Aller au contenu principal

UN-EDITABLE IMAGES

Commentaires

26 commentaires

  • SFA
    What sort of files are they after you have increased their size?

    Are you sure the resulting resolution will be a viable basis for editing and so make it worth your time and effort to work on them? Presumably they are not first generation originals?


    Grant
    0
  • Michael Naylor
    The files were emailed to me at 640x480 and they have sentimental value to me. For this, quality is not an issue - just like those of the thousands of scans from the past I have. I tried upsizing to JPG and TIFF with the same result.
    0
  • John Doe
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    The files were emailed to me at 640x480 and they have sentimental value to me. For this, quality is not an issue - just like those of the thousands of scans from the past I have. I tried upsizing to JPG and TIFF with the same result.

    Are they color or b&w ?
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    The files were emailed to me at 640x480 and they have sentimental value to me. For this, quality is not an issue - just like those of the thousands of scans from the past I have. I tried upsizing to JPG and TIFF with the same result.


    Ok but then if they are jpg and tiff displaying them of editing in some other simple application would not be impossible.

    Can you edit other jpg and tiff images?

    Just in case something extremely basic is in play and as yet un-noticed, the ability to edit jpg, tiff and png files can be turned on and off in the Preferences (Image tab). If you have not already done so you should eliminate the possibility that they are NOT ticked. That would prevent editing. If ticked then editing is allowed. I mention it as it is so very easy to make assumptions about some settings only to find much later that the assumptions were not correct!

    Grant

    ETA - I note that John Doe has asked a similar sort of question.
    0
  • Michael Naylor
    Thank you to all, but I've just discovered that they are now editable after closing and reopening C1P. Its late here in Spain, so I'll experiment further tomorrow.
    0
  • ericnepean
    I was faced with a rather similar situation.

    It wasn't actually that I wanted to edit the image; I needed to edit the Metadata, and this blocked too when the image size is too small.

    I found two ways to deal with it.

    First Method) Open the file in Pixelamator, and increase the size of the drawing canvas to be at at least 512 on the narrowest dimension. I recall that I added a 20 pixel wide border all the way around. Then I filled the border with black, and saved the image (I think 8 bit TIF). Capture One was quite happy to open and edit these files.

    Final Method) Use Affinity photo to upsize the image by a factor of 2, and save the image as 8 bit TIF with LZW compression. LZW compression is lossless. The resulting file is about 1.5MB. Capture One is quite happy to open and edit these files.

    OnOne used to have a tool specifically for upsizing with an algorithm that received many good comments, but that function is now buried in a larger and more toolset, and I dislike the GUI. After comparing the OnOne results with the Affinity Photo results, I decided the Affinity results were the same or better.
    0
  • Michael Naylor
    [quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
    Use Affinity photo to upsize the image by a factor of 2

    I've tried this, but it remains un-editable. In C1P, select a small JPG file to open in Affinity Photo, upsize and save. This replaces the existing JPG, but preserves the file name and the original sidecar preserves the keywords. I can rebuild the preview and re-load the metadata; I can close and reopen C1P, but the file remains un-editable. However, I can edit the keywords. Go figure...

    Yesterday it seemed to work, but not today.

    I posted a tech support, but most often they don't respond when its their fault. I'm determined to get through my trial period in a positive way, but I'm discovering many bugs and short comings when trying to organise.
    0
  • Robert Farhi
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:

    I posted a tech support, but most often they don't respond when its their fault. I'm determined to get through my trial period in a positive way, but I'm discovering many bugs and short comings when trying to organise.


    Yes, they do..... And be sure you won't be disappointed using Capture One.
    I have had some low resolution pics myself, too, coming from old negas scans, that I can't edit, but I consider they are not worth editing anyway.
    Be aware that Capture One doesn't accept either for editing grayscale pictures. They must be converted to RGB. This happened to me, too !!
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    [quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
    Use Affinity photo to upsize the image by a factor of 2

    I've tried this, but it remains un-editable. In C1P, select a small JPG file to open in Affinity Photo, upsize and save. This replaces the existing JPG, but preserves the file name and the original sidecar preserves the keywords. I can rebuild the preview and re-load the metadata; I can close and reopen C1P, but the file remains un-editable. However, I can edit the keywords. Go figure...

    Yesterday it seemed to work, but not today.

    I posted a tech support, but most often they don't respond when its their fault. I'm determined to get through my trial period in a positive way, but I'm discovering many bugs and short comings when trying to organise.


    The Keywords will be in a sidecar file (in a session) or the equivalent storage location in a catalogue, not the original image. Sine small files may not be editable but can be viewed (unless extremely small) it seems reasonable if non-edit data can be recorded.

    When you say you posted to tech support do you mean you created a Support Case? Is that case still open when you go and check the status?

    Can I suggest you try the Affinity process but create a NEW file and then see what happens. Replacing and existing file using and external process may not give entirely consistent results in this context.

    Also, are you trying this with a catalogue (seems likely) or a session basis?
    0
  • Michael Naylor
    [quote="tenmangu81" wrote:
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    I have had some low resolution pics myself, too, coming from old negas scans, that I can't edit, but I consider they are not worth editing anyway.

    In fact, there are other reasons for needing images less than 500px on one side. For example, I have several high resolution files of long thin things. The largest is 4000px by 100px. They're mainly cutouts ready for easy compositing. If I'm expected to upsize these, the file size will be become 20 times larger. Have Phase One ever explained why they impose this constraint? I've haven't noticed this restriction with other software I've used.
    0
  • Michael Naylor
    [quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
    The Keywords will be in a sidecar file (in a session) or the equivalent storage location in a catalogue, not the original image. Sine small files may not be editable but can be viewed (unless extremely small) it seems reasonable if non-edit data can be recorded.

    The keywords are in sidecars, using full sync.
    [quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
    When you say you posted to tech support do you mean you created a Support Case? Is that case still open when you go and check the status?

    Yes, a support case for which I receive email notifications if they reply.
    [quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
    Can I suggest you try the Affinity process but create a NEW file and then see what happens. Replacing and existing file using and external process may not give entirely consistent results in this context.

    I've been upsizing the original file in AP, but I'll try your suggestion.
    [quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
    Also, are you trying this with a catalogue (seems likely) or a session basis?

    All the files are in referenced catalogue.
    0
  • Michael Naylor
    Running the macOS xattr command on the image file reveals...

    com.apple.lastuseddate#PS
    com.apple.metadata:_kMDItemUserTags
    com.apple.quarantine

    I'm wondering if C1P is manipulating the extended attributes. If so, I'm also wondering why its messing with the files when they claim it doesn't.
    0
  • ericnepean
    Hi Michael
    You have attributed some statements to me that were actually made by SFA, I've added my view and changed the attribution.

    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    [quote="SFA (not EricNepean)" wrote:
    The Keywords will be in a sidecar file (in a session) or the equivalent storage location in a catalogue, not the original image. Sine small files may not be editable but can be viewed (unless extremely small) it seems reasonable if non-edit data can be recorded.

    The keywords are in sidecars, using full sync.

    I agree with this, I have presented that view to Capture One by opening a ticket. They have not acted on it.

    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    [quote="SFA (not EricNepean)" wrote:
    When you say you posted to tech support do you mean you created a Support Case? Is that case still open when you go and check the status?

    Yes, a support case for which I receive email notifications if they reply.

    I did open a ticket on this. The supporter was polite and positive, the ticket was closed, and no action was ever taken. I have experienced this kind of response on a number of issues. I hope your experience is better, but do not count on it.

    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    [quote="SFA (not EricNepean)" wrote:
    Can I suggest you try the Affinity process but create a NEW file and then see what happens. Replacing and existing file using and external process may not give entirely consistent results in this context.

    I've been upsizing the original file in AP, but I'll try your suggestion.

    This is what I did. I created new images with a very similar name. Instead of "Abcd.jpg", "Abcd_x2.tif" I then imported the new images into Capture One.

    I can't remember if I was able to copy the Metadata from the old image to the new image in Capture One, or if I had Affinity Photo do that task.

    I have had tthoughts about dumping Capture One and moving to Affinity Photo entirely. If (when?) they have DAM, it becomes a strong possibility.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    [quote="tenmangu81" wrote:
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    I have had some low resolution pics myself, too, coming from old negas scans, that I can't edit, but I consider they are not worth editing anyway.

    In fact, there are other reasons for needing images less than 500px on one side. For example, I have several high resolution files of long thin things. The largest is 4000px by 100px. They're mainly cutouts ready for easy compositing. If I'm expected to upsize these, the file size will be become 20 times larger. Have Phase One ever explained why they impose this constraint? I've haven't noticed this restriction with other software I've used.


    I think that Phase assume, likely correctly, that most users doing serious image manipulation, rather than primarily RAW file conversion, will already be using something like Photoshop or one of its derivative clone products of which there have been many over the years, some surviving and some not.

    If, as a software developer, you had in your portfolio a graphics/art creation and manipulation package the advent of digital photography might suggest that it was a good idea to add digital image manipulation to that - starting most likely from a jpg type file base and allowing the camera (or scanner) to produce the file from the RAW data.

    Eventually the idea of RAW file manipulation became more main stream as the digital camera market grew and a number of relatively affordable RAW conversion programs appeared. For the hobbyist Adobe introduced LightRoom. Over time they sort of integrated some PS type features and shared technology but tried to avoid making LR a full image manipulation program. They already had products that covered that ground.

    Affinity also comes from a graphics/drawing application background, the forerunning program (Photoplus) being a Windows only application very similar to Photoshop. Thus it offers all of the Graphics Artist features with RAW file processing as one of its modules (Personas).

    So if you are doing a lot of compositing is may well be that the capabilities and indeed the workflow requirements of Affinity are more than suitable at a cost that seems to be far lower than Photoshop but without any real DAM capability of its own. The Adobe offering bundles options to cover that but requires a subscription model.

    Capture One has taken a different approach having started out as a RAW converter and add some DAM capabilities but without any expectation (so far) of becoming a full Graphics Suite powerhouse. On the other hand they are the only company in the software game making cameras (so far as I know).

    At a time when the consumer digital camera market is in decline and most people are quite satisfied with what can be achieved with a mobile phone and a basic manipulation App to apply a few styles that someone has developed for them, all at a cost of a litre of milk or a bottle of water, a major push into a full-on graphics and arts capability, duplicating functionality already available would probably be unwise in the absence of a pre-existing product in its market.

    I try to avoid the PS/Affinity extended graphics editing capabilities because I have never got on with the way they work. I'll use what I can manage when I really have to but then I really miss the way that Capture One pretty much allows you to do everything it does to an image on the fly without having to swap to a different User Interface between stages.

    That said, if I do need to manipulate a previously processed file that now exists as a jpg, especially if the manipulation related to a compositing sort of activity, I will do so in the graphics application rather than Capture One since it would seem to make sense to approach it that way. I doubt there would be much to be gained by editing the jpg in Capture One in that situation. However if I was starting from the original RAW file C1 would be the starting point for me.

    Just my thoughts. I would not be surprised if everyone has a different point of view, often uniquely their own.


    Grant
    0
  • Michael Naylor
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Just my thoughts. I would not be surprised if everyone has a different point of view, often uniquely their own

    Very interesting. What's your point?
    0
  • Michael Naylor
    First, my apologies to Eric Nepean and SFA for mixing up the attributions.

    [quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
    Hi Michael
    You have attributed some statements to me that were actually made by SFA, I've added my view and changed the attribution. I have had tthoughts about dumping Capture One and moving to Affinity Photo entirely. If (when?) they have DAM, it becomes a strong possibility.

    I've been following the Affinity forum for years. The current consensus is far from optimistic. But AP isn't without problems either. An issue I've only discovered today is that it can't save TIFFs as uncompressed. You get LZW with no choice. LZW is not reliable with 16bit files and often produces larger files than uncompressed, but Affinity doesn't care about that.

    Fed up with Adobe, I cancelled my subscription and installed macOS to get rid of all the crap they scatter everywhere. I began with Phase One by importing all my images to MPSE. The hierarchical keywords were a complete mess and it took several days to sort out - with very little support from Phase One. To be fair, these errors could have been introduced whilst in LR.

    I then tried to import the MPSE catalog into C1P. That was a complete disaster, so I went back a step and deleted the IPTC and XMP from all the images using ExifTool, then asking MPSE to create the sidecars.

    Back to C1P to create a new catalog with full sync enabled, I imported the folder structure - not the catalog. This was a lot better, but there was still some keywords in the wrong places. It was difficult and time consuming, but I managed to tidy thing up - except for about 100 that were un-editable. My next task is to find a logical and error free strategy to finish the job.

    With regard to other softwares, I think I've tried most. Capture One appears to appeal to ex-Aperture users, so I figure C1P is probably my only option - other than going back to Adobe.
    0
  • Robert Farhi
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    Capture One has taken a different approach having started out as a RAW converter and add some DAM capabilities but without any expectation (so far) of becoming a full Graphics Suite powerhouse. On the other hand they are the only company in the software game making cameras (so far as I know).
    .....
    Grant


    Hi Grant,

    I completely agree. For composition and graphic/vectorial purposes, Photoshop or, better now, Affinity are much more relevant.
    Just to inform that Blad has also developed its own software (Phocus) and that Canon has DPP (far from Capture One, actually).
    Cheers,
    Robert
    0
  • Michael Naylor
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Just my thoughts. I would not be surprised if everyone has a different point of view, often uniquely their own

    Very interesting. What's your point?

    Just be clear, incase you think I'm an idiot, I have no expectation to composite multiple images in C1P. However, I would like to catalogue and manage all the assets of a project within C1P, making full use of Projects, Folders and Albums. This where MP is far better than C1P, but its no longer supported and its time to move on.
    0
  • ericnepean
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    First, my apologies to Eric Nepean and SFA for mixing up the attributions.

    [quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
    Hi Michael
    You have attributed some statements to me that were actually made by SFA, I've added my view and changed the attribution. I have had tthoughts about dumping Capture One and moving to Affinity Photo entirely. If (when?) they have DAM, it becomes a strong possibility.

    I've been following the Affinity forum for years. The current consensus is far from optimistic. But AP isn't without problems either. An issue I've only discovered today is that it can't save TIFFs as uncompressed. You get LZW with no choice. LZW is not reliable with 16bit files and often produces larger files than uncompressed, but Affinity doesn't care about that.

    I've seen the LZW compression problem for 16 bit TIFF on other products as well. I haven't used Adobe Photshop for a few years now, but I recall seeing it there too. I don't recall seeing any product with an implemeentation of LZW compression for 16 bit TIFF that actually reduces file size.
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:

    Fed up with Adobe, I cancelled my subscription and installed macOS to get rid of all the crap they scatter everywhere. I began with Phase One by importing all my images to MPSE. The hierarchical keywords were a complete mess and it took several days to sort out - with very little support from Phase One. To be fair, these errors could have been introduced whilst in LR.

    I then tried to import the MPSE catalog into C1P. That was a complete disaster, so I went back a step and deleted the IPTC and XMP from all the images using ExifTool, then asking MPSE to create the sidecars.

    Back to C1P to create a new catalog with full sync enabled, I imported the folder structure - not the catalog. This was a lot better, but there was still some keywords in the wrong places. It was difficult and time consuming, but I managed to tidy thing up - except for about 100 that were un-editable. My next task is to find a logical and error free strategy to finish the job.

    With regard to other softwares, I think I've tried most. Capture One appears to appeal to ex-Aperture users, so I figure C1P is probably my only option - other than going back to Adobe.

    Interesting and useful history. I've migrated from Aperture to CaptureOne. When I've found image types that couldn't be handled (in a trial import) I've replaced them with a different file type.

    I can't quite remember if I followed that strategy for the <512 pixel files, or if I imported the small files into CO and then replaced with larger ones.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Just my thoughts. I would not be surprised if everyone has a different point of view, often uniquely their own

    Very interesting. What's your point?


    Michael,

    The point really is that none of us seem to have found a single application that does everything just as we think we would like it to be. Indeed there seem to be many people out there that had and possibly still have a view that identifies specific applications that have, in their opinions, the best colour or the best sharpening or the best noise reduction and will seemingly spend a lot of time chasing those "best" options from one application to the next.

    But in the end if, say, the "best" noise reduction for ones purpose comes from an application that can smooth out anything but only from a jpg, say, then one might as well have a process flow that takes all noisy images and delivers them there in the way that application wants them to be presented.

    Image stacking? - make life easy and do the same thing.

    Compositing? Use the application that one likes best.

    In the end it's the output files that need asset managing (I would suggest) and so a full digital document manager and a means to identify original files from its contents no matter what process they have been through may be the most appropriate solution. It need not have any internal image processing, word processing, artwork creating functionality of its own - just a "comprehensive enough" document management system for one's needs.

    As always the big challenge is likely to be setting it up, making it work and then hoping that whatever happens in the future, with the DAM system or the preferred products that feed it, one will not have to re-invent the solution every few years.

    Personally I believe it is good to have choices but I could see how a wish list of functionality would eventually include everything that anyone has seen in a product somewhere and we would end up either with several almost identical products or, more likely perhaps, just one product. At least it would then be easy to pick which one to use. And overall perhaps less stressful if there was no choice in the matter.


    Grant
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="tenmangu81" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    Capture One has taken a different approach having started out as a RAW converter and add some DAM capabilities but without any expectation (so far) of becoming a full Graphics Suite powerhouse. On the other hand they are the only company in the software game making cameras (so far as I know).
    .....
    Grant


    Hi Grant,

    I completely agree. For composition and graphic/vectorial purposes, Photoshop or, better now, Affinity are much more relevant.
    Just to inform that Blad has also developed its own software (Phocus) and that Canon has DPP (far from Capture One, actually).
    Cheers,
    Robert


    Hi Robert,

    Is Phocus developed In house? Or is it something they obtain externally on an exclusive supply arrangement?

    I seem to recall the Canon's DPP is basically an "in house" development - no surprise given that across their product portfolio they have many related devices that require coding to function and a lot of them will have quite similar technology to what the basic in camera processing and its DPP extension is there for.

    It's been a while since I needed to check but I assume the Canon kit still has other bundled software such as ZoomBrowser or an equivalent as well. (As I recall that software bundling with the bodies was a big differentiator from Nikon back in the early digital days because Nikon did not include software to process the images - it had to be purchased separately if one wanted it.

    However as far as I know neither DPP or Phocus are marketed as widely useful non-OEM centric applications.

    Actually I suppose one should note that DxO also seems to have a camera in their portfolio but from what I understand of it it's more to do with phone connectivity and instant sharing than one might anticipate from a Medium Format camera company so not really a close comparison.


    Grant
    0
  • Robert Farhi
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    However as far as I know neither DPP or Phocus are marketed as widely useful non-OEM centric applications.

    Actually I suppose one should note that DxO also seems to have a camera in their portfolio but from what I understand of it it's more to do with phone connectivity and instant sharing than one might anticipate from a Medium Format camera company so not really a close comparison.

    Grant


    Yes, I agree, and in addition, as far as I remember now for having tried them, neither Phocus, nor DPP are able to process extensively images coming from other cameras than Blad or Canon in the same way as Capture One does (except for other MF cameras than Phase One 😉 ).
    About DxO, they have put an end to the commercialisation of their camera DxO One for smartphones, and the company had to split into 2 entities : DxO Mark (image quality benchmarks) and DxO (Labs) devoted to the development of photo processing softwares.
    Robert
    0
  • Michael Naylor
    As said, I did post a support case. They have replied, admitting that its ridiculous the metadata can't be edited, so they will consider it for the future - whatever that means. Personally, I find it ridiculous they impose any restrictions - including the inability to display dates prior to 1970. I have thousands of scanned images which have the EXIF Date set to when the original photo was taken. Am I being unreasonable expecting C1 to display and sort on these dates, or is Phase One arrogantly assuming photography only came into existence after they invented their first camera?
    0
  • SFA
    Michael,

    Capture One started out as a RAW converter from the digital camera age.

    That does not, so far as I am aware, go back as far as pre-1970.

    Are you aware of this basis for the 1970 start date? It applies to many systems in terms of record dates for files, transaction, etc.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time

    However other dates fields that are not system record audit related but simply data storage fields, may have alternative "date" formats that allow for values from 1900 or 1904 depending on the system selected. They can allow for date and time calculations.

    Go earlier than that and you are on you own calculating how many days, weeks or months between one date and another.

    It sounds like you need to deal with archival images that are not a natural fit as part of the the Capture One design and so maybe a different approach would e advantageous to you.

    Grant
    0
  • Michael Naylor
    Grant,

    Thanks for the detail, but I am aware of the Unix call. However, the fact is other software, including LR, the Mac Finder, and Media Pro gets around this problem and handles my dates from 1904 without problem. I migrated my LR images to MPSE in order to sort out my keyword mess using the the powerful DAM features that C1 doesn't have. I also executed the MPSE action to copy the EXIF date to ITPC date, expecting C1 to use that - but even 11.2.0 continues to ignore it. Phase One support has acknowledged this to be a bug and have promised to correct this as a new "feature", but for the past 2 years they haven't. I'm really trying to love C1, but the DAM side of things is extremely lacking. This is why I'm making as much noise as possible, hoping they'll figure out why and do something about it.
    0
  • ericnepean
    [quote="Michael Naylor" wrote:
    Grant,

    Thanks for the detail, but I am aware of the Unix call. However, the fact is other software, including LR, the Mac Finder, and Media Pro gets around this problem and handles my dates from 1904 without problem. I migrated my LR images to MPSE in order to sort out my keyword mess using the the powerful DAM features that C1 doesn't have. I also executed the MPSE action to copy the EXIF date to ITPC date, expecting C1 to use that - but even 11.2.0 continues to ignore it. Phase One support has acknowledged this to be a bug and have promised to correct this as a new "feature", but for the past 2 years they haven't. I'm really trying to love C1, but the DAM side of things is extremely lacking. This is why I'm making as much noise as possible, hoping they'll figure out why and do something about it.

    I have raised a support case for the issue that C1 does not show the lens name for JPEGs from a Pansonic Camera for almost as long as you have (#277743, #264807 and #256155). Phase One keep agreeing that it should be done, they close the case and nothing ever happens.
    0

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.