メインコンテンツへスキップ

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Sessions vs Catalog

コメント

12件のコメント

  • BobRockefeller
    I'm a new C1 user coming from Aperture. My approach, so far, is the use the catalog and mimic my Aperture organization the the extend possible. I haven't hit any snags yet, but I'm only getting started.
    0
  • Dangerous Lee
    I too am a new user that migrated from Aperture. I decided to use Sessions. This allowed me to export my originals using their project name as a subfolder. From there it was easy to create Sessions and retain a similar organization as to what I had in Aperture. No need to reorganize everything.
    Also, when I tried to import my images into a catalog, Capture One kept crashing and was very unstable.
    So, far I am loving Capture One; I wish I had moved over earlier 😄
    0
  • sizzlingbadger
    This is the first version of CO with a catalog. Those of you that cut your teeth on v1 of Aperture / Lightroom will know that the catalog was not all that stable to start with 😉
    0
  • jknights
    I always use Sessions as I cannot get Catalogs to work for me.

    I want to catalog my images and have tried with every release of version 7 of Capture One pro and it still has NEVER EVER managed to catalog all (128,000+) my images. I guess this is probably good marketing as it means that users have to buy the MediaPro application which I have done and it has easily cataloged all my images.
    I wish that they would just remove Catalogs completely from CO Pro and Express.
    0
  • BobRockefeller
    [quote="jknights" wrote:

    I wish that they would just remove Catalogs completely from CO Pro and Express.


    No! I hope they learn from Media Pro and move it's features into C1. We are long past the point of seperate database, RAW conversion and photo adjustment tools.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:

    We are long past the point of seperate database, RAW conversion and photo adjustment tools.

    Actually some of us prefer it that way - then we can be "converter agnostic" in a way which tends not to happen if the converter is also the DAM solution...
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:

    We are long past the point of seperate database, RAW conversion and photo adjustment tools.

    Actually some of us prefer it that way - then we can be "converter agnostic" in a way which tends not to happen if the converter is also the DAM solution...



    This.


    Grant
    0
  • BobRockefeller
    If you have a catalog tool, say it's Media Pro, and a RAW converter/editor, say it's C1, what kind of workflow do you use so that C1's RAW work is really non-destructive?
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    [quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:
    If you have a catalog tool, say it's Media Pro, and a RAW converter/editor, say it's C1, what kind of workflow do you use so that C1's RAW work is really non-destructive?


    There are a number of videos on the Phase One site showing how C1 sessions and Media Pro work together. That's as good a starting point as any that I know of. It generally works pretty well, although there has been no development (as opposed to some updating/bug fixes) of Media Pro either. It does handle hierarchical keywords, which C1 doesn't (yet).
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:
    If you have a catalog tool, say it's Media Pro, and a RAW converter/editor, say it's C1, what kind of workflow do you use so that C1's RAW work is really non-destructive?

    I'm not sure I quite understand the question, Bob - all Raw converters are non-destructive by the nature of the paradigm regardless of DAM solution, unless the cataloguing writes to the file's metadata, which my solution doesn't.
    0
  • BobRockefeller
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:
    If you have a catalog tool, say it's Media Pro, and a RAW converter/editor, say it's C1, what kind of workflow do you use so that C1's RAW work is really non-destructive?

    I'm not sure I quite understand the question, Bob - all Raw converters are non-destructive by the nature of the paradigm regardless of DAM solution, unless the cataloguing writes to the file's metadata, which my solution doesn't.


    I'm thinking that Media Pro doesn't keep track of C1's edits. Or no? At some point, does the file end up "finished," in Media Pro, but not longer in RAW? Maybe it's TIFF? Or is the whole workflow, end to end, non-destructive?

    Could you tell us your workflow in sequence, maybe in a bullet list?
    0
  • H. Cremers
    [quote="BobRockefeller" wrote:

    I'm thinking that Media Pro doesn't keep track of C1's edits. Or no? At some point, does the file end up "finished," in Media Pro, but not longer in RAW? Maybe it's TIFF? Or is the whole workflow, end to end, non-destructive?

    Could you tell us your workflow in sequence, maybe in a bullet list?


    Well yes, it does. It actually can read the edits as made in C1. You'd have to run C1 in Session mode though, as in catalog mode, the edits "disappear" in the catalog. Media Pro does create thumbnails obviously, but that's automatic.

    Turn "use embedded jpeg" off in Media Pro and turn the Phase One engine on. Setup the XMP reading/writing so also the keywords and ratings flow between both. There are some rather good videos on the Phase One channel on the tube. Look them up, they'll help you.

    This doesn't prove anything about the future of Media Pro though, read that forum for more info.
    0

投稿コメントは受け付けていません。