Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

General discussion regarding photography practices and Capture One workflow as well as integration with third party applications.
Please DO NOT post to this thread regarding OS specific concerns or questions.
Forum rules
For the sake of being thorough, please remember to note if you are using Mac or Windows.
Hopefully this will keep any confusion to a minimum.

Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby peter.f » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:11 pm

I'm in the process of preparing a photo presentation for a remembrance celebration for a dear friend of mine. I get lots of pictures from many people and need to sort out the good ones (can't bother the participants with beaming underexposed and blurry pictures, can I?).

Now, some of these pictures are quite small: they go back to the beginning of consumer digital photography.

C1P marks such small pictures as read-only and they cannot be edited. Obviously, such small things must be garbage and not worthy of being touched by such a high-class program as C1P. OK, fair enough.

But why can't they be rated or tagged? No-one's asking to modify the file! There's a database behind it, right, to keep track of such things (well, sort of a database). This is just plain silly. It's even worse than not wanting to adjust the capture time.

And C1P is not even consistent with itself. On import, I use a style to color tag all images as yellow, meaning 'to be reviewed'. These small images are now tagged in yellow, and I can't change it anymore (maybe via another style). Where's the logic in that?

I admit, I have a love/hate relationship with C1P. Right now, the love is far way…

End of rant.

Peter.
X-T1, X100S; MBP 15" 2010, 8GB, OSX 10.11.4; Catalog on SSD, ref'd images on external USB2.
peter.f
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:38 pm
Location: Wilrijk, Belgium

Re: Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby brianmerwin » Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:50 pm

peter.f wrote:
C1P marks such small pictures as read-only and they cannot be edited. Obviously, such small things must be garbage and not worthy of being touched by such a high-class program as C1P. OK, fair enough.



Capture One doesn't mark images as read-only. If they're read only, it's something to do with the disk permissions in the directory that you're storing the images.

peter.f wrote:But why can't they be rated or tagged? No-one's asking to modify the file! There's a database behind it, right, to keep track of such things (well, sort of a database). This is just plain silly. It's even worse than not wanting to adjust the capture time.


Are you using Catalogs or Sessions? Do you have AutoSync Sidecar XMP enabled?

Depending on the file type and your settings the file may or may not be modified when you make ratings/color tags. Some file types use a sidecar file for metadata (which is what a rating/color tag is) and some write the changes to the file itself.

Again, this isn't a Capture One issue. It's a problem with disk permissions wherever you've got these image files stored.

Either Capture One has permission to write changes to the file or it doesn't - but if you want to update metadata, you need to make sure that C1 does have this permission.

If you continue to struggle with this, create a support ticket with the dev team. You'll get a more specific response, but I'm highly confident that the issue you're having is not Capture One's fault.
brianmerwin
Certified Professional
Certified Professional
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:59 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby John Doe » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:27 am

With all due respect: you're wrong. Capture One doesn't allow you to edit pictures under a certain size. That is well-known and has nothing to do with file permissions.
Sony DSC-RX100 - Capture One Pro 10.2.1 (macOS Sierra 10.12.6)
THIS IS A USER TO USER FORUM. FOR FEATURE REQUESTS AND BUG REPORTS, FILE A SUPPORT CASE AT https://www.phaseone.com/SupportMain.aspx
John Doe
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:15 pm

Re: Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby SFA » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:05 pm

John Doe wrote:With all due respect: you're wrong. Capture One doesn't allow you to edit pictures under a certain size. That is well-known and has nothing to do with file permissions.


V10 reduced the minimum size to 16px on the shortest side - which seems reasonable.
SFA
 
Posts: 4425
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:32 pm

Re: Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby HansB » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:38 pm

16px is what the release notes state. But images still have to be bigger than 512px short edge. It's not fixed yet (v10.0.2).


Regards,
Hans
HansB
 
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:59 pm

Re: Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby SFA » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:59 pm

HansB wrote:16px is what the release notes state. But images still have to be bigger than 512px short edge. It's not fixed yet (v10.0.2).


Regards,
Hans


Ah, OK.

I must say I don't personally find a need for small or ultra small images that I need to edit at that size.

Either away the observation needs to be version related for posterity - despite the potential for the problem still existing. Preumably at some point it will be altered in V10 but V9 will remain as it was.

Grant
SFA
 
Posts: 4425
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:32 pm

Re: Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby peter.f » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:03 pm

SFA wrote:I must say I don't personally find a need for small or ultra small images that I need to edit at that size.
Grant


You're right in that you normally would have no interest in editing such small images. But did you read my original post? I'm collecting images from a variety of sources for a slide show during a remembrance celebration for a good friend that died last year. Some of those images are technically inferior to anything we have now, but they are simply priceless for their emotional value. And many just need a few small adjustments, mainly white balance (auto-white balance has come a long way!).

But that main goal was to rate the many images I got (the slide show must be worth looking at). C1 doesn't allow me. Why on earth would a program decide that I have no right to rate an image (or a video, for that matter), even a small one. I find that very presumptuous.

Also note that it is technically possible to rate and color tag video's and such small images: C1 does it on import if you select a style that sets ratings and tags. So what's the excuse?

For posterity (learned another nice word, thanks!), take note that this issue was observed with Capture One Pro, build 9.3.0.69 for macOS.

Cheers,
Peter.

P.S. Brian, this has nothing to do with file permissions, as John has already stated. Some of the images are from the early days of digital camera's and are 640x480.

P.S. Grant, you're right, maybe I should have posted this in the v9 mac group. But AFAIK, the small-image-restriction is the same on Windows, so I didn't want to post it in a mac-only group.
X-T1, X100S; MBP 15" 2010, 8GB, OSX 10.11.4; Catalog on SSD, ref'd images on external USB2.
peter.f
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:38 pm
Location: Wilrijk, Belgium

Re: Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby SFA » Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:37 pm

peter.f wrote:
SFA wrote:I must say I don't personally find a need for small or ultra small images that I need to edit at that size.
Grant


You're right in that you normally would have no interest in editing such small images. But did you read my original post? I'm collecting images from a variety of sources for a slide show during a remembrance celebration for a good friend that died last year. Some of those images are technically inferior to anything we have now, but they are simply priceless for their emotional value. And many just need a few small adjustments, mainly white balance (auto-white balance has come a long way!).

But that main goal was to rate the many images I got (the slide show must be worth looking at). C1 doesn't allow me. Why on earth would a program decide that I have no right to rate an image (or a video, for that matter), even a small one. I find that very presumptuous.

Also note that it is technically possible to rate and color tag video's and such small images: C1 does it on import if you select a style that sets ratings and tags. So what's the excuse?

For posterity (learned another nice word, thanks!), take note that this issue was observed with Capture One Pro, build 9.3.0.69 for macOS.

Cheers,
Peter.

P.S. Brian, this has nothing to do with file permissions, as John has already stated. Some of the images are from the early days of digital camera's and are 640x480.

P.S. Grant, you're right, maybe I should have posted this in the v9 mac group. But AFAIK, the small-image-restriction is the same on Windows, so I didn't want to post it in a mac-only group.


I take the points you make Peter. However I do wonder if I would choose to use C1 for what you are doing.

Much as I like and enjoy using it, compared to other application that just do not gel with me for some reason, there are times when I might seek an alternative for a specific task. No I don't have one in mind ... but it would be a good excuse to try out some of the more "interesting" claims that some applications make about taking something small, low resolution (and often "noisy" to add to the fun) and making a masterpiece that will look good enlarged to the size of a wall on the end of a small house and viewed from 3 metres away.

(I may be exaggerating the claims slightly but sometimes such miracles appear to me implied! :wink: )


Grant
SFA
 
Posts: 4425
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:32 pm

Re: Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby peter.f » Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:35 pm

Hi Grant,

Why would I have to use another app to do what my main and known one is normally good at? I had already lots of pics in a c1 catalog, so why not add the ones I got from the others? I didn't know there were going to be small ones, and it shouldn't have mattered at all. And why are people seeking excuses for the quirks of a rather expensive program?

I now used Lightroom and it did the job in notime at all. (And in doing so, I again appreciated the ease of the gradient and elliptical mask. It's a bit too easy!)

And yes, the image will be pixelated, but I and the others won't mind, I can guarantee you!

Peter.
X-T1, X100S; MBP 15" 2010, 8GB, OSX 10.11.4; Catalog on SSD, ref'd images on external USB2.
peter.f
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:38 pm
Location: Wilrijk, Belgium

Re: Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby Eric Nepean » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:28 am

I have the same problem. I collect pictures from a group of canoeists to make travelogs of wilderness trips.

Although they know I prefer the larger ones, sometimes the only images available are the small ones. Quite often they are 720 or 640 on the long side and the short side is just under 500.

It's extremely inconvenient when you can't change the metadata, the rating or the color tag; that at least would let one efficiently highlight the small ones and search for a larger equivalent.

One workaround that I have found is to add a black border to the images with Pixelamator to bring the size up to 512.
Cheers
Eric
(OSX 10.12, iMac and MacBook Air, Panasonic GX7,GM5,G5, Olympus E-M1)
Eric Nepean
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby SFA » Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:32 pm

Peter,

I can see your point again but then C1 is aiming to be the very best it can for high end RAW file processing and phase puts its efforts and skills into that activity in preference to elsewhere.

It is abundantly clear from webinars and observations in the forum along with the content of blog posts from both crew and guests that they fully expect people to be using other applications as part of their work flow.

And of course there is always Media Pro to refer to as a way to achieve certain things that C1 does not currently do. It's not so much a matter of functional design philosophy, I suspect. More a case of priorities for resource allocation.

On the other hand I can imagine a whole raft of users complaining that the results that can be delivered from edits of tiny files blown up to wall size are "not what they expect from "professional" editor software" and so kick of another round of heated discussions.

Yes I appreciate that neither you nor Eric need or expect miracles of presentation but you can bet that others will.

"If other low cost products can do it why not the more expensive ones?" is a continuing mantra on internet forums. Although we don't often see proof of the claims.

But beyond that my main point is that I don't think anyone has ever claimed that C1 is the best possible resource for a slide show even for images generated within C1.

Yes it can do a job creating a slide show but there are a host of alternatives out there that will deal with files of all sizes and take files from many sources, including any that may have been produced in C1 (of course).

Using one of those would overcome the problem would it not?

All I am try to suggest is that I think one's blood pressure is better served in these situations by taking the opportunity to look for a solution that is likely to be a better overall result given that one knows that the tool of choice is not the best one for the job. That said I fully appreciate that we all prefer to work with tools that we know and feel comfortable (or at least partly comfortable) with.

Just a short additional observation.

This last week I met someone who is a software application product manager for a data analysis system developer.

We got talking about the the challenges of making life easy for non-technical people who have expert data content knowledge to get at the corporate date their employer has stored in order to do something useful with it.

I mentioned the challenge that I had discovered when I downloaded a small set of data tables (the only way that seemed to be available at the time) from a well known CRM vendor. There were about 40 tables in the set, in our case most of them empty when one had the opportunity to look inside. Our data requirements are really simple, the application, even in its simplest form, is far more than we need.

The product manager has some 20 years or more experience working throughout the industry. Her observation was that the application was indeed pretty awful compared to how it could be but all of the others that are commercially available are much worse.

I was surprised by that comment at the time but then, thinking about it, it's hardly something to be surprised about.

Our needs are much simpler than the major vendors offer or aspire to. We should probably look for something simpler and without the baggage of a whole load of functionality that is potentially useful and valid for many larger clients but irrelevant to us for the number of times were are likely to use it.

Meanwhile I have been using another of my favourite software tools to stitch the data back together - when I have worked out what matches up to what from the separate tables. Quite why there was not a simply aggregated download option I'm not sure. Maybe there is if one is on the higher tariffs.

Sorry to drift OT from C1 but scenario is somewhat related (I think). There can be widespread disappointment with functionality across all applications depending on what one is trying to do.

Grant
SFA
 
Posts: 4425
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:32 pm

Re: Can't rate 'read-only' images. How stupid is that?

Postby jstenner » Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:14 pm

I discovered this limitation after finally deciding to fully migrate terabytes of images from Aperture to C1. Some of the libraries I use for reference or research work are 640 x 480 or so. I posted this issue here:
https://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=25647

As much as I despise Adobe products, if the attitude is that "we're gonna limit your ability to work with your files" because we privilege RAW editing, I'll have no choice but to use LR. I get LR as part of CC and yet I made the choice to invest time and money in C1. No one is asking for new functionality here, just the removal of a limit. Right now, I feel like I'm being stranded (yet again) because of someone's arbitrary choices...and no, I'm not going to complicate my already busy life by introducing yet another software package that does one thing and might leave me stranded.
jstenner
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 10:56 pm


Return to Workflow and Common Photography Exploration



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests