6.1. A frustrating direction!
Meanwhile it’s striking that Adobe’s Camera Raw has extended the right information from my ridiculously diverging files correctly and right away. So the problem can’t be that difficult. This good behavior is not enough to make me an ACR user. C1 PRO has other great features that I will not be without. But why stop with a 95 percent success - if you plan to be among the best.
Furthermore it seems that PO has focused all efforts and service on Nikon, Canon and a certain half-format, and among others common Sony-users are more or less left out in the cold.
As a user of a great Sony camera, a900, I am not satisfied with this policy. I owned a Nikon before and I have experienced the different attention from PO.0 -
I find this worrisome.
The lens I take a lot of my architecture shots with my Sony A850 with has a moustache distortion and isn't correctable within C1.
At the moment I do those images still in my previous raw converter, but I planned to change to C1 for this also and combining it with ptlens.
If the lens exif info isn't correct this will be a pain. (I have a focal length overlap between two frequent used lenses for it.)
Personaly I would prefer to be able to correct the lens info inside C1 (If I can generate the corrects myself, even with a,b,c values from hugin and others, this would be ok for me).0 -
Alain,
As implied above I use this great lens: 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM from Zeiss on my Sony a900. It’s a perfect lens - except for the mustache distortion of sensible horizontal lines. I asked PO to include my lens (early 2010 I guess), but PO only supports mustache correction for certain supported lenses, and mine would not be supported - I was told.
Then I asked Zeiss for advice, and a very cooperative person recommended PTLens. If PTLens doesn’t include a profile for your lens, you can easily have it made - in short time.
PTLens corrected the mustache distortion from my lens perfectly, and I have used this small utility since (TIFF).
During 2010 it was possible to call PTLens from inside Photoshop with my C1 6.1x generated TIFF files (based on ARW). The necessary Lens information was extracted right away and the distortion corrected on the fly.
Suddenly this good behavior stopped, and I found out, that C1 6.2 did not generate the sufficient lens information from my ARW files any more.
As shown above C1 6.2x extracts e.g. “24 mm f/2.8†while ADOBE’s CAMERA RAW - without interruptions - has been able to extract “24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSMâ€. The latter information combined with the actual focal length is necessary to make PTLens work as a plug-in from Photoshop.
My work around this problem has been frustrating, as PTLens has to be executed as a stand-alone utility, and the focal length is not extracted, when the vendor lens information is missing. When found, it has to be keyed in manually.
I reported this long time ago - at least a half year back and PO-support received all information including the actual ARW files.
Since then nothing has happened regarding this problem.
I don’t think this disregard would have been possible, if I had been one of the Nikon or Canon users – or an IQ customer.
So, Alain, you are right in being worried.0 -
Is this a forum for independent users too?
In that case, it seems to be smarter to keep silent than to show solidarity.
Apparently I belong to a minority group of Sony camera users that PhaseOne have decided to ignore.
Is it because of limited resources with Phase One, or is it due to an intentional policy? If the latter, why should it be rewarding to focus on Nikon and Canon exclusively…?!
These Sony/ARW problems were not an issue, when I bought C1 a few years ago. I felt welcome in the club.
Oh! I forgot – I had a Nikon camera. And now thinking about it - all NEF problems were sorted out right away!
Then Sony introduced a number of competing cameras available for lesser money.
Could the "new" ARW raw file format really – REALLY! - represent a technical challenge - or was it more rewarding to cut that segment of users off? - including services already paid for!
Yes, among others - tethered recording was not possible without either a Nikon or a Canon.
Maybe it is necessary to be political correct and humble? Not my strongest side.
Anyway I seriously consider having my lips stitched to the main outlet of the PhaseOne monster to see if it helps. In that way I will at least stay silent, while I eat all the SORRY-garbage from PhaseOne.0 -
[quote="Eigil Skovgaard" wrote:
Apparently I belong to a minority group of Sony camera users
Clearly - this has been pointed out to you more than once.that PhaseOne have decided to ignore.
You have not been "ignored", you have had your expectations managed. You just don't like the message.Maybe it is necessary to be political correct and humble? Not my strongest side.
No, but continually complaining on here about your problem is pretty much the definition of "pointless".
You need to accept that Cap One will not - for an undertermined forseeable future - handle Exif the way you want it to. Phase One has been absolutely clear about your situation, and you now need to choose whether to continue to waste your time and that of the users of this forum complaining about something that your complaints here simply won't fix, or accept that Cap One isn't for you and move on.0 -
Of course it's pointless!
But maybe other independent users find it interesting to see how PhaseOne acts when unable to deliver the promised functionality.
New terms are made out of the blue for when an error is worth dealing with.
The straight explanation has been given here. Before that I was fed with evasive and arrogant answers for half a year.
When I at last get angry, PhaseOne gets “sorryâ€.
“Sorry†is not doing any good to my work-flow.
And you don’t give a damn about it.
Interesting to know.0 -
I think it is important that people know how you were treated as well. As a potential customer stops by this forum they will see how this problem was treated by P1.
I have several issues with C1 not working correctly and after months of trying to get resolve i have been basically told that it is my problem and the problem does not get resolved. These are the things people need to know about the quality of support to expect.
My dealings with support, as well as yours it seems, is poor. People should know this.0 -
[quote="dan122" wrote:
I think it is important that people know how you were treated as well. .
Yes - and here, Eigil has been treated as well as Phase One are able to treat him.
I'm no Phase One apologist, but I fail to see what else they could have done here.0 -
[quote="Eigil Skovgaard" wrote:
So take personal responsibility for your situation and move on.
“Sorry†is not doing any good to my work-flow.0 -
Dan122,
Thank you for your support.
This is how this forum should work.
It should NOT be possible for PhaseOne to suppress reasonable requests regarding functionality that should have been working without errors from long ago.
A forum of independent users should be able to raise their voices here, and it should be possible to convince the strategist in PhaseOne to reconsider a situation when they are heading in a wrong direction.
Otherwise this forum - intentionally or not - will be a warning to potential customers: PhaseOne does not deliver a product that works equally well for all camera brands. I am sure, that a new customer with a Sony camera does no get a special minority-price, when he buys C1.
And personally I don’t want to be treated as a minority when I need help from Support.
Keith Reeder,
Who are you in this forum?
..to tell me what to settle with: “..if Cap One isn’t for you .. move on.â€,
or to educate me in this way: “So take personal responsibility for your situation and move on.â€
I have lived with a work-around for half a year - not in any way with help from Support. I had to find out myself.
..and what are you?
An employee with PhaseOne (in that case your avatar should contain the PhaseOne-logo),
or a major stock-holder in PhaseOne? (same logo),
or merely an associated user, i.e. NOT independent? (you should declare your dependency),
or just a Canon guy that finds it appropriate, that minority camera groups are treated as if they had never paid for their software?
I am asking because this forum seems to be floated with PHASEONE-DEPENDENT users that have a common interest in suppressing the segment of INDEPENDENT users.
Hope I am not wasting your time?
Why do I stay with C1?
Because the system contains very good raw-capturing features, and it is a product out of my homeland, Denmark. At the beginning the business style of PhaseOne was based on good Nordic principles, among others “Keep in touch with your roots and listenâ€.
This has changed to the worse lately representing a major loss. But again, the Nordic countries represent a minority compared to the anglo-american market where customers in general are treated as if they were addicts.
Finally, the list of supported camera brands includes Sony as well as Nikon, Canon and Mamiya.0 -
Hi
First : Keath, thanks for keeping this thread on top.
I find it strange that a existing feature is removed and a problem to get back (in a point release).
I remember that quite some Phase one back users have a Sony FF as "small" camera, so I find it strange that it's ignored.
Although I would like to be able to correct moustache distortions inside C1, it has been done by quit some software packages. Not having both is a pain.
Alain0 -
Some questions can be annoying.
I think it is fair to state ones order of business in this forum.
Mine is an attempt to help PhaseOne into a more reasonable attitude to their customers, i.e. help PhaseOne to keep their promises to ALL customers.
I am an INDEPENDENT customer. I paid full price for C1 and C1 Pro. I did not receive a discount for missing functionality.
The following (in italics) is from the C1 6.2.2 Release Notes [camera versions are omitted within the square brackets]. The bold types are mine:
RAW file support
Capture One 6.2.2 DB supports RAW files from the following digital backs/cameras:
[Phase One, Mamiya, Leaf]
Additionally Capture One 6.2.2 Express/Pro supports RAW files from the following digital backs/cameras:
[Leaf, Mamiya, Canon, Epson, Fuji, Konica/Minolta, Leica, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Ricoh, Samsung, Sony, Adobe DNG (raw DNG support only)]
Sony:
DSLR-A900, DSLR-A850, DSLR-A700, DSLR-A580 (preliminary), DSLR-A550, DSLR-A500, DSLR-A380, DSLR-A350, DSLR-A330, DSLR-A300, DSLR-A230, DSLR-A200, DSLR-A100, DSC-R1, SLT-A55, SLT-A33, NEX-5, NEX-C3 (preliminary), NEX-3.
Note: No exceptions for Sony’s raw files (ARW).
Sony A900 FF was released late 2008.
I think I read all reviews about it.
The Luminious Landscape made very interesting field tests and among others concluded:
For those without major lens commitments to other brands the Sony A900 offers tremendous value for the money. In almost every objective test criteria measured on DxOMark the A900 comes in in the top two or three, and in many categories does so against camera either costing twice as much or offering half the resolution. While not the king of any one hill, it is a sterling all-around performer in almost every category.
What I got was a fantastic full frame camera for a fair price. I had no demand for a video option. I prioritized a wide dynamic range (the cost is noise above 800 ISO, but this noise is stochastic of nature - not unpleasant - and it is easily managed with e.g. Nik’s Dfine 2.0). Sony provides a series of very good lenses, some of them of Zeiss quality. The image stabilizer is in the camera body. The viewer is superior. The all over impression is quality.
I have enjoyed my Sony A900 for at least one year. It is worth every cent.
I am sure, that the release notes from C1 have included DSLR A900 and the ARW raw files for the same period of time – at least one year.
Now, a natural question arises:
Why has CaptureOne not been able to extract and manage quite common camera data from the ARW raw type for more than a year?
I wonder if Sony A900 is such a threat to the established (FF) DSLR brands on the market, e.g. Canon and Nikon, that doing business with them means “exclusive business†and an attitude that could motivate - among others - minor raw-converter companies to treat those of their customers with excellent Sony cameras in a suppressive way?
Otherwise PhaseOne’s failing capability to deliver the promised functionality is mysterious.0 -
The â€Sorry†group is silent - for once.
The loyal associates are silent.
No one is eager to falsify my hypothesis.
I am not surprised. Prostitution is for all. It’s just at matter of price.
I myself am a closet-user of C1- even though I am treated badly by PhaseOne - every time!0 -
This error in interpreting the Sony raw file (ARW) was introduced with C1 6.2
Version 6.2.1 passed by without a solution.
Version 6.2.2 passed by without a solution.
Version 6.3 has just been released without a solution.
Adobe still has no problem.0 -
It’s so simple:
To start a Tethered Session
1. Choose File>New Session.
2. In the Type drop down menu choose Tethered.
3. Check placement of the session and the naming of the individual Session folders.
4. Plug-in a supported camera.
“Supported cameras†is a very exclusive group:
Additionally Capture One 6.3 Pro has tethered support for the following cameras:
Leaf.. Canon.. Nikon.
Why, is it STILL NOT possible to shoot tethered in C1 using one of the market’s best full frame DSLR cameras, Sony A900?
I am not asking with a second-rate camera in my hand. I am asking on behalf of the users of one of the best full frame DSLR cameras on the market today.
During 2010 I became aware of the general disappointment among owners of Sony’s competitive DSLR cameras versus C1. One of the major issues was the reason given for not supporting the tethered shooting feature for Sony A850 and A900. Apparently! competitive Sony cameras were/are excluded, because Sony did/does not deliver the necessary information - according to PhaseOne of course.
November 2010 I asked PhaseOne the question above:
“No-name-support†answered:
We implement support for our own cameras (Phase One, Leaf, Mamiya) and certain 3rd party brands that both have a great demand as well as a software developers kit available. Sony has not shown the same demand for tethered shooting as Canon and Nikon and therefore has not been supported for tethered. This does not mean it will not be supported sometime in the future, however at this point it is unlikely that we will offer such support soon.
(Emphasizes are mine.)
At the same time I asked Sony, if this failing cooperation was caused by a certain policy against CaptureOne.
Sony answered:
Unfortunately Sony does not support Capture One. The makers of Capture One would need to contact Sony in order to request the necessary information from Sony to support our cameras.
If you can get the information Capture One says they need and forward it to us I will pass your suggestion/request to the proper department.
I forwarded this answer to Support, December 2010.
Support answered:
Sony has yet to release an SDK which would allow us to implement this. (SDK: Software Developers Kit ..I presume)
From both Canon and Nikon we have components which will allow us to implement tethering. This is still not available for Sony.
Why Sony has not released this kind of integration possibility with their cameras is a very good question but is a political decision from Sony's side.
When or if they do release this I am sure that we are quite keen in implementing this for Sony in the same manor as we have for Canon and Nikon.
This sounds hypocritical!
In my opinion CaptureOne of reasons hard to understand forfeits this “integration possibility†by waiting for a move from Sony. This so-called Sony policy is easier to understand as a CaptureOne policy, as it would explain the strange errors that Sony A850 and A900 users meet.
A few months before the error, described in this thread, popped up, it was impossible to use the Lens Correction feature, as the focal length and aperture was not extracted or formatted correctly.
When the error was finally corrected, a new error was simultaneously introduced.
Any developer I know calls the necessary crack in the testing procedure to allow this - unprofessional and almost impossible.
And - as I have repeated a couple of times now - though this error was reported right away absolutely nothing happened. I had to write 5-6 times before the stalling and arrogant reactions made me understand, that correcting this error was of no interest to CaptureOne.
And as you know by now nothing has happened for half a year.
So this is how exclusive - or should I say “excluding†- agreements can work. Not to the best interest of CaptureOne’s customers in general, and certainly not to the small segment of customers, that own one of the best DSLR cameras on the market - a Sony camera born with the misfortune to be competitive to the two most established DSLR camera brands on this planet.
Is this how free competition is supposed to work?
I am sure that Nikon and Canon are conveniently pleased with CaptureOne’s continuing inaction in contacting Sony and the fumbling around with certain ARW files.0 -
I wonder if Sony A900 is such a threat to the established (FF) DSLR brands on the market, e.g. Canon and Nikon, that doing business with them means “exclusive business†and an attitude that could motivate - among others - minor raw-converter companies to treat those of their customers with excellent Sony cameras in a suppressive way?
Perhaps you have got this backwards and they feel that Sony is not such threat. 💡
Could be that there isn't enough Sony users out there to warrant expending developer resources on major support?
How much does Sony charge for their SDK? Could that be another reason for the apparent lack of interest on their part?
Canon and Nikon have been around for considerably longer time than Sony. Many photographers have been and continue to use those brands. It takes a lot to move from ones established kit to something else, no matter what the reviews state. 😉0 -
SteveCase2,
I think my hypothesis is as good as the general Evolution theory.
Of course a new great “mutant†must find its feet, as you imply.
And at the same time it will be challenged from all directions and even threatened by established species.
I have described what could happen in a business environment these days. Money talks!
PhaseOne should be independent and treat all of their customers equally. If PhaseOne sell C1 with x features, and x features are constantly working for Nikon and Canon users, but only x-y features are available for Sony camera users, PhaseOne is not telling the truth to its customers. In that way CaptureOne lets a minority of customers down and at the same time participates in the hunting, intentional - or by inconceivable sloppiness.
It would be honest to tell about the failing ability to serve all customers equally - even those customers with excellent professional cameras - established on the current market or not.0 -
Oh, by the way.. from the minute I changed from a fairly good working Nikon combination of camera and lens to an excellent Sony combination – the value of “y†mentioned above has never been less than 2. 0 -
Okay, so maybe my tactics would be a little different. The company is clearly aware that the problem exists, right? They have a business to run; let's let them make their decisions, and us make our own, eh?
The proper decision sometimes is just to find a different way. My understanding is that what you need is the "Lens Type" string from the ARW copied into the resulting TIFF/JPG files as the "Lens" value. Right?
Ahem.....ever hear of "exiftool" ? Granted, it's a command-line tool, but it can do some pretty cool stuff with a simple command. When I read this thread I said "there has GOT to be a simple answer to this!". Until today, I had never used exiftool. I searched for it, downloaded it, got the help information, and figured this out in less than an hour. An HOUR, people. Now yes, I'm very comfortable with command-line tools, so "getting the help" amounted to typing a ? into an empty command window...not everyone would realize that's what they're supposed to do 😊. But really...less than an hour!
Okay, so the solution is simple. Let's say you have a file named DSC00001.ARW that contains the full lens information, and you have a newly processed file DSC00001.TIF, and you want that information sent through. If the two files are in the same folder, this command would get you there:
exiftool.exe -TagsFromFile DSC00001.ARW "-LensType>Lens" DSC00001.TIF
The above is not the entire story, of course. You'll need to locate (google/bing) "exiftool" and install that. You'll need to understand how to start a command line (Start, "cmd", Enter) and navigate to the right folder. Sorry if the command line is unfamiliar, but sometimes these things just need to be done this way. Or at least the solution is blindingly simple...when using a command line.
But really...you're serious? You've been struggling with this for a year and a half? No way...... 😂0 -
[quote="Thom22" wrote:
Okay, so maybe my tactics would be a little different. The company is clearly aware that the problem exists, right? They have a business to run; let's let them make their decisions, and us make our own, eh?
The proper decision sometimes is just to find a different way. My understanding is that what you need is the "Lens Type" string from the ARW copied into the resulting TIFF/JPG files as the "Lens" value. Right?
Ahem.....ever hear of "exiftool" ? Granted, it's a command-line tool, but it can do some pretty cool stuff with a simple command. When I read this thread I said "there has GOT to be a simple answer to this!". Until today, I had never used exiftool. I searched for it, downloaded it, got the help information, and figured this out in less than an hour. An HOUR, people. Now yes, I'm very comfortable with command-line tools, so "getting the help" amounted to typing a ? into an empty command window...not everyone would realize that's what they're supposed to do 😊. But really...less than an hour!
Okay, so the solution is simple. Let's say you have a file named DSC00001.ARW that contains the full lens information, and you have a newly processed file DSC00001.TIF, and you want that information sent through. If the two files are in the same folder, this command would get you there:
exiftool.exe -TagsFromFile DSC00001.ARW "-LensType>Lens" DSC00001.TIF
The above is not the entire story, of course. You'll need to locate (google/bing) "exiftool" and install that. You'll need to understand how to start a command line (Start, "cmd", Enter) and navigate to the right folder. Sorry if the command line is unfamiliar, but sometimes these things just need to be done this way. Or at least the solution is blindingly simple...when using a command line.
But really...you're serious? You've been struggling with this for a year and a half? No way...... 😂
Why does it take the Phase one people more than a year when you do it in about an hour?
BTW. Thanks for the info, I thought that exiftool didn't work for RAW files.0 -
Could it be that PhaseOne evaluated this the same way - did a google search, found out it could very easily be remedied and went on to fix some of the more serious bugs around in the system.
PhaseOne should (and do in my opinion) fix as many bugs as possible but I have no problems with them down grading a minor exif bug in favor of doing some others.
Having this thread by the OP shows some people should possibly use a bit more effort on solving their problems easily that writing long missives to show of their "unfair" treatment.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
34 comments