[Feature Request] Add 'Neutrals' to Colour Editor tool

[Denyer]

Not sure if I'm just missing something, or if this is a legitimate missing feature.

I've got some images shot against grey paper, and the client wants the grey paper tinting purple.

The only way I can currently see to do this, is to make a global change with the Colour Balance wheels, and then meticulously "undo" the colour shifts across all coloured parts of the image via the colour editor OR mask out the colour shift by hand.

Doing this across 200 files? Not much fun.

It would be great if the Colour Editor allowed you to target Blacks / Neutrals / Whites in the same way as Photoshop's Selective Colour tool does - facilitating quick changes of low saturation regions without skewing the entire image.



Open to suggestions on how to solve this quickly, but I'm pretty sure it'd make a solid addition to the Editor.

[SFA]

Useful and indeed expected for a pixel editor application with a graphics design origin and pedigree.

Maybe not so much an expected feature of a RAW file converter?

You will have a potential problem with grey since a typical grey consists of most base colours at the pixel level. Black and white offer little for a Colour EDITOR to play with by way of colour adjustment. There is a reason that images shot in a studio type of environment with the intention of changing the background use green or blue screens.

If you have Photoshop (or an equivalent) it might be best to use it? Or maybe Camera RAW has the facility?


Grant

ETA: If you really want to make this a feature request have you suggested it via a Support Case?

Here the audience will be other users. It's not, usually, a support channel or suggestions conduit.

[Denyer]

I had indeed asked via Support if tickets were the correct avenue for FR's - Was still waiting on a response when you posted! I asked here just in case I've somehow overlooked the feature - No point cluttering up the support desk if another user has a constructive approach to offer!

Obviously all greys will be subject to fluctuation from background noise and colour variation, but that's easily dealt with by tolerance, called smoothness in the colour editor. If C1 can identify a red, there's no reason it can't identify a grey. Mathmatically it's just L=n A=0+/-Tolerance B=0+/-Tolerance or R=G=B +/- Tolerance

Honestly I'd like to see all the features from 3D LUT Creator Pro implemented in Capture One (Saturation masks, colour matrices, etc) - It's not a pixel level editor, no, but it's a colour editor well suited to dealing with the full bitrange of data provided by the camera. Makes sense to do as much as possible here before kicking the can out to Photoshop for the pixel pushing. I can individually retouch the necessary images in Photoshop using their neutrals selection in the Selective Colour tool, but it'd be much more efficient to have that adjustment available in C1 so it can be copied and pasted between selects.

[Irvin.Gomez]

Useful and indeed expected for a pixel editor application with a graphics design origin and pedigree.
Maybe not so much an expected feature of a RAW file converter?

Too late for that. The cat is out of the bag since the day all raw converters, including Capture One, started imitating Photoshop with the introduction of layers, luminosity masks, etc.

Where does it stop? People will naturally want Capture One to continue mimicking Photoshop with other useful features. It’s a real can of worms and probably a losing long-term strategy, as it’s pretty clear there is no real chance they will ever catch up.

[SFA]

Greys are, generally, quite well balanced mixes of R G and B.

For white balance purposes a target would be of completely equal proportions. On that basis it's quite difficult to image a way of making a purely colour based selection that was unlikely to introduce some influence elsewhere in the image.

So a mask based on colour alone is unlikely to give the isolated change you are seeking UNLESS the area you do NOT want to change is very strongly influenced by colours that would at least appear to be left unchanged by the colour selection.

It's not impossible but may not be a regularly useable approach.

If you can get the colour change for the grey to work (Advanced Colour Editor is likely a better option then the colour wheel), a combination of regular masking and a Luma mask might be usable as a "generic" approach portable across many images. But it could rather depend in the subject matter.

Much easier, I would think, to turn to applications that have been designed to specialize in such transformations.


Grant

[Ian3]

Suggestion. Set the white balance for the image as a whole to a very wrong value, so that your grey background becomes some definite colour, perhaps blue if you reduce the WB to a very low Kelvin value, or yellow if you increase it to a very high one. In the colour editor pick on the now coloured background and refine the colour pick so that all your background is included in the range. Use the option from the ... button to convert that colour range to a masked layer. You now have a mask that covers the background paper. (You may need to tidy it up a bit if there are parts of the foreground object included.) Then change the WB of the image back to what it should be. You are left with the same colours you started with but you have a masked layer covering the grey paper. You can then use the WB and/or Colour Balance tools to change the colour of the paper only.

Any good? (I realise that it doesn't exactly automate it for all the images, though.)

Ian

[SFA]

Useful and indeed expected for a pixel editor application with a graphics design origin and pedigree.
Maybe not so much an expected feature of a RAW file converter?

Too late for that. The cat is out of the bag since the day all raw converters, including Capture One, started imitating Photoshop with the introduction of layers, luminosity masks, etc.

Where does it stop? People will naturally want Capture One to continue mimicking Photoshop with other useful features. It’s a real can of worms and probably a losing long-term strategy, as it’s pretty clear there is no real chance they will ever catch up.

Maybe people will ask for Photoshop with fully integrated RAW file conversion like Capture One (and, apparently, some other converters)?

It's an oddly circular argument of course.

A bit like expecting all cameras to have the same size of sensor and be able to shoot any format with any lens ... and so on.

Global Uniformity - that's what we need!




Grant

[Irvin.Gomez]

Useful and indeed expected for a pixel editor application with a graphics design origin and pedigree.
Maybe not so much an expected feature of a RAW file converter?

Too late for that. The cat is out of the bag since the day all raw converters, including Capture One, started imitating Photoshop with the introduction of layers, luminosity masks, etc.

Where does it stop? People will naturally want Capture One to continue mimicking Photoshop with other useful features. It’s a real can of worms and probably a losing long-term strategy, as it’s pretty clear there is no real chance they will ever catch up.

Maybe people will ask for Photoshop with fully integrated RAW file conversion like Capture One (and, apparently, some other converters)?

Photoshop has it. It’s called Adobe Camera Raw. Lightroom is mostly for DAM and culling duties, when everything is said and done. It has been that way since the beginning.

All current raw converters are essentially very crippled versions of Photoshop. There is nothing that Capture One or Lightroom can do as a raw converter that can’t be done in Photoshop, while there is a whole lot that Photoshop does that can’t be done with any raw converter. What makes something like Lightroom great is the DAM and culling features. And given than lots of people need only a fairly limited number of features, a standard raw converter like Capture One or Lightroom is an excellent choice.

It’s when someone, like the original poster, wants to go a little further that you have to summon the big guy...or just start becoming him...that was my point.

[IanS]

Useful and indeed expected for a pixel editor application with a graphics design origin and pedigree.
Maybe not so much an expected feature of a RAW file converter?

Too late for that. The cat is out of the bag since the day all raw converters, including Capture One, started imitating Photoshop with the introduction of layers, luminosity masks, etc.

Where does it stop? People will naturally want Capture One to continue mimicking Photoshop with other useful features. It’s a real can of worms and probably a losing long-term strategy, as it’s pretty clear there is no real chance they will ever catch up.

In various webinars and video interviews PhaseOne have been very clear that before any new feature is added to C1Pro it is hotly debated and only the most useful features make the cut, they are definitely not trying to imitate PS.

What they are doing is trying to produce the best raw converter. Layers are C1's way of implementing local adjustments which are these days a basic functionality of a raw converter. A layers approach is the most effective way of doing this I think, as it provides the best UI plus the ability to refine masks and vary opacity, which is very useful in a local adjustment.

Intrinsic with local adjustment is the ability to create masks. With the inclusion of luminosity masks C1Pro has further refined its ability to create masks with a very clever and clean UI. Combined with C1Pro's superb colour editor, which can create masks, dedicated skin colour tab, inclusion of a luminosity curve so that contrast can be changed without altering colour all make it my photo editing tool of choice. These developments in raw converters are to be expected and for many photographs you may not need to go to a pixel editor at all. Obviously for major pixel mangling extensive cloning, removal of objects, sky replacement a pixel editor is unmatched.

So the careful focused development of a raw converter, and not throwing everything in including the kitchen sink, I think is beneficial. A raw converter will never replace a pixel editor entirely but the trend has certainly been to reduce the need for a pixel editor significantly.

Ian

[Irvin.Gomez]

There is no question that all raw converters, including Lightroom, DxO, Capture, ACDSee, Darktable, etc., are walking the exact same path Photoshop has walked for over 3 decades. Adding new features like layers, masks and other things like the feature requested by the OP, *is* literally travelling in Photoshop's direction. Nothing wrong with that - Photoshop started as a photo editor, too!

The question becomes: should a line be drawn at some point? If so, where?

In other words, if layers were added, why not the feature that the original poster wants? What's the criteria? And is there an actual criteria? It seems to me, they just add whatever they can add that will enhance the software, because users expect it and keeping current users while adding new ones is the only way to thrive financially. I welcome that and think it's a good and necessary thing.

But let's call a spade a spade: all raw converters are slowly becoming little Photoshops. Layers, masks, color and luminosity selections, frequency separation, stacking, even plugins!, etc.,: all 'new' features are things Photoshop has had for years.

And, once again, I have absolutely nothing against that. Hell, my wish for Capture One is to lower upgrade prices while adding a blur brush, among other things!

[SFA]

But let's call a spade a spade: all raw converters are slowly becoming little Photoshops. Layers, masks, color and luminosity selections, frequency separation, stacking, etc.,: all 'new' features are things Photoshop has had for years.

But are they really?

Photoshop has been a graphics and photo editor since way back as you say. But to deal with digital files the developer provided ACR as a pre-processor that allowed the creation of a file that PS could work with to handle RAW files rather than jpgs or tiff from scanners, etc.

ACR was then also shared, more or less, with LightRoom. And LR can appear to be (partly) integrated with PS by file sharing.

Affinity sets out to cover the ACR/PS territory and, through other products in the family, Adobe's Publishing software. It does not, afaik, offer any much in terms of a DAM function as we might think of it.

As for integration between RAW conversion and further editing ... not so much. Sure, everything appears in a combined UI but processing a RAW file means using the "Develop" 'persona'. Once you have done what you think you want to do with the RAW you pass the results to the Affinity version of a PSD file and start pixel pushing just as if it was an original piece of digitally generated art work.

Want to go back to the RAW and do something different? Well, that seems to be start again time.

I have no problem with that BUT I very much prefer the C1 approach especially as I rarely have a need to pixel push.

It maybe does not help that I find the concepts of pixel pushing tools relatively simple to understand theoretically but the deployment of then through any UI I have tried over the years seems overly complicated no matter how powerful it might be used by someone whose brain can adapt. It seems that mine does not.

I would not want C1 to have to totally change how it works in order to replicate the functionality of PS or Affinity nor would I want to pay the necessary additional costs that would surely come with expanding the product as an integrated suite.

If it's not fully integrated and still needs an intermediate file to get to the pixel pushing features - then why bother? That's more or less the same as already exists with the options to create files to be used in other applications.

Just my opinion of course.

Grant

[Irvin.Gomez]

But let's call a spade a spade: all raw converters are slowly becoming little Photoshops. Layers, masks, color and luminosity selections, frequency separation, stacking, etc.,: all 'new' features are things Photoshop has had for years.

But are they really?

Yes, really.

They are all walking the same path, but they are at different points in that path. Some more advanced, some less. They are all following Photoshop, intentionally or not.

Photoshop has been a graphics and photo editor since way back as you say. But to deal with digital files the developer provided ACR as a pre-processor that allowed the creation of a file that PS could work with to handle RAW files rather than jpgs or tiff from scanners, etc.

Yes. It was Photoshop's own evolution. All raw converters have their own engine. Adobe’s Is ACR, shared by Photoshop, Lightroom and other applications.

ACR was then also shared, more or less, with LightRoom. And LR can appear to be (partly) integrated with PS by file sharing.

Lightroom is as tightly integrated with Photshop as it possible while keeping both programs fully independent. Any closer and they would become a single program.

Affinity sets out to cover the ACR/PS territory and, through other products in the family, Adobe's Publishing software. It does not, afaik, offer any much in terms of a DAM function as we might think of it.

That's correct. As stated previously, different converters offer different things, but they are all on the same path.

As for integration between RAW conversion and further editing ... not so much. Sure, everything appears in a combined UI but processing a RAW file means using the "Develop" 'persona'. Once you have done what you think you want to do with the RAW you pass the results to the Affinity version of a PSD file and start pixel pushing just as if it was an original piece of digitally generated art work.

Want to go back to the RAW and do something different? Well, that seems to be start again time.

Affinity Photo is very good - not a real Photoshop 'killer', but an excellent choice for people who don't need Photoshop's full feature set.

I have no problem with that BUT I very much prefer the C1 approach especially as I rarely have a need to pixel push.

You have to go with whatever works for you. Capture One is excellent software, anyway. I'm a happy user, even if my daily workflow is best fit by a Lightroom/Photoshop combination. Capture One's color editor is very powerful.

It maybe does not help that I find the concepts of pixel pushing tools relatively simple to understand theoretically but the deployment of then through any UI I have tried over the years seems overly complicated no matter how powerful it might be used by someone whose brain can adapt. It seems that mine does not.

This guy and his very clear teaching style might change your mind:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMrvLM ... PYQ/videos

Probably the absolutely best PS tutorial collection on the net.

I would not want C1 to have to totally change how it works in order to replicate the functionality of PS or Affinity nor would I want to pay the necessary additional costs that would surely come with expanding the product as an integrated suite.

If it's not fully integrated and still needs an intermediate file to get to the pixel pushing features - then why bother? That's more or less the same as already exists with the options to create files to be used in other applications.

I'm afraid the cat is out of the bag, as I stated in my initial post. Phase One has no choice but to keep adding features. It's what the market demands. What else can they do?

[Denyer]

I think y'all might have gone off on the deep end of this one...

One can select by colour. One could reasonably expect that within the identical mathematical framework used to determine those colour selections, that one could compute the inverse, with a tolerance cutoff, to implement colour shifts against regions with no or low colour. In the same breath, being able to apply an adjustment to regions based on a Saturation mask rather than a Luminosity mask also very useful and simple to implement within their existing UI and computation framework.

It's nothing to do with pixel based editing, which, IMO, Capture One should not veer towards.

[SFA]

I think y'all might have gone off on the deep end of this one...

One can select by colour. One could reasonably expect that within the identical mathematical framework used to determine those colour selections, that one could compute the inverse, with a tolerance cutoff, to implement colour shifts against regions with no or low colour. In the same breath, being able to apply an adjustment to regions based on a Saturation mask rather than a Luminosity mask also very useful and simple to implement within their existing UI and computation framework.

It's nothing to do with pixel based editing, which, IMO, Capture One should not veer towards.

I think it is probably a bit more of a challenge than that it you want to significantly change colour, using a colour editor, where none or very little, exists to change (White and black) are where the colours involved in the mid range of everything are likely to be represented in many places in the image.

In effect you can make the colour changes with C1. The difficulty is limiting the effect (when needed) without a unique colour value (or constrained colour range) to create a working "mask" or a an easy way to identify where a mask may be required (like a Luma mask that can be applied as a variable in its effect.)

The specific difficulty you posed in the original question ir that you need to colourise a grey background and the chances are that such a background would not be easy to deal with while at the same time offering a chance of a self defining mask - such as a Luma mask.

It might work on some images and not on others.

Even a regular mask effect on a layer and some very quick and dirty mask editing (image by image) might work on some images and not on others.

But the grey starting point is always going to be more of a challenge that might be better addressed by tools in pixel editing applications.

Or at least that is my impression.

Grant

[Irvin.Gomez]

I think it is probably a bit more of a challenge than that if you want to significantly change colour, using a colour editor, where none or very little, exists to change [...]

[...]a challenge that might be better addressed by tools in pixel editing applications.

That's the dilemma: should Capture One go into "Photoshop territory" or not?

I think it's inevitable, as users request this and that and there's a real risk they will go away if those features become mainstream for the competition.