Very important reason why I didnt buy capture one pro. (This would have been a game changer for capture one.)
Hello. I was thinking of buying capture one pro for my raw image editing. There is one critical feature that is missing that made me cancel my plan on buying capture one pro, and that is the lack of mask blending/merging features.
There are many important features that users consider as very important to their image editing workflow. I believe the masking feature is probably at the top 3. Capture one has a good amount of masking features already but it doesnt allow the user to quickly merge/combine/add masks to each other. Lightroom currently has good mask layering system and also has the very important feature where you can instantly add/subtract/intersect additional mask to the other mask. You can also make a quick luminance range mask and have the option to merge it with other mask like radial mask.
I hope these features will be prioritized by capture one. The capture one software is already established in the field of color correction but the masking system still needs some more improvements.
Thank you.
-
Hi Mr FirstName
I have a completely different opinion. The layer mask concept from C1 is easier and quicker to use.
Styles Brushes and the possibility to change the size of the brushes like in PS... To be able to assign a luma area to each pixel mask and Just raster a Mask and Paint in the changes - in Capture One and the whole concept of the layers is much more coherent. Personally, I love rasterizing a mask and painting in my changes - like the complex LR object concept with order and add and subtract - and the scroll to change brush size... i like C1 way much more. I also love the ability to add a mask with the Coloreditor.For me it's a different concept than Lightroom offers. I also really appreciate the option of being able to make all posible settings avalable on one Layers. I think that's what makes C1 so uniqu.
Thanks Andi
0 -
Responding to Andreas:
First, the ability to mask almost all operations on images is independent from what operations are available on masks. Implementing the OP's request would not make C1 worse in that regard.
Second, features one does not use, do not make the software harder or slower to use. If the OP's request were implemented, one could simply forgo the additional mask operations and work as before.
Thirds, rasterisation is a hack. It is a low-level technical solution to the problem of masks potentially going out of sync. This should have been solved in a more user-friendly, less destructive/committal manner. For instance, parametrised mask could have their parameters locked when a hand-drawn is added, but allow them to be unlockable. There could have been a way to attempt adjusting a hand-drawn mask along with later parameter changes to a parametrised mask, etc. Rasterisation is similar to flattening layers in Photoshop. It is a quick solution but should never be necessary, as it destroys a pure parametric editing workflow (where every editing choice one ever made can be revisited without having to pay a workflow penality).
Fourth, adding more mask combination operations would just be an extension of what already exists in C1. Mask inversion is already supported by C1 so adding further operators on masks would not correspond to a fundamental paradigm shift.
I'd welcome the ability to combine masks in various ways as such functionality can be very helpful in avoiding the repeated creation of complicated masks if the latter have been drawn already not only as complements (mask inversion is already supported by C1) but in various other ways.
0 -
Permanently deleted userImplementing the OP's request would not make C1 worse in that regard.
Nor would it make it better - and more to the point, is it something that most users care about?
I sincerely doubt it - "game changer" and "critical" it is not.
0 -
Kieth R, You have a point. These features may not be for everyone. Some users prefer simple editing workflows. But In my opinion these features would be a game changer for capture one's masking system and it would make it more likely for everyone to choose this program over lightroom.
It can also be a critical feature to some people where they deem it very useful and makes their editing time faster.
I believe this feature would not affect or change the masking system. It would just add an optional feature to the original workflow and original users may also be interested to add it to their old workflows.0 -
Hello Again!
I like the Layer /mask concept of C1 as a customer (even though I switched to LrC) much better than ACR 14. I didn't want to express more - with my post.
The Request was: "Capture one has a good amount of masking features already but it doesnt allow the user to quickly merge/combine/add masks to each other."
I thought to myself - that's all very easy in C1. Ok then. i thought he thinks the ACR layer thing is better - faster to use. / Ok - I don't agree - C1 is much faster and easier to use. (my opinion).
I have an idea why Adobe solved this in such a complicated way - but I don't have any insider information about it. In combination with AI masks, it offers many possibilities with presets and batch processing. But in C1 there are Magic Brushes and Style Brushes no AI Auto-masking. I wanted to underline that... almost every settings can be transferred to a Layer in C1. The Limit in C1 is 16 Layers, I never reached that.
I've never had a case where I had to extract a mask from one layer with a mask from another. Maybe I'm too uncreative for this use cases. So far I've been satisfied with the ability to refine, invert, brush, erase, soften masks select Colors, Skin-tones, the Magic Brush and so on. A values with + add, a values - subtract. The Limit is 16 Layers - never reached that. (a simple mind)
When instead of one Mask I have to switch between 3 to do the same thing...No that would not be the same. Some functions in C1 and their logic contradict those of ACR. In ACR Logic, I need three elements to customize a Radial mask - I can't expand or redefine a drawn mask, etc. I am not saying that it is not possible. But I don't see the benefit in it. What else would it be if the request was I want to edit the layers none destructiv way. That could then maybe be solved even more elegant than in ACR / Lr- right? Like a "Smart Mask" allowing to change previous values.I saw the idear more like, wanting the ACM for proffing colors, like in LrC. That would be very different from the approach C1 does it (and i like it how C1 handles ICC and Proofing. Even if many don't understand it.) It's not like the HDR or panorama stitching add on. Its more like what happened to the parallel distortion Tool with the 100% default value. Or the "export queue" aso.
If I can continue to use the layer masks as usual, I'm fine. If it's about making C1 more Lightroomish please don't.0 -
@Andreas Neureiter
You too may also have a point. Maybe I still dont fully understand the workflow of capture one considering I cant even use the trial version any more; I may have accidentally activated it long ago so my only background are the youtube videos.
But I will also give you a link that shows how these new mask features from lightroom would be useful in a user's masking workflow. Here is a link where a youtuber named Nigel Danson applies the new mask tools from lightroom; these are the features I am referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPtDhjJVoyg&t=439s
You can look at it if you have time. I would gladly listen to your opinions and thoughts about it considering your experience with capture one pro.0 -
Hi!
Well then I got it right.
I know LrC ACR pretty well - and as described above, it's a completely different approach. I find C1 much more efficient and don't want to swap. I rather see disadvantages in the way LrC/ACR does it. As long u not using it for Presets or Batch-Processing.0 -
Hey
I am totally agreed with you my problem is solved. I am very happy,
Have a nice day to all.
-1
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
8件のコメント