Layer madness
1. delete the layers from all images before copying
2. delete the older now useless layers manual later
both options add a lot more work and are also a source of failures. seems clear the folks at p1 did not have those user in mind which are working with multiple images, like photographers doing focus stacking or using multiple images for compositions. in my view they have added a rather useless option - copying a single layers - but destroyed the usability.
-
Keith Reeder wrote:
Horseoncowboy wrote:
I very much think working with layers should be easy for everyone, for those who never process more than a handful of images and those who need to work with a few hundred and a lot of layers especially when a software is featured as the best "professional" tool.
And I very much think that you should be using software specifically designed to do the kind of work you apparently do, instead of expecting Phase One (and everyone else) to bend to your personal preferences and make Capture One into a PhotoShop substitute.
maybe I´m wrong but I have always thought this software specifically designed to apply the same settings to other images is c1 ? seems you have forgotten that till c1 12 it worked that way and LR does the same till today . what changed is that c1 behaves now more like PS but when you copy a layer in PS it adds at least "copy" to the name...0 -
Horseoncowboy wrote:
Graant,
for every set of images with the very same content masks and layers have to be linked. so I almost never have the case that I want to copy just a single layer. but when some of the layers seem to work with a new set of images too I start by copying the whole stack of layers and masks to the first image of the groupe and adjust delete or add layers and masks as needed.
I get that and often do the same though not so often for the sort of numbers of images you are dealing with and sometimes I don't use all of the layers.
However a "layer", in C1 terms, is a combination of a set of adjustments from one or more tools and a mask that defines where and to some extent how the adjustment tools are to be applied.
The tools, individually and collectively can be applied to more layers, possibly with different images, without a mask (will not appear to make a difference!) and a mask can be added later. Or a mask might be applied to a layer and the tools added later.
I have another system that creates tool stacks where each tool entry has its adjustment data and mask contained as a group with (theoretically) unlimited instances of edits for any and each tool all stacked into a set of edits. Their design of stack calculates differently - moving things in the stack can give significantly different results - but in essence the objective is similar. The big difference is that the adjustments and the mask travel together for each adjustment in the stack, unlike C1 where adjustments and mask are separate.
As they ARE separate it seems to me there may be a case for proposing separate copy control options for tools and masks. Normally they would travel together. Sometimes moving them individually might be the more efficient approach.
Grant0 -
SFA wrote:
As they ARE separate it seems to me there may be a case for proposing separate copy control options for tools and masks. Normally they would travel together. Sometimes moving them individually might be the more efficient approach.
Grant
good point ! I would for sure use this but in general I think raw converter have already become much to complex, the avalanche of presets and styles are a clear indicator that user are overwhelmed . over the years only more and more tools had been added to mask the core issue of every raw converter: they are still unable to transform the captured data, today even with sufficient dynamic range , easy into something close to human vision without much interaction . my use of layer and masks in c1 only tries to compensate for this deficit, the creative editing follows later in PS with better tools and options. so it is no surprise that every layer tutorial uses a landscape image where the instructor adds a layer / mask to make it look closer to reality , I find it very sad that we still have to do this and nobody revolts. photoninja is the only converter I’m aware of which offers an adaptive approach with sometimes surprisingly good results but it seems development has stopped but i´m convinced others will follow, luminar seems on the right track for example. for professional user I can also see the advantage of 32bit workflows where only basic adjustments are made at the raw stage and the rest is done in an full featured image editor like affinity photo, adobe will also make more tools useable in ps with 32bit.0 -
ericstaud wrote:
I prefer the previous version of copy and paste. I only use copy and paste to match ALL the settings from one image to another. Once I've made adjustments to my primary image I copy and paste those settings to the other images. If I go back and make a change to the primary image, I copy and paste again. Then maybe I'll make another change and then copy and paste again. With the new tool behavior, each time I copy and paste settings, the layers double on all but my primary image.
With the new behavior, I must first select all the secondary images, Reset Layers adjustments, then paste from the primary. Not the end of the world, but definitely more steps to get to the same outcome.
This. The new systems sucks and has added a bunch of extra steps to my workflow. I appreciate that some people like it, but surely a checkbox in the preferences as to whether you want this or not would be sensible? There are some other adjustment pasting issues as well - if you apply a style, it makes the copying and pasting of adjustments very flaky. There's also a weird issue where it only applies the compositional adjustments on the second time you paste - which means all the layers double up. It's a mess.0 -
IanL wrote:
LOL no one can with us photogs 😊
A couple of points. First while I appreciate that this change effects people who were making use of the previous behaviour, it should be noted that the new behaviour means that people that want to add layers can and those that want to replace layers still can (agreed with a small amount of more work). The old way basically blocked adding layers. The workaround involved creating temporary styles to apply to new layers to creating layers manually and figuring out what adjustments to copy and paste over.
Sorry they moved your cheese but there is no successful argument that this is worse than the old way!
On the subject of preferences or options etc. to put the old way back. I, personally, am against that. How many preferences are they going to be to revert new behaviour to old behaviour? At some point will we ask them to bundle them up into a single setting "make the product old again"?
They moved the cheese. Learn the new cheese location - it's not that different - we can all learn it.
I my not so humble opinion 😊
So you're saying that we should have to do loads of extra work because you like it better the new way, and that there should be no way to turn this stupid 'feature' off? You clearly don't have deadlines or commercial pressures. Must be nice...0 -
Horseoncowboy wrote:
IanL wrote:
Ian3 wrote:
No, I suppose what I am saying is that if the situation were the opposite way round (so that it used to add extra layers but had now changed to replacing existing layers) work could be lost. At least this way round, if you find the new way it works annoying, at least your work is not over-written.
A point that has been made a few times now. He disagrees so adamantly that he is not really paying attention to that clear fact that the new way can be made to work for people that want to replace exiting layers and those that wan to add them. But the way it was could only satisfy those that want to replace exiting layers.
the argument you can make it work is theoretically BS and tells me you have no first hand practical experience. yes of course you can make it work, when you think wasting time to delete hundreds of useless layers with the same name every time you made a change of the layer settings is great. I very much think working with layers should be easy for everyone, for those who never process more than a handful of images and those who need to work with a few hundred and a lot of layers especially when a software is featured as the best "professional" tool.
This.0 -
If C1 would just present a dialog box asking wether it should replace or duplicate layers with the same name during a paste operation most of the grievances would be over I think. I also think that makes more sense than adding a preference checkbox. I’ll put in a request. Gives me a chance to experience the new customer support workflow too 😄 0 -
Emile wrote:
If C1 would just present a dialog box asking wether it should replace or duplicate layers with the same name during a paste operation most of the grievances would be over I think. I also think that makes more sense than adding a preference checkbox. I’ll put in a request. Gives me a chance to experience the new customer support workflow too 😄
Exactly this. Although a checkbox in the preferences would mean you only have to do it once, rather than every time.0 -
Mark492 wrote:
So you're saying that we should have to do loads of extra work because you like it better the new way, and that there should be no way to turn this stupid 'feature' off? You clearly don't have deadlines or commercial pressures. Must be nice...
No, I'm saying that claiming they messed up the UI and failed to test and reading the the cowboy wrote his posts is way way over the top. I can totally see that there is an issue and I would never have written my response the way I did if it wasn't for the ridiculous arrogance that was on display by the cowboy. I'm only human and I'll try not to continue in that vein - please don't take offence to what I wrote to you in the other thread.
Yes, I agree that tweaking the UI could make things work for everyone. I sincerely hope they do.0 -
No worries, I think that would be a good compromise... 0 -
Mark492 wrote:
... the the cowboy wrote his posts is way way over the top.
The name is "Horseoncowboy," so the Horse (on the cowboy) is the one you want to show as being over the top. The cowboy is merely carrying the horse and its message. Same message, different perspective.
Just trying to inject some humor,
Jerry C0 -
So I sent in a request for a dialog box plus some other improvements and got an answer (as in: an actual human took an effort) in less than 12 hours. I’ll let the world decide whether that’s quick or not - before you know it you’re an apologist these days.
Anyway, it’s on their list. Doesn’t mean they’ll do anything about it, but at least it’s there. If you want half a chance at their doing anything about it, send in a feature request as well.
Have a great day,
Emile0 -
A few things that have surprised me, and some thoughts:
1. The whole management and synchronisation of layers between images has never been perfect. But it is powerful.
2. I remember being frustrated at being unable to copy/add layers from one to another properly in older versions when I started using layers. But I got used to working with it.
3. I was surprised when the such a significant way of handling copy/paste in layers CHANGED. Not "Improved" but fundamentally changed. When a core function in a workflow changes then it going to cause frustration and annoyance. This is clear from some of the replies in this post. I believe this was quite a big oversight and it brings into question how the developers beta test - if they had beta tested with photographers, like myself, who work with large numbers of images and do a lot of back/forward on colour matching/grading etc., then it would have been flagged. But the current system would suggest that the developers are still quite firmly focused on a single image-single edit workflow. But this is only an opinion/thought, I've science to back that up.
4. Because this change was so 'workflow' altering it has cost me time. Quite a bit. I've spent at least a day figuring how to change my super fast workflow to work with the new system. That could have been avoided with a simple Layers handling preference tab. Legacy option perhaps?
5. C1 is still an amazing tool. I hope their beta testing takes on a more robust approach which represents a more diverse group of photographers/workflows. Yes, I'm annoyed with this change and the time it cost, but I'll get over it.
6. Belated Happy New Year.2 -
Corin wrote:
A few things that have surprised me, and some thoughts:
1. The whole management and synchronisation of layers between images has never been perfect. But it is powerful.
2. I remember being frustrated at being unable to copy/add layers from one to another properly in older versions when I started using layers. But I got used to working with it.
3. I was surprised when the such a significant way of handling copy/paste in layers CHANGED. Not "Improved" but fundamentally changed. When a core function in a workflow changes then it going to cause frustration and annoyance. This is clear from some of the replies in this post. I believe this was quite a big oversight and it brings into question how the developers beta test - if they had beta tested with photographers, like myself, who work with large numbers of images and do a lot of back/forward on colour matching/grading etc., then it would have been flagged. But the current system would suggest that the developers are still quite firmly focused on a single image-single edit workflow. But this is only an opinion/thought, I've science to back that up.
4. Because this change was so 'workflow' altering it has cost me time. Quite a bit. I've spent at least a day figuring how to change my super fast workflow to work with the new system. That could have been avoided with a simple Layers handling preference tab. Legacy option perhaps?
5. C1 is still an amazing tool. I hope their beta testing takes on a more robust approach which represents a more diverse group of photographers/workflows. Yes, I'm annoyed with this change and the time it cost, but I'll get over it.
6. Belated Happy New Year.
Public beta testing is self elective. So if the people with the need don't register and turn up then things may not be reported. But in this instance it seems it all goes back to the initial requirements discussions and the resulting design concept.
That said I do wonder whether there are other developments related to batch processing that could be created to make this entire functional area far more effective. Especially the sort of things that a feature like Normalize might be expected to address.
Whether a broad base of working pros with batch processing needs could be recruited to act as beta testers and actually undertake the work is probably a question that needs to be discussed.
Just my thoughts.
Grant0 -
Did they sort this yet?
0 -
sadly not, seems c1 sees this as an minority problem only affecting a small group of professional user so they decided to ignore it.
0 -
Brilliant. And it’s clearly hampering the workflow of many of their long time loyal customers. I asked the same question on the Facebook feed, they answered most questions, but not that one.
0 -
I agree this is a HUGE problem when you are on a busy set.Now you have to delete the old layers and then apply the new layers.I understand that for some the new way is better.I think there should be a option to add or overwrite
1 -
Create a New variant (can be done in bulk if required and the new variants will remain selected) and paste the revised layers to that/those.
You will need to rework any crop that may have been applied.
On a 1 to 1 copy the crop from the first variant could be quickly copied to the second.
If working with a multi image selection doing that may not work so well. Depends on circumstances.
0 -
for me this whole thing doesn't matter anymore they decided to ignore the issue they have created but had time to add BS like the before/after which is in fact useless and only a pimped version of what was already there for years. capture one is like the titanic in a market with more competition and better solutions. working with this software got also more cumbersome with each version, maybe this is fun and entertaining for some but this definitely not what I want and need. the layer problem is also a very telling sign of a development going on since a few years now, the central focus are amateur user which are less demanding, more loyal and easier to manipulate with marketing, understandable but sad.
1 -
I agree. I feel like whoever is in charge of making software decisions has never been on a Photoshoot before. Another example is the global copy -paste. If I want to copy and paste, I want to copy and paste EVERYTHING. Including crop, layers, everything! That should be the default.THEN if you want to exclude you can go in and select
0 -
You can set a default that copy includes or excludes crop.
Ian
0 -
As Ian has observed there are some useful controls related to the Clipboard in terms of managing the concept of what "everything" might mean.
I rather suspect that this is concept is nuanced differently by each user and possibly differently according to different circumstance.
For example. Lets say one finds some benefits, usually, for obtaining an editing start point by using te "Auto" function. Auto WB and Auto Levels perhaps.
Do that on Import and each image will be assessed and presented with the Auto settings applied. Some will work well, some maybe not so well, some perhaps not at all for one's purpose but we know that and just reverse the step for those images.
Now lets consider what happens if we use Auto Levels, to take an example, when editing an image for a set of similar images and we like the effect. We make some other changes too. Then we copy and paste those changes to all images. The settings values not the instruction to Auto analyse will be applied. That may or may not be what we really want fot eh batch of images selected.
Should we be able to specify that the C&P action via the clipboard uses the "Auto" method rather than the values?
Now people may think this is silly point and a stupid question or, indeed, a stupid concept for editing anything at all.
But how about Styles?
Should Styles be applied as they are defined?
Should a Style setting override any other values for the the same setting that already appears in adjusted form in the existing edit instructions?
If the a tool in a Style has an adjustment value that could be applied to multiple layers but has already been set to different values in one or mare layers, how should the style be processed?
At the most fundamental level one would simply observe that batch copy and pasting may not be the optimal way to go if people are concerned about the rules for the resulting edits. But that by itself would not prevent people demanding the addition of ever greater "flexibility" even to the point that some might almost expect the system to read their mind and work out what they really want to do.
But that takes us into Apple and Google mobile device AI type territory and may not be a sensible diversion here.
0 -
For me copy means copy.I want the second image to look exactly like the copied image. That's what copy and paste means.If you want to omit, that should be secondary.
0 -
so still no solution for this annoying problem in co21, makes me think this ignorants are even unable to understand the issue or just give a f..k !
0 -
It's not a question of an annoying problem to which no solution has been found. It is a deliberate change of how the software behaves, that you don't like. That is not the same thing.
Ian
-1 -
...this changes of course everything ian ! but wait was the main reason for tools like c1 not to easy apply the same settings to more than one image ? is this now an outdated concept ?
0 -
Ian, that’s just semantics. Point is, it was a huge change that’s clearly affecting people’s existing workflow. Adobe did this with the shift transform behaviour recently, but very soon added a checkbox that gave people the choice. That’s all we’re asking for. This is a fundamental change and it sucks for people who process lots of images rather than just one or two. Which is what I always thought C1 was designed for - if I was just processing a few images I’d use Photoshop. Either way, a choice would have been nice.
1 -
I really wish user who argue against a change or an added option would just for an hour have to work with the same large amount of images and the same set of layers as I and many others do and see what this change in practice means.
0 -
Mark: I do understand the point that it could be more convenient, and a check box (or a Preferences choice) to have one behaviour or the other would obviously keep more users happy. What I was taking exception to was the description of it as an "annoying problem" as if it was a bug they couldn't be bothered to fix rather than a deliberate design choice that didn't suit everyone (and that could be even better with the choice of behaviour being offered).
Ian
0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
81件のコメント