anyway to restore layers like in capture 10

Commentaires

18 commentaires

  • peter Frings
    I have encountered exactly the same issue when testing v11. While I think there should still be an option to use the v10 behaviour, I believe that we must adapt a little and give it a chance.

    The first point in adjusting is to get rid of the local adjustments tool tab, and to add the layers tool to all other tabs. Check the default workspace to give you an idea. In doing so, every tab is focuses on a particular type of work (say, color), across all the layers.

    This makes each tool tab a little taller, but it avoids a massive local adjustments tool tab.

    Do assign shortcut keys to select the prev/next layers (, and . on mine). I wish they would add a way to select the background layer + shortcut key.

    [sidetrack]
    I do wonder what the exposure shortcuts will do when you have selected multiple images in the browser? Will it set the exposure on the last selected layer of each image? In that case, the effect of using the shortcut keys is unpredictable. Even when working in the browser per image, matching exposure across a range of images will no longer work. I guess they missed a few use cases... (but maybe I'm missing a way to to such things; I haven't upgraded).
    [\sidetrack]

    Cheers,
    Peter.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • NNN635507439502082957
    THIS IS PLAIN BAD USER INTERFACE

    Sliders in Local Adjustment sliders SHOULD affect settings in that section.

    It doesn't make sense that Sliders in Exposure should affect local adjustments.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Wilson
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
    THIS IS PLAIN BAD USER INTERFACE

    Sliders in Local Adjustment sliders SHOULD affect settings in that section.

    It doesn't make sense that Sliders in Exposure should affect local adjustments.

    I think that is a matter of personal preference. I am quickly getting to know and like the new way of doing this. In v10, there was a dedicated local adjustments tab. But now that layers/local adjustments can be applied to almost any tool, I find it convenient to have a layers panel on each of the main tabs that could use it. (If you don't want it, you can remove it from any tab. If you want to put back a Local Adjustments tab like there was in v10, you can do that too.) I don't see the objection to having to make sure you have the right layer selected before you adjust something like exposure. It is mostly a matter of getting into the habit of making sure you are on the right layer first, but isn't that the case with almost all software that uses layers such as Photoshop, Affinity, etc?

    Ian
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Doug Peterson
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
    THIS IS PLAIN BAD USER INTERFACE

    Sliders in Local Adjustment sliders SHOULD affect settings in that section.

    It doesn't make sense that Sliders in Exposure should affect local adjustments.


    Give the "new way" a chance. I find it faster, more flexible, and overall better.

    But I get it, any change can be disruptive. Then again, if they aren't free to change anything, even to make things better, then we'd still have Capture One 1.0 😊.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • NNN635507439502082957
    Consider example of a dj mixer. you adjust input gain for certain tracks then do final adjustment with master output gain knob when setting up. a dj mixer designed by capture one 11 designers would now adjust the input gain for the last track you adjusted.

    Sorry, there is no way of getting used to bad design.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Wilson
    I’m still struggling to understand what about the new layers approach you consider to be bad design. Unless I am misunderstanding your problem, the main issue seems only to be remembering to be aware of which layer you are working on at any time.


    Ian
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
    Consider example of a dj mixer. you adjust input gain for certain tracks then do final adjustment with master output gain knob when setting up. a dj mixer designed by capture one 11 designers would now adjust the input gain for the last track you adjusted.

    Sorry, there is no way of getting used to bad design.


    I don't often use Affinity (or its forerunners over the past few years) and I don't have Photoshop but from what I recall of using those programs and their layer concepts no matter what adjustment you wish to apply you have to select the layer first. If that happens to be the background layer, so be it.

    In C1, since layers were introduced and until V11, it has been exactly the same EXCEPT that for any tools that were NOT Layer aware all adjustments made were mode on the background layer and there was a requirement to, in effect, "activate" a tool in an active (for editing) layer.

    It would, according to an earlier comment from the C1 crew, appear that a number of users found this to be inconsistent with their experiences using other software. And so it was deemed to be confusing by a significant number of users.

    Therefore, with the layer concept now spread to be available for most tools, the design has come more into line with other applications for entirely logical reasons. For most people it will be a more natural approach. For a few of us it will mean a small re-learning adaptation over a short period.

    Since it seems to be the industry standard approach, like it or not, how is that "bad design"?

    Moreover, since a layer can be full masked for the whole area at 100% opacity - which makes it just like the default for a background layer - how would anyone differentiate between the two "layer" options when designing a user interface?

    The option to be able to edit different layers at the same time (using different tools) might be interesting for a few people but it seems that the mechanism for making a tool active within a layer (or not) was something that USERS were finding to be confusing.

    So it has been changed to something closer to whatever unofficial "standard" there seems to be. If the way it works needs to be changed anyway, to fit with the revisions to Layers operations, then it might as well be similar to existing functionality of other applications in order to make things more familiar to people who use products like Photoshop .... and as a result we are here being told that it is "bad design".

    Who would want be a software designer attempting to satisfy the opposing opinions of two groups of users (whilst needing to keep the code development as lean, adaptable for the future and as maintainable as possible)?


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • NNN635507439502082957
    Grant, you are to Phase One what John Gruber is to Apple. You should definitely get an ambassador code if you don't have one already.

    A simple option in the preference box would solve the issue.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • NNN635507439502082957
    If you don't understand use Capture 8-10.

    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    I’m still struggling to understand what about the new layers approach you consider to be bad design. Unless I am misunderstanding your problem, the main issue seems only to be remembering to be aware of which layer you are working on at any time.


    Ian
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Wilson
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
    If you don't understand use Capture 8-10.

    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    I’m still struggling to understand what about the new layers approach you consider to be bad design. Unless I am misunderstanding your problem, the main issue seems only to be remembering to be aware of which layer you are working on at any time.


    Ian

    Yes, I have been using Capture One since version 4. Personally I like the new layers approach. So I am not sure what specifically it is about it that you don't like. I get it that you don't like it.

    Ian
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
    Grant, you are to Phase One what John Gruber is to Apple. You should definitely get an ambassador code if you don't have one already.

    A simple option in the preference box would solve the issue.


    Who is John Gruber and why should I care?

    What would be the point of a forum for exchanging ideas and opinions if it only supports negative views?


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Wilson
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:


    A simple option in the preference box would solve the issue.

    I'm probably being really dense here, but I still don't understand what you want the tool to do differently. What would this preference box do?

    Ian
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
    If you don't understand use Capture 8-10.

    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    I’m still struggling to understand what about the new layers approach you consider to be bad design. Unless I am misunderstanding your problem, the main issue seems only to be remembering to be aware of which layer you are working on at any time.


    Ian

    Yes, I have been using Capture One since version 4. Personally I like the new layers approach. So I am not sure what specifically it is about it that you don't like. I get it that you don't like it.

    Ian


    I was OK with the original approach given a limited number of tools could be used but I think it is a reasonable time to switch over now given the extended potential with most regularly used tools which can be logically considered pertinent to layer based workflows being available. Presumably there are a couple more tools that might be added once some redevelopment has been completed (and workflow impacts have been assessed and allowed for as far as is possible).

    However my comfort may be rooted in my experience with a favoured application prior to trying C1. In that software every tool instance was, in effect, a layer and the processing order of the stacked tools made a difference to the result.

    That approach is extremely powerful but potentially very time consuming compared to C1. However for a number of reasons I much preferred it at the time compared to LightRoom. There were a number of reasons but the results I could obtain and the lack of enforced catalogue use were big pluses at the time.

    The great thing about C1 when I tried it at the end of the V5 version was that opening a file gave me a really nice result without having to do much editing at all. I landed immediately at a point that might take several minutes of editing to achieve otherwise.

    The revised approach top layer interaction has no negative impact on that and seems to be easy enough to adapt to with some clear benefits to certain workflows, as explained by Derek Heisler in his guest spot webinar last Thursday.

    That's not to say we might not see some refinements as feedback is provided to Phase but to criticise the approach out of hand seems somewhat short sighted. Maybe that is not what was intended?


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Bryce Steiner
    I tend to agree that it's not the way it should work. The adjustments that apply to layers should only be in the layers section and for adjusting the entire image should be left on the exposure tab. I threw me for a while too. At least make it an option so that you don't have to keep going back and forth when you are trying to do the entire picture, especially when the options are all there for the layers or can easily be added.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="BryceSteiner" wrote:
    I tend to agree that it's not the way it should work. The adjustments that apply to layers should only be in the layers section and for adjusting the entire image should be left on the exposure tab. I threw me for a while too. At least make it an option so that you don't have to keep going back and forth when you are trying to do the entire picture, especially when the options are all there for the layers or can easily be added.


    If you really cannot work with tools that can be used on layers in the same tab as tools that cannot be used on layers the simple solution is to create separate tabs and save you own version of the Workspace. Or multiple versions and then simply switch to whichever is most comfortable for you for the task at hand.

    Basically I'm not sure how you can segregate them because all tools can be used for the Background layer (as we should really think of it). There are, as far as I know, no tools that only work on layers - just the mask factor and what that brings with it.

    However, if anyone specifically uses tools only in a certain way - only in layers being one example - then there is nothing at all to prevent the rearrangement of the tabs and tool groupings within them to reflect that working preference.


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Robert Farhi
    I am referring to the title of the thread. As far as I am concerned, I still work in v11 in the same way as I did in v10. I have the brush symbol "layer tool tab", with plenty of tools (exposure, white balance, purple fringing, HDR, .....) in it. But I am not quite sure if I will continue for long as it is.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • NNN635507439502082957
    The same can be said of people who can see no wrong in a product design and stand up to every issue users might point out in these forums. If you were a mechanic you'd probably tell people who brought in their cars that there was nothing wrong with the car and please stop being negative about your squeaky brakes.

    What would be the point of a forum for exchanging ideas and opinions if it only supports negative views?


    Grant[/quote]
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
    The same can be said of people who can see no wrong in a product design and stand up to every issue users might point out in these forums. If you were a mechanic you'd probably tell people who brought in their cars that there was nothing wrong with the car and please stop being negative about your squeaky brakes.

    What would be the point of a forum for exchanging ideas and opinions if it only supports negative views?


    Grant
    [/quote]

    How does that relate to what I wrote?

    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.