Aller au contenu principal

Capture One 12.0 wish list....?

Commentaires

140 commentaires

  • WPNL
    1 - HDR / Focus stacking

    2 - Vector masking

    3 - Blur / bokeh tool

    4 - The ability to overwrite files during export
    viewtopic.php?f=69&t=26760&hilit=overwrite
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    Ability to put cloned variants into collections separate from their parent variant. What I want to do is create cloned variants and then put one into my B&W collection and one into my panorama collection each with totally different edits.
    0
  • Adam Christensen
    My number one feature would be tools to work on the image based on luminosity values - I want to be able to target just the highlights and then make a mask from that and work purely on that.

    Next would be the ability to load a bunch of RAW files into Photoshop or Affinity Photo as layers - Just make one tiff from all the adjustments with each image as its own layer. I suppose that's how the Helicon Focus integration would work too?

    After that it would be for Vector masking, which would make radial masking possible.
    0
  • Denis Mortell
    4. To be able to edit in Lab (e.g. Curves) not just have Lab readouts.

    D.
    0
  • GrahamB3
    Add color profiles as easily as in Lightroom.

    Graham
    0
  • Roger Gravis
    The ability to open multiple images from Capture One into one image in Photoshop as layers. I did not ask for focus stacking this time around but please make it easy for me to get someplace that will focus stack.

    The ability to view and turn Focus Mask on and off from Capture pilot.

    Fix the bugs everyone squawks about to lower the noise up in here.

    Every new version is better.

    I like the software. 😎
    0
  • cdc
    The ability for the color editor to make masks based on white/grey/black, ie, luminosity masks.
    0
  • Manara
    1. Please allow to edit the selection of a gradient mask, defining or modifying with precision the strongest zone and the transition zone with the mouse. Most serious raw editors have been doing this for years. Gradient mask is a basic tool for landscape photographers, and the usability of this tool in C1 is subpar. Usually it takes me several selections, or additional modifications with the brush, to achieve the selection that I want.

    2. Please allow stacking of images in the Library for all images in a collection, not just variants (i.e., for HDR purposes).

    3. Please allow double clicking for hide/show viewer. I can't understand why users that prefer to use the mouse instead of the keyboard must be punished using one mouse click for one movement, and the keyboard for another. I want to be able to go back and forth with the mouse. Plus, the double-click action is not used for anything else, afaik.

    #2 and # 3 were submitted time ago as a feature request to Phase One, with no success.

    Thank you.
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    On your #3, the double click action is actually used to zoom to 100%, and back again to fit (if you have the hand tool selected).

    Ian
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:
    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.



    For your 3.

    As I understand it the Phase backs with the capability are specifically shooting groups of images and identifying accordingly them in camera thus making the functionality possible in the way it has been implemented.

    What do other camera providers offer that might be adaptable to use the same functionality? How consistent are the design concepts they have adopted?


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


    2. Please allow stacking of images in the Library for all images in a collection, not just variants (i.e., for HDR purposes).



    What do you mean by Stacking in this context?

    A specific "collection" of images that can be exported together and organised in the target image merge software?

    Or something more than that in terms of the order of processing in some way or some other functionality that tells the merging software what to do with each of the images in terms preferences for the processing rules?

    Across different merge software are there standards for such information that C1 could deploy?


    Grant
    0
  • Class A
    Does anyone else would like to have more control over vignetting?

    There should be a means to control the feathering, the roundness of the corners, and extent (how far inwards the effect applies).

    I agree regarding editing gradients. It is a pity that one cannot tweak gradients but always has to start from scratch. It is often a continued "trial and error" process for me.

    Being able to open several images as layers in Photoshop would be very nice.

    BTW, I don't understand why right-clicking on the viewer area around an image (the one showing the background colour) does not bring up a context menu which supports changing the background colour. I often want to judge how an image looks on white background but normally prefer to work with a darker background colour. Going through the preferences every time is so cumbersome.

    P.S.: I guess if one really wants to see something new in C1, one should make a feature request to Phase One. This forum is mainly meant for users talking to other users.
    0
  • SFA
    Interesting thoughts Class A.

    I vignette, historically, is something to do with lens abilities isn't it? Round or elliptical depending on the equipment and format being shot.

    Graphically one can make one something else of course to suit modern tastes .... but where does a "just like the very old film days" vignette feature stop and a local adjustment layer technique, especially now with opacity adjustment added, start?


    I understand your interest in gradients and maybe it's just me but when I have used adjustable gradients I have always found myself repeating actions many times and taking ages to fail to get what I thought I was looking for despite the effort.

    The C1 approach, though seeming perhaps rudimentary, is at least quick to apply and adjust by re-applying or adding final tweaks by adjusting the mask. I think it is actually somewhat smarter than it appears to be in some ways, not least because it is just creating some sort of mask that can be edited and the length of the line drawn also affects the rate of the gradient. Having become used to it I rather like it and I doubt I would often find a fully adjustable version an improvement compared to the current approach for the gradient and then modifying it, is required, as one would an mask.

    I have to confess I rarely stack anything so have no inclination on support or non-support of the idea. However as with many image blending programs (I have used a few but not for some years now) programs like PS (which I don't have) and Affinity (which I do have) seem these days to have quite simple ways to be pointed at a set of files to be merged and then ingest them. Which leads me to think that, since they are the programs doing the merge work, all that is really required is for any preparatory programs to be able to deliver the required files to the location from which the merging program can pick them up.

    That's pretty easy with an Output Process in C1. So what am I missing about stacking in the context here? What specific features would offer a lot more than PS, Affinity or whichever, are currently able to do as part of their ingestion of files for merging purposes?

    Would such extended functionality be common to all external Merge programs?

    As I said it has been a while since I ran with any stacking and things may have moved on.


    Grant
    0
  • Class A
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Graphically one can make one something else of course to suit modern tastes .... but where does a "just like the very old film days" vignette feature stop and a local adjustment layer technique, especially now with opacity adjustment added, start?

    Sure, what I'm after goes beyond emulating natural lens vignetting.

    If the default setting of a more general vignetting tool corresponded to natural lens vignetting, I believe everyone could be happy. If you don't tweak any of the additional parameters then you only get the current behaviour. However, for those after more artistic effects, there would be options.

    BTW, a more general vignetting feature could be emulated by flexible radial gradients. Radial gradients should support anything between circles and very oblong ellipses, plus of course feathering, extent, and inversion, so a radial gradient placed in the centre of an image could serve as a vignetting tool.

    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    The C1 approach [to creating gradients], though seeming perhaps rudimentary, is at least quick to apply and adjust by re-applying or adding final tweaks by adjusting the mask.

    I don't see any conflict.

    The current C1 approach to creating gradients could be left as it is. The only addition that needs to be made is to, after the gradient has been created, show some controls that support defining the extent, angle, and feathering of the gradient.

    Anyone coping with the current approach could just ignore the controls. Anyone, like myself, who often needs to have repeated goes at drawing a gradient (which has to be done almost blindly with only very little guidance), could use the controls to tweak the gradient into place.

    Any such gradient could still be modified by other means, e.g., brush strokes, as the overall mask associated to a layer should just be a superimposition of all contributing masks.

    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    I have to confess I rarely stack anything so have no inclination on support or non-support of the idea. ... Which leads me to think that, since they are the programs doing the merge work, all that is really required is for any preparatory programs to be able to deliver the required files to the location from which the merging program can pick them up.

    Yes, but that means setting up the right location upon export and then navigating to the same location with your post-processing software.

    It is much more convenient and quicker, if a (potentially temporary) folder is used behind the scenes by C1.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="pope" wrote:
    My number one feature would be tools to work on the image based on luminosity values - I want to be able to target just the highlights and then make a mask from that and work purely on that.



    You can sort of do that using the Advanced colour editor functionality and, if adjusting more than colour related information, creating a mask from the values selected.

    The colour balance tool also offers some control there too, but only for colour and luminosity values.

    HTH.

    Grant
    0
  • Manara
    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    On your #3, the double click action is actually used to zoom to 100%, and back again to fit (if you have the hand tool selected).

    Ian


    Ian,

    In browser view, with the pointer tool selected, a double click on any of the thumbnails leads you to the full screen view of that particular image; but a double click on the full screen view does nothing at all. If I want to go back to the browser view (full screen with my thumbnails) I have to hover my left hand over the keyboard and press Q (or whatever key I assigned to that action). Two hands for a simple action on/off.

    When I'm editing or simply browsing my catalogs, I'm doing this toggle on/off action hundreds of times.
    0
  • Manara
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="Manara" wrote:


    2. Please allow stacking of images in the Library for all images in a collection, not just variants (i.e., for HDR purposes).



    What do you mean by Stacking in this context?

    A specific "collection" of images that can be exported together and organised in the target image merge software?

    Or something more than that in terms of the order of processing in some way or some other functionality that tells the merging software what to do with each of the images in terms preferences for the processing rules?

    Across different merge software are there standards for such information that C1 could deploy?


    Grant


    Grant,

    I mean having the freedom to manually stack whatever you want: similar images, or raw/jpg/tiff versions of the very same image, etc. HDR was just an example, but yes, having the possibility to stack 5 or 7 exposure variants of the same image, would be very useful.

    This is independent of the further processing of those images with third party software. If you have, say, 2500 images from a single trip, and 750 of these images are "variants" (of some kind) of other images, it would help to keep your browser cleaner.
    0
  • Manara

    I don't see any conflict.

    The current C1 approach to creating gradients could be left as it is. The only addition that needs to be made is to, after the gradient has been created, show some controls that support defining the extent, angle, and feathering of the gradient.

    Anyone coping with the current approach could just ignore the controls. Anyone, like myself, who often needs to have repeated goes at drawing a gradient (which has to be done almost blindly with only very little guidance), could use the controls to tweak the gradient into place.

    Any such gradient could still be modified by other means, e.g., brush strokes, as the overall mask associated to a layer should just be a superimposition of all contributing masks.


    Exactly this!
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Manara" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="Manara" wrote:


    2. Please allow stacking of images in the Library for all images in a collection, not just variants (i.e., for HDR purposes).



    What do you mean by Stacking in this context?

    A specific "collection" of images that can be exported together and organised in the target image merge software?

    Or something more than that in terms of the order of processing in some way or some other functionality that tells the merging software what to do with each of the images in terms preferences for the processing rules?

    Across different merge software are there standards for such information that C1 could deploy?


    Grant


    Grant,

    I mean having the freedom to manually stack whatever you want: similar images, or raw/jpg/tiff versions of the very same image, etc. HDR was just an example, but yes, having the possibility to stack 5 or 7 exposure variants of the same image, would be very useful.

    This is independent of the further processing of those images with third party software. If you have, say, 2500 images from a single trip, and 750 of these images are "variants" (of some kind) of other images, it would help to keep your browser cleaner.


    That could be understood as 2 separate things.

    If you are linking HDR and exposure variants of the "same Image" we need to take some care about the calrity of terminology since many may already think of that as Variants of the same image which, for DAM purposes, are already stacked.

    I think what you are talking about is different exposures of the same subject with different image names - as in traditional bracketing perhaps?

    Now that makes sense if you have a tool in the application that does something like HDR or focus stacking since you are making it part of the ease of use of that tool. In effect it becomes a function of the tool rather than a DAM application.

    If your software does not have that tool then user will be reliant on what external application(s) (or indeed alternative application) they use for the purpose and each of them may have a different a different approach to how they can be persuaded to start an externally initiated "merge" process.

    If that's the case then you are likely to have to develop interactive interfaces to multiple applications - something that they don't really need at all - because your user base will have a wide selection of such tools in use and we will all think our choice is the best and interfaces to drive only Helicon or PS or Affinity may satisfy some and annoy others.

    Worse still you end up having to maintain some functionality as may be dictated by a developer with which you have no form of business relationship

    That overall situation may or may not look commercially attractive.

    I have, in recent years, observed this happening in the corporate business world. Over time the interfaces seem to have stabilised, user demand has eventually recognised that they, the users, are now making use of the features more than they once tried to do and often in a corporate environment they will have different groups using different interfaces and so expect to see a range available.

    Developers in that market can therefore justify undertaking whatever development is necessary and charging the corporate price for their applications. Plus maintenance.

    That's fine.

    However I don't much relish the same thing happening for non-corporate products that I use personally when I already have access to such functionality via other products that I can use on those rare occasions when I feel I cannot avoid the need. I note that most of those other products are either rather dedicated applications designed to specialise in image amalgamation or have been developed from or alongside graphics (i.e. Artist drawing) products and the different needs and requirement of that market compared to pure image processing.

    Just some thoughts.


    Grant
    0
  • Jean-Michel Rocher
    hello,
    it is not christmas time, but for the next release I whish:
      Being able to manage many catalogu and see them as a one. the purpose is to be able to found a photo through all catalog without needing to load many files.

      HDR panorama an focus stacking, or the ways to use edit with for applications requesting a collection of images

      more lens correction especialy for Nikon with alternative lens


    And of course the corrections of the bugs I found since many version ☹️
    0
  • Denis Mortell
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:

    3. The facility to round-trip to Helicon Focus; which Phase MF back users have had since 9.0.

    D.



    For your 3.

    As I understand it the Phase backs with the capability are specifically shooting groups of images and identifying accordingly them in camera thus making the functionality possible in the way it has been implemented.

    What do other camera providers offer that might be adaptable to use the same functionality? How consistent are the design concepts they have adopted?


    Grant



    Grant,

    It is already possible to export a stack of images (Canon in my case) to Helicon Focus. You simply highlight the images in C1, right-click and choose Edit With, and then browse to Helicon Focus.

    The problem is this; unlike in C1's Export menu, where you can choose a bunch of file formats to save to (including the all important DNG), in the Edit With menu there are only three file format choices, TIFF, PSD and Jpeg.

    If DNG was added to this list (how hard can that be?!), I think it would be possible to choose Edit With, Helicon Focus/DNG, then Render the image stack in Helicon and when choosing Save, simply point Save at the folder of images you've just exported to Helicon from.

    There would then (hopefully) be a Helicon rendered RAW(!) image back in C1, ready for editing.

    Thanks for your feedback.

    Denis

    Ps. Converting the images to DNG first makes no difference. When I choose Edit With in C1, it still forces me to choose a non-DNG format for export to Helicon.
    0
  • MikeArst
    My wish-list items:

    • A more comprehensive split-toning feature (like, with an actual color mixing "patch" that displays the precise color you've selected — those two sliders are too crude and not "granular" enough — compare w/Alienskin Exposure X3's split-toning feature). (Of course the advanced white-balance tool can also be used for split-toning b&w images though that isn't exactly its purpose.)

    • B&W fully compatible with layers.

    Re:
    <<In browser view, with the pointer tool selected, a double click on any of the thumbnails leads you to the full screen view of that particular image; but a double click on the full screen view does nothing at all. If I want to go back to the browser view (full screen with my thumbnails) I have to hover my left hand over the keyboard and press Q (or whatever key I assigned to that action). Two hands for a simple action on/off.>>

    Hoping I haven't misunderstood the issue ... maybe this is slightly less inconvenient: hold down the space bar. The pointer tool changes momentarily to the pan (hand) tool. Double-click to toggle between fit-in-window and 100% view. With the space bar held down, spinning the mouse wheel also magnifies/reduces in smaller increments.

    With the pan tool selected, either right-clicking the image or pressing the space bar opens a small window that displays a miniature view of the full image, and a smaller white rectangle within it that you can drag around to move the image around within the viewer — if it's already at a magnification higher than fit-in-window. (With either pan or pointer tool selected, Control+space-bar opens a temporary magnifier...which, I just discovered, works even if you hover the mouse pointer outside the displayed image and over the top of a thumbnail image displayed in the file browser. There's no telling what happens if you do all of the above and say the secret incantations...)
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="Dinarius" wrote:

    3. The facility to round-trip to Helicon Focus; which Phase MF back users have had since 9.0.

    D.



    For your 3.

    As I understand it the Phase backs with the capability are specifically shooting groups of images and identifying accordingly them in camera thus making the functionality possible in the way it has been implemented.

    What do other camera providers offer that might be adaptable to use the same functionality? How consistent are the design concepts they have adopted?


    Grant



    Grant,

    It is already possible to export a stack of images (Canon in my case) to Helicon Focus. You simply highlight the images in C1, right-click and choose Edit With, and then browse to Helicon Focus.

    The problem is this; unlike in C1's Export menu, where you can choose a bunch of file formats to save to (including the all important DNG), in the Edit With menu there are only three file format choices, TIFF, PSD and Jpeg.

    If DNG was added to this list (how hard can that be?!), I think it would be possible to choose Edit With, Helicon Focus/DNG, then Render the image stack in Helicon and when choosing Save, simply point Save at the folder of images you've just exported to Helicon from.

    There would then (hopefully) be a Helicon rendered RAW(!) image back in C1, ready for editing.

    Thanks for your feedback.

    Denis

    Ps. Converting the images to DNG first makes no difference. When I choose Edit With in C1, it still forces me to choose a non-DNG format for export to Helicon.


    Denis,

    Thanks for the clarifcation. It sounds like your basic requirement seems to be "Edit with ..." including an option to convert to DNG (of some sort - there are a number of specifications as I understand it) at the time of output. This would be independent of what purpose you put it to.

    But using "Edit with" on a RAW file is sending the original RAW to the chosen target in theory. However as, historically, not all possible editors will support an original RAW file and size may be an issue, selecting a file type that IS widely supported must simplify things.

    I have not looked at Helicon for some years but I see it is capable of a "raw in DNG out" workflow - basically what C1 does if you process files out to DNG.

    I have done a little quick reading (more to follow) which suggests Helicon can read in DNG files too - hardly a surprise I suppose but so fa the information on their web site does not seem to make a big play about that. TIFF would be more normal as a top level existing standard I believe but presumably the file size saving with DNG is the main attraction? However as yet I have not found a specific reference to the use fo DNG files as input and the benefit to accure form doing so.

    I would imagine that a camera shooting DNG natively might have its version of DNG supported, presumably via some free Adobe DNG conversion/usage software in line with Helicon's export to DNG from an original RAW file set as a source. The attraction there is, of course, maximum quality potential but at a smaller file size than a regular TIFF file. Presumably improved processing times are an additional objective? But is that what is delivered and what you are seeking.

    While considering all of this I noticed that Affinity Photo offer an option to open dng files but not to export in dng format - unless such a thing has just been added in the very latest version. DNG being an Adobe created standard set one could expect Adobe products to offer dng options for everything?

    Meanwhile ....


    Using Affinity as a dng reading substitue for Helicon for testing, if I set up an Export to convert CR2 files to DNG format in a specific folder and set up Affinity in the recipe as the "Open With" file all of the set will be presented in Affinity.

    Whether affinity has a way to auto-ingest into its HDR or Focus stacking functions I am not sure but I could achieve that quickly (fairly quickly) smply by starting the process and selecting the images from the dedicated folder created (and re-used) as part of the Process activity.

    Perhaps Helicon, as software with a specific purpose, can be set to automatically start its processing according to some rules?


    Grant
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="MikeArst" wrote:
    My wish-list items:

    • A more comprehensive split-toning feature (like, with an actual color mixing "patch" that displays the precise color you've selected — those two sliders are too crude and not "granular" enough — compare w/Alienskin Exposure X3's split-toning feature). (Of course the advanced white-balance tool can also be used for split-toning b&w images though that isn't exactly its purpose.)


    An interesting point Mike.

    The current Hue slider bars allow for 360 steps of selection. Do you think that needs to be extended for greater granularity?

    (Also you mentioned secret incantations .... just thought I would ask whether you were familiar with the options using the numeric value windows and incrementing/decrementing the values in single digits or multiples of 10? You probably are ..... but just in case it seemed like a good idea to ask.)



    Grant
    0
  • Denis Mortell
    Denis,

    Thanks for the clarifcation. It sounds like your basic requirement seems to be "Edit with ..." including an option to convert to DNG (of some sort - there are a number of specifications as I understand it) at the time of output. This would be independent of what purpose you put it to.

    But using "Edit with" on a RAW file is sending the original RAW to the chosen target in theory. However as, historically, not all possible editors will support an original RAW file and size may be an issue, selecting a file type that IS widely supported must simplify things.

    I have not looked at Helicon for some years but I see it is capable of a "raw in DNG out" workflow - basically what C1 does if you process files out to DNG.

    I have done a little quick reading (more to follow) which suggests Helicon can read in DNG files too - hardly a surprise I suppose but so fa the information on their web site does not seem to make a big play about that. TIFF would be more normal as a top level existing standard I believe but presumably the file size saving with DNG is the main attraction? However as yet I have not found a specific reference to the use fo DNG files as input and the benefit to accure form doing so.

    I would imagine that a camera shooting DNG natively might have its version of DNG supported, presumably via some free Adobe DNG conversion/usage software in line with Helicon's export to DNG from an original RAW file set as a source. The attraction there is, of course, maximum quality potential but at a smaller file size than a regular TIFF file. Presumably improved processing times are an additional objective? But is that what is delivered and what you are seeking.

    While considering all of this I noticed that Affinity Photo offer an option to open dng files but not to export in dng format - unless such a thing has just been added in the very latest version. DNG being an Adobe created standard set one could expect Adobe products to offer dng options for...


    Grant[/quote]

    Grant,

    Thanks for the reply.

    As I stated in the Ps to my post, converting the files to DNG first makes no difference.

    Yes, Helicon can read DNG files, but it has to receive them as DNG files.

    If you have a folder of DNG files open in C1, and you choose Edit With/Helicon Focus, the C1 Edit With dialog obliges you to choose one of three formats for export to Helicon, none of which is DNG. (If it was there wouldn’t be a problem.)

    So, even though the files in C1 are DNG, Helicon must receive them as TIFF or JPEG.

    I guess one could convert to DNG, point Helicon at that folder, render the files, and only then open that folder in C1.

    But, the workflow would be far smoother if C1’s Edit With dialog had the same file type choices as its Export dialog.

    Thanks.

    Denis

    Ps. The longhand method of converting to DNG and Redering the image stacks in Helicon before opening them in C1 does work. But, it would be far simpler to add .dng to the C1 Edit With dialog options. 😄 It would have the added advantage of sending them to Helicon with their default lens profiles intact.
    0
  • SFA
    Your saying that DNG files, as converted, do not have a lens profile baked in as TIFF would do? (At least to my understanding.)

    Grant
    0
  • Denis Mortell
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Your saying that DNG files, as converted, do not have a lens profile baked in as TIFF would do? (At least to my understanding.)

    Grant


    Grant,

    I'm saying that, if I load a memory card of files onto my hard drive, and then run them thro' Adobe DNG converter, and then run them thro' Helicon Focus, BEFORE opening them in C1; they will have been stacked and converted to a single DNG file minus their lens corrections. Right?

    The lens corrections (which is what I mean by profile) are applied within C1. Correct?

    So, if they were to be loaded into C1 first (before Helicon), the ONLY edit that would be applied to them before their trip to Helicon would be Lens Corrections (in my default setup.) Make sense?

    Maybe I'm wrong in thinking this, but I suspect that in some cases, each of the files in the stack arriving in Helicon with its lens corrections might make for a better single image back from Helicon. Happy to be corrected on this.

    Either way, my request still stands: Edit With should have the same list of file types as Export, or at the very least have DNG added.

    For that I would upgrade to C1 11.0! 😎

    Thanks for your feedback.

    Denis
    0
  • MikeArst
    Re:
    An interesting point Mike.
    The current Hue slider bars allow for 360 steps of selection. Do you think that needs to be extended for greater granularity?
    (Also you mentioned secret incantations .... just thought I would ask whether you were familiar with the options using the numeric value windows and incrementing/decrementing the values in single digits or multiples of 10? You probably are ..... but just in case it seemed like a good idea to ask.)Grant


    It might be granular enough as-is, but I find it hard to see what the selected color is. The Exposure X3 approach is a slider in addition to a color-mixing palette, which allows for quite a bit of fine control. And you see a large-ish color patch showing the precise color you've selected. The mixing palette also allows you to select colors via RGB values. I'm sure that once a person becomes fully accustomed to Capture One's way of doing it, you can get the job done. I think it'd be possible to get it done somewhat easier with the additional color displays.

    I still haven't learned the secret incantations, but I do use the arrow keys and shift+arrow keys approaches at times.
    0
  • Tibor
    HSL Curves

    Like the Secondary Curves in Apple's Color
    0
  • SFA
    Denis,

    Export Original does nothing to the file except change the file format.

    Export Variants will add the changes as applied by C1 and DOES allow DNG (16bit) to be specified as the type of output file. Or at least that is how is seems to be.

    Affinity has the various merging technologies that people mention on wish lists but as far as I can tell so far that functionality is not available for round tripping.

    I can create DNG files and Affinity will read them, process and offer me something back (with or without intermediate remedial work as part of the process) but making Affinity the external editor just puts all of the files opened into the "develop" persona. It would be quicker just to process them out as DNG files, start the HDR or Stacking facility in Affinity, load the files, watch the processing, do any remedial work when offered, save the file back with the original dng files (but not as a dng file) and then, if required, open that in C1.

    Hopefully Helicon offers itself up without the equivalent "develop" persona step and of course I may have missed something in the settings for Affinity that also makes that step obsolete?

    I'm beginning to suspect that the interactive use of external tools for merging, hdr, focus stacking and so on may require dedicated interfaces to make them work as plugins. That is basically what has happened in the "Big Data" business intelligence market. Now relatively mature that market probably has enough demand for standard interfaces to be available to those who feel their product needs them. There is enough revenue in that market to focus (excuse the pun) all parties' minds on preparing, sharing and making enhancement over time as pain free a possible for users - though also a lot of latency with users not necessarily jumping on the latest and greatest version as soon as it becomes available. Some wait a very long time indeed.

    As for the benefits of adding lens corrections to the images prior to blending .... I agree BUT seem to recall a lot of discussion about potential issues for certain types of photography with certain types of equipment and depending in how the stack of images were produced.

    Landscapes taken for an exposure spread are likely to be quite safe (other than movement or some sort) but focus stacking, depending on when and how, can be quite demanding for micro precision work with certain types of lens.

    I'm no expert so I would have to go digging to get to the details.

    Basically the answer may not always be the same for everyone was the message I remember.


    Grant
    0

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.