C11 impressions?
This is very cool. I would like to hear early impressions from users who have upgraded. Does it work as advertised??
0
-
CO11 feels like a beta so far. There are a lot of new, cool features, but in the 30 min I tried it I encountered two show-stopping, recurring bugs regarding the way layers work (one bug resets WB local adjustments when toggling the masks on or off and the other makes the color edits not properly stack in layers vs the background layer).
I had to go back to v10 while waiting for my tickets to get answered.0 -
I have not encountered those issues. Of course the stacking of color edits might be something subtle, but the layer above seems to edit the colors as modified by the layer below. I tried toggling the masks (including B&W) and it did not reset the local WB edit.
Working on W7.
For me the improvements are very significant. Simply being able to clear a mask is huge. I often copy masks and edits from one image to another and then want to re-draw the masks. That was a pain before. Feathering of masks is also very useful. Having levels and color balance in layers is also something I use.
The refine mask makes the auto mask usable for be - I need to work with it to see how useful it will be, but it could be very useful in some situations. I think what I will do is use the regular brush and then the eraser with auto and refine to get where I want to be because the background is usually more homogeneous and the auto mask works better.
I started as a beta tester recently and couldn't find any issues. I have not run into any of the bugs reported here. Maybe just the way I use it and haven't had the tablet issues.0 -
I have also raised a support case for the White Balance reset behaviour. There is a partial workaround - select another layer before disabling / re-enabaling a layer with a White Balance change.
C11 feels like a definite improvement till you strike one or more of these behaviours not present in C10 essential to your workflow. You are therefore put off using C11 for anything more that testing for now. (Yes we are beta testers.) There is bound to be a point release in a couple weeks that fixes theses easily reproducible bugs.0 -
[quote="PhaseoneUser13961" wrote:
C11 feels like a definite improvement till you strike one or more of these behaviours not present in C10 essential to your workflow. You are therefore put off using C11 for anything more that testing for now. (Yes we are beta testers.) There is bound to be a point release in a couple weeks that fixes theses easily reproducible bugs.
Indeed, v11 stops feeling like an improvement when stuff that was working perfectly in v10 gets broken, especially when it affects a professional production worklow. I quite simply don't have the time to do debugging for a new software that shows serious issues a few minutes only after I try it. This is almost as bad as the Photoshop CC 2018 fiasco where the healing tool got super laggy, whereas it had been working fine for years in earlier versions...
I really hope that there is going to be a fix soon, because there is little compatibility between the way v10 and v11 process images: upgrading the processing engine version makes all of my edits look too dark and Phase One confirmed that the color stacking method was changed... so all of the work that I do on new assignments with my current worflow on v10 will be outdated/broken whenever v11 gets finally usable.0 -
[quote="NNN635796750580192506" wrote:
[quote="PhaseoneUser13961" wrote:
C11 feels like a definite improvement till you strike one or more of these behaviours not present in C10 essential to your workflow. You are therefore put off using C11 for anything more that testing for now. (Yes we are beta testers.) There is bound to be a point release in a couple weeks that fixes theses easily reproducible bugs.
Indeed, v11 stops feeling like an improvement when stuff that was working perfectly in v10 gets broken, especially when it affects a professional production worklow. I quite simply don't have the time to do debugging for a new software that shows serious issues a few minutes only after I try it. This is almost as bad as the Photoshop CC 2018 fiasco where the healing tool got super laggy, whereas it had been working fine for years in earlier versions...
I really hope that there is going to be a fix soon, because there is little compatibility between the way v10 and v11 process images: upgrading the processing engine version makes all of my edits look too dark and Phase One confirmed that the color stacking method was changed... so all of the work that I do on new assignments with my current worflow on v10 will be outdated/broken whenever v11 gets finally usable.
I trust you have reported this to our Support Team?0 -
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
[quote="NNN635796750580192506" wrote:
[quote="PhaseoneUser13961" wrote:
C11 feels like a definite improvement till you strike one or more of these behaviours not present in C10 essential to your workflow. You are therefore put off using C11 for anything more that testing for now. (Yes we are beta testers.) There is bound to be a point release in a couple weeks that fixes theses easily reproducible bugs.
Indeed, v11 stops feeling like an improvement when stuff that was working perfectly in v10 gets broken, especially when it affects a professional production worklow. I quite simply don't have the time to do debugging for a new software that shows serious issues a few minutes only after I try it. This is almost as bad as the Photoshop CC 2018 fiasco where the healing tool got super laggy, whereas it had been working fine for years in earlier versions...
I really hope that there is going to be a fix soon, because there is little compatibility between the way v10 and v11 process images: upgrading the processing engine version makes all of my edits look too dark and Phase One confirmed that the color stacking method was changed... so all of the work that I do on new assignments with my current worflow on v10 will be outdated/broken whenever v11 gets finally usable.
I trust you have reported this to our Support Team?
Yes! I was told that the color editor was working differently "by design", someting I guess I'll have to live with, and regarding the local WB bug, they are aware of it and they say it will be fixed in the first service release, for which I was told there was no ETA.
I was advised to switch back to 10.2.1 and wait. "As a suggestion, it is never advised to jump to a brand new software without testing.", they said. May I also suggest not releasing a new version without sufficient testing?0 -
[quote="NNN635796750580192506" wrote:
Yes! I was told that the color editor was working differently "by design", someting I guess I'll have to live with, and regarding the local WB bug, they are aware of it and they say it will be fixed in the first service release, for which I was told there was no ETA.
I was advised to switch back to 10.2.1 and wait. "As a suggestion, it is never advised to jump to a brand new software without testing.", they said. May I also suggest not releasing a new version without sufficient testing?
The WB-bug was found before launch, but there was not enough time to make a safe fix at that point in time, and thus it was post-poned until next service-release. There is always a trade-off when prioritizing bugs. It can be critical to a few, but low or zero impact to a vast majority.
I hope you'll stay onboard until then, and sorry for the inconvenience.
Can you write your Support Case number btw?0 -
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
The WB-bug was found before launch, but there was not enough time to make a safe fix at that point in time, and thus it was post-poned until next service-release. There is always a trade-off when prioritizing bugs. It can be critical to a few, but low or zero impact to a vast majority.
I hope you'll stay onboard until then, and sorry for the inconvenience.
Can you write your Support Case number btw?
I understand that you have to prioritize bug fixing, but releasing what we could call a "layer centric" version with such an obvious layer bug is really disappointing, to say the least. If anything, it adds weight to the argument that Capture One 11 was not quite ready for prime time, as some others on this forum also seem to think.
To make it clear, I fully realize that much hard work is being put into developing what is a complex piece of software, but when you release what you call a stable version and ask money for it, I guess we should be expecting it to be relatively free of workflow critical bugs - even if not everyone is using the related feature. If it was a new feature being introduced that was not working properly, I wouldn't care as much, but since the new version actually broke something that used to work, I don't understand how it could have been prioritized against a new feature like annotations (that non-portrait/fashion photographers probably won't ever give a glance at). So in the end, you probably knew that you'd break some users workflows, but you did a cost-benefit analysis and decided that pushing a new update, albeit not fully functional, would be just OK for the majority of users. And when those users complain about the bugs, you tell them to wait for a future update at an undisclosed date while scolding them for falling prey to your marketing. So all in all, this is what read from the situation:
1. Your new releases should be treated as untrustworthy even if they are labeled as "stable";
2. You don't care about a portion of your users.
This is unfortunate.
Anyway, here are my support case numbers: 270694 and 270735.0 -
[quote="Charles O." wrote:
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
The WB-bug was found before launch, but there was not enough time to make a safe fix at that point in time, and thus it was post-poned until next service-release. There is always a trade-off when prioritizing bugs. It can be critical to a few, but low or zero impact to a vast majority.
I hope you'll stay onboard until then, and sorry for the inconvenience.
Can you write your Support Case number btw?
I understand that you have to prioritize bug fixing, but releasing what we could call a "layer centric" version with such an obvious layer bug is really disappointing, to say the least. If anything, it adds weight to the argument that Capture One 11 was not quite ready for prime time, as some others on this forum also seem to think.
To make it clear, I fully realize that much hard work is being put into developing what is a complex piece of software, but when you release what you call a stable version and ask money for it, I guess we should be expecting it to be relatively free of workflow critical bugs - even if not everyone is using the related feature. If it was a new feature being introduced that was not working properly, I wouldn't care as much, but since the new version actually broke something that used to work, I don't understand how it could have been prioritized against a new feature like annotations (that non-portrait/fashion photographers probably won't ever give a glance at). So in the end, you probably knew that you'd break some users workflows, but you did a cost-benefit analysis and decided that pushing a new update, albeit not fully functional, would be just OK for the majority of users. And when those users complain about the bugs, you tell them to wait for a future update at an undisclosed date while scolding them for falling prey to your marketing. So all in all, this is what read from the situation:
1. Your new releases should be treated as untrustworthy even if they are labeled as "stable";
2. You don't care about a portion of your users.
This is unfortunate.
Anyway, here are my support case numbers: 270694 and 270735.
I think we need to be clear on terminology here: Stability is different from functionality. Talking about stability in a functional bug is not to the point.
As I said, we are painfully aware that decisions we make will affect users using this particular functionality in this particular way.
What you read from the situation is your own conclusions, not something we can recognize as principles. We have to do some tough and not very nice choices, as doing fixes very late in a development leads to uncertainty in the otherwise previously tested code-base. If you then don't have enough time to do a proper regression-test in that area, you can end up with 1 bug fixed, and potentially even more new bugs.
A service-release will address the WB-bug in the near future.0 -
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
...
The WB-bug was found before launch, but ...
Still there is no mention of the issue in the "Known Issues" section of the release notes.0 -
I think we need to be clear on terminology here: Stability is different from functionality. Talking about stability in a functional bug is not to the point.
As I said, we are painfully aware that decisions we make will affect users using this particular functionality in this particular way.
What you read from the situation is your own conclusions, not something we can recognize as principles. We have to do some tough and not very nice choices, as doing fixes very late in a development leads to uncertainty in the otherwise previously tested code-base. If you then don't have enough time to do a proper regression-test in that area, you can end up with 1 bug fixed, and potentially even more new bugs.
A service-release will address the WB-bug in the near future.
Hi Christian,
I purchased Capture One 10 in July so I'm new on this forum.
I'm surprised how the Phase One staff is communicating with their users!
Just looking at your reply and can't find much empathy back in your reaction and I advice you to do a communication course, because this is no way to communicate with your users!
No matter if you have a point or not!
Regards,
David0 -
We have to do some tough and not very nice choices, as doing fixes very late in a development leads to uncertainty in the otherwise previously tested code-base. If you then don't have enough time to do a proper regression-test in that area, you can end up with 1 bug fixed, and potentially even more new bugs.
As someone who used to manage large software developments I have to say this is exactly correct.Just looking at your reply and can't find much empathy back in your reaction
Some of this perception may be due to Christian Gruner writing in English when his native language differs. But more likely due to the European custom of speaking very directly. It can be misunderstood as lack of empathy by those used to more nuanced language.
Since this is a user-to-user forum I am surprised and pleased that Christian chooses to participate.0 -
[quote="NNN636349561883089586" wrote:
I think we need to be clear on terminology here: Stability is different from functionality. Talking about stability in a functional bug is not to the point.
As I said, we are painfully aware that decisions we make will affect users using this particular functionality in this particular way.
What you read from the situation is your own conclusions, not something we can recognize as principles. We have to do some tough and not very nice choices, as doing fixes very late in a development leads to uncertainty in the otherwise previously tested code-base. If you then don't have enough time to do a proper regression-test in that area, you can end up with 1 bug fixed, and potentially even more new bugs.
A service-release will address the WB-bug in the near future.
Hi Christian,
I purchased Capture One 10 in July so I'm new on this forum.
I'm surprised how the Phase One staff is communicating with their users!
Just looking at your reply and can't find much empathy back in your reaction and I advice you to do a communication course, because this is no way to communicate with your users!
No matter if you have a point or not!
Regards,
David
Prioritizing bugs from impact is something every single software-house (and every other company with a deliverable product) do on a daily basis. Empathy for the people keeping us in a job, our customers, is an integrated part of this flow.
I could have made a nicely spun story and so on, but in this instance it is much better, and more transparent, to tell upfront why this particular bug was not fixed in the initial release.0 -
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
I think we need to be clear on terminology here: Stability is different from functionality. Talking about stability in a functional bug is not to the point.
I used "stable" as it is commonly understood: a working software. The Chromium project, for exemple, sees no problem to loosely define "stable" as "not prone to bugs and crashes." Their "stable" release channel is the one that "has gotten the full testing and blessing of the Chrome test team, and is the best bet to avoid crashes and other issues." A broken functionality is a buggy one, so it can be labaled as unstable in this regard, even if it does not refer to a crash per se. I'm sure you get my point.[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
What you read from the situation is your own conclusions
Other users are likely to share them, just so you know.[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
The WB-bug was found before launch, but there was not enough time to make a safe fix at that point in time, and thus it was post-poned until next service-release.
As was previously pointed out in this thread by mli20, you didn't bother writing this in the "Known Issues" of the Release Notes. Yet Phase One gladly took my upgrade money while telling me to get back to the previous version without giving me an ETA on a fix to a previously undisclosed, but known bug.[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
A service-release will address the WB-bug in the near future.
Thank you. I hope we agree on the "near future" terminology.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
15 comments