Capture One 12.0 wish list....?
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.
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
-
My wish is that Phase One from the version 12 will split the Capture One in two versions.
One version for amateur photographers without catalogues, without sessions - just editing directly in folders, no local adjustments and CHEAPER. Of course the PRO version would remain unchanged.0 -
[quote="VAD." wrote:
My wish is that Phase One from the version 12 will split the Capture One in two versions.
One version for amateur photographers without catalogues, without sessions - just editing directly in folders, no local adjustments and CHEAPER. Of course the PRO version would remain unchanged.
Well that's almost the Express licence. 😊0 -
[quote="John Doe" wrote:
[quote="VAD." wrote:
My wish is that Phase One from the version 12 will split the Capture One in two versions.
One version for amateur photographers without catalogues, without sessions - just editing directly in folders, no local adjustments and CHEAPER. Of course the PRO version would remain unchanged.
Well that's almost the Express licence. 😊
Yes, I think in the past a version like this was availabile.
The Capture One is a very good software but unfortunately very
expensive for someone who’s not making money with photography.0 -
Here's a different suggestion, about the HDR tool. I've been reworking some old images that used old versions of the processing engine, such as v7. For the most part, upgrading to the newest v11 engine and reworking the images, I am better pleased with the result than I was before. (Both because the software is more capable and I have gained some better skills with it over the years.)
The later versions of the HDR tool are less aggressive than the old one, so when you adjust say the highlights it has less effect on the midtowns than it used to. Most of the time that is a good thing. But there are some images where I actually struggle to get it to look as good as it did before. I wonder whether there could be something like an extra control in the HDR tool that affected how much difference it makes to mid tones?
Ian0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
Here's a different suggestion, about the HDR tool. I've been reworking some old images that used old versions of the processing engine, such as v7. For the most part, upgrading to the newest v11 engine and reworking the images, I am better pleased with the result than I was before. (Both because the software is more capable and I have gained some better skills with it over the years.)
The later versions of the HDR tool are less aggressive than the old one, so when you adjust say the highlights it has less effect on the midtowns than it used to. Most of the time that is a good thing. But there are some images where I actually struggle to get it to look as good as it did before. I wonder whether there could be something like an extra control in the HDR tool that affected how much difference it makes to mid tones?
Ian
Is this something that might be intended to be adjusted by another tool in V11, thus leaving the HDR tool out of any possible conflict of settings in the middle ground?
Perhaps not but something to considered and, perhaps, eliminated in favour of some sort of over all "use case choice" method rather than a pure technical adjustment toolset.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
Here's a different suggestion, about the HDR tool. I've been reworking some old images that used old versions of the processing engine, such as v7. For the most part, upgrading to the newest v11 engine and reworking the images, I am better pleased with the result than I was before. (Both because the software is more capable and I have gained some better skills with it over the years.)
The later versions of the HDR tool are less aggressive than the old one, so when you adjust say the highlights it has less effect on the midtowns than it used to. Most of the time that is a good thing. But there are some images where I actually struggle to get it to look as good as it did before. I wonder whether there could be something like an extra control in the HDR tool that affected how much difference it makes to mid tones?
Ian
Is this something that might be intended to be adjusted by another tool in V11, thus leaving the HDR tool out of any possible conflict of settings in the middle ground?
Perhaps not but something to considered and, perhaps, eliminated in favour of some sort of over all "use case choice" method rather than a pure technical adjustment toolset.
Grant
It can usually be achieved in the end in v11, though sometimes with difficulty. Most of the time the new HDR tool is better.
Ian0 -
The ability to draw a polygon mask and then to adjust the softness of the edge.
The ability to paint a non-opaque mask where overlapping strokes don't double density of the mask in overlapped areas.0 -
[quote="Paqart" wrote:
The ability to paint a non-opaque mask where overlapping strokes don't double density of the mask in overlapped areas.
Isn't that what the Opacity setting is for?0 -
[quote="Paqart" wrote:
The ability to draw a polygon mask and then to adjust the softness of the edge.
The ability to paint a non-opaque mask where overlapping strokes don't double density of the mask in overlapped areas.
These ideas reminded me of some other software I use sometimes. That application does not use a brush analogy. It requires the user to outline the area to be masked and then provides for adjustment of feathering around the outline. I used to think it was great and sometimes it is - but in most use cases brushing is easier and quicker.
And then I realised that you can actually do this in C1 as it is.
For the first suggestion and assuming that your polygon implies straight lines are required to be produced easily, then there are cursor controls that make that possible. For example click on a start point for your mask. Hold down the Shift key (on windows) and you will get a brush line between the two points. Repeat to another point and you will get another brush line and so on.
Fill the mask if required. Also invert of course.
Modify the softness with a Feathering adjustment (Feather Mask). Maybe also a Refine Mask action as well in some cases? Alternatively add or remove feathering effect or opacity with a low opacity brush.
For you second point I could see a dedicated brush type being a clear indication of function but in effect the existing Opacity setting for the brush probably already performs this way. If a particular part of the mask is already at the maximum opacity setting no more opacity will be added. I think that fits your description of a "non-opaque" mask for overlapping areas although perhaps not in quite the same way that you have in mind?
Maybe there is a use case for simplified brush options that replicate some of these features without having to know the combinations for making them work?
Grant0 -
+1 to luminance masks... in conjunction with the existing color tools, that would put C1 to a higher level!
And this one is easy: allow color tags to be renamed [to something meaningful for everyone's workflow].0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="Paqart" wrote:
The ability to draw a polygon mask and then to adjust the softness of the edge.
The ability to paint a non-opaque mask where overlapping strokes don't double density of the mask in overlapped areas.
These ideas reminded me of some other software I use sometimes. That application does not use a brush analogy. It requires the user to outline the area to be masked and then provides for adjustment of feathering around the outline. I used to think it was great and sometimes it is - but in most use cases brushing is easier and quicker.
And then I realised that you can actually do this in C1 as it is.
For the first suggestion and assuming that your polygon implies straight lines are required to be produced easily, then there are cursor controls that make that possible. For example click on a start point for your mask. Hold down the Shift key (on windows) and you will get a brush line between the two points. Repeat to another point and you will get another brush line and so on.
Fill the mask if required. Also invert of course.
Modify the softness with a Feathering adjustment (Feather Mask). Maybe also a Refine Mask action as well in some cases? Alternatively add or remove feathering effect or opacity with a low opacity brush.
For you second point I could see a dedicated brush type being a clear indication of function but in effect the existing Opacity setting for the brush probably already performs this way. If a particular part of the mask is already at the maximum opacity setting no more opacity will be added. I think that fits your description of a "non-opaque" mask for overlapping areas although perhaps not in quite the same way that you have in mind?
Maybe there is a use case for simplified brush options that replicate some of these features without having to know the combinations for making them work?
Grant
I'm pretty sure / hope he meant vector instead of polygon 😊0 -
Well, I've always understood a vector mask to be associated primarily with clipping and that's a different game.
The description of the requirement includes the need to feather the mask which didn't sound like clipping when I read it.
The straight line technique, with a 300 or 400% zoom and a fine size for the pen should offer some reasonable options I think but for really fiddly stuff like hair maybe not, although one wonders if that level of detail should be addressed some other way entirely.
Just my thoughts for what they are worth.
Grant0 -
A "vector mask" is a mask defined by a path / spline / bezier curve instead of pixels (brush).
If combined with feathering this can be easier / more precise than a pixel mask, especially modifying afterwards.
Photoshop / Illustrator are good examples of how such a path works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrLGuKDAf0g
I think a vector mask is best compared to 'nurbs' if you're familiar with polygons coming from a 3D program?0 -
I'd like to see Watermarking moved out of the Output tab and incorporated into layers. It would be nice to be able to use multiple images and multiple text boxes simultaneously. In addition, it should be possible to rotate both images and text boxes. 0 -
My suggestions for the development team
KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS for:
-Black and white tool/sliders
-Rename a layer
-Selecting Layers 1,2,3,4,5 ( not just up and down )
-User Styles/Presets
-Create masked layer from selection.
-Copy Mask From Layer 1,2,3,4 etc
Other suggestions:
-Radial brush
The radial is a huge timesaver in terms of masking. Drawing a small/big circular/eliptical feathered mask with 1 mouse click and drag is always a good thing.
-Create multiple Gradients in 1 layer ( by holding shift for example)
-Search bar in Keyboard Shortcuts
-Brush Presets
-Moving/changing crop with keyboard
-Luminance based Masking. So we can do Luminance vs Saturation corrections. (like davinci resolve)
-Scopes ( like davinci resolve )
Currently i use Keyboard Maestro to trigger my most used Styles with Macro’s.
For example, When i hit F1 on my keyboard i have my black and white style applied.
This functionality would make C1 even better! ( without using macro's)0 -
Maybe this is possible, but I can't see how...
In the Lens Tool, if I click on the Distortion slider, the grid overlay appears. Great.
But, I can't see a way of keeping it there without holding down the mouse cursor on the Distortion slider.
I'd simply like to be able to click on the Lens Tool and choose Show Grid, so that I could then make single increment adjustments in the number box and see the changes.
Equally, it would allow me use Rotation and Flip with a fine grid visible. Yes, I know I can use Grid Lines for this, and I know I can add Grid Lines. But, I've got grid lines set up for Rule of Thirds composition tweaks, so I don't want to add any more lines to it.
So, if Show Grid is not possible, I'd certainly like it. Hardly a rocket science addition, in terms of complexity, I would have thought.
D.0 -
Pixel Shift. (Will most likely happen first with Sony but everyone else will not be considered)
The ability to have Pentax lenses (no not the 645 bodies) actually show up in Camera Lens.
Pentax serial number.0 -
[quote="PDL" wrote:
Pixel Shift. (Will most likely happen first with Sony but everyone else will not be considered)
The ability to have Pentax lenses (no not the 645 bodies) actually show up in Camera Lens.
Pentax serial number.
Not exactly sure what you mean by pixel shift; but, if you’re alluding to the pixel-shift 4 shot capability of, for example, the Sony A7r iii, if you first convert one of those files to a .dng, can’t you then process it in C1? That is how I work around being able to process a Helicon Focus processed file in C1.
D.0 -
1. Radial Gradient Masks.
2. The pixel size of the image crop
3. Better support of wacom
4. Support multitouch devices like Surface Pro
5. Support Surface dial0 -
- Full-screen viewing with F11. Need to view the IMAGE in full screen with F11, not the GUI! GUI full screen can be relegated to Shift+F11. The F10 pop-up viewer window almost does this, but not quite: it cannot make the image full screen, and you can't exit from it immediately with Esc key, making it tedious to use. Exiting Full screen should be as easy as hitting Esc. Also make it so that you can change photos to prev/next with left/right arrow keys [and maybe up/down keys, according to the thumbnail view].
- Color management transform diagram, so we know that Capture One is compatible with the Windows Color System (WCS). It took many months to research the WCS and color-managed workflows on wide-gamut monitors in Windows 10. Fortunately, C1 is fully color-aware, as opposed to partially. See the screenshots below for a comparison between unaware and aware programs.
Imgur Album:
If someone knows how to resize these images using BBcode please tell me in PM.
https://i.imgur.com/6sG1gNp.png
https://i.imgur.com/Hjrj15y.png- Fix the bugged Recipe Proofing and add split view. It does not appear to respond to changes in export quality or color space. It is difficult to tell. It responds to size/dimensions. Make it so that the viewer does not flash inbetween profile loads, so that subtle differences are made apparent. Also provide a split view to see the difference. And set the default recipe proofing profile to "no profile" instead of "selected recipe". This default is misleading during editing phase, if the color space is respected.
- Make it easier to swap between a grey/black/white background for the photo editor. I often under-expose images when editing in black background mode, but white background mode is extremely annoying for general purpose editing.
0 -
[quote="Dinarius" wrote:
[quote="PDL" wrote:
Pixel Shift. (Will most likely happen first with Sony but everyone else will not be considered)
The ability to have Pentax lenses (no not the 645 bodies) actually show up in Camera Lens.
Pentax serial number.
Not exactly sure what you mean by pixel shift; but, if you’re alluding to the pixel-shift 4 shot capability of, for example, the Sony A7r iii, if you first convert one of those files to a .dng, can’t you then process it in C1? That is how I work around being able to process a Helicon Focus processed file in C1.
D.
Yes, you can use "other" software to combine the four images into a single image and use Capture One for further processing. What I want is for Capture One to do the four image merge, not some combination of "other" software vendors that have a history of hit and miss capabilities. The use of "other" software a pain since the "other" software tends to create intermittent files that are proprietary in nature. Capture One's forte is color fidelity and pixel-shift provides bayer layer less color implementation.
As for the Sony, they are the noobs on the block. Pentax has been producing camera bodies (NOT THE 645 BODIES) with pixel shift for nearly a half a decade. Panasonic and Olympus have versions of pixel-shift that are a little older than Pentax. Now I expect that Capture One will come out with a Sony pixel-shift solution first, simply because of the hand in hand development of sensors and other technologies between Phase One and Sony. However, Sony's implementation of pixel-shift is not as refined as Pentax - sorry to break that news to you. Pixel-shift is based on IBIS which has been in all Pentax 35mm (Capture One's terms not mine) bodies since 2005.
I also think that a pixel-shift technology could play well into Phase One's Cultural Heritage line of business. Their 100+MP backs would be even better at providing color fidelity for digitizing books, pictures, film and other important objects. If you look at the latest Hasselblad camera bodies with six shot pixel-shift, they are specifically suggesting that their implementation is aimed at Cultural Heritage processes. I suspect that Sony's implementation will be the first used by Capture One. Pentax, Panasonic and Olympus will be left out in the cold.0 -
[quote="PDL" wrote:
[quote="Dinarius" wrote:
[quote="PDL" wrote:
Pixel Shift. (Will most likely happen first with Sony but everyone else will not be considered)
The ability to have Pentax lenses (no not the 645 bodies) actually show up in Camera Lens.
Pentax serial number.
Not exactly sure what you mean by pixel shift; but, if you’re alluding to the pixel-shift 4 shot capability of, for example, the Sony A7r iii, if you first convert one of those files to a .dng, can’t you then process it in C1? That is how I work around being able to process a Helicon Focus processed file in C1.
D.
Yes, you can use "other" software to combine the four images into a single image and use Capture One for further processing. What I want is for Capture One to do the four image merge, not some combination of "other" software vendors that have a history of hit and miss capabilities. The use of "other" software a pain since the "other" software tends to create intermittent files that are proprietary in nature. Capture One's forte is color fidelity and pixel-shift provides bayer layer less color implementation.
As for the Sony, they are the noobs on the block. Pentax has been producing camera bodies (NOT THE 645 BODIES) with pixel shift for nearly a half a decade. Panasonic and Olympus have versions of pixel-shift that are a little older than Pentax. Now I expect that Capture One will come out with a Sony pixel-shift solution first, simply because of the hand in hand development of sensors and other technologies between Phase One and Sony. However, Sony's implementation of pixel-shift is not as refined as Pentax - sorry to break that news to you. Pixel-shift is based on IBIS which has been in all Pentax 35mm (Capture One's terms not mine) bodies since 2005.
I also think that a pixel-shift technology could play well into Phase One's Cultural Heritage line of business. Their 100+MP backs would be even better at providing color fidelity for digitizing books, pictures, film and other important objects. If you look at the latest Hasselblad camera bodies with six shot pixel-shift, they are specifically suggesting that their implementation is aimed at Cultural Heritage processes. I suspect that Sony's implementation will be the first used by Capture One. Pentax, Panasonic and Olympus will be left out in the cold.
Not sure why all the history, patronizingly delivered. I couldn't be ar*ed.
I've been using multi-shot Hasselblad for 12 years.
I was just trying to be helpful.
I'll be more careful next time.
D.0 -
[quote="Dinarius" wrote:
Not sure why all the history, patronizingly delivered. I couldn't be ar*ed.
I've been using multi-shot Hasselblad for 12 years.
I was just trying to be helpful.
I'll be more careful next time.
D.
Multi-shot is not pixel-shift. Hasselblad introduced their version of pixel-shift in 2014 not 2002.0 -
Maybe already asked for, but may as well add to the chorus...
1) DAM - Happy to have less introduced features, and gain instead greater stability and speed in the DAM.
2) Thumbnail - Ability to choose either: show rotations and crops in thumbnails as either masked (as now) or actual image (the result of rotation and crop).
3) Metadata - Use meta-data panel the same as keyword setting, whereby a change to a meta data field will change all currently selected photos without having to do a cut and paste action.
4) Keywords - a) Allow each keyword to be flagged or not for export and/or display. This will allow labels and categories within the keyword hierarchy without those labels and category names showing up as a keyword in a file. b) Have the ability to associate synonyms with each keyword, for export and/or display. c) have an option to easily merge one keyword with a another, thus combining the images associated with both keywords into the selected keyword.
5) Panels - Make them dockable and horizontally stackable to the left or right of primary viewing window.
Many thanks Phase One, I trust you are reading all of our many wishes... 😉0 -
White balance picker should use area (of at least 3x3 pixels) rather than just one point. The photon shot noise alone makes the current solution erratic. 0 -
[quote="Nolose" wrote:
White balance picker should use area (of at least 3x3 pixels) rather than just one point. The photon shot noise alone makes the current solution erratic.
Amen to that. Photoshop CS6 has 1x1, 3x3 and 5x5, as I recall. (Not in front of it right now.) But, it does make a difference.
That said, been teaching myself editing with DaVinci Resolve, and the Scopes feature (a diagrammatic rendering of the RGB values in an image) is a killer app when white balancing.
D.0 -
[quote="Dinarius" wrote:
Amen to that. Photoshop CS6 has 1x1, 3x3 and 5x5, as I recall. (Not in front of it right now.) But, it does make a difference.
And Lightroom uses a 13x13 grid.0 -
1- Radial Brush
2- Stacking for HDR purposes
3- Keyboard shortcut to add keywords (shortcut would place cursor in the add keyword box)
4- Being able to see folder content recursively when using "show hierarchy". For example, if I have 3 levels of folders (YY > MM > DD) I should be able to see the whole year if I click on YY. Same if I click on MM, I should see all the photos for that month without having to browse each individual day one by one.0 -
* Print "module"
the print side of CO needs much improving...creating a print is kind of a long journey. And if you try to produce again the exactly same print you have done in a previous session...good luck...you have to set yet again all settings. There should be presets (yes, like in Lightroom) that include EVERY print setting - from the printer, the printer driver settings, layout, icc profile...just simply everything at the cklick of a preset.
* Presets
and the preset concept could also be handy in other places like the import dialog.0 -
As a noise reduction opportunity I would like to see image stacking and averaging; LR supports it.
Basic process:
Take a series of images of same subject/composition (ideally on tripod but LR aligns hand-held images that are nearly the same).
Stack and auto align the images - typically 4-16
Average the pixel values to produce the output
The effective can be dramatic, reduces noise by about the equivalent of stop of slower ISO speed : 8 images at ISO 6400 would give noise comparable to ISO 800, 16 to ISO 400. It does it without losing detail that wopuld lost by other noise reduction methods.
It means in poor light one can use faster shutter speed or smaller aperure to improve desired sharpness. Obviously only works for static subjects.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
140 comments