Love CO but I am desperately waiting for a heal tool
I have said that already many times...
CO7 is a great software .... beside some performances issues I truly love it!!
The only major problem for me, is that when dealing with portraits you need to have tool to have a minimum of retouch work
Last week I had a multiple portrait session with about 900 images and i must confess that at the end i have used LR5 to do my edits since i didn't feel like to export every images to Photoshop to remove bugs under eyes and to fix straight hair ☹️
While I like the softening skin effect you get using local negative clarity its really frustrating not be able to have a good heal tool !!
I beg you... please add a heal tool (something similar to those you find in Aperture or Lightroom)
for portrait photographer this is a game changer!
Thanks for listening
Ettore
CO7 is a great software .... beside some performances issues I truly love it!!
The only major problem for me, is that when dealing with portraits you need to have tool to have a minimum of retouch work
Last week I had a multiple portrait session with about 900 images and i must confess that at the end i have used LR5 to do my edits since i didn't feel like to export every images to Photoshop to remove bugs under eyes and to fix straight hair ☹️
While I like the softening skin effect you get using local negative clarity its really frustrating not be able to have a good heal tool !!
I beg you... please add a heal tool (something similar to those you find in Aperture or Lightroom)
for portrait photographer this is a game changer!
Thanks for listening
Ettore
0
-
Use 7 and ignore the new features, its called progress and we have to deal with it when its great and when its not so great sometimes. 0 -
It's not about ignoring new features - it's about the fact that their presence comes at a cost in performance, or in stability, or in bug fixes, or in tethering reliability, or in IQ improvement.
Dev time spent on new features means dev time not spent on improving core functionality.
Edward's point is quite clear, and "ignore the new stuff" is just a straw man.0 -
One option here would be to foloow the Adobe product grouping model where compnents overlap and are shared to some degree by different applications.
So, based on y simple understanding since I donpt have PS et al, you have a RAW fikle convertor for those luddites who don't accept that the camera maker's jpgs are good enough, and then a choice of other levels of program features and functionality according to needs.
One can choose PS Elements for the cut price solution at the edge of graphics processing or LightRoom for that 'dedicated to photography' feel. To expand on that one can move to full PS or at leat the bits of you feel you want and then integrat that with the full creative suite or components of it.
C1 would, I think, have been an ACR alternative in its original intent. It has stretched towards LR, staying centred on photo processing rather than spreading into graphics stuff. Logically the next step would be to offer some form of apparently integrated application as an alternative to PS then work to integrate components of that into C! to create something more LR like - or so it seems from the comments here.
On the other hand as some have mentioned the chances are that the Pro studios will continue to use PS (or whatever else they may have around) no matter what and are less concerned about what tool comes from where. Indeed they may well use dedicated people for certain tasks suggsting that a one size fits all solution is not important to them (though ready interworking betwen applications might be some of the time). Where work is, ultimately, outsourced to specialist re-touchers and so on the base functionality of the original conversion program may not be any form of influencer once the image is in the production process.
Which is, I think, where Edward is coming from.
Commercially one might conclude that the Adobe pricing model, old style or new cloudy deal, would be the only way to go. In which one might as well accept that multiple packages will have to be funded and you can choose the one that best suits you for the task.
Which is pretty much what you can do now.
Just a few thoughts.
Grant Perkins0 -
When I started this post I didn't think it would cause so much discussion 😄
Please have a look at this photo (before and after)
http://500px.com/photo/48227666
with LR5 and in less then 2min i removed the wall line, fixed an eye bag, improved wrinkles and clone a few straight hair
... not a great job but certainly a decent one considering how fast i did it
the all point is.....
If you are used to work with Lr or Aperture and you switch to C1 on certain aspects you will feel like going back 5 years.....
..and yes I bought a CO 7 license but i confess that its really painful not to be able to clone and heal ☹️
Thanks for listening
Ettore0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
It's not about ignoring new features - it's about the fact that their presence comes at a cost in performance, or in stability, or in bug fixes, or in tethering reliability, or in IQ improvement.
Dev time spent on new features means dev time not spent on improving core functionality.
Edward's point is quite clear, and "ignore the new stuff" is just a straw man.
If you work in sessions for example you can ignore the new catalog entirely which is a source of many of the current issues with ver 7. I wouldn't call that approach a straw man argument.
There were major changes in version 7 and that will mean a period of settling down as with any software. All the photogs I know that use CO are using v7, despite the stability issues because so much progress has been made with the IQ since v6.
Dev time needs to be balanced between stabilisation and new features to make progress. Even core functionality has to be improved at some point. If you don't make progress you don't survive.[quote="NNN635022403475152212" wrote:
the all point is.....
If you are used to work with Lr or Aperture and you switch to C1 on certain aspects you will feel like going back 5 years.....
Thanks for listening
Ettore
I agree, CO has to fight off the competition, the argument that only Pro photogs can be seen using CO and couldn't use LR as its not recognised and being "Pro" enough is the straw man argument here. The professionalism of a photographer is not measured by the tools he uses.0 -
For some years I have been a regular beta tester for a software company in the business information field.
A few years back with the software they supply needing to work with ever larger datasets it became obvioous that the existing technology needed to change just to stand still. In addition the User Interface toold were moving on and Office type integration was somewhat important for a number of reasons, mostly perceptual and cosmetic but ...
So they set off on a journey using new tools and, it turned out, labouriously re-coding what had gone before because upgrading the code ws not an option. Too many differences, changes and no chance of a simple 'converter'.
The software moved on ... but perhaps a little too soon. Things were still changing around them. So now, not 2 years later, it's all happening again. The products are being re-structured as part of that this time around and the underlying technology will, once again, expand the the future scope and scalability. That's good. It's the equivalent of what Phase did moving from V6 to V7 to be able, inter alia, to cope with larger files. But the rest of the re-write my beta buddies are undertaking is simply to convert what already exist to the new coding tools and underlying technologies as best they can. Some things have to be re-invented. Some things cannot be done without compromising others.
Not all of the tools are fully documented and nor are development tool programs "that have not changed" necessarily the same as they were previously. Rely on the staus quo at your peril seems to be the watchword.
So what we can see on screen might represent a lot of hidden effort required to, apparently, stand still. What is less obvious is how important that underlying effort and change is to making progress of some (or any) sort in the future. Getting that timing and strategy right can be a real challenge and a huge risk. In fact it seems it mostly is both of those, especially in desktop market with floating buyers.
Adobe has gambled on a variation of the sort of Enterprise level arrangement that attempts to tie customers in for the long term (in software life cycle measurement terms). It will be interesting to see if it sticks and achieves its objectives.
If it does and people do not vote with their feet just maybe the level of demand for copycat features in other software will fall away - making any development effort possibly worse than pointless.
Perhaps.
Grant Perkins0 -
I work in software development, primarly Oracle databases for a large bank, the cycle never ends 😕 0 -
[quote="NNN635022403475152212" wrote:
...
Please have a look at this photo (before and after)
http://500px.com/photo/48227666
with LR5 and in less then 2min i removed the wall line, fixed an eye bag, improved wrinkles and clone a few straight hair
... not a great job but certainly a decent one considering how fast i did it
the all point is.....
If you are used to work with Lr or Aperture and you switch to C1 on certain aspects you will feel like going back 5 years.....
..and yes I bought a CO 7 license but i confess that its really painful not to be able to clone and heal ☹️
...
So, if you're satisfied with what you can do with LR, just stick to it. It seems to work for you!
Perhaps you bought CO7 in a spur of the moment and only now found out it isn't what you like it to be?0 -
[quote="sizzlingbadger" wrote:
I work in software development, primarly Oracle databases for a large bank, the cycle never ends 😕
I think you will find, or have found already, that counts for the majority of people on photography forums, except when they're full time photo pro. And then, they may have worked in software before the started as a photo pro.
And (of course) it goes for me as well 😄 😄 😄0 -
[quote="HCS" wrote:
[quote="NNN635022403475152212" wrote:
...
Please have a look at this photo (before and after)
http://500px.com/photo/48227666
with LR5 and in less then 2min i removed the wall line, fixed an eye bag, improved wrinkles and clone a few straight hair
... not a great job but certainly a decent one considering how fast i did it
the all point is.....
If you are used to work with Lr or Aperture and you switch to C1 on certain aspects you will feel like going back 5 years.....
..and yes I bought a CO 7 license but i confess that its really painful not to be able to clone and heal ☹️
...
So, if you're satisfied with what you can do with LR, just stick to it. It seems to work for you!
Perhaps you bought CO7 in a spur of the moment and only now found out it isn't what you like it to be?
If I wouldn't like C1 I wouldn't be posting here!!
As i said many times I love the color rendering and the details you get out of the box, in my opinion the best you can get on the market!
but i also believe that i have the right to say that adding a few tools that the competition did implement already many years ago can make a huge difference for many of us
I dont see anything wrong in pushing boundaries....and I am surprise seeing some folks being against....
Thanks for listening
Ettore0 -
Oh, but i'm not against pushing some boundaries, nor am i against you. But, some folks in this thread seem to be pushing so hard like they cannot believe a company would be working on something else.
I replied to one of your posts, because you posted an example from which i got the feeling you were satisfied with the result. I apologize if i got the wrong conclusion and never meant to put you on the spot.
I personally would also like some more and different functionality. But i believe that the only way to get P1's attention is when all of use log a support ticket. But, until those wishes are fulfilled, i use the appropriate other tools.0 -
[quote="NNN635022403475152212" wrote:
When I started this post I didn't think it would cause so much discussion 😄
Please have a look at this photo (before and after)
http://500px.com/photo/48227666
with LR5 and in less then 2min i removed the wall line, fixed an eye bag, improved wrinkles and clone a few straight hair
... not a great job but certainly a decent one considering how fast i did it
the all point is.....
If you are used to work with Lr or Aperture and you switch to C1 on certain aspects you will feel like going back 5 years.....
..and yes I bought a CO 7 license but i confess that its really painful not to be able to clone and heal ☹️
Thanks for listening
Ettore
Thanks for this Ettore
http://500px.com/photo/48227666
That's the perfect example why adding a clone and a real heal tool would hepl so many of us!!!0 -
[quote="NN634932480120092482UL" wrote:
That's the perfect example why adding a clone and a real heal tool would help so many of us!!!
It's also a perfect example of why you might choose Lr over Capture one - use what does the job now, instead of wasting your life away hoping for a change that might never come.
Just saying...0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="NN634932480120092482UL" wrote:
That's the perfect example why adding a clone and a real heal tool would help so many of us!!!
It's also a perfect example of why you might choose Lr over Capture one - use what does the job now, instead of wasting your life away hoping for a change that might never come.
Just saying...
I am not sure about the meaning of your comment....
are you annoyed seeing how many users are requesting this tool?
....I am not wasting my Life...it's about pushing the limits....
I call it progress0 -
[quote="NN635046557256927337UL" wrote:
...it's about pushing the limits....
I call it progress
One could debate whether something is really progress if it does not more than re-invent some else's wheel.
To come up with a new form of 'wheel' that adds something to the mix (and so can be considered as progress) may be a expensive and extended project. Especially where patents and copyright and stuff might be involved.
Ignoring the delivery time guesswork - how much would we be prepared to pay for it?
Grant Perkins0 -
I suppose that the answer to this lies with Phase One themselves. The question they have to ask is: what is Capture One's target market?
Phase One have done a really good job with image quality. I have no hesitation in saying that the CO raw rendition image quality is better than Lightroom. I also applaud Phase One in becoming more responsive to new cameras than they have been in the past.
However, IQ is not everything. There is still the issue of completing the photo, and so one needs great noise reduction, sharpening, local adjustments, and absolutely a reasonable clone / repair tool.
If they are looking to be a specialist converter for mainly pros and advanced amateurs who are quite prepared to round trip into bitmap software when necessary, they have a smaller audience for their product.
If they are looking to sell their software to advanced amateurs and pros like wedding photographers who have too much volume to round trip, then they have to make the extra development effort to make it possible to do virtually anything in CO.
As a user, you get what you pay for, and as a vendor, you attract the customers you wish to cater to. It's really up to Phase One to decide just where they want to be in the market.0 -
[quote="Mike141" wrote:
As a user, you get what you pay for, and as a vendor, you attract the customers you wish to cater to. It's really up to Phase One to decide just where they want to be in the market.
In a way when you look at their advertising campaign they are doing and at all the tools they added in last 2 years you realize that they already took this decision
but to me its still very unclear why the are so behind with cloning and healing0 -
[quote="NN635046557256927337UL" wrote:
I am not sure about the meaning of your comment...
I mean that life's too short to waste it wishing for a feature to be introduced in one piece of software which - if it's that important a feature - can readily be obtained right now in other software.
Capture One's image quality isn't so good that I'd stick with it if it didn't have some feature I "had to" have...are you annoyed seeing how many users are requesting this tool?
Couldn't care less about how many people are wasting their time over it.... I am not wasting my Life... it's about pushing the limits...
But you're not doing that, are you? You're pining for something you might never get, which is purely and simply a waste of energy. Rest assured, Phase One isn't going to drop into this thread any time soon to "pre-announce" the upcoming introduction of a heal tool.I call it progress
I still call it wasting your time. I can heal images to my heart's content in software I already have, without any need for Capture One to catch up with that other software.
And "catching up" isn't "progress".0 -
[quote="Mike141" wrote:
I have no hesitation in saying that the CO raw rendition image quality is better than Lightroom.
Now, I don't see evidence of that at all. Lr's conversions out-everything what I get out of Capture One.0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="Mike141" wrote:
I have no hesitation in saying that the CO raw rendition image quality is better than Lightroom.
Now, I don't see evidence of that at all. Lr's conversions out-everything what I get out of Capture One.
+ one0 -
[quote="Nicolas" wrote:
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="Mike141" wrote:
I have no hesitation in saying that the CO raw rendition image quality is better than Lightroom.
Now, I don't see evidence of that at all. Lr's conversions out-everything what I get out of Capture One.
+ one
Well, forgive the question, but in that case, why are you even here on the CO forum? If LR outdoes CO in all respects…0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="NN635046557256927337UL" wrote:
I am not sure about the meaning of your comment...
I mean that life's too short to waste it wishing for a feature to be introduced in one piece of software which - if it's that important a feature - can readily be obtained right now in other software.
Capture One's image quality isn't so good that I'd stick with it if it didn't have some feature I "had to" have...are you annoyed seeing how many users are requesting this tool?
Couldn't care less about how many people are wasting their time over it.... I am not wasting my Life... it's about pushing the limits...
But you're not doing that, are you? You're pining for something you might never get, which is purely and simply a waste of energy. Rest assured, Phase One isn't going to drop into this thread any time soon to "pre-announce" the upcoming introduction of a heal tool.I call it progress
I still call it wasting your time. I can heal images to my heart's content in software I already have, without any need for Capture One to catch up with that other software.
And "catching up" isn't "progress".
SInce you think that all this discussion is a waste....
and you almost describes us as we are so stupid...
just do us a big favor and stop posting over here
I am sorry to say Keith ...this is not nice !0 -
[quote="Mike141" wrote:
[quote="Nicolas" wrote:
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
I have no hesitation in saying that the CO raw rendition image quality is better than Lightroom.
Now, I don't see evidence of that at all. Lr's conversions out-everything what I get out of Capture One.[quote="Mike141" wrote:
Well, forgive the question, but in that case, why are you even here on the CO forum? If LR outdoes CO in all respects…
Forgiven!
Please note that I replied yesterday to you, this reply was not against C1, just explaining more in details my findings (I have used C1 since V3 till last year this is why I keep regularly an eye to the forum, waiting for my 645D PEF files to be supported).
But apparently I broke some forum's rule as my reply vanished without any explanation…0 -
[quote="NNN635160079456080580" wrote:
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="NN635046557256927337UL" wrote:
I am not sure about the meaning of your comment...
I mean that life's too short to waste it wishing for a feature to be introduced in one piece of software which - if it's that important a feature - can readily be obtained right now in other software.
Capture One's image quality isn't so good that I'd stick with it if it didn't have some feature I "had to" have...are you annoyed seeing how many users are requesting this tool?
Couldn't care less about how many people are wasting their time over it.... I am not wasting my Life... it's about pushing the limits...
But you're not doing that, are you? You're pining for something you might never get, which is purely and simply a waste of energy. Rest assured, Phase One isn't going to drop into this thread any time soon to "pre-announce" the upcoming introduction of a heal tool.I call it progress
I still call it wasting your time. I can heal images to my heart's content in software I already have, without any need for Capture One to catch up with that other software.
And "catching up" isn't "progress".
SInce you think that all this discussion is a waste....
and you almost describes us as we are so stupid...
just do us a big favor and stop posting over here
I am sorry to say Keith ...this is not nice !
+++ !
Julie0 -
seriously - photoshop does all of these image repair actions so great already - why moan here that C1P doesn't have it? Maybe Adobe has patents on these tools that makes it pretty hard for others to replicate (legally)?
C1P lags behind PS in many areas (curves cannot pull from an end point), no way to make a noise pattern for retouching (very very important for retouching), selection tools are poor (no paths) that it's really a waste of time to ask for all of these things PS has had for years. C1P has tools for general use but its never going satisfy those who need pro retouching tools. I'd rather C1P improve upon what its good at (image processing and tethering) further widening the gap in these areas from others.0 -
[quote="Edward51" wrote:
seriously - photoshop does all of these image repair actions so great already - why moan here that C1P doesn't have it? Maybe Adobe has patents on these tools that makes it pretty hard for others to replicate (legally)?
C1P lags behind PS in many areas (curves cannot pull from an end point), no way to make a noise pattern for retouching (very very important for retouching), selection tools are poor (no paths) that it's really a waste of time to ask for all of these things PS has had for years. C1P has tools for general use but its never going satisfy those who need pro retouching tools. I'd rather C1P improve upon what its good at (image processing and tethering) further widening the gap in these areas from others.
I dont think anyone here are expecting C1P to be able to do those things as PS can....
but we are talking about basic functionality which the competition
Lr and Aperture is offering since many,many years!
Ettore0 -
Have some people not heard of workflow.
If you can do everything in one application things tend to get done quicker and the whole process is easier!!
If you want Healing/Cloning then dont forget that you MUST put in a Support Request to identify this.
I made such a request some months ago but the more people who do it then the more notice PhaseOne will take.0 -
At present I would rather they made "round tripping" to an external editor like PS easier. It wouldn't take much to add this functionality as 90% of it is there already in the export recipe section. All we need is an extra option to automatically add the derivative file to the catalog next to the original.
This would speed up workflow massively for me and allow me to use it for plugin's like Nik too.
A better clone tool would be nice after that 😄
I have put in requests to support for all these things and more.0 -
THIS, x10000. If we could just have a fluid round trip to and from C1 for both PS and compatible plugins, all this would be much less an issue. The necessity to re-import an image after adjustments elsewhere is the real time and workflow killer.
☹️0 -
[quote="NN635046986654794641UL" wrote:
Agree, C1 is very close to being a major editing player, but close only counts in horseshoes. Add quality cloning and plug-in capability, and it's a new ball game.
THIS, x10000. If we could just have a fluid round trip to and from C1 for both PS and compatible plugins, all this would be much less an issue. The necessity to re-import an image after adjustments elsewhere is the real time and workflow killer.
☹️0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
111 comments