Aller au contenu principal

Some minor issues/requests

Commentaires

44 commentaires

  • C-M-B
    [quote="Irvin.Gomez" wrote:
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    Command prompt for individual files is something completely different to overwriting multiple files via an export button. If there's a confirmation prompt involved (which, granted, would be slightly safer) that wouldn't be any faster or more/less convenient than deleting the old files before exporting the new ones.

    To me it sounded like the request was for an export option that did NOT require an additional confirmation for each and every file.


    It's basically the same thing: many applications offer a confirmation prompt that includes a check box for "Do the same for every other file" (or something like that).

    In the end, I'm not expressing preference for any particular method. My preference is to give users a choice as to how they want to work.


    No it's really not.

    Question: where do you store your final edited images? Those that are ready for printing/publishing/sending to a client? I store them in the Output folder, which seems like a natural and very obvious place to do so, it makes everything (including archiving) very simple and pleasant and so does everyone else I know who uses Capture One.

    Another thing to consider is the fact that with Capture One you can also view/edit/export the files in the "OUTPUT" folder (but solely on a non-destructive basis like a RAW file) and it would be very hard (if not impossible) and confusing to implement an overwrite-feature when you're exporting already exported images.

    I'm neither a UI design expert nor a developer. I'm just a photographer, so maybe that explains why my main concern is the protection of exported files. To me the potential danger of data loss combined with the unnecessary complexity in certain situations isn't really a good thing.

    It'd be much better for the Capture One team to instead focus on real issues that affect everyone equally, such as known bugs and quirks and stability issues.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    Question: where do you store your final edited images? Those that are ready for printing/publishing/sending to a client?


    For me, Capture One is an intermediate step in the retouching process - because I end up exporting from Photoshop 99% of the time.

    Given that I'm not a photographer and I'm not doing bulk post-processing, I organize my work by Project. Every project gets a name and folder ("Mercury Pharmaceuticals", for example). I export files (from Capture One or Photoshop) into a sub-folder called "Exports". Originals are placed into another sub-folder called "Originals" and intermediate/working files get their own sub-folder called "Intermediate". It keeps things simple and tidy.

    Now, this works for me - because of my specific needs. Other people would need something totally different, often more complex.

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    I store them in the Output folder, which seems like a natural and very obvious place to do so, it makes everything (including archiving) very simple and pleasant and so does everyone else I know who uses Capture One.


    That's perfectly logical. You have to do what best fits your own workflow. There are no hard rules, just general guidelines.

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    I'm neither a UI design expert nor a developer. I'm just a photographer, so maybe that explains why my main concern is the protection of exported files. To me the potential danger of data loss combined with the unnecessary complexity in certain situations isn't really a good thing.


    You don't need to be a UI designer or software architect. Phase One is getting your money to take care of the logistics. You, like me and every other user, amateur or pro, only need the tools to implement a workflow you feel comfortable with.

    And yes, I agree 100% that protecting your work from major accidents should be of paramount importance.

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:

    It'd be much better for the Capture One team to instead focus on real issues that affect everyone equally, such as known bugs and quirks and stability issues.


    That's probably what they do - regardless of what we think about it.
    0
  • P1337
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    It'd be much better for the Capture One team to instead focus on real issues that affect everyone equally, such as known bugs and quirks and stability issues.

    Which bugs and stuff do you mean specifically?
    0
  • C-M-B
    [quote="phil_1337" wrote:
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    It'd be much better for the Capture One team to instead focus on real issues that affect everyone equally, such as known bugs and quirks and stability issues.

    Which bugs and stuff do you mean specifically?


    For instance the issue with the Wacom drivers that drives just about everyone mad who uses Wacom tablets.
    Improving working on NAS drives.
    Hardware acceleration with an active LCC profile.
    Keeping previews instead of always (!) reloading every single image every time when you open a session.
    Making full use of the hardware acceleration (GPU) as often as possible.
    Enabling the user to choose the font size or scaling of the UI.
    Allow the user to select a specific folder for the Styles and other settings like workspace settings or create a cloud based method of syncronising the styles/settings between (at least two) computers.

    Those are just a few from the top of my head..

    Don't get me wrong - Capture One is fantastic and I use it daily! It really is my daily bread - but there are certain things that could really be improved massively.
    0
  • P1337
    Your suggestions sound really great and I wish these could be implemented. Yes, especially the preview thing grinds my gears, even switching between three images fastly to compare the focus is impossible and the full size previews are relaoded everytime. I also think that C1 needs to be improved by many other aspects, there is so much potential.

    However, except for the GPU acceleration, every other thing you pointed out is completely useless for me and for many others as well. But I can image that there is a also need for it from you and many others too and that the software could benefit from it in order to grow and become a tool where more and more people are happy to work with, having functions that ease their workflow by much or just convenient little things. That's why respect your wishes.

    But I have the feeling that in these forums here, there is a strange habit of talking down features others really wished to be implemented, just to see a higher probability that the own wishes are implemented and not the stuff some other dude needs. Like a battle for the very limited developing resources which phase one are imagined to have. I find this quite sad and see this in a different light: The more people are enjoying the software - professionals, amateurs, studio shooters, landscape shooters, street shooters, whatever - the more this helps the software to grow in popularity, the more copies are sold, the more profit phase one is making and the more they are able to put in development and new features and bug fixes could be implemented much faster. Therefore, I think we all could benefit from being more openminded. This is what I dream of and I really hope that this spirit grows in this forum too.
    0
  • C-M-B
    I don't think any of the features/bugs/quirks I mentioned would or could potentially impede or endanger the workflow or data safety of any user.
    That's the point.
    If people want to change the UI color to pink and peach or let Capture One give a moan after each export (like the doors in Hitchhikers Guide) - by all means, let them go crazy 😂 I don't care, as long as it doesn't mean I could potentially lose data due to a stupid misclick by myself or others.

    I'm stupid and clumsy enough as it is.


    ps.: if you google "capture one" "wacom" "problem" you get about 320.000 results.
    if you google "capture one" "overwrite" you get about 19.100 results .
    Make of that what you will.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="phil_1337" wrote:
    The more people are enjoying the software - professionals, amateurs, studio shooters, landscape shooters, street shooters, whatever - the more this helps the software to grow in popularity, the more copies are sold, the more profit phase one is making and the more they are able to put in development and new features and bug fixes could be implemented much faster. Therefore, I think we all could benefit from being more openminded. This is what I dream of and I really hope that this spirit grows in this forum too.


    Phil,

    Do you write from experience with these remarks?

    My own experience (a business application not photo software) with what was developed over a decade or so to be advanced and market leading specialist business application software in what was, apparently, an expanding market ... was somewhat different.

    In "image processing", whether graphics based or photo based, one could point to applications that offered a lot and promised to be all things to all people ... but disappeared or were bought out by a more commercially oriented competitor and maybe or maybe not integrated in some way into that company's product. Maybe became THE new owner's product.

    The market leader by numbers, across all of its market areas, grew and developed by acquisition rather than internally developed and funded growth. Popularity of their products did not mean financial success and happy shareholders. Well, not until they and others in a dominant position in the computer industry, launched the subscription model at the unsuspecting public of the time. A public quite supine in accepting the concept because their mobile cameras, which already came with such contracts for use in may cases, were (and are) mostly offered with 'deals' that means they never have to think much about whether they can make a call, send a message or use a stack of data for social media or some other purpose. No need for a camera. No need for editing, other than a bit of fun with filters on the fone.

    And then we have the curious case of Apple Aperture.

    By all accounts a colossus of the market for Apple users that did just about everything for everybody. I cannot comment on that because I have never used it. Unceremoniously abandoned a few years ago. Why would a very rich company like Apple make that decision when they had already ticked most if not all of the user requirement boxes?

    Phase is a rather unique company, if viewed from Capture One use as a customer, because it has a significant and specialised market segment in its camera and lens manufacturing business and the types of business it specifically chases there. The advantageous features and functions for those markets would be rare requests from a more general pro and amateur C1 customer base.

    Meanwhile sales of digital cameras for the mass market have been declining for some years and there do not yet seem to be many, if any, signs of that reversing to the levels achieved when 'proper' digital cameras first became useful and almost affordable. The first one I bought was neither of those things. But it was new and Agfa branded so it must have been OK, right?

    What I like to see is some genuinely new and useful function that cannot be readily undertake in in any other way.

    Personally I have no interest in trying to make software that I try out look and work like other software that I already use or have used. The only exception to that might be if there was a close alignment already and I had been forced to change by events over which I had no control. Which is how I came to try C1 in the first place. The way the products worked was very similar - I had a way to avoid Catalogues.

    My old favourite had a lot of features that C1 did not have and still does not. It massed many others. It disappeared as the developers attempted to update it with new features and a new UI ... as requested by the user base using their forum. Too big a task, took too long, the cash flow failed ... and they were not even offering a free technical support resource other than sending an email and hoping that someone might respond.

    It was, and still is, a good application in many ways, just that C1 gave better results with much less effort for all but a handful of tricky images that was tempted to spend too much time working on without good reason to do so. Because I could with all of the possibilities of features and functions that could keep me busy for hours if I let them and still come out without a useful result despite a lot of improvement in the image. Very interesting and sometimes enjoyable but a horrible use of many hours looking back at it.

    The last active commercial development for that application was 12 years ago. Maybe a little more. Last time I looked it is still available, now as a free download with occasional updates and some ability for people do to at least something to enable working with new camera releases if they wish to once the basic RAW file interpretation software is brought up to date.

    Very sad. I looked like it was going to be a great product after the enforced re-write (due to changes in the software development industry and hardware advances) but it was not to be ...

    Hence my first question above, Phil.

    I really wish that things could be certain to develop as you outlined them in the section of your post that I quoted.

    However in my experiences, only some of which I have touched on above, such wonderful outcomes are really rather rare. Maybe non-existent. I still live in hope - but not expectation.

    I think those who own and run a business have to decide how to to that based on their own objectives and experiences.

    If we come not to like it or the direction they take does not suit our future needs as we see them then we can go elsewhere.

    Sony and Fuji seem to have some faith that it is in their interest to have direct involvement with C1. I use neither manufacturer's products (other than a TV for my wife and a very old Sony desktop computer for certain long term tasks) but they might just tempt me when I consider my future photography options.

    Just my thoughts as they currently stand.


    Grant
    0
  • P1337
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    I don't think any of the features/bugs/quirks I mentioned would or could potentially impede or endanger the workflow or data safety of any user.
    That's the point.

    Yep and we already said that if you could deactivate the function additionally in the preferences, everything should be fine. All the holy exports are save.

    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    ps.: if you google "capture one" "wacom" "problem" you get about 320.000 results.
    if you google "capture one" "overwrite" you get about 19.100 results .
    Make of that what you will.

    And again, you try to prove that your matters are more important than others. As if we have a constant competition. By a "measurement" of google results. My goodness, I'm out.

    PS: For "capture one" "overwrite" I get 42.100 results. For "capture one" "wacom" "problem" I get 31.500 results. I wish I could upload a screenshot here, this is so ridiculous... 😂
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    The market leader by numbers, across all of its market areas, grew and developed by acquisition rather than internally developed and funded growth. Popularity of their products did not mean financial success and happy shareholders.


    Please, stop spreading patentl;y false information. Adobe has been financially successful from the very beginning.

    Here's Adobe's history

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

    "The purchase and advance made Adobe the first company in the history of Silicon Valley to become profitable in its first year."




    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    Well, not until they and others in a dominant position in the computer industry, launched the subscription model at the unsuspecting public of the time.


    How did Adobe come to have a "dominant position in the computer industry"? By hypnotizing the public or selling cocaine? This is so silly!

    Adobe became very successful because it started producing very good and revolutionary software/products. From Postcript to Photoshop, they offered things that users needed and wanted.

    The dominant position came from the quality of Adobe products - and that has remained so until today. That's why have a near-monopoly. It's based on quality, not miracles or witchcraft.


    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    A public quite supine in accepting the concept because their mobile cameras, which already came with such contracts for use in may cases, were (and are) mostly offered with 'deals' that means they never have to think much about whether they can make a call, send a message or use a stack of data for social media or some other purpose. No need for a camera. No need for editing, other than a bit of fun with filters on the fone.


    A lot of incoherent, nonsensical accusations. Truth is the public embraced Adobe products way before "mobile cameras" (whatever that means!) became popular. Long before then, Photoshop was king in Design circles, as eventually was Illustrator and many other products, some developed in-house, some bought from other cdompanies using the money Adobe had earned with its own products. Adobe was not printing money in a basement.

    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    And then we have the curious case of Apple Aperture.

    By all accounts a colossus of the market for Apple users that did just about everything for everybody. I cannot comment on that because I have never used it. Unceremoniously abandoned a few years ago. Why would a very rich company like Apple make that decision when they had already ticked most if not all of the user requirement boxes?


    Here is one of few answers - the most logical, obvious one is that Apple felt it was not in the best interest to continue with Aperture - Apple was more interested in mobile applications integrated with iphones, ipads, etc. As simple as that. That's where they were making their money.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Apple-dis ... e-Aperture



    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    Personally I have no interest in trying to make software that I try out look and work like other software that I already use or have used. The only exception to that might be if there was a close alignment already and I had been forced to change by events over which I had no control. Which is how I came to try C1 in the first place. The way the products worked was very similar - I had a way to avoid Catalogues.


    Then you must feel totally miserable knowing that luma range masking, radial gradients and other things that justified paying money for Capture One 12 were not new at all. They existed in Photoshop for more than a decade!

    Here is a tutorial from 2006!!!!!

    http://goodlight.us/writing/luminositym ... sks-1.html

    There are no miracle 'new features' for Capture One - just a long road chasing after Adobe, the market leader. Slowly becoming a mini-Photoshop. Not a knock on Phase One - it's just that there are no "miracle" new features. Just incremental improvements.

    This is Photoshop's release history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Pho ... on_history
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Irvin.Gomez" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    The market leader by numbers, across all of its market areas, grew and developed by acquisition rather than internally developed and funded growth. Popularity of their products did not mean financial success and happy shareholders.


    Please, stop spreading patentl;y false information. Adobe has been financially successful from the very beginning.

    Here's Adobe's history

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





    Have you read the Wikipedia link you offered?

    Have you looked at any information about financial results over, say, the past 15 years or so? Notably around the time they set off on the road to the subscription model which, as I recall, was a solution to market changes and volatility that they wished to eliminate after some trickier developments just around the mid 2000s.

    When the Subscription model really took off - after the expected and planned for financial effects of the changeover form regular high income, high cash flow but erratic to manage and predict upgrade schedules circa 2013 or so - the numbers really ramped up.

    I don't doubt that Adobe are successful in their own way, just as Apple, Microsoft and others are successful.

    None are flawless and although Photoshop has become a defacto standard in its field and Adobe have opted to offer to take on responsibility for defining the standards for a number of photographic file formats, some they have inherited and some they have created, there are other areas where things have, from time to time, been more challenging. I speak from the experience of around 20 years helping people deal with analysis of data based in PDF files.

    The corporate development of large organisations that develop into ever larger sales and marketing operations will always be carrying a few less than perfect packages somewhere in their back story.

    Sure, I probably missed an 'always' in the sentence you quoted above - as in 'did not always means financial success and happy shareholders' and nor was the observation intended to be critical of the company since these things are very likely to happen.

    Speaking personally, I looked forward to LightRoom when it first came and made use of it for a some time in V1 form. I never really got on with PS Elements (a version of which came free with a Pentax pocket camera as I recall). Nor did I get my head around PS whenever I saw it.

    In LR the catalogue need was a frustration and in any case I found myself preferring a different product at the time. Using both at the same time was not a great option for storage needs - so I gave up on LR which, at that time, was a much more expensive option than my preferred tool with which I seemed to be able to get better results from more files.

    As for helping you out to understand the meaning of 'mobile cameras'. There was a time when Apple claimed to be the biggest vendor of cameras in the world.

    I ave no idea if that is still true but I suspect that, by use, the number of images captured and shared on a mobile device probably far exceeds the number taken on what we might think of as 'proper' cameras. So your assessment of the effect of mobile devices and the software that runs on them seems quite accurate - it seems to be a market that Adobe and others are keen to have influence over and may be more important to them at this time than the more traditional camera market - a market that seems to be in decline at this time.

    With the mix of Products that Abobe (and some of the others offer) they certainly need to be there and it seems to the case for others as well - Apple for example - but in a different way to their traditional approach as exemplified by Aperture.

    Maybe that's the way that most photograph takers will find appealing in the future to the exclusion of the more traditional editors - unless the recent claims of AI advances do in fact develop into products that re-define the photo preparation market extensively and make traditional digital editing, as we have known it for about 30 years or less, somewhat obsolete for most people outside Professional and Industrial markets.


    Grant.
    0
  • C-M-B
    [quote="phil_1337" wrote:
    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    I don't think any of the features/bugs/quirks I mentioned would or could potentially impede or endanger the workflow or data safety of any user.
    That's the point.

    Yep and we already said that if you could deactivate the function additionally in the preferences, everything should be fine. All the holy exports are save.

    If it happens to be implemented that way - sure.
    But I'm guessing if it gets implemented at all, it won't be that way. I'll just be an option in the export tool.

    By the way, it's not the "export" that I'm worried about, but the edited files. If those get overwritten, it would be a problem.



    [quote="C-M-B" wrote:
    ps.: if you google "capture one" "wacom" "problem" you get about 320.000 results.
    if you google "capture one" "overwrite" you get about 19.100 results .
    Make of that what you will.

    And again, you try to prove that your matters are more important than others. As if we have a constant competition. By a "measurement" of google results. My goodness, I'm out.

    PS: For "capture one" "overwrite" I get 42.100 results. For "capture one" "wacom" "problem" I get 31.500 results. I wish I could upload a screenshot here, this is so ridiculous... 😂



    [/quote]
    Maybe it's a language thing but you'll get similar results on this forum. Search for "wacom" and you get 602 hits (some of them caused by myself 😉 ) and if you search for "overwrite" you'll get 314.
    As I said - make of that what you will. No need for drama.
    [quote]
    0
  • Carlo Didier
    [quote="DaniZ" wrote:

    2. It would be helpful if there were an option for Processing to overwrite an existing file when exporting, rather than automatically creating a new version of it, as this creates clutter...


    I can't believe this option doesn't exist ... no wonder I couldn't find it (lost a lot of time searching).

    Now I'll have to write a script which scans certain of my output folders to detect and delete previous versions if a newer one exists and then rename the new one (because I need the original name without anything appended).

    To give you the context: I output JPGs for every raw to reflect the "developed" look without having to create a large tiff or psd file. A bit like the jpg companion files when you shoot raw+jpeg. In my Adobe worklow I was using DNGs exclusively which had such jpg previews embedded, which was very convenient and avoided unnecessary files.
    My DAM can either use the embedded preview (from the DNGs) or a companion jpg to display thumbnails for raw files, hence the need to be able to update (i.e. replace/overwrite) those preview files as needed.
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="CarloDidier" wrote:
    I can't believe this option doesn't exist ... no wonder I couldn't find it (lost a lot of time searching).


    Several of us feel the same and have put in a request for such a feature with support. The more people that do the better.

    [quote="CarloDidier" wrote:
    My DAM can either use

    May I enquire what DAM you are using?
    0
  • P1337
    [quote="CarloDidier" wrote:
    Now I'll have to write a script which scans certain of my output folders to detect and delete previous versions if a newer one exists and then rename the new one (because I need the original name without anything appended).

    The workflow you mentioned is pretty similar to what I want to achieve. In case you are successful with your script... Would you mind to share it with us? You would be truly my hero. 😊

    As IanL, I'm also interested in the DAM you are using. Although I probably will continue using my old standalone version of lightroom 6 to do that. But I'm not sure if that is the best way.
    0

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.