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⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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. ⚠️

Capture One Pro 10 Launched!

Jim_DK
New Features

Performance focused re-write for faster viewing experience
New! 3-phase sharpening tool
New! Output Proofing
New! Halo Suppression
New! Hardware support for Tangent Panel Systems
New! Default Workspace
New! Camera Focus tool
New! Filter for orientation of images
New! More Apple Script properties (Mac Only)
Optimized: Jpeg Output for Size/Quality
Optimized: LCC for 100MP - Stripe reduction
Optimized: LCC generation
Improved: Move folders in Catalogs
Improved: Compressed RAW Support
Improved: Auto masking
Improved: activation management
Improved: Hardware Acceleration

https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/So ... s-new.aspx

10.0 Camera Support

Sony a99 M2 support
Sony RX100M5 support
Sony a6500 support
Sony a3500 support
Olympus E-M1 mkll Support

10.0 Lens Support

Mamiya Sekor Fisheye ULD C 24mm 1:4
Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G (SAL70200G)
Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS
Sony E 18–200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS
Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS (SELP18105G)
Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS (SEL55210)
Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS (SEL1018)
Sony E 20mm F2.8 (SEL20F28)
Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70 mm F4 ZA OSS (SEL1670Z)
Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 55 mm F1.8 ZA (SEL55F18Z)
Sony DT 50mm F1.8 SAM (SAL50F18)
Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM (SAL35F18)
Sony DT 30mm F2.8 Macro SAM (SAL30M28)
Sony 16mm F2.8 Fisheye (SAL16F28)
Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 25mm f/1.2 PRO
Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-100mm f/4 IS PRO
Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 R

Get the download/trial here: https://www.phaseone.com/en/Download.aspx
0

コメント

63件のコメント

日付 投票
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    I believe it is valid indefinitely, or at least until version 11 comes along!

    Ongoing I think, Ian: the current upgrade price applies to users of versions 8 and 9.
    0
  • dredlew
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:
    the consensus and requests at least in this community have been stability & performance over features. So I hope this is indeed the case, which would make it worth the upgrade for many.

    It might be argued that these constitute bug fixes; and as such, what users have already paid for...


    Well, not quite. It's not a bug, it's a design flaw that's been existing probably since the beginning. Changing the architecture of an application is not the same as fixing a bug. So it's reasonable to have a new major version for it which unfortunately comes with another payment. - Apple sort of does the same thing with the macOS releases, where it develops in tick-tock cycles. One year the update is feature filled, the next year it's under-the-hood improvements. Difference being, P1 does not operate like that, nor are the updates free.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:
    Well, not quite. It's not a bug, it's a design flaw that's been existing probably since the beginning.

    Semantics aside, it's still an "improvement" that a user might legitimately expect from any version of Capture One, though - I didn't buy previous incarnations of Capture One for their instability...

    You'd be bent out of shape if your garage told you that the only way to address that annoying cut-out problem in your year-old car was to buy this year's model...

    Changing the architecture of an application is not the same as fixing a bug.

    From an end-user perspective, I rather beg to differ: if changing the architecture is what is needed to fix (what users would describe as) a bug, it's a bug fix...

    Put it this way: people are far more likely to report stability issues to Phase One as a bug, than as a feature request/improvement suggestion - stability is a pretty fundamental, legitimate expectation of any commercial, publicly-released software. It's not an added-value, "nice to have" USP.
    0
  • Kevin Arrowsmith
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:
    the consensus and requests at least in this community have been stability & performance over features. So I hope this is indeed the case, which would make it worth the upgrade for many.

    It might be argued that these constitute bug fixes; and as such, what users have already paid for...


    Well, not quite. It's not a bug, it's a design flaw that's been existing probably since the beginning. Changing the architecture of an application is not the same as fixing a bug. So it's reasonable to have a new major version for it which unfortunately comes with another payment. - Apple sort of does the same thing with the macOS releases, where it develops in tick-tock cycles. One year the update is feature filled, the next year it's under-the-hood improvements. Difference being, P1 does not operate like that, nor are the updates free.

    It's a long time since I had to pay for an Apple OS upgrade
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    [quote="Cairn House" wrote:

    It's a long time since I had to pay for an Apple OS upgrade

    Yes, but Apple have a much bigger customer base than Phase One, so the economics of developing new versions are rather different for them. Apple make a lot of money out of us.

    Ian
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    [quote="Cairn House" wrote:

    It's a long time since I had to pay for an Apple OS upgrade

    Yes, but Apple have a much bigger customer base than Phase One, so the economics of developing new versions are rather different for them. Apple make a lot of money out of us.

    Ian


    Also it seems to be a way to encourage people to buy new hardware. That is by no means free. It's where people pay for the stuff that may appear to be "free".

    Microsoft is similar but the drag of the wide Corporate user base and the income from Enterprise level applications (Office for example) changes the model somewhat. Eventually they can enforce the move but it takes a somewhat longer cycle to get there.

    The Subscription model for everything (and the "great offers" followed by upward "price revisions") seems to be an attempt to push things further through hardware sales (where MS lack the direct benefit of being the manufacturer of the majority of the hardware on which their software products are installed) and by controlling the development direction of the third party software market by constantly updating and re-defining their software tools (as do Apple).


    Grant
    0
  • NNN635507439502082957
    Not sure why people feel the need to complain about something they feel is not worth the upgrade. Guess what? Cap 9 did not suddenly stop working because 10 was released.

    With the coupon codes out there upgrading is $89 per year. This is a bargain for a tool that I use professionally day in and day out for hours a day.

    As a pro this is the cheapest, most used and most valuable program I use. The image quality compared to Lightroom is a world apart . I hope Phase One continues to keep C1 update on Mac in my lifetime and to that end $89 is like paying my dues to a worthy cause. I sit often next to photographers who shot the same assignment and they often comment on how color rendition in C1 looks so much better than on Lightroom.

    Keep up the great work P1.

    To me 10 was worth the upgrade just because C1 now remembers crop and aspect ratio settings after you restart C1. I had mentioned it to their support team once and so glad C1 10 now remembers my 2x3 crop aspect ratio and rotate freehand settings I would have to manually restore each time I restarted C1 7-9.
    0
  • John Doe
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
    Not sure why people feel the need to complain about something they feel is not worth the upgrade. Guess what? Cap 9 did not suddenly stop working because 10 was released.

    Spot-on. 😊
    0
  • Grant Kernan
    The Subscription model for everything (and the "great offers" followed by upward "price revisions") seems to be an attempt to push things further through hardware sales (where MS lack the direct benefit of being the manufacturer of the majority of the hardware on which their software products are installed) and by controlling the development direction of the third party software market by constantly updating and re-defining their software tools (as do Apple).
    Grant[/quote] --- the other Grant --- SFA

    Actually in a round about way an upgrade to C1 ver10 forces me to upgrade to El Cap or Sierra from Yosemite. That in turn will force me to upgrade another 1/2 dozen softwares and some calibration hardware to run on Sierra. I would have been happier if ver10 supported OX10.10.5, but it doesn't.
    So I will stay with version 9 , and Yosemite for now. The $89 USD is not an issue but spending 2k on all the other stuff is.
    Grant K
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Grant Kernan" wrote:
    The Subscription model for everything (and the "great offers" followed by upward "price revisions") seems to be an attempt to push things further through hardware sales (where MS lack the direct benefit of being the manufacturer of the majority of the hardware on which their software products are installed) and by controlling the development direction of the third party software market by constantly updating and re-defining their software tools (as do Apple).
    Grant
    --- the other Grant --- SFA

    Actually in a round about way an upgrade to C1 ver10 forces me to upgrade to El Cap or Sierra from Yosemite. That in turn will force me to upgrade another 1/2 dozen softwares and some calibration hardware to run on Sierra. I would have been happier if ver10 supported OX10.10.5, but it doesn't.
    So I will stay with version 9 , and Yosemite for now. The $89 USD is not an issue but spending 2k on all the other stuff is.
    Grant K[/quote]

    Yep. Apple seem to run quite short cycles (in terms of number of years) for development compatibility.

    Windows offers longer upgrade gaps - or has done traditionally.

    On the other hand now that people are becoming conditioned to changing to the latest and greatest mobile phone every year or two - at a hardware cost that approaches or maybe exceeds what they might pay for a computer - the "rent all aspects of your life" concept may introduce a different level of acceptance for constant revision. The cost will be lost in the rental charges which people are being conditioned to understand as "acceptable".

    It will be interesting to see how the model develops.


    Grant (SFA)
    0
  • NN635323382885779900UL
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:

    To me 10 was worth the upgrade just because C1 now remembers crop and aspect ratio settings after you restart C1. I had mentioned it to their support team once and so glad C1 10 now remembers my 2x3 crop aspect ratio and rotate freehand settings I would have to manually restore each time I restarted C1 7-9.


    Well, my impressions about the crop tool are quite different, so to speak...
    Firstly, there is no crop tool tab. The crop tools are embedded in Lens Tools tab, not necessarily intuitive.
    Of course, you can add a Crop Tool tab (empty by default), and customize it to your liking (or C1 9 defaults, if you like them, I did). The problem is, I did it twice, and C1 lost it twice. Now I just try to remember that the tools are in the Lens tab...

    To add insult to injury, Let's try the following:
    Use the Output tab. In the recipe try to set the output image size as, for example, Long Edge limited to 1280 px (this is what I use for my Web images). Everything is fine until you use the Crop tool again. From now on all your images will show the long edge as 1280 and you won't be able to change it... I tried it several times, always the same behaviour. The only solution was to use the Output tab again with no resizing/compression. It actually took me a while to figure this out...

    My point is - we paid $$$ for, supposedly, major upgrade. And what we got are some minor improvements coupled with a lot of additional bugs not seen in previous versions (not too stable to begin with).

    In a word, I'm not too happy with the (paid) upgrade.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NN635323382885779900UL" wrote:
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:

    To me 10 was worth the upgrade just because C1 now remembers crop and aspect ratio settings after you restart C1. I had mentioned it to their support team once and so glad C1 10 now remembers my 2x3 crop aspect ratio and rotate freehand settings I would have to manually restore each time I restarted C1 7-9.


    Well, my impressions about the crop tool are quite different, so to speak...
    Firstly, there is no crop tool tab. The crop tools are embedded in Lens Tools tab, not necessarily intuitive.
    Of course, you can add a Crop Tool tab (empty by default), and customize it to your liking (or C1 9 defaults, if you like them, I did). The problem is, I did it twice, and C1 lost it twice. Now I just try to remember that the tools are in the Lens tab...

    To add insult to injury, Let's try the following:
    Use the Output tab. In the recipe try to set the output image size as, for example, Long Edge limited to 1280 px (this is what I use for my Web images). Everything is fine until you use the Crop tool again. From now on all your images will show the long edge as 1280 and you won't be able to change it... I tried it several times, always the same behaviour. The only solution was to use the Output tab again with no resizing/compression. It actually took me a while to figure this out...

    My point is - we paid $$$ for, supposedly, major upgrade. And what we got are some minor improvements coupled with a lot of additional bugs not seen in previous versions (not too stable to begin with).

    In a word, I'm not too happy with the (paid) upgrade.



    Unless I have entirely misunderstood what you wrote above I think you may have missed out on some useful functionality and, possibly, a fuller understanding of how the Crop tool and Process Recipe tools work in conjuction with each other.

    So far as I am aware the only changes in functionality in that area was that the tools that were in the crop tool TAB were moved ot the lens tab becuae, apparently, some people were finding confusion between the toolset TAB's ICON and the direct access Crop Tool Icon on the menu above the Viewer (assuming you have that turned on and not changed for the default settings to remove that access).

    To eliminate the confusion the tools were re-grouped in a different tab.

    I have to say it was not a confusion that had ever occurred to me in several years of using C1 but there you go. I almost always use the direct access and very rarely the now defunct Tab.

    When you had modified the Tabs (i.e. the workspace) did you save it? Save it with a new name and it will become a User Workspace and should appear on the list of available workspaces. If you close C1 with your bespoke workspace open it should still be there next time you run the application for the same catalog or session. C1 will pick up where you left off provided nothing has happening in the mean time (which might be some years if you open something you have not worked with for a while!) that would make those settings troublesome or where the personalised file might have been deleted by other factors - system maintenance or general tidying up for example.

    For your crop tool what you are setting up is a RATIO for the crop, not a set of measurements.

    The measurement controls come from the file size as a default OR the definition for output size in the currently active process recipe. Actually they are not controls in the crop - they are simply advisory numbers to let you know what the results will be in the units being used by the recipe.

    It reads like you have discovered that but not yet managed to make beneficial use of the full potential that the functionality offers. Yes, that can take a bit of digging and some careful consideration taking into account what you normally want to achieve while you fine tune things to your specific needs. But, in my opinion, it's worth the effort.


    HTH.


    Grant.
    0
  • dredlew
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:
    Well, not quite. It's not a bug, it's a design flaw that's been existing probably since the beginning.

    Semantics aside, it's still an "improvement" that a user might legitimately expect from any version of Capture One, though - I didn't buy previous incarnations of Capture One for their instability...

    You'd be bent out of shape if your garage told you that the only way to address that annoying cut-out problem in your year-old car was to buy this year's model...

    Changing the architecture of an application is not the same as fixing a bug.

    From an end-user perspective, I rather beg to differ: if changing the architecture is what is needed to fix (what users would describe as) a bug, it's a bug fix...

    Put it this way: people are far more likely to report stability issues to Phase One as a bug, than as a feature request/improvement suggestion - stability is a pretty fundamental, legitimate expectation of any commercial, publicly-released software. It's not an added-value, "nice to have" USP.


    Um, what you "perceive" is not how software development works, whether you're getting bent out of shape or not. And semantics are there for a reason, just pushing them aside is not going to change anything. You can keep filing "bugs" but as I already stated, they are meaningless since they cannot be fixed individually. A whole architecture rewrite needs to happen and that's a bigger undertaking.

    I'm not condoning the poor architecture and it's embarrassing that it's taking them so long to fix it. However, unless they are getting their priorities in order, it may take years until this is addressed.

    As for the car-analogy (there always has to be one if things get difficult to understand, right?);
    and yes, that's exactly what the garage would tell you if the cut-out problem was rooted so deeply that it would be faster and cheaper to buy the new model than trying to fix the old one (which might be impossible). You can get bent until the cows come home, you either keep using the car for most of the time and endure the occasional cut-outs or you move on to the next one. After all, you had 30 days to test drive the car and you seemed to be ok with the cut-outs then.
    0
  • dredlew
    [quote="Cairn House" wrote:
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:

    Well, not quite. It's not a bug, it's a design flaw that's been existing probably since the beginning. Changing the architecture of an application is not the same as fixing a bug. So it's reasonable to have a new major version for it which unfortunately comes with another payment. - Apple sort of does the same thing with the macOS releases, where it develops in tick-tock cycles. One year the update is feature filled, the next year it's under-the-hood improvements. Difference being, P1 does not operate like that, nor are the updates free.

    It's a long time since I had to pay for an Apple OS upgrade


    Quoting myself now, fun!
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:
    Difference being, P1 does not operate like that, nor are the updates free.
    0
  • HansB
    [quote="Cairn House" wrote:

    It's a long time since I had to pay for an Apple OS upgrade

    [quote="dredlew" wrote:

    Difference being, P1 does not operate like that, nor are the updates free.

    If you own an Apple computer, Mac OS upgrades are for free (for use with your Apple computer).
    If you own a Phase One digital back, Capture One is for free (for use with your digital back).
    Not so different at all.


    Regards,
    Hans
    0
  • Simon Metcalf
    [quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
    Not sure why people feel the need to complain about something they feel is not worth the upgrade. Guess what? Cap 9 did not suddenly stop working because 10 was released.


    Yeah but what about in a year (or two) after it's ceased to be the current version? Will it receive the same amount of maintenance and compatibility support as the current version, and if so for how long? These are legitimate and important questions for anyone that owns the software, whether you're managing a professional library for business or you're an amateur enthusiast. Both have a vested interest in knowing how long their software will function as expected. It affects the value and risk of your investment. I'm not aware if this question is answered anywhere.

    €99 a year to stay current is a pretty hefty maintenance and development fee on top of the initial price of the software and as such it's making me reevaluate my commitment to this software. I was expecting a 2-year upgrade cycle for which the €99 price seems more reasonable given the improvements offered, but not annually. As in the 8-9 transition, Phase One have come here to defend the upgrade price, saying it's a substantial reduction from the full cost of the software. But that's like saying: "Since I only gave the car a new coat of paint and added a sunroof, I'm not going to charge you the full price of a brand new car. Isn't that generous!".

    The changes from 9-10 in no way amount to "a new car" or dramatic rewrite of the existing code-base, so â…“ the cost of new licences every year is pretty steep to remain current. That's like saying the software has a shelf-life of only 3 years and should be completely rewritten in that time. But is it? Are the changes in v10 equivalent to an entirely new version and code-base when compared with v7? Because fragmentation of versions isn't feasible and older versions will eventually be deprecated, you're pretty much forced to pay upgrade prices for features you don't necessarily want to receive maintenance and compatibility support. So the cost of maintenance (being rolled into development) is a significant consideration.

    And finally, the upgrade price is the same from v8 to 10 as it is from v9. So that's like saying you're stupid to upgrade to each new version because in another year you can get the same improvements plus plenty more for the same price! With that in mind, unless there's a feature you really need or want in the new version and can't wait to use, it's more economical to wait another year and get two year's worth of development for the same price.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to pay for maintenance and development, but €99 a year is a price that's making me sit up and baulk. And that makes me worried about how long my software will continue to function as expected after it's been superseded and deprecated by newer versions.
    0
  • SFA
    To use the car analogy ...

    Yesterday I filled up with a tank of fuel.

    At the current exchange rate it cost me about €99.

    It won't last me a year.

    The fuel pump suddenly failed a few weeks ago. It cost me over £400 to get it fixed.

    The annual roadside breakdown insurance policy fee (it's the first time in several years of payment that I have used the service) is about €75.

    Just to put thing into perspective.


    Grant
    0
  • Grant Kernan
    I found a bug in version 9.3. Lets see if it gets fixed with a new minor release, say 9.3.1, or if not. This will show us whether continued maintenance on last years version will occur or not...
    Grant
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Grant Kernan" wrote:
    I found a bug in version 9.3. Lets see if it gets fixed with a new minor release, say 9.3.1, or if not. This will show us whether continued maintenance on last years version will occur or not...
    Grant


    To do so would be rare and unusual in the software world - for almost anybody (security issues aside).

    The exception would be large scale B2B relationships where issues about upgrading huge implementations with hundreds or thousands of users are involved.

    It is unlikely that any support arrangements for such a relationship would be based on the same principles (or costs) as a consumer "desk top" licence would offer. That wouldl be the case even on a subscription model.

    My thoughts, for what they are worth.


    Grant (also).
    0
  • Grant Kernan
    Here is the bug;
    If you use an adjustment layer, you cannot embed the camera profile...C1 will make use of the camera profile but converts it to sRGB [even if "embed camera profile" is selected in your output recipe]...
    This really wrecks havoc with custom profiles...as I want them embedded so I can make adjustments.
    Grant K
    0
  • Simon Metcalf
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    To use the car analogy ...

    Yesterday I filled up with a tank of fuel. At the current exchange rate it cost me about €99. It won't last me a year.

    The fuel pump suddenly failed a few weeks ago. It cost me over £400 to get it fixed.

    The annual roadside breakdown insurance policy fee (it's the first time in several years of payment that I have used the service) is about €75.

    Just to put thing into perspective.


    I get what you're saying, Grant.

    €99 a year is nothing for someone who makes a living with this software, or even a well-to-do professional who happens to be a keen hobbyist. I get that this is professional, studio-grade software (despite some workflow and interface limitations I've encountered).

    I'm just saying there are those who'll be shut out by a €99/year maintenance and development cost or having to buy the software again in 3 years if and when the old version no longer functions reliably on the latest operating systems and hardware (and you can no longer get an upgrade discount). There are plenty of amateurs who make little to no money from photography. I'm pretty sure there are also plenty of ex-Aperture users for whom Capture One was a popular choice, and it's these users that may start to question that choice.

    I don't own a car and rely on public transport to get around so your car analogy is wasted on me (sorry, I appreciate the effort!). I'm not crying poor, just saying It's turning out to be more expensive than I initially thought and I have to reconsider my commitment after having paid €378 in under two years for now out of date software. Perhaps Phase One has decided they don't need or want occasional or amateur users. I'd consider this a shame personally but I can continue to use C1 9 for now at least.
    0
  • Grant Kernan
    Simon,
    I first purchased a licence for C1version 4 back in 2005. I have been upgrading ever since but not every version. I missed version 5 and version 10. Usually I upgraded when a new camera model came out or if I really needed a feature. On average that is every 18 months which when the upgrade is on sale is only $4.44 USD / month for the updates and if I add in the original price to all the updates and divide by 144 months [12 years] it cost me $5 USD / month.
    To put it in perspective it is the cost of a couple of good coffees.
    Grant K
    0
  • Grant Kernan
    BTW,
    BTW the embedding camera profile bug is also alive in version 10.
    When you make an adjustment mask from the colour editor and try to embed your camera profile it converts to sRGB.
    0
  • NNN635507439502082957
    I'm sorry but if you cannot afford a measly $90 upgrade fee(with discount code) every year or two then you have no business using a world class product.

    I know you are an amateur but how about not having a coffee or other unnecessary treat every other week so you can save up? C1 is just as important as good lenses because at the end of the day using a crappy RAW converter is almost like using a crappy lens.

    I thank the heavens for C1 exists because my days with Lightroom 1-4 were painful. Colors were just not right in LR.

    Using Lightroom and looking at results that did not reflect what I saw even with a lot of tweaking of color. This ended when I switched to C1. Color is spot on.

    I am glad to pay for continuing C1 updates as well as for their great support. I can finally see on screen and in print what I saw through the viewfinder.

    [quote="SimonMetcalf" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    To use the car analogy ...

    Yesterday I filled up with a tank of fuel. At the current exchange rate it cost me about €99. It won't last me a year.

    The fuel pump suddenly failed a few weeks ago. It cost me over £400 to get it fixed.

    The annual roadside breakdown insurance policy fee (it's the first time in several years of payment that I have used the service) is about €75.

    Just to put thing into perspective.


    I get what you're saying, Grant.

    €99 a year is nothing for someone who makes a living with this software, or even a well-to-do professional who happens to be a keen hobbyist. I get that this is professional, studio-grade software (despite some workflow and interface limitations I've encountered).

    I'm just saying there are those who'll be shut out by a €99/year maintenance and development cost or having to buy the software again in 3 years if and when the old version no longer functions reliably on the latest operating systems and hardware (and you can no longer get an upgrade discount). There are plenty of amateurs who make little to no money from photography. I'm pretty sure there are also plenty of ex-Aperture users for whom Capture One was a popular choice, and it's these users that may start to question that choice.

    I don't own a car and rely on public transport to get around so your car analogy is wasted on me (sorry, I appreciate the effort!). I'm not crying poor, just saying It's turning out to be more expensive than I initially thought and I have to reconsider my commitment after having paid €378 in under two years for now out of date software. Perhaps Phase One has decided they don't need or want occasional or amateur users. I'd consider this a shame personally but I can continue to use C1 9 for now at least.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="SimonMetcalf" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    To use the car analogy ...

    Yesterday I filled up with a tank of fuel. At the current exchange rate it cost me about €99. It won't last me a year.

    The fuel pump suddenly failed a few weeks ago. It cost me over £400 to get it fixed.

    The annual roadside breakdown insurance policy fee (it's the first time in several years of payment that I have used the service) is about €75.

    Just to put thing into perspective.


    I get what you're saying, Grant.

    €99 a year is nothing for someone who makes a living with this software, or even a well-to-do professional who happens to be a keen hobbyist. I get that this is professional, studio-grade software (despite some workflow and interface limitations I've encountered).

    I'm just saying there are those who'll be shut out by a €99/year maintenance and development cost or having to buy the software again in 3 years if and when the old version no longer functions reliably on the latest operating systems and hardware (and you can no longer get an upgrade discount). There are plenty of amateurs who make little to no money from photography. I'm pretty sure there are also plenty of ex-Aperture users for whom Capture One was a popular choice, and it's these users that may start to question that choice.

    I don't own a car and rely on public transport to get around so your car analogy is wasted on me (sorry, I appreciate the effort!). I'm not crying poor, just saying It's turning out to be more expensive than I initially thought and I have to reconsider my commitment after having paid €378 in under two years for now out of date software. Perhaps Phase One has decided they don't need or want occasional or amateur users. I'd consider this a shame personally but I can continue to use C1 9 for now at least.


    Simon,

    Instead of the car costs analogy how about a couple of restaurant meals?

    Or in my case, a one hour one way train journey to London. That would cost about the same as the upgrade.

    If you are are not working with a lot of images and are happy with relatively low budget products there are plenty around at less cost or even free via open source. Many of them can produce very good results so long as you don't always need all the latest bells and whistles as soon as they are discussed in the blogs.

    The downside is that product longevity is not guaranteed - especially when development is in the hands of a person or persons with day jobs. That's not a criticism - just an observation of the realities of software development by enthusiasts who now and again need to get their lives back.

    As Grant K pointed out, it's not always necessary to adopt every upgrade. If you are doing so because you have update to a new camera then you need to consider the cost for software to support the camera (assuming that you don't like whatever is supplied with it) to be part of the purchase budgeting. If you buy in mid-cycle of the application development you are likely to be lucky and have your new camera supported. Buy at the end of the cycle and the camera probably will not be supported in the older product. In that respect I don't think anything much has fundamentally changed for anyone.

    Grant
    0
  • NNN635507439502082957
    A great feature introduced in Capture One 9 also allows three activations on three computers. This is a great addition as I use them all.
    0
  • dredlew
    [quote="HansB" wrote:
    [quote="Cairn House" wrote:

    It's a long time since I had to pay for an Apple OS upgrade

    [quote="dredlew" wrote:

    Difference being, P1 does not operate like that, nor are the updates free.

    If you own an Apple computer, Mac OS upgrades are for free (for use with your Apple computer).
    If you own a Phase One digital back, Capture One is for free (for use with your digital back).
    Not so different at all.


    Regards,
    Hans


    Not everyone has a digital back. I'd say it's actually a fair assumption that the vast majority of C1's customer base does not have one. So the majority is paying for C1 upgrades. Unlike Apple, where no one is paying. That is a clear difference in how the software development is subsidized.
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:

    Not everyone has a digital back. I'd say it's actually a fair assumption that the vast majority of C1's customer base does not have one. So the majority is paying for C1 upgrades. Unlike Apple, where no one is paying. That is a clear difference in how the software development is subsidized.

    Not really. Apple provide free OS software to the users of their hardware. It's not really free of course - we pay for it when we buy the hardware. That seems very similar to the basis on which Phase One camera customers get a "free" version of Capture One - it's not really free, as the cost of providing it is factored into the considerable cost of the hardware.

    And the fact is, though we would all naturally prefer to pay less or nothing for the app, it doesn't develop itself, and its continued development has to be funded somehow.

    Ian
    0
  • dredlew
    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:

    Not everyone has a digital back. I'd say it's actually a fair assumption that the vast majority of C1's customer base does not have one. So the majority is paying for C1 upgrades. Unlike Apple, where no one is paying. That is a clear difference in how the software development is subsidized.

    Not really. Apple provide free OS software to the users of their hardware. It's not really free of course - we pay for it when we buy the hardware. That seems very similar to the basis on which Phase One camera customers get a "free" version of Capture One - it's not really free, as the cost of providing it is factored into the considerable cost of the hardware.

    And the fact is, though we would all naturally prefer to pay less or nothing for the app, it doesn't develop itself, and its continued development has to be funded somehow.

    Ian


    Sigh... Everyone with an Apple computer subsidizes the OS software, that is not the case for C1 as the majority of customers does not buy the P1 hardware. That's the difference. Not sure why you guys try to compare Apple and P1-Oranges.
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:
    [quote="Ian3" wrote:
    [quote="dredlew" wrote:

    Not everyone has a digital back. I'd say it's actually a fair assumption that the vast majority of C1's customer base does not have one. So the majority is paying for C1 upgrades. Unlike Apple, where no one is paying. That is a clear difference in how the software development is subsidized.

    Not really. Apple provide free OS software to the users of their hardware. It's not really free of course - we pay for it when we buy the hardware. That seems very similar to the basis on which Phase One camera customers get a "free" version of Capture One - it's not really free, as the cost of providing it is factored into the considerable cost of the hardware.

    And the fact is, though we would all naturally prefer to pay less or nothing for the app, it doesn't develop itself, and its continued development has to be funded somehow.

    Ian


    Sigh... Everyone with an Apple computer subsidizes the OS software, that is not the case for C1 as the majority of customers does not buy the P1 hardware. That's the difference. Not sure why you guys try to compare Apple and P1-Oranges.

    Even so, the development of the software has to be funded somehow.

    Ian
    0

投稿コメントは受け付けていません。