Heal/Repair source should be able to reference a correction layer rather than the base 'Background' layer
Implemented
You should be to select the Heal/Repair source from a correction layer (immediately below or by selection) rather than it being only the base uncorrected 'Background' layer.
Further, when later applying a correction layer, the healed/cloned part doesn't have that layer correction but still references the Background layer.
-
Murray,
I suspect that would all get rather complicated to understand, trace back and interpret in many cases.
It also sounds like something more suited to a pixel editor application with intermediate image layers saved rather than the way that C1 works.
Also bear in mind that the healing feature is trying to blend in with what is around it. If one tries something extreme - like a selecting a light source and applying it to a dark area of the image - the result is often likely to be somewhere between the two extremes.
If one is using fill masks for the whole frame results are usually quite consistent on a like for like area of exposure.
If one is attempting to work on an area that has partial or selective masking in other layers (or using a layer with selective masking as a source for example) things may be a little more complex.
Still, no harm in asking!
0 -
SFA,
I don't see your concerns about "complicated to understand", etc. at all.
It is not intuitive that one is currently unable to use an existing area in an image to as a source for healing or cloning. It is, indeed, undesirable that some reasoning has to be invoked to explain why this isn't supported. A user should not worry about technical limitations (as long efficiency can be maintained), but rather should be able to carry out intuitive editing operations.
It would be nice if everyone could refrain from referencing a "pixel editor" paradigm. Just because some editors that support destructive editing operations support some functionality, does not mean that this functionality is off-limits to non-destructive/parametric editors. In this case, allowing different sources than the background layer or simply always referencing the latest editing stage would not make C1 lose its non-destructive nature. The order of editing operations would become significant in this particular case but I don't see why preserving order-irrelevance is so desirable if it clashes with intuitive editing. Losing optimisation potential might be a concern but that doesn't seem likely.
If someone has concerns about a piece of functionality, I would prefer if they could support them with arguments about efficiency or usability instead of invoking a so-called "pixel editor" paradigm.0 -
Hi there,
Thank you for feedback on Capture One - this is always welcomed and encouraged among our users and we appreciate the time you've taken to contribute towards the development of the software.
I have forwarded your comments and suggestions to our Product Management team as something to consider in a future release.
Whilst we cannot comment on future releases, we take all suggestions on board and hopefully your feedback contributes towards a future version of Capture One.
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
3 comments