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
-
I would like to add my voice for a capable cloning and healing tool(with source selection and opacity)
its a fundamental tool for a photographer workflow
Many thanks,
Giulia0 -
[quote="NN635186500055081330UL" wrote:
I would like to add my voice for a capable cloning and healing tool(with source selection and opacity)
its a fundamental tool for a photographer workflow
Many thanks,
Giulia
Dont forget to submit an official request 😄0 -
[quote="NN635186500055081330UL" wrote:
I would like to add my voice for a capable cloning and healing tool(with source selection and opacity)
its a fundamental tool for a photographer workflow
Many thanks,
Giulia
There are lots of users waiting for this
...i do hope for a 6.2 release with it 😄0 -
Today I have downloaded the 60 days trial of Capture One 7
I am very pleased with the results and I find the user interface terrific
Unfortunately I just discovered that Capture One doesn't have a cloning or repairing tool 🤓
the current spot tool with no opacity and source selection is useless for my editing (lots of Weddings)
I am truly disappointed because Capture One seems to be a great app!
....hopefully by the time the trial is over you will implement it
Best to all
Robert0 -
Don't forget to submit the official request to the CO support team
Ettore0 -
It's interesting to read Jeff Ascough testimonial... why he migrated to Lr and the reason he came back to Capture One
...his opinion about plug-in is similar to the one of those here that don't want to export to PS just to do some basic repairing and cloning.
Good night
Robert0 -
[quote="NNN635197852990977632" wrote:
It's interesting to read Jeff Ascough testimonial... why he migrated to Lr and the reason he came back to Capture One
...his opinion about plug-in is similar to the one of those here that don't want to export to PS just to do some basic repairing and cloning.
Good night
Robert
I thought exactly the same 😊0 -
A "Clone/Heal Tool" means different things to different people. A wedding photographers' tool might well differ significantly from what a photographer of architecture needs. Therefore, when asking PhaseOne to add a clone/heal tool, or any other tool, be as specific as you possibly can as to what you need it for.
If not, i am afraid that once we see such a tool in C1, we''ll have a thread much like this one, saying:
"Oh.., well.., OK.., you gave us a clone/heal tool, but...this is not what we really meant...".
Help PhaseOne help you.
Cheers,
Mogens0 -
[quote="mli20" wrote:
A "Clone/Heal Tool" means different things to different people.
this is one reason I feel a clone/heal tool is a waste of time and resources for Phase One. Do the ones requesting it want something that PS has perfected a decade ago? What a wedding or portrait photographer might need to do quick spotting wouldn't satisfy other needs like fashion or architectural retouching. So you know they are going to give you a simplified version - where I feel just bite the bullet and use a superior tool for this - PS.
PO needs to improve in more important areas like tethering and UI development.0 -
[quote="Edward51" wrote:
[quote="mli20" wrote:
A "Clone/Heal Tool" means different things to different people.
this is one reason I feel a clone/heal tool is a waste of time and resources for Phase One. Do the ones requesting it want something that PS has perfected a decade ago? What a wedding or portrait photographer might need to do quick spotting wouldn't satisfy other needs like fashion or architectural retouching. So you know they are going to give you a simplified version - where I feel just bite the bullet and use a superior tool for this - PS.
PO needs to improve in more important areas like tethering and UI development.
Wedding photographers rappresent a big portion of the pro market and it would unfair and frankly stupid to ignore it
No one here is expecting Phase One to develop some thing that would match Adobe Photoshop ..but anything similar to Aperture or Lightroom 4 would be very important for me and to others
.... by the way besides Weddings part of my income comes from portraits works.... I can assure you that there to it would very be welcomed..!
Robert0 -
[quote="mli20" wrote:
A "Clone/Heal Tool" means different things to different people. A wedding photographers' tool might well differ significantly from what a photographer of architecture needs. Therefore, when asking PhaseOne to add a clone/heal tool, or any other tool, be as specific as you possibly can as to what you need it for.
If not, i am afraid that once we see such a tool in C1, we''ll have a thread much like this one, saying:
"Oh.., well.., OK.., you gave us a clone/heal tool, but...this is not what we really meant...".
Help PhaseOne help you.
Cheers,
Mogens
It's very simple...
There are 3 major players in the high end Raw editing software market :
Capture One, Aperture and Lightroom
the last two have very similar repairing and cloning tool (with source selection and opacity )
....You can't go wrong with that 😊
Robert0 -
[quote="NNN635197852990977632" wrote:
Wedding photographers rappresent a big portion of the pro market and it would unfair and frankly stupid to ignore it
No one here is expecting Phase One to develop some thing that would match Adobe Photoshop ..but anything similar to Aperture or Lightroom 4 would be very important for me and to others
.... by the way besides Weddings part of my income comes from portraits works.... I can assure you that there to it would very be welcomed..!
Robert
Well then Robert a simplified heal tool in C1P would help you and others who do similar work . . but it would not help photographers like me who do not do that work and retouchers who need much more than a heal tool. So basically you are asking for a tool specifically for a subset of C1P's customers. Just as long as we are clear on that.
If I had to guess - C1P's biggest customer segment is pro commercial photography where all images are going into PS no matter what anyway.0 -
[quote="Edward51" wrote:
[quote="NNN635197852990977632" wrote:
Wedding photographers rappresent a big portion of the pro market and it would unfair and frankly stupid to ignore it
No one here is expecting Phase One to develop some thing that would match Adobe Photoshop ..but anything similar to Aperture or Lightroom 4 would be very important for me and to others
.... by the way besides Weddings part of my income comes from portraits works.... I can assure you that there to it would very be welcomed..!
Robert
Well then Robert a simplified heal tool in C1P would help you and others who do similar work . . but it would not help photographers like me who do not do that work and retouchers who need much more than a heal tool. So basically you are asking for a tool specifically for a subset of C1P's customers. Just as long as we are clear on that.
If I had to guess - C1P's biggest customer segment is pro commercial photography where all images are going into PS no matter what anyway.
subset of C1P's customers? .... don't be so sure
Regardless of that allow me to say that I found your "playing against" a future request truly childish
... like it or not this is what many customers want and you should be wondering why other major Raw editing softwares did implement and improved those tools through the years
Robert0 -
It is not a very clever idea just to copy the big guys. I for one do not need more ...of what's already un the narket.
I trust PhaseOne can do better than being mere copy-cats. Its niche is in offering something different.
Cheers,
Mogens0 -
Its not about being a copy-cat or trying to be an elitist choice, its about providing basic tools that many photographers want. There are many tools in CO and I doubt all photographers use all those current tools. Having the choice within that tool set is important. Watching the competition is also important as Phase One have to survive too. 0 -
[quote="sizzlingbadger" wrote:
Its not about being a copy-cat or trying to be an elitist choice, its about providing basic tools that many photographers want. There are many tools in CO and I doubt all photographers use all those current tools. Having the choice within that tool set is important. Watching the competition is also important as Phase One have to survive too.
Perfectly explained!!0 -
[quote="mli20" wrote:
It is not a very clever idea just to copy the big guys. I for one do not need more ...of what's already un the narket.
I trust PhaseOne can do better than being mere copy-cats. Its niche is in offering something different.
Cheers,
Mogens
Its not about copying ....
it's about being aware why and what the competition is offering
If wouldn't have been for Lr or Aperture .... i don't think we would have the brush adjustments in CO which we all love!
As someone said "Look out and do it better"
E0 -
[quote="sizzlingbadger" wrote:
Its not about being a copy-cat or trying to be an elitist choice, its about providing basic tools that many photographers want. There are many tools in CO and I doubt all photographers use all those current tools. Having the choice within that tool set is important. Watching the competition is also important as Phase One have to survive too.
You said it all !0 -
There's no disagreement that it would be great to have a clone tool in C1.
The contention is about whether we should help PhaseOne come up with at tool suiting our specific needs or just leave them to guess. Why not be helpful?
Cheers,
Mogens0 -
[quote="mli20" wrote:
The contention is about whether we should help PhaseOne come up with at tool suiting our specific needs or just leave them to guess.
No, there really is a contention about whether Phase One should expend limited resources on a function that is already readily available - and at a very mature and effective state of development - to almost all of us from within Photoshop/Elements, PaintShop Pro and dozens of other "pixel editors".
Fact: cloning/healing/content sensitive filling does not need to be done in a Raw converter for best effect: this isn't like fundamental image-quality related adjustments like noise reduction, white/colour balancing, highlight/shadow recovery - all of which are far better performed on Raw data - but a pixel-editor function that can be done at any stage in the workflow and therefore - by no stretch of the imagination - a "necessity" for a Raw converter.
There's simply no robust case for this in Capture One except in the minds of a tiny subset of users who - if we drew a Venn diagram - would fall into the intersection of the sets "want cloning/healing" and "too cheap/lazy/disorganised/bloody-minded to create a workflow that effectively plays in a pixel editor with cloning functionality".
When every usability/performance/IQ issue that Capture One users report has been ground down to nothing, then there will be a broad appetite for "bells and whistles" enhancements like a fully-functional clone tool: but we're nearly not there yet, and - in a space where it's clear to everyone that Phase One's development resources are limited - core usability, performance and IQ issues must take precedence over gadgets that are already available to all of us elsewhere.
There's your contention.0 -
[quote="NNN635022403475152212" wrote:
Its not about copying ....
it's about being aware why and what the competition is offering
If wouldn't have been for Lr or Aperture .... i don't think we would have the brush adjustments in CO which we all love!
So it is about copying, then?
Assuming Capture One has "unique strengths" over Lightroom or Aperture (does it?) then it should be able to stand on what makes it "special". It therefore follows - as sure as night follows day - that the clamour for tools already available in other software is about trying to be "like" the others.
Copying, in other words.
And the question then has to be begged: if what you want is available/done better elsewhere, why persevere with Capture One?0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="mli20" wrote:
The contention is about whether we should help PhaseOne come up with at tool suiting our specific needs or just leave them to guess.
No, there really is a contention about whether Phase One should expend limited resources on a function that is already readily available - and at a very mature and effective state of development - to almost all of us from within Photoshop/Elements, PaintShop Pro and dozens of other "pixel editors".
Fact: cloning/healing/content sensitive filling does not need to be done in a Raw converter for best effect: this isn't like fundamental image-quality related adjustments like noise reduction, white/colour balancing, highlight/shadow recovery - all of which are far better performed on Raw data - but a pixel-editor function that can be done at any stage in the workflow and therefore - by no stretch of the imagination - a "necessity" for a Raw converter.
There's simply no robust case for this in Capture One except in the minds of a tiny subset of users who - if we drew a Venn diagram - would fall into the intersection of the sets "want cloning/healing" and "too cheap/lazy/disorganised/bloody-minded to create a workflow that effectively plays in a pixel editor with cloning functionality".
When every usability/performance/IQ issue that Capture One users report has been ground down to nothing, then there will be a broad appetite for "bells and whistles" enhancements like a fully-functional clone tool: but we're nearly not there yet, and - in a space where it's clear to everyone that Phase One's development resources are limited - core usability, performance and IQ issues must take precedence over gadgets that are already available to all of us elsewhere.
There's your contention.
If you are not interested in this feature please stop posting..
....I find you attitude narrow minded....and very arrogant!
Please let the Phase One team to decide what is possible or not..
You seem to live in your own world....today Raw editing software are different to what were 8 years ago
There are plenty of high end photographers which would benefit from healing & cloning
.... you have to accept that
Best
Julie0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="NNN635022403475152212" wrote:
Its not about copying ....
it's about being aware why and what the competition is offering
If wouldn't have been for Lr or Aperture .... i don't think we would have the brush adjustments in CO which we all love!
So it is about copying, then?
Assuming Capture One has "unique strengths" over Lightroom or Aperture (does it?) then it should be able to stand on what makes it "special". It therefore follows - as sure as night follows day - that the clamour for tools already available in other software is about trying to be "like" the others.
Copying, in other words.
And the question then has to be begged: if what you want is available/done better elsewhere, why persevere with Capture One?
Copying is an element of any market including the photography one
There is nothing wrong in that as far you keep trying doing it better0 -
I am one C1 user waiting to see Clone and a good spot tool implemented in C1
Those whom don't need or believe in it can spent their time somewhere else
Michael Larsen0 -
[quote="NNN635156169528295822" wrote:
I am one C1 user waiting to see Clone and a good spot tool implemented in C1
Michael Larsen
Me to!!!0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
And the question then has to be begged: if what you want is available/done better elsewhere, why persevere with Capture One?
Exactly why its important for Phase One to keep up with the competition and customers requirements.0 -
I do also feel that a Capture One with a decent healing and cloneing would boost dramatically my workflow
Kh
Pietro0 -
[quote="NN635046557256927337UL" wrote:
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="mli20" wrote:
The contention is about whether we should help PhaseOne come up with at tool suiting our specific needs or just leave them to guess.
No, there really is a contention about whether Phase One should expend limited resources on a function that is already readily available - and at a very mature and effective state of development - to almost all of us from within Photoshop/Elements, PaintShop Pro and dozens of other "pixel editors".
Fact: cloning/healing/content sensitive filling does not need to be done in a Raw converter for best effect: this isn't like fundamental image-quality related adjustments like noise reduction, white/colour balancing, highlight/shadow recovery - all of which are far better performed on Raw data - but a pixel-editor function that can be done at any stage in the workflow and therefore - by no stretch of the imagination - a "necessity" for a Raw converter.
There's simply no robust case for this in Capture One except in the minds of a tiny subset of users who - if we drew a Venn diagram - would fall into the intersection of the sets "want cloning/healing" and "too cheap/lazy/disorganised/bloody-minded to create a workflow that effectively plays in a pixel editor with cloning functionality".
When every usability/performance/IQ issue that Capture One users report has been ground down to nothing, then there will be a broad appetite for "bells and whistles" enhancements like a fully-functional clone tool: but we're nearly not there yet, and - in a space where it's clear to everyone that Phase One's development resources are limited - core usability, performance and IQ issues must take precedence over gadgets that are already available to all of us elsewhere.
There's your contention.
If you are not interested in this feature please stop posting..
....I find you attitude narrow minded....and very arrogant!
Please let the Phase One team to decide what is possible or not..
You seem to live in your own world....today Raw editing software are different to what were 8 years ago
There are plenty of high end photographers which would benefit from healing & cloning
.... you have to accept that
Best
Julie
You forgot to mention the Instagram presets, Grain Surgery and the Oil Painting filter.
And we also should be able to order a taxi straight from C10 -
Yesterday I decided to dig more deeply into what a healing tool might offer. So I downloaded a trial for an application with one of the more recent healing tool developments. I have no idea whether is is thought to be market leading or a 'me too' catch up.
Anyway, I tried a few things, having watched the videos and listened to the entirely reasonable caveats about expectations.
It was not bad. But it was not great. Much as I expected. There are bound to be limits and mismatches to expectations. My hopes in this case I guess.
From what I tried I could conclude that with certain images I would be able to fix stuff quite effectively and efficiently but for the majority of my images that needed such attention I suspect I would probably be left with more work to do.
I would assume that C1 developers would only want to release something that offered a very complete solution. Better, at the RAW file processing level, that other products can produce at that point in the process or further down the line. It would need to be like that to be acceptable to the customers (based on what one reads in this forum). If, for whatever reason, that cannot currently be delivered then better not to do it at all when the comparison with existing tools that are already in use might mean that people continue with the other tools they already have.
The problem with coming up with something 'better' is that the concept of 'healing', which the C1 spot tool does rather well in my opinion for a small area, has stretched to now be understood as "fill the bits I have cut out of my image with something that you have made up to match fill the hole I have left". That's fine for grass and foliage and maybe a few other things that are randomly patterned and fundamentally unstructured. It can also be derived for very structured patterns with some success. The stuff in between seems to be a mess, usually. Or, with work, maybe 80% success. OK for a thumbnail, not so great for an A3 print.
I'm not so sure that that level of success would be enough for C1 expectations. On that basis the space might as well be left to the existing runners in the race. But I suppose we will just have to wait and see what happens.
Grant Perkins0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Yesterday I decided to dig more deeply into what a healing tool might offer. So I downloaded a trial for an application with one of the more recent healing tool developments. I have no idea whether is is thought to be market leading or a 'me too' catch up.
Anyway, I tried a few things, having watched the videos and listened to the entirely reasonable caveats about expectations.
It was not bad. But it was not great. Much as I expected. There are bound to be limits and mismatches to expectations. My hopes in this case I guess.
From what I tried I could conclude that with certain images I would be able to fix stuff quite effectively and efficiently but for the majority of my images that needed such attention I suspect I would probably be left with more work to do.
I would assume that C1 developers would only want to release something that offered a very complete solution. Better, at the RAW file processing level, that other products can produce at that point in the process or further down the line. It would need to be like that to be acceptable to the customers (based on what one reads in this forum). If, for whatever reason, that cannot currently be delivered then better not to do it at all when the comparison with existing tools that are already in use might mean that people continue with the other tools they already have.
The problem with coming up with something 'better' is that the concept of 'healing', which the C1 spot tool does rather well in my opinion for a small area, has stretched to now be understood as "fill the bits I have cut out of my image with something that you have made up to match fill the hole I have left". That's fine for grass and foliage and maybe a few other things that are randomly patterned and fundamentally unstructured. It can also be derived for very structured patterns with some success. The stuff in between seems to be a mess, usually. Or, with work, maybe 80% success. OK for a thumbnail, not so great for an A3 print.
I'm not so sure that that level of success would be enough for C1 expectations. On that basis the space might as well be left to the existing runners in the race. But I suppose we will just have to wait and see what happens.
Grant Perkins
On that basis, the black and white conversion in CO should not exist. It's as basic as it gets. Lightroom has far more tools for B&W conversion than CO. Maybe it will be okay 70% of the time, so that means it shouldn't be there?
Really, no one is expecting a Photoshop equivalent. As I have said before, a Lightroom equivalent would save me, and no doubt many, many others, time-wasting round tripping to Photoshop around 80-90% of the time. I certainly wouldn't be complaining that it wasn't good enough or that it doesn't work well enough.
In fact, if you read any Lightroom forums you'll see the overwhelmingly positive response from users to the improved spot healing tool in LR5. I personally have never seen a single comment expecting Lightroom to be as competent as Photoshop at healing.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
111 comments