Panasonic GM1 support?
I had expected GM1 support to have been there by now, GX7 support is available for some time now and these two cams are very similar from a image pipeline perspective. Actually, changing the EXIF of GM1 files GX7 actually produces good results in C1, but this is not a preferable workflow. Please also include support for the GM1 12-32 lens. When can we expect support for this tiny gem?
0
-
Camera support is as much up to the Manufacture as it is Phase One.
If Panasonic provides us with a GM1 to review we can begin investigating for support.0 -
[quote="Drew" wrote:
Camera support is as much up to the Manufacture as it is Phase One.
If Panasonic provides us with a GM1 to review we can begin investigating for support.
Since this is a returning issue: lacking or absent camera support due to camera manufacturers not sending their new bodies in:
Why not set up relations with a camera store to get new bodies on loan for a week or so?
A company with the stature of Phase one should not be hampered by ill willed camera manufacturers regarding decent support for new camera bodies.
It am not sure it is really credible.
Chris0 -
[quote="ChrisM" wrote:
Why not set up relations with a camera store to get new bodies on loan for a week or so?
... and who's to say we don't already have this in place 😉 😉
Sometimes it's simply not that easy as a camera store may only have equipment that's been used/abused (which should not be considered a "Gold Standard"), may not have such a camera in a "Floor Model" stock which we can use for a time to review, or perhaps the Manufacture will only allow us to support a camera if it comes directly from them, meeting their precise specification (because sometimes there's not 100% consistency in every unit shipped/sold).
I understand that everyone who owns a particular camera deems it the MOST important camera necessary for support but there's a lot more going on behind the scenes (politically as well as legally) than most people realize.
In this specific case, if Panasonic will provide us a camera, we'd be happy to look into supporting it.0 -
Hello there
I have to take the posts by Chris and Drew at face value. In summary PO and Cap1 seem to struggle more often than not in keeping their camera and lens profile portfolio up to date.
Disappointment and frustration all round. So how does DxO do it so well?
I'm tired of nagging. I regret (no I don't) that I have taken Cap1 off my computer. Time to move on.
I wish you all well.
Peter0 -
[quote="Peter" wrote:
Hello there
I have to take the posts by Chris and Drew at face value. In summary PO and Cap1 seem to struggle more often than not in keeping their camera and lens profile portfolio up to date.
Disappointment and frustration all round. So how does DxO do it so well?
I'm tired of nagging. I regret (no I don't) that I have taken Cap1 off my computer. Time to move on.
I wish you all well.
Peter
Peter, good luck with your ventures into other raw converters.
In my book, CO1 is still the best raw converter around, and only getting better. So to me it's worth the nagging that I have to lower myself to, having chosen a camera brand that is somehow not popular at Phase one ☹️ 😉
Be it political or not, I still only ask for what is written on their website: getting the best out of each individual camera by means of careful profiling.
Regards
Chris0 -
Drew, thanks for the update, frustrating that Panasonic is not working with you on this. Would you consider providing 'preliminary support' for the GM1 on the basis of your GX7 profile? The imaging pipelines of the GX7 and GM1 are 99.9% identical, if not 100%. The lens can come later, but it safes me going into EXIF hacking (which I am now doing).
Thanks, Michel
EDIT: I have just sent Panasonic Denmark a request to support Phase One with test cameras (specifically the GM1 in this case), it should be in their interest too.0 -
[quote="Peter" wrote:
Disappointment and frustration all round. So how does DxO do it so well?
Newsflash: it doesn't. You see "is camera x ever going to be supported..?" posts on the DxO forum too. Do a search for the word "niche" on the forum and you'll see exactly what I mean.
The recurring theme there - and here - is that the cameras that take time are low volume/low sale pieces from one of the smaller players in the camera world.
Remember too that DxO doesn't have its own range of cameras to support.
As to the software itself (and I speak as an owner/user of Optics Pro), it's extremely feature-poor in comparison to Capture One Pro, in addition to being desperately weak in some significant IQ terms, like highlight recovery.
Funny though; being a Canon user, I've never, ever had to wait for camera support in Capture One; and as an aside, Phase One beat Adobe/Lightroom hands-down with Nikon D4S support.
Do the sums. If you choose to use a "niche" camera, waiting for third party Raw support is a price you might have to pay.
Regardless of the converter.
It's simple supply and demand - as I've pointed out numerous times on the DxO forum, too.0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="Peter" wrote:
Disappointment and frustration all round. So how does DxO do it so well?
It's simple supply and demand - as I've pointed out numerous times on the DxO forum, too.
Keith, read the promotion info for CO1 on the Phase one website. There is no disclaimer of any sorts with regards to support on demand or any such thing. CO1 is a professional product and openly and specifically claims "best colors and image quality for every individual camera through careful profiling".
Now, having to wait a bit, because you use a camera that is less popular, is one thing. Waiting endlessly and getting very poor support due to lack of true profiling is a whole different matter.
Chris0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="Peter" wrote:
Disappointment and frustration all round. So how does DxO do it so well?
Newsflash: it doesn't. You see "is camera x ever going to be supported..?" posts on the DxO forum too. Do a search for the word "niche" on the forum and you'll see exactly what I mean.
The recurring theme there - and here - is that the cameras that take time are low volume/low sale pieces from one of the smaller players in the camera world.
Remember too that DxO doesn't have its own range of cameras to support.
As to the software itself (and I speak as an owner/user of Optics Pro), it's extremely feature-poor in comparison to Capture One Pro, in addition to being desperately weak in some significant IQ terms, like highlight recovery.
Funny though; being a Canon user, I've never, ever had to wait for camera support in Capture One; and as an aside, Phase One beat Adobe/Lightroom hands-down with Nikon D4S support.
Do the sums. If you choose to use a "niche" camera, waiting for third party Raw support is a price you might have to pay.
Regardless of the converter.
It's simple supply and demand - as I've pointed out numerous times on the DxO forum, too.
Sometimes I disagree with Keith but here I am 100% with him. 😄
Also I dislike the attitude of DxO and Adobe to their customers, it is almost as bad as Corel.
The output from Capture One Pro is top quality but I am forced to use Lightroom for cataloging. Lightroom 5.4 is not as good as COPro for handling RAW processing. Good but not great like COPro.
My wish for 2014 would be for PhaseOne to improve catalogs in Capture One Pro so I can use them for my images and then I can drop Lightroom completely.
That said I must try cataloging my image catalog with iView MediaPro since PhaseOne has taken it under its wing.
It worked before so it should work now 😂0 -
[quote="ChrisM" wrote:
Keith, read the promotion info for CO1 on the Phase one website. There is no disclaimer of any sorts with regards to support on demand or any such thing
Nor is there on anyone else's website - including the Optics Pro website.
Seriously, Chris - this is such a basic, obvious, common-sense point, that I'm frankly appalled at the notion that anyone would expect (much less need) it to be spelled out in black and white.CO1 is a professional product
Lots of pros using the Panny, then?
Seems to me that pros aren't complaining about the lack of support for their cameras...
(And before we go down the "pros can use any camera..." line, you know exactly what I mean).0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="ChrisM" wrote:
Keith, read the promotion info for CO1 on the Phase one website. There is no disclaimer of any sorts with regards to support on demand or any such thing
Nor is there on anyone else's website - including the Optics Pro website.
Seriously, Chris - this is such a basic, obvious, common-sense point, that I'm appalled at the notion that anyone would expect (much less need) it to be spelled out in black and white.CO1 is a professional product
Lots of pros using the Panny, then?
Seems to me that pros aren't complaining about the lack of support for their cameras...
Again, there is no disclaimer of any kind that only pros (read: Nikon and Canon and Phase one back users) can expect decent support for their camera.
I'm not in the right thread here, as I have never shot Panasonic. The Pentax K3 is my issue, and although Pentax is not a "pro" brand like Canon or Nikon, the K3 is rated as the very best Apsc dslr camera at the present moment, and what I was apalled at, was that after almost half a year after release, support was added (without any kind of disclaimer about "preliminary") with a very poor profile that was not the result of a K3 profiling job, but merely an arbitrary edit of the 2011 K5 profile.
Now, explain to me what is realistic about this?
Chris0 -
[quote="jknights" wrote:
Also I dislike the attitude of DxO and Adobe to their customers, it is almost as bad as Corel.
I've actually found them pretty amenable - although I'm relatively undemanding: they've taken on board my continuing concerns about their highlight recovery, and I'm waiting to see what they do about it.
In that regard, they're better than Corel, and definitely better than Bibble Labs used to be...
And as to the cataloguing thing, I'll reiterate that I've been able to convert my 127k plus image Lr catalogue to Cap One 7 Pro without any major issues: for me Cap One seems perfectly workable.0 -
It is what it is, Chris.
There are, as I see it, two "likely" (I use the word in its loosest sense) reasons why a given Raw converter is slow to provide support for a niche camera.
Either:- there's some hidden agenda and an agreed policy of deliberately delaying support purely out of spite, malice or "other" (I read just yesterday on the Adobe Lr forum that the lack of Linux support was some grand, evil scheme involving Adobe, Microsoft and Apple, to keep down "enlightened" Linux users and their choice of OS!), never mind that this would drive away users and lose the software company income;
or- they're doing their best to maximise limited development resources, which necessarily means putting those resources where they'll benefit most users of the software - which by extension, maximises benefit to the company and its shareholders.
So, conspiracy theory, or simple economics?
I know which one I'm picking...0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
It is what it is, Chris.
There are, as I see it, two "likely" (I use the word in its loosest sense) reasons why a given Raw converter is slow to provide support for a niche camera.
Either:- there's some hidden agenda and an agreed policy of deliberately delaying support purely out of spite, malice or "other" (I read just yesterday on the Adobe Lr forum that the lack of Linux support was some grand, evil scheme involving Adobe, Microsoft and Apple, to keep down "enlightened" Linux users and their choice of OS!), never mind that this would drive away users and lose the software company income;
or- they're doing their best to maximise limited development resources, which necessarily means putting those resources where they'll benefit most users of the software - which by extension, maximises benefit to the company and its shareholders.
So, conspiracy theory, or simple economics?
I know which one I'm picking...
😂
And in the second case if they have started development in a particular 4GL or other language that isnt/wasnt supported on Linux it is much, much more difficult and costly to jump ship to provide support for a third OS.0 -
[quote="jknights" wrote:
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
It is what it is, Chris.
There are, as I see it, two "likely" (I use the word in its loosest sense) reasons why a given Raw converter is slow to provide support for a niche camera.
Either:- there's some hidden agenda and an agreed policy of deliberately delaying support purely out of spite, malice or "other" (I read just yesterday on the Adobe Lr forum that the lack of Linux support was some grand, evil scheme involving Adobe, Microsoft and Apple, to keep down "enlightened" Linux users and their choice of OS!), never mind that this would drive away users and lose the software company income;
or- they're doing their best to maximise limited development resources, which necessarily means putting those resources where they'll benefit most users of the software - which by extension, maximises benefit to the company and its shareholders.
So, conspiracy theory, or simple economics?
I know which one I'm picking...
😂
And in the second case if they have started development in a particular 4GL or other language that isnt/wasnt supported on Linux it is much, much more difficult and costly to jump ship to provide support for a third OS.
A third OS with a number of variants and an underlying ethos of stuff being free or almost free.
So that attractive proposition is for a commercial organisation to increase the complexity of its operations for both development and support for real income whilst eroding some of its current earnings as it does so.
Yep, makes complete sense to me.
Grant0 -
[quote="NNN634281212310876220" wrote:
Would you consider providing 'preliminary support' for the GM1 on the basis of your GX7 profile?
Unfortunately I think that may cause more frustration than it solves. I'll suggest it but based on past "preliminary" support introductions I don't think the suggestion will be well received. I think we'd much rather have the camera in-house, test it for a day and build profiles to our standards as appose to cutting corners... but, the worlds not perfect so maybe we'll get backed into that corner. Time will tell.0 -
[quote="Drew" wrote:
[quote="NNN634281212310876220" wrote:
Would you consider providing 'preliminary support' for the GM1 on the basis of your GX7 profile?
Unfortunately I think that may cause more frustration than it solves. I'll suggest it but based on past "preliminary" support introductions I don't think the suggestion will be well received. I think we'd much rather have the camera in-house, test it for a day and build profiles to our standards as appose to cutting corners... but, the worlds not perfect so maybe we'll get backed into that corner. Time will tell.
Just a thought: As long as you were to indicate that support is "preliminary", meaning final support will follow, I don't assume it would cause frustration with anyone. When I shot the Olympus E5, I also recall first support being explicitely called "preliminary". Nobody raised the matter, I only remember an expression of gratitude by a poster, when you finalized E5 support, mentioning that files now looked much better.
When however support is presented without a disclaimer such as "preliminary", you would expect it to be the final support, am I wrong?
It might still be improved upon silently in the background, but it might also be not, and anyway no one would ever know, let alone have a clue about Phase one's intentions.
A disclaimer like preliminary was used frequently in the past. When it is not used, improper support might cause frustrations, yes. This all would also apply to the Panasonic GM1, I reckon.
Chris0 -
in the past a Workaround used to be Converting the files to DNG format using Adobe DNG converter but even that doesn`t work with GM1 files (or Stylus one and other converted RAWs from latest Pan and Olympus cams) . this I really don`t understand, Adobe DNG converter made it able for me to stay with Version 5 of C1 long past its replacement date .
if Capture one 7 handles DNG files, why doesn`t it handle ones from the GM1 and Stylus 1 when it handles Native files from cams with the same sensor / RAW format such as the GX7 and XA20 -
I am an author about photography, Photoshop and graphic design. I like to use a lot of different cameras and I have to do so. I do not want do make it depending on the software I use which body I can buy and which not. I also do not like to have to use different software to develop my RAW files. A main advantage of third party software over the manufacturers is that you are not limited to their bodies.
Some say that C1 is professional and the GM1 is niche. Well, if you are searching for a camera that combines the smallest size with the best image quality I am sure there will be no other body that is more pro than the GM1.
C1 does support cameras like the D3000 series or the D5000. Their image quality might be good but Nikon castrates their software so much that working with them is frustrating from a professional point of view. The GM1 is much more professional than them.
Some say the GM1 is niche. Well, that is a funny kind of view if you are using C1 which is itself a niche product. From professional RAW software I expect to be not limited in using professional hardware (and the GM1 in fact is much more professional than a lot of cameras that are supported by C1). I understand that this is for the money: If your camera is popular it will be supported no matter what crap it is. If you are looking for a niche body beside mainstream – bad luck.
I don’t like Lightroom (the mainstream product in RAW development). But it seems that there is no alternative. It seems that adobe supports all cameras or almost all. I don’t like its UI. But if you are working with ACR, Aperture, C1 and DxO all together and without prejudice you will find that you can get out professional results on every software. Sometimes this is better sometimes that. Sometimes it depends on the kind of image. Most pros work with Lightroom. I think they are not stupid.
I decided using C1 as my main software to handle my image workflow. Now I am not sure anymore. Which camera I like to buy next will also not be supported by C1? I use MFT instead of the main popular brands Canon, Nikon and Sony. Being debarred from my main software is no good view. In my opinion it is not a professional view.0 -
[quote="NNN634292912424565347" wrote:
I... Most pros work with Lightroom. I think they are not stupid.
I decided using C1 as my main software to handle my image workflow.
??
In the world of software development we really can't expect to compare a dominant company like Adobe which has a wide market of products and therefore some economies of scale and content sharing potential with a company like Phase.
In the marketplace for photography and on through to the world of design and publishing Adobe have built a significant and influential position over a couple of decades. Their products are the 'easy' route to adopt even when people are not entirely happy with the results for their personal preferences. The scale of their marketplace means that they HAVE to support just about anything thrown up no matter whether it makes fiscal and business sense to do so - and then continue to support it for some years to come.
There was a time when camera manufacturers would bundle Adobe products with their cameras even at the budget pocket snapper level. I have a copy of PS Elements V2 that came with a Pentax Optio for example. Does that still happen? Presumably the relationships between camera manafacturers and software creators have evolved somewhat in the past decade. In the case of the 'big name' wide portfolio software developers it would be interesting to understand who pays who for the privilege of camera support especially for early access to new hardware.
So far as I can tell most people who are into photography use more than one piece of software and that also applies to RAW processing. I would guess it is likely to stay that way for a while - unless one player becomes totally dominant.
Based on the recent results of the main camera manufacturers and trend for more and more people to be happy enough with their smart phone to ditch the idea of a dedicated camera being a social requirement, the RAW processing market may not support a lot of growth and could in fact shrink. Developing a RAW converter would then become even more of a niche activity in a niche market. And an expensive one.
That may change things in terms of how quickly developments occur and how much the products cost. It will be interesting to see how people respond if that happens.
Grant0 -
What ist your point, Grant? What do you want to tell me? If I like one software to evolve most of my RAW files I have to choose something different than C1?
Using multiple RAW tools is not efficient! You need to know different reactions of different tools with different UIs different shortcuts and you have different workflows. I know what I am writing about. I have used Lightroom, C1, DxO and Aperture for RAW editing and Photoshop, OnOne, Topaz, Macphun, Portrait Pro, Nik and Exposure for fine tuning.
If I go on tour with different cameras evolving the shots in two (or more) different tools is not the kind of convenience I am looking for.
I am looking for a solution that works best for me. Using software that does not support the cameras I am using is no good solution for me. If widely RAW support in C1 is not assured than C1 is not the right product for me. And we are not talking about some Chinese no name product. We are talking about a Panasonic mirrorless camera. I think I can remembered that it was voted as one of the gear of the year at dpreview and the GM1 gets great feedback all around.0 -
[quote="NNN634292912424565347" wrote:
What ist your point, Grant? What do you want to tell me? If I like one software to evolve most of my RAW files I have to choose something different than C1?
Using multiple RAW tools is not efficient! You need to know different reactions of different tools with different UIs different shortcuts and you have different workflows. I know what I am writing about. I have used Lightroom, C1, DxO and Aperture for RAW editing and Photoshop, OnOne, Topaz, Macphun, Portrait Pro, Nik and Exposure for fine tuning.
If I go on tour with different cameras evolving the shots in two (or more) different tools is not the kind of convenience I am looking for.
I am looking for a solution that works best for me. Using software that does not support the cameras I am using is no good solution for me. If widely RAW support in C1 is not assured than C1 is not the right product for me. And we are not talking about some Chinese no name product. We are talking about a Panasonic mirrorless camera. I think I can remembered that it was voted as one of the gear of the year at dpreview and the GM1 gets great feedback all around.
The point is that you cannot expect every company to support every camera - unless they are of such a size and influence that they effectively drive the industry. You may not get your wish for a single product that supports all the file types that you are using at any particular moment.
To do that, for most commercial software developers, might be commercial suicide.
For Adobe it might be commercial suicide to be selective so perhaps they feel they have to support anything that is put on the market. More or less. Providing they can do so without breaking any licence requirements. But their interest in doing so goes far beyond just RAW file conversion. In fact in the long term they may have, through DNG, a device that they might think of as a way to gain ever greater control over the marketplace for image editing. Only they know if that is how their strategy has been formulated. It will be interesting to see how things develop.
I quoted from your original post where you seem to suggest the solution to your immediate need - most pros work with LightRoom (or at least an Adobe product of some sort). That seems to be equally true even for many of the C1 users who fully expect that they (or their clients) will want to take the files into PhotoShop for further editing.
On that basis, even though I understand that we might prefer the results provided by C1 for initial RAW conversion, the lack of support for one camera type - whatever the reason - is hardly the end of the world and not really a valid reason for criticising a developer's commercial decision (or. perhaps, inability to find a way to deliver results that achieve the quality they wish to provide for some reason.)
As I said earlier and as your list of the applications that you use or have used seems to support, I doubt that you will find a single application at any point in time that will guarantee being able to supply satisfactory (to yours or my eyes) for all the cameras that are and have been available AND for them to be up to date (or even ahead of the dare) for new product releases. Unless someone (Adobe?) persuades all of the manufacturers to use a single standard for RAW files and their conversion from data values into interpreted images.
Or maybe the client expectations will change over time as the "smart phone cameras are good enough" idea comes to be accepted so that we can all give up on RAW files and just use in camera jpgs. That might solve the problems and I suspect that 99.9% of people looking at an image would not see any practical difference - especially once it has been run through PhotoShop or one of the styling plug-ins and presented electronically in a low resolution file on their smart device.
With the philosophy out of the way ...
Phase work on the basis of demand as recorded in their Support Case database and allocate resource to requests according to popularity. (And whether or not they can obtain samples of hardware for testing and development.)
That is what they tell us and I have no reason to doubt that they follow the process as closely as they can. At the same time products from some manufacturers are likely to be supported anyway, with or without specific requests. Even within that I would assume that some products are worth special attention and other not so much.
Presumably the positioning of the GM1 in the market may not make it an automatic candidate for RAW support efforts and they have not yet had enough Support Requests to move it up the list. If so that would suggest that C1 users are not often using GM1s or most GM1 users are not concerned about the lack of support.
Alternatively there may be some sort of technical challenge to getting things to work as would be required, or for some reason the hardware is not available or maybe there is some sort of Intellectual Property constraint that is causing delays. We don't know.
Surely it is disappointing for you but as I wrote earlier I think you may find yourself constantly disappointed based on your stated expectations. Either way if you want to get close to a better understanding of the C1 development team's position about GM1 support I would imagine that you are more likely to get that via a Support Case than through this User to User (or so intended) forum.
In summary, I sympathise with your wish to have a single RAW developer for all of your files and to some extent I envy your opportunities to work with so many products. But I see some benefits to not working with the latest greatest technology and not expecting to have 100% product support just when you feel you need it. I doubt it is cost effect to offer that level of support even even if it would be technically feasible and we should accept such situations for as long as they last and adapt our approaches accordingly.
In my opinion.
Grant0 -
Thank you for your detailed answer, Grant. I understand the problem for the software developers in this special kind oft market. Otherweise: Does the costumer have to understand the needs of producer or does the producer have to understand the needs of the costumer?
As a customer I have needs and I am looking for a product that solves my problems. If the solution requires that the product costs a view euros more I don’t care. I need some kind of reliability that my hardware is supported by my software. Otherwise it would be some kind of game of dice. I think it is the assignment of the producer to offer a product that fits the requirements oft the costumer.
Supporting popular cameras no matter what crap they are and dropping good products because they does not sell enough is not good for the markets and costumers. It strengthens the big brands and disadvantages the alternatives (like Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic). If one manufacturers succeeds in the end the costumer looses.
I have contacted Phase Ones support.
Markus0 -
Hi Markus,
You make some perfectly good points and I can only agree but I personally think reality suggests that the way the overall market works is unlikely to encourage 100% coverage for all people all of the time.
It might be possible, technology changes such as totally new sensor designs permitting, to attain close to 100% most of the time if you have the scale of market share like Adobe (for example) or are prepared to make use of a general de-mosaicing tools (like dcraw for example) and can be certain that that tool will always keep up to date. (One might also consider device drivers and operating systems in that set of dependencies too.)
But there is no guarantee that such a strategy would be sure to offer much benefit. Maybe none - and you lose control of your options. Phase have their own hardware to support - I doubt that relying on external suppliers for ever more of the software for a RAW converter would be entirely acceptable for them but you never know how things might develop.
I very much doubt that the camera manufacturers would see competitive advantage in standardising the technology and methods right now - though if the market continues in its current direction that might start to look attractive especially if the number of manufacturers contracts.
As for paying for the benefit of 100% coverage - well, you and I might find that acceptable to some extent depending on how much we would be paying for support for products we would never use. But it seems that most people would not actually agree with us and still claim to make decisions based on saving a few units of currency on software despite often having paid many thousands of units for their photographic equipment and supporting computer systems.
One other thing that puzzles me is why the camera manufacturers feel they have no need to provide better software with the camera package. If they did it might not help you (and others with a wide selection of equipment from different manufacturers) in your search for a single tool that will be good enough for all devices but it may allow some partnerships (other than Adobe) that make is easier to close in on the "100% coverage at all times" objective.
That would be a nice wish I think although I doubt that the players in the market would abandon market politics and relationships and competitive agreements in order to satisfy a requirement that is, mostly, not an historically important issue for the greater part of their customer base who will often have been single brand users. (In the traditional Pro market they may have been multi-brand users but for a small selection of high end equipment. That would restrict the number of bodies/technologies that would need to be supported.)
It will be interesting to see if anybody feels they have the ability (and commercial need) to reach for the objectives you would like to see achieved. Maybe, if the market technology continues to develop and diversify, a new opportunity will come to be and new relationships will form. It may be some time yet before that happens if it happens at all.
Just my thoughts of course, nothing more.
Grant0 -
That are a lot of good points, Grant. Especially why camera manufacturers does not take partnerships with software developers. To bundle the bodies with software from Phase One, DxO, Corel or ACD Systems could maybe break the domination of Adobe. I think a further growing domination of Adobe will be a problem for consumers as for camera manufacturers. Monopoly is never good for customers.
As I said I don’t like Lightroom. I think it is a good tool that can produce professional results but the interface and the handling is far away from being professional. There is no way to customize it to your needs apart from taking your logo in the header and—great news for all Lightroom users!—you can now put an own image to the start up screen.
But as an author and course instructor in photography my readers and listeners want hints wich software they should use to evolve their RAW files. Now I am in the absurd situation that I don’t like Lightroom but I have to advise it as best solution to their needs. It is much cheaper, you can get professional quality out of it, there is more support in the internet than on any other program and it is the only solution that nearly guarantees that their next camera will be supported. :
Markus0 -
[quote="NNN634292912424565347" wrote:
That are a lot of good points, Grant. Especially why camera manufacturers does not take partnerships with software developers. To bundle the bodies with software from Phase One, DxO, Corel or ACD Systems could maybe break the domination of Adobe. I think a further growing domination of Adobe will be a problem for consumers as for camera manufacturers. Monopoly is never good for customers.
As I said I don’t like Lightroom. I think it is a good tool that can produce professional results but the interface and the handling is far away from being professional. There is no way to customize it to your needs apart from taking your logo in the header and—great news for all Lightroom users!—you can now put an own image to the start up screen.
But as an author and course instructor in photography my readers and listeners want hints wich software they should use to evolve their RAW files. Now I am in the absurd situation that I don’t like Lightroom but I have to advise it as best solution to their needs. It is much cheaper, you can get professional quality out of it, there is more support in the internet than on any other program and it is the only solution that nearly guarantees that their next camera will be supported. :
Markus
Markus,
I understand your dilemma.
I bought LR back at version 1 time and liked some parts of it up to version 1.4.
But then I discovered other software that I found more intuitive and better suited the way I really wanted to work at that time.
Move on a few years and I discovered Capture One and immediately liked how it worked and what it offered - although it was some months before I realised that I had not understood everything that was possible (I suspect I still have things to discover that may be useful to me as well as things that are maybe not so important for me right now.)
I know that there are times when C1 does not offer things that might be useful. I also use another application that does some things that C1 does not BUT does not offer some features that C1 does.
I'm not into Graphics Editing (as in Photoshop) and find some of the work done in PS very interesting but unintelligible to my mind. I don't think the right way to easily understand PS at its cleverest.
So I like C1 and similarly designed and GUI'd products but recognise that they have limitations compared to the needs of the complete Graphics editing market.
I suspect that what will become the major part of the Raw converter and Graphics market, by value or number of users, will as some point become accepted as a compromised by sufficiently adequate in camera process (or camera system process which might include automated cloud based services). In which case the problem (and maybe the drive for quality) will go away.
I am hoping that such a time is far enough in the future that it does not worry me or so close that we can all benefit without seeing any reduction in the existing potential of quality standards and just enjoy the advantages. Somewhere in the time between those points would be too annoying to enjoy!
Grant0 -
Phase One told me that C1 will support the GM1 and that it is on the list. They also told me that they trie to support all requested cameras and the GM1 will be supported with the next update. 0 -
I think the biggest problem that Phaseone/Capture One is going to have is the growth of their user base. As the user base grows the number of people people different cameras will also grow. In the past CO really only had to deal with the very high end professionals using their MF backs, then fast forward a little, and they started supporting the second cameras of the MF users. Go a little farther and more professionals with just 35mm started, so they catered to them. Now as people are not happy with LR and Aperture going away, (and no clear direction of what photo.app will be), people are looking at alternatives. And these people are going to want ALL their cameras supported. I think most people will wait a few months for a new camera to be supported, but after that they are going to start to bitch. And lets not talk about the bitching that will happen if their old camera is not supported.
My suggestion to CO developers, would be to pass off support of the RAW conversion of unsupported cameras to the OS, and initially put a little dialog saying so, and even a flag of some sort on the little preview, like you do for ratings or adjustments have been applied. I believe this is what they do for Media Pro on both platforms. I am not saying this would be easy, or it might not be possible, but if CO wants non-bitchy customers they are going to have to do something.
Robert0 -
"""""The point is that you cannot expect every company to support every camera - unless they are of such a size and influence that they effectively drive the industry. You may not get your wish for a single product that supports all the file types that you are using at any particular moment."""
No but when a camera uses the same sensor and basic system as another in the range (in this case of the GM1 - the GX7) then it`s easy to add support, even if it`s only "preliminary" - often the only difference between RAW support is the camera info in the EXIF data - I found this out in the Capture one 5 days by hacking the RAWs to claim they were from a different camera , they worked perfectly - Prime example was when the D90 came out, if you hacked the file to say it was from a D300 , Voila - same with the D700 (to say it was a D3) ........... I`m sure that even if things weren`t perfect at all ISOs with the GM1 using the GX7 profile, it`d be 1000% better than using the compromised DNG file0 -
[quote="Adam52" wrote:
"""""The point is that you cannot expect every company to support every camera - unless they are of such a size and influence that they effectively drive the industry. You may not get your wish for a single product that supports all the file types that you are using at any particular moment."""
No but when a camera uses the same sensor and basic system as another in the range (in this case of the GM1 - the GX7) then it`s easy to add support, even if it`s only "preliminary" - often the only difference between RAW support is the camera info in the EXIF data - I found this out in the Capture one 5 days by hacking the RAWs to claim they were from a different camera , they worked perfectly - Prime example was when the D90 came out, if you hacked the file to say it was from a D300 , Voila - same with the D700 (to say it was a D3) ........... I`m sure that even if things weren`t perfect at all ISOs with the GM1 using the GX7 profile, it`d be 1000% better than using the compromised DNG file
It would be nice to think so and sometimes that may be the case. Sometimes the subtleties for full and accurate support may not be obvious - or even may be unimportant to the majority of users. But not always - or at least as a supplier you can't know until you have checked according to your normal processes.
So, what to do?
Make and asssumption that something you have will likely work and release that at the first opportunity - maybe with a caution that there is a chance that some things may not be 100%? Maybe ask for feedback from active users of the new device?
That seems like a reasonable idea to me and one that I would be comfortable with. After once I can access the files I can apply any camera profile I choose at my risk.
However I can just imagine a large number of early adopters leaping onto various forums claiming that there was something amiss and that the developer was doing a poor job/the wrong thing announcing any sort of support when clearly the release was "not fit for [their]purpose". Not me, and maybe not you, but some people would.
In my experience supporting business software mostly in a corporate environment where one is dealing with a relative small number of contacts on a project rather than an uncontrolled mass market trying to help by speeding up a normal production process by short cutting the conventions needs to be handled with care if at all. Sometimes it's a great result. At other times it can be a highly disruptive disaster and have long term consequences. Problems stemming from a perceived disaster are using bigger and longer lasting (in terms of reputation, deserved or otherwise) than the successes.
Sometime, frustrating and disappointing as it may seem, a policy of saying and doing nothing significant until one feels entirely prepared and ready it the right thing to do for the business when setting expectations.
For example one might ask today whether C1 V7 (or maybe V8?) will be compatible with Windows 9. It's a reasonable question and a reasonable assumption that it should indeed be the case. However nobody can be sure until it has been assessed.
Most people who are willing to take their own responsibility for what they discover if they try something in advance of "official" support would probably be accepting of some problems - but there will be some who will not and they then become a distracting and disruptive influence which is difficult to manage efficiently.
Maybe one option would be to enable a directly maintainable table of preferences for which profiles to use for any camera identity string. Used at the user's discretion alone. So one could point the D810 (for example) to use some other existing Nikon profile (or Canon, or whatever you choose) i order to be able to at least read the files in advance of an supported release becoming available. Alternatively just have a generic "Unsupported" identification that flags up a need for choosing a profile to be used according entirely to the user's selection and whatever that delivers.
Whether that might resolve the disappointments for early adopters of new cameras is open to question. An even bigger question might whether such a strategy would find wide acceptance and support in the uncontrollable wilderness of the Internet. Might it just leave people saying negative things anyway? Meanwhile the supplier may have lost some control over their business objectives anyway if even a small number of users turn out to be unreasonable about such an approach.
Grant0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
51 comments