Capture One catalogs vs Media Pro
I don't use Capture One. I use Media Pro and other editors. What functionality is missing from Capture One's catalogs compared to Media Pro? What can Capture One's catalogs do that Media Pro can't do? I've asked PO for a comparison chart, but apparently no such chart exists.
Can anyone provide a brief summary?
Can anyone provide a brief summary?
0
-
Anyone?
I'm not asking for someone to create a full comparison chart. I just hoping someone can name a couple key DAM features/capabilities lacking in CO catalogs so I can better understand the difference from Media Pro.0 -
I tried Media Pro and for my needs it was a complete waste of money.
Media Pro is a cataloging program. If you need to adjust any pictures you move them to Capture One via sessions and make your adjustments. Hierarchal keywords is the big feature that Media pro has over Capture One. The other "feature" is Media pro is much faster when filtering all photos and searching, etc. Capture One really slows to a crawl if you have large catalogs and are trying to sift through all files.
Capture One is a great program for "developing" and adjusting your photos with mediocre catalog features. You can use keywords but hierarchal keywords are not a feature. if you have one large catalog and want to search through all photos for a certain keyword the program slows to an almost unusable crawl. I have made this bearable by using an SSD to store the Capture One catalog file while keeping originals on a separate spinning disk.
If you are thinking of using Media Pro to catalog and Capture One to process this sort of will work but not like it should. First off as it stands now Media Pro will not display adjustments made in Capture One Pro 10 only 9 and earlier. 10 has been out for nearly 6 months and no update to Media Pro. Secondly the workflow only works with sessions which is not how I work nor do I want to switch after all these years. If Aperture can have giant catalogs and not be slow why can't Phase One figure it out?
Media Pro was a complete waste of money in my experience. I tried it twice and both times it did not work for me. I have since deleted it and considered my money wasted. Also Phase One does not regularly keep Media Pro updated.
In my dreams Phase One makes a replacement for Aperture. Combine the speed and features of Media Pro's DAM capabilities with Capture One's processing features into one complete program. Then for those that don't need or want the DAM functions you can offer a version without all the DAM features. Charge me an extra $100-150 for a good DAM that can handle large catalogs and not slow to an unusable crawl.0 -
Hierarchal keywords is the big feature that Media pro has over Capture One. ...
...Capture One is a great program for "developing" and adjusting your photos with mediocre catalog features. You can use keywords but hierarchal keywords are not a feature.
But this is untrue. You certainly can create hierarchical keywords in Capture One, and in my view it is easier to do than it is in Media Pro.
Ian0 -
Edgephoto, it seems you didn't read my post. I am not "thinking" about using Media Pro. I already use Media Pro and have used it (and its predecessors) for over 15 years. (For my workflow, Media Pro is well worth the money. Despite its limitations and aged code, in my opinion it's still the best stand-alone single-user DAM on the market.) I already know about your anger about Media Pro and the Capture One integration difficulties from your posts in the Media Pro forum. (If you want to continue that rant or discuss your wish list for Phase One's software development, I'd be happy to join in, but please start a new thread rather than hijack mine.) I also know your experience with Media Pro was extremely brief -- too brief to know its features (remember that you didn't even know that MP could create derivative files, and Ian had to correct your assertion about hierarchical keywords). So you're probably not the best person to answer my question. But I will note that in your experience Media Pro has a performance edge in speed. That appears to be a common experience. So we have +1 for Media Pro for speed performance.
Ian, thanks for contributing your experience with performance of hierarchical keywords. So +1 for Capture One for hierarchical keyword performance.
But both of you are talking about performance. I'm asking about differences in DAM features or functionality, not performance of the same features.
So I'll ask again:
What are the notable differences in the DAM features or functionality (not performance) between Capture One and Media Pro?0 -
I use both applications. I use Media Pro mainly to organize my reference, inspirational images...so I am not a super user when it comes to MP.
That said the main reasons why I am sticking to MP and not to CO1 for cataloging and organizing is:
1. File size, it seems MP creates much smaller catalog file size
2. Catalog Sets, much easier, more powerful, more options, quicker.... in MP (main reason for me)
What I don't like in MP compared to CO1:
1. Navigating with a pen on a tablet can be frustrating (when lifting pen and then dropping the scrollbar moves one whole page)
2. Browser and Viewer are separated and not on the same window/workspace like in CO1
3. Very very poor support for MP (Sometimes it feels like they just want let this application die)
Hope that helps0 -
Thanks, B. Sadr. That helps give me a sense of the different experience (differences in robustness, speed or usability).
What about structured vocabularies? HTML gallery generation? Custom annotation fields? Annotation syncing? Finding/searching? Light Table? Other DAM features? Are they present and/or as robust in CO?
I'm a little confused by this comment:[quote="B.Sadr" wrote:
2. [In Media Pro] Browser and Viewer are separated and not on the same window/workspace like in CO1
I don't know what you mean by "Browser" and "Viewer." Do you mean the Catalog Folders pane on the left and the Media tab on the right? Or by Browser do you mean the Thumbnail tab? Media Pro and its predecessors have always been a single window/workspace (with the toggled Media Info/Organize Panels on the left and List/Thumbnail/Media tabs on the right).
And for this:[quote="B.Sadr" wrote:
3. Very very poor support for MP (Sometimes it feels like they just want let this application die)
I agree. The fact that PO never bothered to publish a chart comparing the DAM differences between Media Pro and CO gives the impression that they aren't interested in selling Media Pro. Product differentiation is basic marketing 101, but they don't seem interested. Ever since PO purchased Media Pro I've been advocating for the power of a stand-alone DAM, agnostic of editor. But I'll save that for another thread. (I don't want to hijack my own thread with that rant.)0 -
Just to take this a little further off topic.
While a standalone DAM would be great, in the days of non-destructive editing, I can see that it would never work. How would the DAM be able to show you an "edited" picture. Either the DAM would have to know how to find the preview that the editor made, or know were the "recipe" is located and try to reproduce the image from that, then also the DAM would have to be able to view all the RAW files.
Look at Media Pro, it is owned by the same company that puts out CO, and yet they cannot even keep up with changes to CO, I think they are still on ver9.3 or so. Then they only work in session mode, because there would be no way to find which catalog from just a RAW file, and what if they were in multiple catalogs. (yes managed would be different, but in my opinion, any professional that is using managed catalogs in any software should really have their head examined.)
In some respects Adobe had it right with the DNG format, a standard format that could contain editing information, metadata, and an updated preview that could be used for multiple DAMs all at the same time. Now did they get it 100% right, no. But, I can convert a image from an unsupported camera to DNG and open it in just about any program that supports DNG. And I don't have to wait for the application to support the camera.
Robert0 -
[quote="PhaseoneUser55657" wrote:
Just to take this a little further off topic.
Apparently I can't stop the impulse to take this thread into a philosophical debate 😉
Let's focus on your core assumption:[quote="PhaseoneUser55657" wrote:
While a standalone DAM would be great, in the days of non-destructive editing, I can see that it would never work. How would the DAM be able to show you an "edited" picture. Either the DAM would have to know how to find the preview that the editor made, or know were the "recipe" is located and try to reproduce the image from that, then also the DAM would have to be able to view all the RAW files.
Your assumption is incorrect. Being able to display an "edited" raw image is called "manufacturer rendering" and it was possible for many years. Examples:- Back in the days of iView Media Pro and Expression Media (through Mac OS Tiger), iView/Expression Media did show an "edited" raw Nikon NEF file (non-destructively edited with Nikon's Capture NX2 software). This changed after Tiger. Did Nikon stop sharing its "secret sauce" (codec, SDK?) with Apple? Or did Apple stop collaborating with Nikon? No one has explained this to me convincingly. And Phase One deliberately stopped supporting manufacturer rendering to "entice" users to purchase Capture One. See "Media Pro 1 Mac: Will we get manufacturer rendering back?"
- The last time I checked, Photo Mechanic can still see an "edited" raw image from various manufacturers. I think other software can do this as well (AtomicView? Fast Picture Viewer?) What do they know that no-one else knows?
So technically, displaying an "edited" raw image made by another manufacturer is not impossible.0 - Back in the days of iView Media Pro and Expression Media (through Mac OS Tiger), iView/Expression Media did show an "edited" raw Nikon NEF file (non-destructively edited with Nikon's Capture NX2 software). This changed after Tiger. Did Nikon stop sharing its "secret sauce" (codec, SDK?) with Apple? Or did Apple stop collaborating with Nikon? No one has explained this to me convincingly. And Phase One deliberately stopped supporting manufacturer rendering to "entice" users to purchase Capture One. See "Media Pro 1 Mac: Will we get manufacturer rendering back?"
-
Going back to the original question, I'm just beginning to get to grips with cataloguing, having always worked in Sessions, and trying out whether to do it with Capture One or Media Pro. As someone has already said, Media Pro catalogs are smaller. On the other hand, Media Pro apparently can't pick up ratings, keywords and so on from Capture One unless you get Capture One to produce XMP sidecar files. A Capture One catalog reads the ratings and keywords without needing sidecar files. (The XMP files themselves are very small, so they don't counterbalance the difference in the catalog size, though. But it does mean a folder of photos in Finder has to have XMP files interspersed with it.) And if I set hierarchical keywords in Capture One, then obviously enough they are organised the way I have set them up when I use a C1 catalog. However they seem to appear in MP in a random order and there is no easy way to sort them for ease of use other than dragging them into my preferred order. (Basic alphabetical sorting of keywords doesn't seem to be on offer.) As my main reason for the catalog is to enable me to find images by keyword (for instance finding all the pictures I have taken of Uncle Dave over the years that are currently in different sessions) the ease of use of the keywords in the C1 catalog is beginning to look like a big plus to me.
Ian0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
Going back to the original question, I'm just beginning to get to grips with cataloguing, having always worked in Sessions, and trying out whether to do it with Capture One or Media Pro. As someone has already said, Media Pro catalogs are smaller. On the other hand, Media Pro apparently can't pick up ratings, keywords and so on from Capture One unless you get Capture One to produce XMP sidecar files. A Capture One catalog reads the ratings and keywords without needing sidecar files. (The XMP files themselves are very small, so they don't counterbalance the difference in the catalog size, though. But it does mean a folder of photos in Finder has to have XMP files interspersed with it.) And if I set hierarchical keywords in Capture One, then obviously enough they are organised the way I have set them up when I use a C1 catalog. However they seem to appear in MP in a random order and there is no easy way to sort them for ease of use other than dragging them into my preferred order. (Basic alphabetical sorting of keywords doesn't seem to be on offer.) As my main reason for the catalog is to enable me to find images by keyword (for instance finding all the pictures I have taken of Uncle Dave over the years that are currently in different sessions) the ease of use of the keywords in the C1 catalog is beginning to look like a big plus to me.
Ian
Hi Ian. It sounds like you're just discovering the power of DAM. (By the way, finding Uncle Dave photos is a breeze in Media Pro using the People tag.) Over in the Media Pro forum, there is a thread called "Round Trip MP to C1 Best way" that explains a workaround to get Media Pro and CO to play better together (using myotis/Graham's "empty session" technique). I don't know if it will solve your issue with hierarchical keywords, but I think if you use XMP files, the keywords should carry over properly. And of course if you did your annotations, hierarchical keywords, and people tags in Media Pro in the first place, your problem would be avoided. In my view, such tagging should be done in the DAM, not the raw editor. The DAM should be the core of the workflow. The raw editor should be a supporting player. Obviously Lightroom and Aperture have combined these functions into one software application, but Phase One apparently can't figure out how to do it in CO.
To get back to my original question: I am trying to compare Media Pro DAM features vs Capture One DAM features, not their interoperability (which obviously is very problematic). In other words, if someone had only used Media Pro, and then bought Capture One with the hope of using Capture One catalogs exclusively, what DAM features would they be losing?0 -
[quote="syncrasy" wrote:
Thanks, B. Sadr. That helps give me a sense of the different experience (differences in robustness, speed or usability).
What about structured vocabularies? HTML gallery generation? Custom annotation fields? Annotation syncing? Finding/searching? Light Table? Other DAM features? Are they present and/or as robust in CO?
I'm a little confused by this comment:[quote="B.Sadr" wrote:
2. [In Media Pro] Browser and Viewer are separated and not on the same window/workspace like in CO1
I don't know what you mean by "Browser" and "Viewer." Do you mean the Catalog Folders pane on the left and the Media tab on the right? Or by Browser do you mean the Thumbnail tab? Media Pro and its predecessors have always been a single window/workspace (with the toggled Media Info/Organize Panels on the left and List/Thumbnail/Media tabs on the right).
And for this:[quote="B.Sadr" wrote:
3. Very very poor support for MP (Sometimes it feels like they just want let this application die)
I agree. The fact that PO never bothered to publish a chart comparing the DAM differences between Media Pro and CO gives the impression that they aren't interested in selling Media Pro. Product differentiation is basic marketing 101, but they don't seem interested. Ever since PO purchased Media Pro I've been advocating for the power of a stand-alone DAM, agnostic of editor. But I'll save that for another thread. (I don't want to hijack my own thread with that rant.)
By Browser and Viewer I mean.... Browser is pretty much the thumbnail of your collection and when you double click on it you will be in the Viewer tab where you see the whole image on it's own. In CO it's all on the same window. Sure you have the Light Table in MP but I prefer the CO way but that's personal preference.
Not sure about annotations but you do have Keyword options in CO as well.
I work only with Sessions in CO so never really use the Catalog method... Sorry can't be of more help0 -
[quote="syncrasy" wrote:
To get back to my original question: I am trying to compare Media Pro DAM features vs Capture One DAM features, not their interoperability (which obviously is very problematic). In other words, if someone had only used Media Pro, and then bought Capture One with the hope of using Capture One catalogs exclusively, what DAM features would they be losing?
I would think a big difference would the wider range of file types supported by Media Pro?
Probably doesn't matter to anyone who does not need them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_One_Media_Pro
Grant0 -
I've gone ahead and made my own analysis of DAM/catalog features of Media Pro SE and Capture One 10 (as of Dec. 2016). See below.
EDIT: I've moved the list to a new thread since this thread has become derailed:
Capture One catalogs vs Media Pro: DAM Feature Comparison0 -
[quote="syncrasy" wrote:
Edgephoto, it seems you didn't read my post. I am not "thinking" about using Media Pro. I already use Media Pro and have used it (and its predecessors) for over 15 years. (For my workflow, Media Pro is well worth the money. Despite its limitations and aged code, in my opinion it's still the best stand-alone single-user DAM on the market.) I already know about your anger about Media Pro and the Capture One integration difficulties from your posts in the Media Pro forum. (If you want to continue that rant or discuss your wish list for Phase One's software development, I'd be happy to join in, but please start a new thread rather than hijack mine.) I also know your experience with Media Pro was extremely brief -- too brief to know its features (remember that you didn't even know that MP could create derivative files, and Ian had to correct your assertion about hierarchical keywords). So you're probably not the best person to answer my question. But I will note that in your experience Media Pro has a performance edge in speed. That appears to be a common experience. So we have +1 for Media Pro for speed performance.
Ian, thanks for contributing your experience with performance of hierarchical keywords. So +1 for Capture One for hierarchical keyword performance.
But both of you are talking about performance. I'm asking about differences in DAM features or functionality, not performance of the same features.
So I'll ask again:
What are the notable differences in the DAM features or functionality (not performance) between Capture One and Media Pro?
You can flame me and insult me all you want.
I am only mad at myself for buying Media Pro. For my needs it is useless. You are right I did not give it much time. Once I found that the two programs don't even come close to integrating I deleted it.
I will have to research hierarchal keywords in CO.
And I did not hijack you thread. I was giving you my experience. So good luck.0 -
[quote="Edgephoto" wrote:
I will have to research hierarchal keywords in CO.
You might find this webinar a good place to start.
Edited to add - also a brief introduction here (See especially from about 2:50 onwards. It was very helpful to me to understand how to create a keyword library that is available across all sessions and catalogs, not just the current one.)
Ian0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
[quote="Edgephoto" wrote:
I will have to research hierarchal keywords in CO.
You might find this webinar a good place to start.
Edited to add - also a brief introduction here (See especially from about 2:50 onwards. It was very helpful to me to understand how to create a keyword library that is available across all sessions and catalogs, not just the current one.)
Ian
Thanks. This is excellent. I have watched a few of the newer Webinars. Missed this one.0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
16件のコメント