Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Capture One 12.0 wish list....?

Denis Mortell
1. Radial Gradient Masks.
2. The option of fully manual Lens Corrections - especially for Chromatic Aberration - just copy what Adobe Camera RAW has. It's superb.
3. The facility to round-trip to Helicon Focus; which Phase MF back users have had since 9.0.

Anything else.........?

D.
0

Comments

140 comments

Date Votes
  • Denis Mortell
    Grant,

    Thanks again for the reply.

    Just to be clear....

    1. I'm aware that Export Originals exports the files with no edits attached. But, I never mentioned Export Originals in any of my posts. I'm not clear why you are. I'm talking about Edit With..., a different animal entirely. Edit With... does export files to Helicon with edits attached.

    2. You keep mentioning Affinity. I'm not clear why about this either.

    I would simply like the Edit With... dialog amended to include .dng. That's all.

    Then, whether exporting to Helicon, with or without Lens Corrections embedded, would be good or bad for a given stack of images could be easily established on a case by case basis.

    I would simply like the option of a single, largely untouched, Helicon-rendered .dng file back in C1 for complete editing.

    As I wrote above, I can do this already longhand. But, adding .dng to the "Edit With..." dialog is surely not rocket science.

    Thanks again.

    Denis
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:

    1. I'm aware that Export Originals exports the files with no edits attached. But, I never mentioned Export Originals in any of my posts. I'm not clear why you are. I'm talking about Edit With..., a different animal entirely. Edit With... does export files to Helicon with edits attached.


    Grant is just trying to find you a workaround I think

    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:

    2. You keep mentioning Affinity. I'm not clear why about this either.


    Because he has experience with Affinity as an external editor

    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:
    I would simply like the Edit With... dialog amended to include .dng. That's all.

    Then, whether exporting to Helicon, with or without Lens Corrections embedded, would be good or bad for a given stack of images could be easily established on a case by case basis.

    I would simply like the option of a single, largely untouched, Helicon-rendered .dng file back in C1 for complete editing.

    As I wrote above, I can do this already longhand. But, adding .dng to the "Edit With..." dialog is surely not rocket science.


    I hear ya but I would like them to consider the bigger picture and make "Edit With..." do a little more that just adding .dng as a choice.

    I would like to see the ability to launch external editors with multiple images opened as layers or as separate images (my choice) and I would like to see them opened with or without the existing edits from C1 (my choice). Basically since this is a 12.0 wish list I would like them to spend a little more time and consider the bigger pictured than just adding .dng support.

    I suspect that is where Grant is coming from but I am sure he will correct that if need be 😄
    0
  • SFA
    IanL,

    Kind of where I am coming from, yeah.

    You are right about Affinity. I have it. I don't have PS or Helicon. It is something I can try to look at the workflow which, to me, seems quite similar in all of them. It's unlikely to be anything too different really.

    The target application for the processing wants to be presented with some suitable images in a format it can deal with.

    For now let's ignore the feeder application.

    So you start off the process, identify the files you want to work with, tell the target application where they are.

    The application loads the files, does what it does with them maybe with some specific user input preferences for the set or sets in the flow, and churns out a result file of the type you have selected from what it can churn out. It put the file where you tell it to put it - typically the same place the files you supplied it with at the start of the process but it may be somewhere else.

    Is that about it?

    Your preparatory choice is whether you send the original unaltered files or something you have already worked on. Both are possible. The target application only cares that the file type is one it can work with.

    Now, what happens when you initiate the process from an external application. Say LR or C1 for example?

    Other than having an interface that starts the target program and resumes when it has finished - not much else?

    I have watched the Helicon videos and the specific process steps are pretty much the same as what I can make use of myself in the Affinity version of the processing. I don't claim they are completely equivalant. But the process flow and its interaction with C1 as an external product calling on then to process some images looks basically the same. The caller application runs a "script" (in old terminology) that run the target program, allows the user to use it and then allows the user to see the result once they (the users) know the Helicon/Affinity/PS/whatever process has finished.

    Is there more to it than that currently?

    If not then I can define a simple Process that create some dng files as output and has an "Open With" for the files of, in my case, Affinity. Affinity will open the files, albeit in is Develop" mode by default. I can then process them to merge them and having specified the file type I want at the end and where to save it. Once done I can select the file in C1 and do something with it.

    I gather from the Helicon videos that it offers the same functionality.

    Now although I personally do not foresee a need for a lot of file merging I can understand that some people will so if there are ways to enhance the interface in some way that really make it more useful then sure, it's worth considering and I don't doubt that the process could be finessed. I guess Apple users like Eric might choose to personalise things to very specific requirements of their own using Apple Script.

    The thing is that the request (dng file) , as presented, already seems to be possible through a slightly different but possibly more useful route.

    Also, since C1 adds nothing to the merging process itself and these days even the order of the images is likely to be assessed and decided automatically in the merging application, the options for improvement must be somewhat limited.

    If the merging application has an SDK that provides for third party applications to feed in preferences, settings and maybe some other factors then the "parent" application could potentially be modified to include such controls. We have seen this in the case of some hardware developments for example

    The downside of that suggestion is that I would then expect people to come up with "If you can do that with application A why can't you do the same for application B" with complete disregard about whether application B actually has any built in capability to be influenced by an external program.

    All just my observations and opinions of course. Everyone else's mileage may vary and probably will.

    😉


    Grant
    0
  • www.sedetweiler.com
    Keyword synonyms and the ability to prevent exporting of some parent keywords. Keywording is a trainwreck.
    0
  • www.sedetweiler.com
    An additional process as part of the process recipe. For example, changing color tags after export, adding keywords automatically, etc.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN634523208431475184" wrote:
    Keywording is a trainwreck.



    Would you care to describe how so?
    0
  • John Doe
    In the same way that we have Process Recipes, I'd like to see Import Recipes. Then I wouldn't have to constantly check that everything is set correctly when I import different types of pictures.
    0
  • Denis Mortell
    [quote="IanL" wrote:
    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:

    1. I'm aware that Export Originals exports the files with no edits attached. But, I never mentioned Export Originals in any of my posts. I'm not clear why you are. I'm talking about Edit With..., a different animal entirely. Edit With... does export files to Helicon with edits attached.


    Grant is just trying to find you a workaround I think

    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:

    2. You keep mentioning Affinity. I'm not clear why about this either.


    Because he has experience with Affinity as an external editor

    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:
    I would simply like the Edit With... dialog amended to include .dng. That's all.

    Then, whether exporting to Helicon, with or without Lens Corrections embedded, would be good or bad for a given stack of images could be easily established on a case by case basis.

    I would simply like the option of a single, largely untouched, Helicon-rendered .dng file back in C1 for complete editing.

    As I wrote above, I can do this already longhand. But, adding .dng to the "Edit With..." dialog is surely not rocket science.


    I hear ya but I would like them to consider the bigger picture and make "Edit With..." do a little more that just adding .dng as a choice.

    I would like to see the ability to launch external editors with multiple images opened as layers or as separate images (my choice) and I would like to see them opened with or without the existing edits from C1 (my choice). Basically since this is a 12.0 wish list I would like them to spend a little more time and consider the bigger pictured than just adding .dng support.

    I suspect that is where Grant is coming from but I am sure he will correct that if need be 😄


    Ian,

    Thanks for the input.

    As I explained above, there is a simple workaround. Just convert files to .dng, run them through Helicon, then point C1 at the resulting .dng file.
    Equally, convert files to .dng, open them in C1 to apply Lens Corrections. Then point Helicon at the folder, run it, and then reopen the resulting rendered file in C1.

    I'm simply looking for a more direct, neater, workflow. Having .dng in the "Edit With..." dialog would solve this.

    I think it's really good for brand image (pun very much intended) when software is seen to be compatible with a product with which it doesn't compete - think of all the plugins that Photoshop can host.

    Helicon Focus is astonishing. PhaseOne shouldn't just be accommodating it within their software, they should be considering buying it! 😉

    Denis
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    I'd like to be able to lock a variant so that it can't be adjusted further without unlocking. (Not a password, or anything, just a button to click or something). It would guard against inadvertently changing something on an image that was finished. Or am I the only one who does that sort of thing by mistake?

    Ian
    0
  • John Doe
    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    I'd like to be able to lock a variant so that it can't be adjusted further without unlocking. (Not a password, or anything, just a button to click or something). It would guard against inadvertently changing something on an image that was finished. Or am I the only one who does that sort of thing by mistake?

    Ian

    You're not alone, this has been suggested before. 😊
    I think the best implementation would be a simple click to lock, but a warning when you click again to unlock. My opinion is that this would prevent accidental unlocking.
    0
  • Pavel Voronenko
    the luminosity masks with ability to make selections similar to what we have with colors
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:
    As I explained above, there is a simple workaround. Just convert files to .dng, run them through Helicon, then point C1 at the resulting .dng file.
    Equally, convert files to .dng, open them in C1 to apply Lens Corrections. Then point Helicon at the folder, run it, and then reopen the resulting rendered file in C1.


    Sure, all I am saying is instead of coding just that do a bit more in v12 to make this work better with more external tools...

    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:
    I'm simply looking for a more direct, neater, workflow. Having .dng in the "Edit With..." dialog would solve this.

    I think it's really good for brand image (pun very much intended) when software is seen to be compatible with a product with which it doesn't compete - think of all the plugins that Photoshop can host.


    Roger that - good starting point for sure.

    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:
    Helicon Focus is astonishing. PhaseOne shouldn't just be accommodating it within their software, they should be considering buying it! 😉


    I love that idea too.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="John Doe" wrote:
    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    I'd like to be able to lock a variant so that it can't be adjusted further without unlocking. (Not a password, or anything, just a button to click or something). It would guard against inadvertently changing something on an image that was finished. Or am I the only one who does that sort of thing by mistake?

    Ian

    You're not alone, this has been suggested before. 😊
    I think the best implementation would be a simple click to lock, but a warning when you click again to unlock. My opinion is that this would prevent accidental unlocking.


    I think this makes sense although in some ways "safeguards" of this type may lead people to pay less attention to what they are doing - and therefore perhaps assume that they have protected something when the haven't.

    Apart from that risk this, or something very like it should be adequate.

    However I suspect protection from inadvertent batch processing would also need to be considered and the controls logic for that, if it was to be sure to suit everyone, might require some discussion ...


    Grant
    0
  • Samoreen


    On the feature request list since version 9. Absolutely no feedback and no effect. We'll see if this thread has more success...
    0
  • Thomas Achermann
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="NNN634523208431475184" wrote:
    Keywording is a trainwreck.


    Would you care to describe how so?


    - applying KWs to a larger amount of images takes ages
    - no way to set KWs as placeholders in a hierarchy (the "do not export" setting in LR)
    - no way to create synonyms (that is an important thing)
    - disconnect between "Catalog KWs" and "KW Libraries": I have created several libraries with the idea of having the same libraries for all my catalogs. If you try to correct a simple spelling error in an existing KW (or change the position of a KW in a hierarchy) you will totally break the whole system of a shared KW library because that changed KW is no longer assigned to the image but instead you will find the old KW still being assigned but in "Catalog KWs". It is supposed to be a database - and in no DB does a record vanish when you change the value of a field. But in CO changing the name of a KW actually creates another, new record (or at least removes it from previously assigned images).
    - Interface glich: if you have a hierarchy and want to add a new keyword, you select "create child keyword" on the parent KW. Then you have to scroll all the way down to the end of that list in order to write the new keywords name. Then you hit enter and have to scroll back up in the list to find the KW you just created.
    - no way to add KWs during import


    I have written several support cases (CO9, CO10) about how KWs work in CO and how they should work but there has been no changes in this regard in CO10 or CO11.

    CO is not LR (and does not have to be), but keywording in LR1 was way ahead of even CO11.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Thomas Achermann" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="NNN634523208431475184" wrote:
    Keywording is a trainwreck.


    Would you care to describe how so?


    - applying KWs to a larger amount of images takes ages
    - no way to set KWs as placeholders in a hierarchy (the "do not export" setting in LR)
    - no way to create synonyms (that is an important thing)
    - disconnect between "Catalog KWs" and "KW Libraries": I have created several libraries with the idea of having the same libraries for all my catalogs. If you try to correct a simple spelling error in an existing KW (or change the position of a KW in a hierarchy) you will totally break the whole system of a shared KW library because that changed KW is no longer assigned to the image but instead you will find the old KW still being assigned but in "Catalog KWs". It is supposed to be a database - and in no DB does a record vanish when you change the value of a field. But in CO changing the name of a KW actually creates another, new record (or at least removes it from previously assigned images).
    - Interface glich: if you have a hierarchy and want to add a new keyword, you select "create child keyword" on the parent KW. Then you have to scroll all the way down to the end of that list in order to write the new keywords name. Then you hit enter and have to scroll back up in the list to find the KW you just created.
    - no way to add KWs during import


    I have written several support cases (CO9, CO10) about how KWs work in CO and how they should work but there has been no changes in this regard in CO10 or CO11.

    CO is not LR (and does not have to be), but keywording in LR1 was way ahead of even CO11.


    An interesting list and something to look into.

    My use of keywords may be simpler than yours in many ways. My most difficult problems are really born of the data when shooting events where hierarchies might be ideal except for frequent conflicts in the data requirements for the hierarchy. But I can use my future attempts to re-work the options I have considered as an opportunity to look at your problem list in detail. Just for a challenge.

    When you wrote

    "applying KWs to a larger amount of images takes ages"

    are you thinking of the time required to select the images and assign the keywords or just that once you commit to the (batch?) update it takes a long time?


    And for

    "no way to add KWs during import"

    There is - you can use a style for example for a generic set of keywords to be shared by all images - but that may not be what you are thinking of. In any case I find it as quick to apply generic KWs that apply to all or most images after import.

    One possible difference may be that you mention Catalogs and I use Sessions.

    I think even if I were to change over to a catalog for a DAM solution I would still be likely to import and process in a session for the compactness and convenience. Once that initial processing seemed to be complete taking that work into the catalog should be quite quick. Maybe someone else who already uses the Session to catalog workflow would care to comment on that.


    Grant
    0
  • MikeArst
    Re: "- applying KWs to a larger amount of images takes ages"

    If I need to assign a bunch of keywords at a time I'd rather use Photo Mechanic for it. I just don't want to spend the time on it in Capture One, especially after finding that I can't assign multiple keywords to more than one file at a time. Kind of a baffling design for the feature. I encountered a Photo Mechanic-to-Capture-One keyword problem, though. I had Capture One set to auto-synch (all the time). I appended a single additional keyword to an image within Photo Mechanic. But the keyword I added in Photo Mechanic disappeared in Capture One. Previously added keywords were intact, but the new one was always removed. Capture One was actually removing the new keyword from the file, repeatedly. Neither company's tech support could explain it. I can only guess that the two programs write in dissimilar ways to the XMP files.

    Photo Mechanic's UI for keywording isn't always entirely clear either. If I find myself needing keywords again I'll probably just make a script that reads a text file and calls ExifTool, and do it all at the command line. (Fortunately I have the luxury of being able to live without keywords...for now.)
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="MikeArst" wrote:
    .... especially after finding that I can't assign multiple keywords to more than one file at a time. Kind of a baffling design for the feature.


    Mike,

    You can assign multiple keywords to more than one file at the same time although it may not be possible the way you are expecting to do it. Or at least I can with V11 using Windows 7.

    The most direct way is to select all of the images you want to share the same keywords, make sure that the "Edit all selected variants" toggle is set to be active for all, go the keyword tool and enter the words you wish add, new or existing, into the enter keywords box, add a comma between each word or phrase. When finished hit "return" and that's it, job done.

    If you have a pre-prepared list just paste it in.

    Remember that keywords are case sensitive.

    As an alternative, add the words you want to use to one image then copy and apply to all of the other selected. One extra step.

    Or, with all file selected, if one of them already has the keywords you wish to apply, with all images selected most of them will not and the pre-existing keywords found throughout the selected images will be displayed with an option to delete or a minus sign to indicate that some of the images lack the word or phrase. Click the minus words one at a time to add the word to all the selected images. So not quite all at the same time but, for a few clicks, very close to it.

    The other option would be a preset as I mentioned previously but I'm not sure that would have a regular application for most people other then during import.

    Hierarchies get a little more interesting. Beyond the scope of what I was planning to write for now.

    Does this offer anything new?

    Grant

    ETA. I thought of a quick test using Hierarchical keyword structures.

    Added 2 three level Hierarchical Kwds at the same time and got an instant update for the 135 variants selected.
    0
  • MikeArst
    Thanks. I've used the comma-separated list approach in the past, and it does work. What I'd hoped to do is select multiple selection of keywords already in a keyword library (within Capture One) and apply all at once to multiple images. There is of course another way — if it's now working: apply the keywords to a single image (in whatever way), then use copy/paste settings — with the usual caveats about turning off whatever settings should not be applied. I say "if it's now working" because in a previous version it wasn't working, as far as I could tell.
    0
  • Oleg Korsak
    PNG 16-bit export 🙄
    0
  • C-M-B
    1. Fix the Wacom Tablet issues

    2. Fix the Styles mess in the toolbar

    3. Store previews and don't re-load them every time you open a catalog/session.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="MikeArst" wrote:
    Thanks. I've used the comma-separated list approach in the past, and it does work. What I'd hoped to do is select multiple selection of keywords already in a keyword library (within Capture One) and apply all at once to multiple images. There is of course another way — if it's now working: apply the keywords to a single image (in whatever way), then use copy/paste settings — with the usual caveats about turning off whatever settings should not be applied. I say "if it's now working" because in a previous version it wasn't working, as far as I could tell.


    Mike,

    If you copy and apply using only the Keyword tool copy and apply you will only copy the keywords and no other settings. You can also save a KW set as a prefix should that concept help your workflow.

    If you have some or all of the words you want already in a Library start typing the word in the KW entry window and a list of matches will be offered. Pick the match, add a comma separator and start typing the next word until you have your list. Then apply it.

    Or simply select all of the images you want to update, make sure the "Edit all variants toggle" is set as appropriate and go through the library double clicking the KWs you wish to apply. At least that's how it works on my system.

    Or one can select the image or set of set of images and simply drag them to a selected KW on the KW section of the filters tool. That's an approach that can work quite well in some situations - for example identifying people or objects at an event where they appear in random groups during the shoot.

    There may be further functionality that I have not mentioned here.

    If we are looking to create a wish list for the future we may as well start out by considering the detail of what is available and then try to gain consensus about what is useful and what is not before moving on to potential enhancements.

    I have no doubt that there are likely to be areas of obscure logic - I think indexing and its keyword derivative concept is often fraught with conflicting or partially conflicting requirements and some compromises where a wide basis needs to be satisfied.

    Working in sessoins means that I can, to a large extent, identify content at the session level making some aspects of keywording for search purposes simpler because the session pre-selects subject matter.

    However I still tend to think in terms of a Catalogue when assessing what keywords are really required since the catalogue approach is better aligned with self service selections in wider usage.


    Grant
    0
  • MikeArst
    Grant — thanks for the additional suggestions.

    [color=#0000BF:1ejv9t5u]<<"If you copy and apply using only the Keyword tool copy and apply you will only copy the keywords and no other settings. You can also save a KW set as a prefix should that concept help your workflow.">>[/color:1ejv9t5u]

    I think this meant "presets" and it strikes me as the most efficient approach. If you don't use a preset...what I think is lacking in the feature: the ability to select some, but not all, of a collection of keywords found under Session Keywords, then apply all of the selected keywords immediately to a batch of images. At the moment you can click only one at a time to apply it to all selected images. But, as you're saying, there are workarounds and it's true that a Session is a form of tagging unto itself.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="MikeArst" wrote:
    Grant — thanks for the additional suggestions.

    [color=#0000BF:29aivlch]<<"If you copy and apply using only the Keyword tool copy and apply you will only copy the keywords and no other settings. You can also save a KW set as a prefix should that concept help your workflow.">>[/color:29aivlch]

    I think this meant "presets" and it strikes me as the most efficient approach. If you don't use a preset...what I think is lacking in the feature: the ability to select some, but not all, of a collection of keywords found under Session Keywords, then apply all of the selected keywords immediately to a batch of images. At the moment you can click only one at a time to apply it to all selected images. But, as you're saying, there are workarounds and it's true that a Session is a form of tagging unto itself.


    Hi Mike,

    Indeed it should be preset. Not sure where prefix came from except that I was thinking about session based naming conventions as file name prefixes. Maybe that ...

    It is entirely possible to create some preset entries without associating the word groups with an image. In fact create several then stack them (perhaps pre-selectively?) on import of files.

    What we really need are content recognition systems - some sort of AI the learns what is in the image and automatically writes a descrption and allocates keywords, then reports on the results by confidence level.

    Now that would be worth paying for!


    Grant
    0
  • MikeArst
    [color=#0000BF:2lnd24qg][i]>>What we really need are content recognition systems - some sort of AI the learns what is in the image and automatically writes a descrption and allocates keywords, then reports on the results by confidence level.<<[/i[/color:2lnd24qg]

    Facebook has that (sort of): "Image may contain person, bird, outdoors." It works semi-well some of the time. :)
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="MikeArst" wrote:
    [color=#0000BF] It works semi-well some of the time. 😊



    That would never be acceptable!


    Grant
    0
  • MikeArst
    Another wish-list item:

    If you remove a Session entirely by manually deleting it, the Session’s name remains “on record†in Capture One. Try to select it, and of course you see an error message. I can think of at least a couple of programs I’ve used that deal with such situations by announcing the error and then asking if you want to remove the non-existent item from the “Most Recently Used†list. Why not have this in Capture One as well? I can do it by closing Capture One and editing the USER.CONFIG file, found in a weirdly named directory within \program files\username\appdata\local\etc.etc.etc. But editing that kind of file is somewhat risky if you aren’t careful how you alter it — and shouldn’t be necessary.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="MikeArst" wrote:
    Another wish-list item:

    If you remove a Session entirely by manually deleting it, the Session’s name remains “on record†in Capture One. Try to select it, and of course you see an error message. I can think of at least a couple of programs I’ve used that deal with such situations by announcing the error and then asking if you want to remove the non-existent item from the “Most Recently Used†list. Why not have this in Capture One as well? I can do it by closing Capture One and editing the USER.CONFIG file, found in a weirdly named directory within \program files\username\appdata\local\etc.etc.etc. But editing that kind of file is somewhat risky if you aren’t careful how you alter it — and shouldn’t be necessary.


    Mike,

    Which version of Windows (I assume Windows) are are you using?

    I have Win 7 Pro but I don't recognise anything about that folder structure. At least not under "Program files" and no etc.etc.etc that I have seen anywhere.


    Grant
    0
  • MikeArst
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Which version of Windows (I assume Windows) are are you using?
    I have Win 7 Pro but I don't recognise anything about that folder structure. At least not under "Program files" and no etc.etc.etc that I have seen anywhere.

    Grant — I'm using Windows 10 pro. They must have changed the file's location. The file containing the settings in question might be in a different directory on Win 7. On my system its name is user.config. A search for it on my hard drive didn't turn up any such file except in the Phase_One subdirectories buried within \Program Files. When I tried searching for it via the old-style dir /s method it took quite a while. I can recommend the very interesting search tool called "Everything" (http://www.voidtools.com/faq/), which enabled me to find the user.config file within about a second when I searched for *phase_one\*user.config (a search "term" that doesn't ever seem to work at the command line — but Everything.exe is a more powerful kind of search — via command line or GUI).

    The path name CaptureOne.exe_StrongName_y3yh4brhpfi14u41fltdrpfruizxirsn is certainly very odd. On my system it contains subdirectories for every Capture One version that has been installed here:

    9.2.1.17
    10.0.0.225
    10.0.1.23
    10.0.2.8
    10.1.0.161
    10.1.2.23
    10.2.1.22
    11.0.0.266
    11.0.1.30
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="MikeArst" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Which version of Windows (I assume Windows) are are you using?
    I have Win 7 Pro but I don't recognise anything about that folder structure. At least not under "Program files" and no etc.etc.etc that I have seen anywhere.

    Grant — I'm using Windows 10 pro. They must have changed the file's location. The file containing the settings in question might be in a different directory on Win 7. On my system its name is user.config. A search for it on my hard drive didn't turn up any such file except in the Phase_One subdirectories buried within \Program Files. When I tried searching for it via the old-style dir /s method it took quite a while. I can recommend the very interesting search tool called "Everything" (http://www.voidtools.com/faq/), which enabled me to find the user.config file within about a second when I searched for *phase_one\*user.config (a search "term" that doesn't ever seem to work at the command line — but Everything.exe is a more powerful kind of search — via command line or GUI).

    The path name CaptureOne.exe_StrongName_y3yh4brhpfi14u41fltdrpfruizxirsn is certainly very odd. On my system it contains subdirectories for every Capture One version that has been installed here:

    9.2.1.17
    10.0.0.225
    10.0.1.23
    10.0.2.8
    10.1.0.161
    10.1.2.23
    10.2.1.22
    11.0.0.266
    11.0.1.30


    Ah, OK.

    On my system the config files - which reflect the current/last left as state of play (per user) for whatever versions have been installed over the years assuming they have not been completely tidied off at some point - are not buried in Program Files folder.

    The regular installation places them directly on the C: drive folder structure.

    C:\Users\<User Name>\AppData\Local\Phase_One\CaptureOne.exe_StrongName_<stuff>\11.0.1.30

    I would be surprised if Microsoft deliberately changed the structure to embed the user specific folder in with the Program Files .... or would I?

    However a quick Google and checking a few of the links that came up suggests the default USERS folder location is still directly from C: for Windows 10.


    Grant
    0

Post is closed for comments.