Just wanted to let you know I cancelled my subscription

Commentaires

18 commentaires

  • FPL
    Professional tools quite often have higher learning curve.

    BTW. When you will find program, which provides “same level of quality or better with less effortâ€, then please return and share more info about this Holy Grail.

    Thanks
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Ian Leslie
    LOL or not. Posting on a user forum that other users must be dumb for using a product is an interesting choice. So, the authors of the product will not see your scathing critique and you directly insult everyone here...

    Yeah, I vote don't com back no matter what you find.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN636567293744244473" wrote:
    Well, gave it a solid 2 months of effort and have decided to give up on this program, despite some potential in many of the features the end result is that its much easier to use other software that provides the same level of quality or better with less effort. I guess if you are dumb enough to use this program you are dumb enough to pay 50k for a camera with shitty autofocus.


    Autofocus?

    You don't remember the days when autofocus was mostly a dream?

    Or, going a little further back, something one never really expected to use at an affordable price.

    As for "effort" - try a darkroom sometime.

    That said, nice rant.

    Glad you have found something else that works for your needs. You sound a little like my wife. For her her (current) smartphone results are all that she needs. No effort required other than taking the snap.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • GrahamB3
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoJdb1TLLJQ
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Jim MSP
    [quote="NNN636567293744244473" wrote:
    Well, gave it a solid 2 months of effort ....I guess if you are dumb enough to use this program you are dumb enough to pay 50k for a camera with shitty autofocus.


    So - are you in this camp? I assume by what you wrote that you bought a Phase One camera and were unhappy with it, along with Capture One.

    I didn't buy the camera, but I do use CO, along with a host of other software including LR & PS. I guess I am probably just a little bit dumb then. But I try hard to use the strengths of each piece of software; that keeps me sane.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="NNN636567293744244473" wrote:
    Well, gave it a solid 2 months of effort... I guess if you are dumb enough to use this program...

    We're "dumb" enough to have figured the software out - something you're clearly incapable of (and it isn't exactly rocket science), a frankly embarrassing failing you seem happy to admit to.

    So who's the dumb one, exactly?
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Shawn Kenessey
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="NNN636567293744244473" wrote:
    Well, gave it a solid 2 months of effort... I guess if you are dumb enough to use this program...

    We're "dumb" enough to have figured the software out - something you're clearly incapable of (and it isn't exactly rocket science), a frankly embarrassing failing you seem happy to admit to.

    So who's the dumb one, exactly?


    There is no figuring the software out, it is slower and less efficient in time than other software. They're trying to copy Photoshop on too many fronts, and with poor results. It would be smarter for them to focus on making things easier for photographers who have thousands of images to edit.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN636567293744244473" wrote:


    There is no figuring the software out, it is slower and less efficient in time than other software. They're trying to copy Photoshop on too many fronts, and with poor results. It would be smarter for them to focus on making things easier for photographers who have thousands of images to edit.


    Are you posting about the right product?

    Or is this just some strange sort of spam?
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="NNN636567293744244473" wrote:
    There is no figuring the software out

    Clearly, there is. We all have.
    it is slower and less efficient in time than other software.

    Absolutely untrue. The problem you have is demonstrably not the software. We aren't using it because it's inefficient...
    They're trying to copy Photoshop on too many fronts, and with poor results.

    I agree with you about this: so I ignore the PhotoShop-lite aspects of Capture One entirely, and use only for its core abilities. Why would that not work for you?
    It would be smarter for them to focus on making things easier for photographers who have thousands of images to edit.

    A typical bird photography trip to (say) the UK's Farne Islands routinely sees me coming back with several thousand images, as does my motorsport photography: do you think I would be disagreeing with your take on Capture One if it didn't serve me perfectly well in this situation?
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Tx
    After Spending this week with a Wedding under Trees with Firering Sun coming through leafs and turning all stuff green and blue i've want wo let you know, NO SIR! there is no other Software that handle that!

    But It's killing my PC, more exact i've 209 GB in my swamp file, i'm very happy that they did care that the software is clearing its Ram now an then. if no i would run out of memory.

    9 Layers on 536 images is Hardcore!

    Update:

    oh, and i did compare C1 to LR at the Start. Yea you are a bit slower but it looks much better.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Tom-D" wrote:
    oh, and i did compare C1 to LR at the Start. Yea you are a bit slower but it looks much better.

    Slowness - in direct comparison with Capture One - is one of the main topics of complaint on the LightRoom forums.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Tx
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="Tom-D" wrote:
    oh, and i did compare C1 to LR at the Start. Yea you are a bit slower but it looks much better.

    Slowness - in direct comparison with Capture One - is one of the main topics of complaint on the LightRoom forums.


    yea, but is also complicated, with C1 you have all possibilities. You can build your own filter, with the Luma layers. The people who come from LR have often forgotten the basics of image processing or have never seen them before, because many people just press the button and clap a preset over it.
    On the other hand, I would also like to have the possibility to save a style, with layers, in order to use it again next time.
    I've bypassed that by creating a reference folder in which images with layers lie, which I then only need to copy.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="Tom-D" wrote:

    On the other hand, I would also like to have the possibility to save a style, with layers, in order to use it again next time.
    I've bypassed that by creating a reference folder in which images with layers lie, which I then only need to copy.


    In effect the Style functionality you need just accessed in a slightly different way.

    There might be a case for suggesting an enhancement that makes use of exactly that approach to the functionality but with a little more direct and pertinent UI Management.

    The problem I have with it for my personal use is that I mostly shoot outdoor event (in terms of number of images to process) and the conditions are often so variable that even the "saved styles" - in effect in my case a reference image in the session for a specific set of similar images - can require tweaking every few frames - sometimes frame by frame.

    The comes a time when is it almost easier to simply start over! I tend to think this is probably especially true of Luma masking (for example) UNLESS one is working in a very controlled or simply stable environment (in lighting terms.)

    However, given the apparent popularity of applications that use 'Styles' extensively as a way to process and therefore as a selling point (or revenue generator) I can fully appreciate that many people can and do have regular shoots that lend themselves to repetitive use of more or less fixed 'Styles". Studio and particularly Product photography would be obvious candidates along with regularly visited Landscape locations, etc.

    The thing is I recall some years ago watching videos demonstrating the wide capabilities of one such product in the iteration that was available at the time (there have been many since and it now deals with RAW files as well) and observing that despite the library of hundreds of presets and full-on 'looks' ... the presenter, who was very competent, almost always used exactly the same presets and styles no matter what the content of the image. They were the ones he liked best at that time.

    In which case, I thought, simply saving a reference copy of an image with those settings applied and being able (in C1 at least) to copy the whole lot from the reference image to any other image of the same file type before final tweaking, seemed to be achieving exactly the same approach and possibly do so more effectively.

    However, this is drifting way off topic as set by the OP - other than to observe that the chances of finding one application (for almost any purpose at all) that satisfies all of the needs of all of the users is extremely unlikely to happen.

    If ever it does you can be sure that someone will see the benefits, buy the developer an then make a complete mess (either intentionally or accidentally) of the product almost immediately. If they don't trash the app they will trash the pricing model.

    It's just the way these things work.


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Tx
    @ Grant (SFA)

    You allways need to make manual Corrections, but the main Style behind a Photographers Thinking, your thought about how something should look, you copy that on the first image, do some corrections and then copy it to the other files than after you still have to do some corrections.

    I did sent P1 a idea how i would save the time you spend on correcting some stuff, but it has to be programmed first, if it comes at all.

    By the way, i still sit on that wedding and it takes 20 seconds to correct an image after i copy my style with 8 layers to it (yea i did say 9 layers but you don't always need a layer that brings back the highlights in your hair in combination with a radial layer.) so just 8.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • SFA
    [quote="Tom-D" wrote:
    @ Grant (SFA)

    You allways need to make manual Corrections, but the main Style behind a Photographers Thinking, your thought about how something should look, you copy that on the first image, do some corrections and then copy it to the other files than after you still have to do some corrections.

    I did sent P1 a idea how i would save the time you spend on correcting some stuff, but it has to be programmed first, if it comes at all.

    By the way, i still sit on that wedding and it takes 20 seconds to correct an image after i copy my style with 8 layers to it (yea i did say 9 layers but you don't always need a layer that brings back the highlights in your hair in combination with a radial layer.) so just 8.


    20 seconds per image sounds OK in the context although it's still a lot of hours if working on a large shoot.

    I agree about manual corrections but if your 20 seconds stretched to a minute it's heading to the point where creation from nothing for each image might not be far off ... (maybe not with 8 or 9 layers).

    I think I would start hoping to find an equivalent and still satisfactory solution with fewer layers - might not find one though!

    I was about to write that I was currently working on around 2k images from last weekend but decided to check and its just over 3.5k. Hmm. I may have a few more from tonight (although I'm hoping for a social only gathering) but expect about 2k from another event tomorrow.

    Maybe, for me, investing in an assistant would be a good idea - I'm starting to feel too old for this level of work - or at least that's what my eyes are telling me ... 🤓


    Grant
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Tx
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="Tom-D" wrote:
    @ Grant (SFA)

    You allways need to make manual Corrections, but the main Style behind a Photographers Thinking, your thought about how something should look, you copy that on the first image, do some corrections and then copy it to the other files than after you still have to do some corrections.

    I did sent P1 a idea how i would save the time you spend on correcting some stuff, but it has to be programmed first, if it comes at all.

    By the way, i still sit on that wedding and it takes 20 seconds to correct an image after i copy my style with 8 layers to it (yea i did say 9 layers but you don't always need a layer that brings back the highlights in your hair in combination with a radial layer.) so just 8.


    20 seconds per image sounds OK in the context although it's still a lot of hours if working on a large shoot.

    I agree about manual corrections but if your 20 seconds stretched to a minute it's heading to the point where creation from nothing for each image might not be far off ... (maybe not with 8 or 9 layers).

    I think I would start hoping to find an equivalent and still satisfactory solution with fewer layers - might not find one though!

    I was about to write that I was currently working on around 2k images from last weekend but decided to check and its just over 3.5k. Hmm. I may have a few more from tonight (although I'm hoping for a social only gathering) but expect about 2k from another event tomorrow.

    Maybe, for me, investing in an assistant would be a good idea - I'm starting to feel too old for this level of work - or at least that's what my eyes are telling me ... 🤓


    Grant


    I'm glad that i don't have so much work to do.

    @ Phase One: You see, we misuse your software to process huge amounts of images, sometimes absurd amounts.

    A possibility of part automation, without cutting, would greatly simplify our work.

    We photographers have to prevail over smartphones that have access to ML models that also work with layers to achieve certain effects.

    We don't need to argue about the quality, it's bad in bad light, it's about standing out.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Tom-D" wrote:
    yea, but is also complicated.

    Oh, I'm well aware of that, Tom - I'm simply making the point that "slowness" is subjective and often less to do with the software in question than the machine it's running on: and that often, Capture One is held up as an exemplar - in direct comparison of LightRoom - when people are complaining about the latter's performance.
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien
  • David Good
    I just wanted you to know that I renewed my subscription.
    Regards,
    Dave
    0
    Actions pour les commentaires Permalien

Vous devez vous connecter pour laisser un commentaire.