Love CO but I am desperately waiting for a heal tool

DWS

November 15, 2013 19:17

Then again, if PS edits within C1 came to fruition, all this consternation would be moot. 😊

0

NNN635201135946132125

November 15, 2013 19:31

[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

Hi Grant

Well with Apple Aperture 3 I did print several A3+ photos made for an exhibition which had healing applied to fix skin
defect and it looked really good

Believe me, the repairing retouch brush n Aperture does a great job!

0

mikekatz

November 15, 2013 19:51

[quote="DWS" wrote:
Then again, if PS edits within C1 came to fruition, all this consternation would be moot. 😊

Actually, not for me. I like the fact that I can have all my adjustments stored in the sidecar file, and that I can go back to the image and re-adjust if necessary. For example, maybe I want to re-crop or adjust exposure. I don't want to then lose the healing I did, or have to re-do it.

0

ettore.causa

November 15, 2013 20:08

[quote="olivier9" wrote:

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 C1

I have started this topic back in beginning of August...
and I must admit that i didn't expect to be still be so "hot" after 4 months...

As you can see they are many people having a similar need
but frankly while I perfectly understand that there are users which won't benefit or are interest is such request i simply don't get why some keeps posting negative comments about it
You won't support it? ... no problem!
but why are you going against using such a pretentious and arrogant tone...?

Let me ask you something:
Are you really aware of how many high end photographers are using cloning and healing in similar software such as Lightroom ??

I was in the Adobe Photoshop CS6 and Adobe Lightroom 1,2,3,4 prerelease program for several years
For your information i was one of Adobe Lr tester proposing to have negative slider values in to Lr to archive a softening effect for a light skin retouch...
I can assure you that in that community there were plenty of professional including someone like English fashion photographer Martin Evening, which since Lr 1 asked and pushed continuously to improve the heal and clone tool (for ex. opacity, feather, brush,etc.)
all that to avoid to export to Adobe PS!

You may not need or asked for a clone tool in to C1
please respect that there are users which need that

Thanks for listening and ....
Peace!

Ettore

0

SFA

November 15, 2013 20:52

[quote="NNN635201135946132125" wrote:
[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

Hi Grant

Well with Apple Aperture 3 I did print several A3+ photos made for an exhibition which had healing applied to fix skin
defect and it looked really good

Believe me, the repairing retouch brush n Aperture does a great job!

As does the spot tool in C1 in my limited experience. But the problem seems to be that it''s a spot tool not a large area 'healing' brush. The expectation that people have of healing brushes, or at least I assume it the general expectation since so many product videos seem to push it hard, is that you produce perfect results when removing entire objects from an image. Traditionally that would be some sort of clone or maybe multi image blend activity but people want the convenience of a healing brush. Or so it seems. So the healing brush, to be generally accepted as a useful development and to be 'what people were expecting' needs to be very smart. Very very smart indeed if the design objective is to be better than those healers that already exist. If the majority of C1 users also have PS and use it regularly as part of their workflow what would a healing brush in C1 give them that they don't already have - unless it was obviously better than the one in PS (Or LR or any of the others)?

I think that's the basis of the challenge. There may be some technical challenges too of course.

Grant Perkins

0

mikekatz

November 15, 2013 21:00

[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="NNN635201135946132125" wrote:
[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

Hi Grant

Well with Apple Aperture 3 I did print several A3+ photos made for an exhibition which had healing applied to fix skin
defect and it looked really good

Believe me, the repairing retouch brush n Aperture does a great job!

As does the spot tool in C1 in my limited experience. But the problem seems to be that it''s a spot tool not a large area 'healing' brush. The expectation that people have of healing brushes, or at least I assume it the general expectation since so many product videos seem to push it hard, is that you produce perfect results when removing entire objects from an image. Traditionally that would be some sort of clone or maybe multi image blend activity but people want the convenience of a healing brush. Or so it seems. So the healing brush, to be generally accepted as a useful development and to be 'what people were expecting' needs to be very smart. Very very smart indeed if the design objective is to be better than those healers that already exist. If the majority of C1 users also have PS and use it regularly as part of their workflow what would a healing brush in C1 give them that they don't already have - unless it was obviously better than the one in PS (Or LR or any of the others)?

I think that's the basis of the challenge. There may be some technical challenges too of course.

Grant Perkins

Grant
You keep missing the point. No-one is demanding better than anyone else. No-one is asking Photoshop quality. As I said earlier, CO has many tools that are not better than other RAW software packages - I gave the example of the black and white conversion tools.
If you don't want to heal using CO, and it doesn't work for you, that's fine. But it works for many of us in Lightroom and Aperture. YOU may not want or need it, but others certainly do.

0

SFA

November 15, 2013 22:51

Mike,

With due respect I think do get it.

Two points out of many that could be made.

The people inhabiting forums (in general and if we assume they are representative) will always have a percentage of the population that complains about things. Not necessarily the same people or the same things, but a forum is a place to vent more often than not. These days even some extremely non-venting forums have become adversely agitated.

In that context if a developer, say Phase for example, introduce a new product or product component that does not match some people's perceived needs or standards there will be a lot of venting. It's guaranteed. Others, yourself included by the sounds of it, may well say "Hey, great, that's good enough for me." But many will not, rightly or wrongly. If you divert resource and put in the effort, get a less than favourable response and your users STILL go and use other tools then you really have wasted your time. The "In my opinion it's still not as good as XYZ Inc's product so I am FORCED to carry on using that ... etc., etc." syndrome. A reinforced negative perception.

Worse yet might be to produce a product with (reasonably justifiable) claims of "The best tool in the market place" and then open the gates for negative comments by adding in a feature that is perceived to be substandard to both the product and when compared to the competitive offerings. And that is my second point.

If you're not at or near the head of the field with elements of your product if and when you add them they need to be pretty good AND, of possible, rather different. Think iPad. Playing catchup it is much more difficult to be successful with a "me too" development. Think Surface RT. (I use 2 random but not entirely unfamiliar and unconnected examples).

No doubt many on here would put forward other examples closer to home and closer to their particular areas of photo manipulation interest. The specific examples don't really matter. The principle just might.

My cent, for what it is worth. I fully expect others to see this differently and rightly so. In a world that only had hammers for a tool all fixings would be thought of as nails.

Grant Perkins

0

mikekatz

November 15, 2013 23:03

[quote="SFA" wrote:
Mike,

With due respect I think do get it.

Two points out of many that could be made.

The people inhabiting forums (in general and if we assume they are representative) will always have a percentage of the population that complains about things. Not necessarily the same people or the same things, but a forum is a place to vent more often than not. These days even some extremely non-venting forums have become adversely agitated.

In that context if a developer, say Phase for example, introduce a new product or product component that does not match some people's perceived needs or standards there will be a lot of venting. It's guaranteed. Others, yourself included by the sounds of it, may well say "Hey, great, that's good enough for me." But many will not, rightly or wrongly. If you divert resource and put in the effort, get a less than favourable response and your users STILL go and use other tools then you really have wasted your time. The "In my opinion it's still not as good as XYZ Inc's product so I am FORCED to carry on using that ... etc., etc." syndrome. A reinforced negative perception.

Worse yet might be to produce a product with (reasonably justifiable) claims of "The best tool in the market place" and then open the gates for negative comments by adding in a feature that is perceived to be substandard to both the product and when compared to the competitive offerings. And that is my second point.

If you're not at or near the head of the field with elements of your product if and when you add them they need to be pretty good AND, of possible, rather different. Think iPad. Playing catchup it is much more difficult to be successful with a "me too" development. Think Surface RT. (I use 2 random but not entirely unfamiliar and unconnected examples).

No doubt many on here would put forward other examples closer to home and closer to their particular areas of photo manipulation interest. The specific examples don't really matter. The principle just might.

My cent, for what it is worth. I fully expect others to see this differently and rightly so. In a world that only had hammers for a tool all fixings would be thought of as nails.

Grant Perkins

Grant

Interesting discussion.

I'd respond by making the point that sometimes a lack of a feature becomes a weakness in a product. If many users see the feature as useful, or rather are actually using the feature, imperfect as it is, in a competitive product, then Phase One should certainly give it consideration.

I agree that some forum writers are just being plain difficult and unreasonable. However, the length of this topic in time and content points to a different situation. Just as you need to learn how to read reviews on amazon.com, you need to know when something is being reasonably asked for. I fully believe this is one of those features. In fact, I am one of the people who, despite owning CO, won't use it because I use the Lightroom clone tool often enough that I would miss it here. B&W conversion is another reason, but that's another story.

I can give you another feature example, the reason I actually purchased CO. Lightroom does not always render files from Fuji-X cameras optimally. After an equally long campaign 😄, Phase One incorporated Fuji-X support into their system. Did they make money out of it? I can't say. I can say that their name comes up very favorably in all the Fuji forums, and I know they made at least some sales because of it. And CO gained a lot of exposure to many non-Fuji users, since there are a LOT of users who use Fuji-X along with their DSLRs.

0

SFA

November 16, 2013 00:28

[quote="Mike141" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Mike,

With due respect I think do get it.

Two points out of many that could be made.

The people inhabiting forums (in general and if we assume they are representative) will always have a percentage of the population that complains about things. Not necessarily the same people or the same things, but a forum is a place to vent more often than not. These days even some extremely non-venting forums have become adversely agitated.

In that context if a developer, say Phase for example, introduce a new product or product component that does not match some people's perceived needs or standards there will be a lot of venting. It's guaranteed. Others, yourself included by the sounds of it, may well say "Hey, great, that's good enough for me." But many will not, rightly or wrongly. If you divert resource and put in the effort, get a less than favourable response and your users STILL go and use other tools then you really have wasted your time. The "In my opinion it's still not as good as XYZ Inc's product so I am FORCED to carry on using that ... etc., etc." syndrome. A reinforced negative perception.

Worse yet might be to produce a product with (reasonably justifiable) claims of "The best tool in the market place" and then open the gates for negative comments by adding in a feature that is perceived to be substandard to both the product and when compared to the competitive offerings. And that is my second point.

If you're not at or near the head of the field with elements of your product if and when you add them they need to be pretty good AND, of possible, rather different. Think iPad. Playing catchup it is much more difficult to be successful with a "me too" development. Think Surface RT. (I use 2 random but not entirely unfamiliar and unconnected examples).

No doubt many on here would put forward other examples closer to home and closer to their particular areas of photo manipulation interest. The specific examples don't really matter. The principle just might.

My cent, for what it is worth. I fully expect others to see this differently and rightly so. In a world that only had hammers for a tool all fixings would be thought of as nails.

Grant Perkins

Grant

Interesting discussion.

I'd respond by making the point that sometimes a lack of a feature becomes a weakness in a product. If many users see the feature as useful, or rather are actually using the feature, imperfect as it is, in a competitive product, then Phase One should certainly give it consideration.

I agree that some forum writers are just being plain difficult and unreasonable. However, the length of this topic in time and content points to a different situation. Just as you need to learn how to read reviews on amazon.com, you need to know when something is being reasonably asked for. I fully believe this is one of those features. In fact, I am one of the people who, despite owning CO, won't use it because I use the Lightroom clone tool often enough that I would miss it here. B&W conversion is another reason, but that's another story.

I can give you another feature example, the reason I actually purchased CO. Lightroom does not always render files from Fuji-X cameras optimally. After an equally long campaign 😄, Phase One incorporated Fuji-X support into their system. Did they make money out of it? I can't say. I can say that their name comes up very favorably in all the Fuji forums, and I know they made at least some sales because of it. And CO gained a lot of exposure to many non-Fuji users, since there are a LOT of users who use Fuji-X along with their DSLRs.

I hear what you are saying and I do have sympathy with it in some ways.

Your Fuji example is interesting and I know that there are many people who have dived into their products and felt a need for better processing than was offered in the package or by those who were early to market.

I think there were a few rather special technical issues with the Fuji products that C1 wanted to be sure they got right when the camera was eventually available to them. That paid off (maybe) if they gained enough sales or will do over the next few years. I have no inside knowledge so that is just an obvious generic speculation. As it happens I am aware of another product, open source these days, that apparently produced good results too, much to everyone's surprise since there was no reason what so ever to suppose it understood anything about the sensor technology involved. But that's drifting off topic. As it happens it also is reckoned to do a mean B&W creation job as well - but that is even more off topic. Personally I don't have issues with the C1 B&W but then that's not my main area of interest usually.

But just looking at your example - the advantage of the Fuji file conversion from CO compared to Adobe became less important because you so regularly need the clone tool. So they made a one-off sale but unless they add the clone tool - no upgrade? And if they add the clone/healing brush/ whatever similar features the commenters want would than then persuade you to adopt C1 for few versions or would the B&W conversion issues, if unaddressed by some method, still lead back into Adobe's arms? (for others there may be different specific reasons but the same net result ....)

Maybe the key to the market is not to try to produce the best RAW conversions from a digital file and just develop the best healing brush and B&W conversions. (Perhaps a Phase Achromatic back for you this year? That would be another approach to the problem. Maybe. 😄 )

OK, my tongue is reasonably firmly set in my cheek here but the more serious note is that Phase, as a manufacturer of upper market photographic hardware,. needs to satisfy that high end market and its quality demands as a primary objective and carry that forward as needs and opportunity allow to the wider market.

Where commercial reality lies in that scenario I don't know. Where technical challenges might exist in the same market I don't know. And across the entire user base is there really enough demand? I don't know. We see a fair bit of demand or features here but then we could anticipate that and have no real idea (sitting here on the outside) for what the demand might be across the entire C1 user base and in the wider market taken as a whole.

Forgive me for being somewhat sceptical but over the years I have seen a lot of software development of 'must have' features (mainly in business systems I would add) that have never ever been used by the people that demanded them though to be fair some of that development was used by other people in ways not originally intended (and with variable results ...). I can think of one serious area of development in a package with which I am quite familiar (and that is just going through a new version release )whereby at this time a large chunk of functionality introduced about 6 years ago is being set aside for now. Why? Despite the potential benefits it offered for coordinating work, saving time and making systems consistent, so far as anyone can tell absolutely no one has ever used it in a production environment. A few may have played with it a little. So that's been carried forward through 4 versions with at least one major re-write along the way for no good reason at all. At some point it must have been a 'must have' for some people but in all the time it has been available I can't actually recall more than 1, maybe 2 questions about it on their forum and even then they were very basic questions.

So, from a self interested position, although I obviously don't feel I have the same need for volume cloning as you feel you do I am not averse to including it providing it does not disadvantage other things I am interested in. Other than resource diversion I would not imagine that it would impact my interests but you never know what the technical solution might end up producing!

Moreover, as I wrote before, I strongly suspect that only the very best outcome from the development - at least matching the agreed reference application - would be good enough to satisfy the majority of the requesters.

Let's see what happens. There are those who thing the mass market is heading towards mobile phones for there image solutions. Maybe the commercially sensible way to generate a cash cow application would be to become the next Nik or Instagram . I wonder of it would be feasible to design and build a phone screen that could double as a MF back producing images based on ray tracing and an 'electronic' lens? All for about $20. Now that would be disruptive in the market place! Great potential for removing unwanted content as well.

Grant

0

mikekatz

November 16, 2013 16:13

[quote="Grant" wrote:

I hear what you are saying and I do have sympathy with it in some ways.

Your Fuji example is interesting and I know that there are many people who have dived into their products and felt a need for better processing than was offered in the package or by those who were early to market.

I think there were a few rather special technical issues with the Fuji products that C1 wanted to be sure they got right when the camera was eventually available to them. That paid off (maybe) if they gained enough sales or will do over the next few years. I have no inside knowledge so that is just an obvious generic speculation. As it happens I am aware of another product, open source these days, that apparently produced good results too, much to everyone's surprise since there was no reason what so ever to suppose it understood anything about the sensor technology involved. But that's drifting off topic. As it happens it also is reckoned to do a mean B&W creation job as well - but that is even more off topic. Personally I don't have issues with the C1 B&W but then that's not my main area of interest usually.

But just looking at your example - the advantage of the Fuji file conversion from CO compared to Adobe became less important because you so regularly need the clone tool. So they made a one-off sale but unless they add the clone tool - no upgrade? And if they add the clone/healing brush/ whatever similar features the commenters want would than then persuade you to adopt C1 for few versions or would the B&W conversion issues, if unaddressed by some method, still lead back into Adobe's arms? (for others there may be different specific reasons but the same net result ....)

Maybe the key to the market is not to try to produce the best RAW conversions from a digital file and just develop the best healing brush and B&W conversions. (Perhaps a Phase Achromatic back for you this year? That would be another approach to the problem. Maybe. 😄 )

OK, my tongue is reasonably firmly set in my cheek here but the more serious note is that Phase, as a manufacturer of upper market photographic hardware,. needs to satisfy that high end market and its quality demands as a primary objective and carry that forward as needs and opportunity allow to the wider market.

Where commercial reality lies in that scenario I don't know. Where technical challenges might exist in the same market I don't know. And across the entire user base is there really enough demand? I don't know. We see a fair bit of demand or features here but then we could anticipate that and have no real idea (sitting here on the outside) for what the demand might be across the entire C1 user base and in the wider market taken as a whole.

Forgive me for being somewhat sceptical but over the years I have seen a lot of software development of 'must have' features (mainly in business systems I would add) that have never ever been used by the people that demanded them though to be fair some of that development was used by other people in ways not originally intended (and with variable results ...). I can think of one serious area of development in a package with which I am quite familiar (and that is just going through a new version release )whereby at this time a large chunk of functionality introduced about 6 years ago is being set aside for now. Why? Despite the potential benefits it offered for coordinating work, saving time and making systems consistent, so far as anyone can tell absolutely no one has ever used it in a production environment. A few may have played with it a little. So that's been carried forward through 4 versions with at least one major re-write along the way for no good reason at all. At some point it must have been a 'must have' for some people but in all the time it has been available I can't actually recall more than 1, maybe 2 questions about it on their forum and even then they were very basic questions.

So, from a self interested position, although I obviously don't feel I have the same need for volume cloning as you feel you do I am not averse to including it providing it does not disadvantage other things I am interested in. Other than resource diversion I would not imagine that it would impact my interests but you never know what the technical solution might end up producing!

Moreover, as I wrote before, I strongly suspect that only the very best outcome from the development - at least matching the agreed reference application - would be good enough to satisfy the majority of the requesters.

Let's see what happens. There are those who thing the mass market is heading towards mobile phones for there image solutions. Maybe the commercially sensible way to generate a cash cow application would be to become the next Nik or Instagram . I wonder of it would be feasible to design and build a phone screen that could double as a MF back producing images based on ray tracing and an 'electronic' lens? All for about $20. Now that would be disruptive in the market place! Great potential for removing unwanted content as well.

Grant

Hi Grant

Two points:
1) The Fuji example has clearly given CO a boost, and the product received additional sales and exposure it would not have received without their effort. But, Fuji cameras are not that common, and Phase One took the risk to get the reward.
In contradistinction, a reasonable clone tool will appeal to a far larger audience and give far more benefit to existing, as well as potentially new, users.

2) Somewhere earlier in the discussion there was mention that not all professionals work in the same way. Wedding photographers, for example, work with thousands of shots for each wedding. On the Lightroom forums, there are many wedding pros who now use Lightroom exclusively for all but a few shots. You clearly need to use PS for a portrait of the bride, etc., but for most other shots time is money and Lightroom now has sufficient tools, including the spot healing tool, to make round tripping redundant. When a customer orders a few hundred 4x6 or 5x7 prints, there's no sense in being pixel prefect if no-one can see any issues.

So to sum up, and I think I've gone as far as I can, there are many different uses for a program like CO, perhaps as many uses as there are users. It really is a matter of Phase One deciding how wide they want to cast their net, and then offering sometimes equivalent, sometimes better, and sometimes worse, features. It's when you don't have a feature at all that you make your net smaller, and that decision is up to Phase One.

0

Edward Caruso

November 17, 2013 01:26

[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.

all perfectly said in my opinion.
we do not need any more bloat features in C1P.

if LR does healing so well as many poster here describe - why bother with C1P at all? stay in LR. I suppose you need integration with Flickr, Smugmug,& instagram presets for your clients - which you will not get with C1P. Where does it stop? - do we next ask for photo frame effect plugins?

Everyday on set I have to deal with C1P's UI issues that I am really tired of apologizing for it - so as Keith said when these and other critical issues are put to rest - then we should ask for much less necessary items. Photoshop cannot do high volume tethered work (well) but it's been cloning and healing for over a decade.

0

Keith Reeder

November 17, 2013 18:24

[quote="Edward51" wrote:
if LR does healing so well as many poster here describe - why bother with C1P at all? stay in LR.

Lr is very good in this regard, Edward - and what Adobe has done is simply to import pre-existing functionality from Photoshop, and repurpose slightly to sit within Lr's toolset: no designing from scratch, minimal resource impact.

Knowing that no one Raw converter can do everything is why I use Lr.

And Photo Ninja.

And DxO Optics Pro.

And - sometimes - even Capture One 7.

But I don't waste a moment of my time kicking at Picturecode's door to tell them that Photo Ninja needs selective editing functionality.

I don't yammer on at Adobe about their (supposedly) inferior colours compared to Capture One.

I don't complain to DxO that their user interface needs to be as good as Capture One's.

And I don't waste my time hassling Phase One about the fact that - despite their claims that they have the "world's best Raw converter", Capture One's high ISO noise handling still lags behind that of Photo Ninja, Lightroom and - especially - Optics Pro; or that their shadow and highlight recovery tools are still second rate compared to Photo Ninja or Lightroom.

I just use the right tool for the job at hand: and in all cases, I use the excellent cloning, patching and content-aware fill functionality that Photoshop CS5 provides; which is where it belongs.

0

Keith Reeder

November 17, 2013 18:49

[quote="NNN635022403475152212" wrote:
Let me ask you something:
Are you really aware of how many high end photographers are using cloning and healing in similar software such as Lightroom ??

No offence, Ettore - but nobody here (including you) knows the answer to that question. You're extrapolating a small sample into a broad indication of a compelling user need because it happens to match what you want.

please respect that there are users which need that

And I again challenge the use of the word "need" in this context: I simply don't believe there's any evidence of such a "need", and just because you and a few others might like better cloning etc in Capture One, that does not provide any indication whatsoever that a need exists.

Here's a scenario to consider.

Let's assume that I "need" layers/selective editing in my Phase One Raw converter. So I start hassling Phase One for it.

"Hold on", you might think: "It's already in Capture One 7 Pro..."

Yeah, but I only use Express. Why shouldn't I have it here too?

Now you'll think: "That's not reasonable. Keith can have what he wants, if he buys the software that has it..."

And you'd be right. But I can make exactly the same point about your "need" for cloning, can't I? You can get it right now in software that already has it.

0

Keith Reeder

November 17, 2013 19:19

[quote="SFA" wrote:
So the healing brush, to be generally accepted as a useful development and to be 'what people were expecting' needs to be very smart.

This is a key point, Grant.

Here's a thing: when Lr 5 was first released, I decided to see just how good the new healing tool was.

I was able to get from this to this entirely within Lr.

It's not perfect (it was just a quick-and-dirty test) but it's still pretty impressive.

Yet people are still complaining about what it doesn't do, or what it does in a way that they think should be done differently. This is the best healing tool I know of in any converter, and it's still not good enough for some.

And for me, after that one proof of concept, I've never once used it in anger: I can still do this kind of work quicker, better and more effectively, using the tools in Photoshop CS5.

0

mikekatz

November 17, 2013 19:25

[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="Edward51" wrote:
if LR does healing so well as many poster here describe - why bother with C1P at all? stay in LR.

Lr is very good in this regard, Edward - and what Adobe has done is simply to import pre-existing functionality from Photoshop, and repurpose slightly to sit within Lr's toolset: no designing from scratch, minimal resource impact.

Knowing that no one Raw converter can do everything is why I use Lr.

And Photo Ninja.

And DxO Optics Pro.

And - sometimes - even Capture One 7.

But I don't waste a moment of my time kicking at Picturecode's door to tell them that Photo Ninja needs selective editing functionality.

I don't yammer on at Adobe about their (supposedly) inferior colours compared to Capture One.

I don't complain to DxO that their user interface needs to be as good as Capture One's.

And I don't waste my time hassling Phase One about the fact that - despite their claims that they have the "world's best Raw converter", Capture One's high ISO noise handling still lags behind that of Photo Ninja, Lightroom and - especially - Optics Pro; or that their shadow and highlight recovery tools are still second rate compared to Photo Ninja or Lightroom.

I just use the right tool for the job at hand: and in all cases, I use the excellent cloning, patching and content-aware fill functionality that Photoshop CS5 provides; which is where it belongs.

Hi Keith

If software manufacturers adopted your approach, why did they ever add in more functionality over the last few years??

Raw software products used to be just that - software that ingested raw files, allowed you to do some very basic enhancements, and then handed over to Photoshop.

Nowadays, raw software is getting good enough that for many users, amateurs, hobbyists, and pros alike, there's no reason at all to go into PS. Also to be taken into account is the increase in IQ and dynamic range in modern cameras, which means less intense processing is required.

Ask yourself, if your approach is correct, just exactly WHY Adobe is taking their spot healing technology out of Photoshop and putting it into Lightroom as you say they have done with other features? What do they have to gain by making Photoshop less necessary? The answer is that raw software is a quickly growing and very competitive field, and Adobe need to be big players there. If, again, your workflow is how everyone actually works, Adobe would have been far better off to never have developed Lightroom at all - every user of every raw software would always end up in Photoshop, so why bother?

You may be happy to own multiple raw programs and Photoshop, and to choose for each individual image which processing path is best, and, sir, best of luck to you, and I'm sure your results are spectacular - and I mean that sincerely. But for many of us, raw software now is almost sufficient, we only want a single piece of software, and for even more of us, the next few iterations will increase that independence from Photoshop. Adobe know that, and that's why they have to add these extra features to Lightroom, and that's why Phase One has to give serious thought to features like a competent healing tool.

0

mikekatz

November 17, 2013 19:37

[quote="Mike141" wrote:
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="Edward51" wrote:
if LR does healing so well as many poster here describe - why bother with C1P at all? stay in LR.

Lr is very good in this regard, Edward - and what Adobe has done is simply to import pre-existing functionality from Photoshop, and repurpose slightly to sit within Lr's toolset: no designing from scratch, minimal resource impact.

Knowing that no one Raw converter can do everything is why I use Lr.

And Photo Ninja.

And DxO Optics Pro.

And - sometimes - even Capture One 7.

But I don't waste a moment of my time kicking at Picturecode's door to tell them that Photo Ninja needs selective editing functionality.

I don't yammer on at Adobe about their (supposedly) inferior colours compared to Capture One.

I don't complain to DxO that their user interface needs to be as good as Capture One's.

And I don't waste my time hassling Phase One about the fact that - despite their claims that they have the "world's best Raw converter", Capture One's high ISO noise handling still lags behind that of Photo Ninja, Lightroom and - especially - Optics Pro; or that their shadow and highlight recovery tools are still second rate compared to Photo Ninja or Lightroom.

I just use the right tool for the job at hand: and in all cases, I use the excellent cloning, patching and content-aware fill functionality that Photoshop CS5 provides; which is where it belongs.

Hi Keith

If software manufacturers adopted your approach, why did they ever add in more functionality over the last few years??

Raw software products used to be just that - software that ingested raw files, allowed you to do some very basic enhancements, and then handed over to Photoshop.

Nowadays, raw software is getting good enough that for many users, amateurs, hobbyists, and pros alike, there's no reason at all to go into PS. Also to be taken into account is the increase in IQ and dynamic range in modern cameras, which means less intense processing is required.

Ask yourself, if your approach is correct, just exactly WHY Adobe is taking their spot healing technology out of Photoshop and putting it into Lightroom as you say they have done with other features? What do they have to gain by making Photoshop less necessary? The answer is that raw software is a quickly growing and very competitive field, and Adobe need to be big players there. If, again, your workflow is how everyone actually works, Adobe would have been far better off to never have developed Lightroom at all - every user of every raw software would always end up in Photoshop, so why bother?

You may be happy to own multiple raw programs and Photoshop, and to choose for each individual image which processing path is best, and, sir, best of luck to you, and I'm sure your results are spectacular - and I mean that sincerely. But for many of us, raw software now is almost sufficient, we only want a single piece of software, and for even more of us, the next few iterations will increase that independence from Photoshop. Adobe know that, and that's why they have to add these extra features to Lightroom, and that's why Phase One has to give serious thought to features like a competent healing tool.

Apologies, I phrased badly above:
"Ask yourself, if your approach is correctâ€¦"
Should be "Ask yourself, if your approach is popularâ€¦"
Of course, your approach is correct for you.

0

Keith Reeder

November 17, 2013 19:45

[quote="Mike141" wrote:

If software manufacturers adopted your approach, why did they ever add in more functionality over the last few years??

To get your money, Mike - to tempt you to buy their software over someone else's. Nothing else matters to them.

If Phase One decides it needs to add cloning in order to maintain its customer base, you'll get it. If not, you probably won't.

Simple as that.

One (and the only effective) way to demonstrate demand for a given tool is to vote with your wallet and buy the software that does the job instead of the software that you wished would do the job. But as long as a software company is getting your money anyway, they have no incentive to improve and enhance, do they?

As to "my approach" - it works for me. If it's not "popular", perhaps it should be - I'm not sitting here pining for functionality in Capture One that might never come.

0

mikekatz

November 17, 2013 20:45

[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="Mike141" wrote:

If software manufacturers adopted your approach, why did they ever add in more functionality over the last few years??

To get your money, Mike - to tempt you to buy their software over someone else's. Nothing else matters to them.

If Phase One decides it needs to add cloning in order to maintain its customer base, you'll get it. If not, you probably won't.

Simple as that.

Of course. And yet Adobe has found it necessary to offer a $125 product that in many cases replaces a minimum $600 product of theirs. It's the only way to get some money rather than none. It's called competition and progress.

My point exactly is that Phase One has to determine just how much of a net to cast. And I think, as I said before, that the size of this topic, in time and threads and participants, relative to whatever else is going on here, should be a good indicator of the value of the monetary value of the feature.

0

jknights

November 21, 2013 15:31

[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="Edward51" wrote:
if LR does healing so well as many poster here describe - why bother with C1P at all? stay in LR.

Lr is very good in this regard, Edward - and what Adobe has done is simply to import pre-existing functionality from Photoshop, and repurpose slightly to sit within Lr's toolset: no designing from scratch, minimal resource impact.

Knowing that no one Raw converter can do everything is why I use Lr.

And Photo Ninja.

And DxO Optics Pro.

And - sometimes - even Capture One 7.

But I don't waste a moment of my time kicking at Picturecode's door to tell them that Photo Ninja needs selective editing functionality.

I don't yammer on at Adobe about their (supposedly) inferior colours compared to Capture One.

I don't complain to DxO that their user interface needs to be as good as Capture One's.

And I don't waste my time hassling Phase One about the fact that - despite their claims that they have the "world's best Raw converter", Capture One's high ISO noise handling still lags behind that of Photo Ninja, Lightroom and - especially - Optics Pro; or that their shadow and highlight recovery tools are still second rate compared to Photo Ninja or Lightroom.

I just use the right tool for the job at hand: and in all cases, I use the excellent cloning, patching and content-aware fill functionality that Photoshop CS5 provides; which is where it belongs.

Oh dear.
I got to say that Keith and I frequently differ over stuff.
But here I do agree but that said if PhaseOne were to make their catalogs as good as LR5 then I probably wouldnt bother with LR at all.
There are a multitude of RAW processors and editors but I do resist changing to COPro as my main one as it doesnt have a Heal function so the image xmp sidecar file doesnt have these edits in so I cant use it as my main image output engine, so I stick with AfterShot Pro that is like Bibble that I have used since 2002.
That said my D600 images from AfterShot Pro are not as good as from COPro and ASP cant process Fuji Xtrans RAF files so more and more I am moving towards COPro.

0

NNN635222953796387171

December 12, 2013 11:38

There is a lot to like in CO7
but without a more advanced spot brush and a decent cloning i cant jump ship

..hope the R&D team will listen

P

0

SFA

December 12, 2013 12:08

[quote="NNN635222953796387171" wrote:

..hope the R&D team will listen

P

If you wish for that to be more certain - have you created a Support Case to register your desire officially?

0

Comments