Layer madness

Discussions, questions, comments and suggestions regarding Capture One PRO, Capture One PRO For Sony / Fujifilm, Capture One for Phase One and Capture One Express For Sony / For Fujifilm 20.x for Mac

Re: Layer madness

Postby Horseoncowboy » Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:16 pm

Graant,

for every set of images with the very same content masks and layers have to be linked. so I almost never have the case that I want to copy just a single layer. but when some of the layers seem to work with a new set of images too I start by copying the whole stack of layers and masks to the first image of the groupe and adjust delete or add layers and masks as needed.
Last edited by Horseoncowboy on Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Horseoncowboy
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:31 pm

Re: Layer madness

Postby Horseoncowboy » Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:27 pm

Keith Reeder wrote:
Horseoncowboy wrote: I very much think working with layers should be easy for everyone, for those who never process more than a handful of images and those who need to work with a few hundred and a lot of layers especially when a software is featured as the best "professional" tool.

And I very much think that you should be using software specifically designed to do the kind of work you apparently do, instead of expecting Phase One (and everyone else) to bend to your personal preferences and make Capture One into a PhotoShop substitute.


maybe I´m wrong but I have always thought this software specifically designed to apply the same settings to other images is c1 ? seems you have forgotten that till c1 12 it worked that way and LR does the same till today . what changed is that c1 behaves now more like PS but when you copy a layer in PS it adds at least "copy" to the name...
Horseoncowboy
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:31 pm

Re: Layer madness

Postby SFA » Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:05 pm

Horseoncowboy wrote:Graant,

for every set of images with the very same content masks and layers have to be linked. so I almost never have the case that I want to copy just a single layer. but when some of the layers seem to work with a new set of images too I start by copying the whole stack of layers and masks to the first image of the groupe and adjust delete or add layers and masks as needed.


I get that and often do the same though not so often for the sort of numbers of images you are dealing with and sometimes I don't use all of the layers.

However a "layer", in C1 terms, is a combination of a set of adjustments from one or more tools and a mask that defines where and to some extent how the adjustment tools are to be applied.

The tools, individually and collectively can be applied to more layers, possibly with different images, without a mask (will not appear to make a difference!) and a mask can be added later. Or a mask might be applied to a layer and the tools added later.

I have another system that creates tool stacks where each tool entry has its adjustment data and mask contained as a group with (theoretically) unlimited instances of edits for any and each tool all stacked into a set of edits. Their design of stack calculates differently - moving things in the stack can give significantly different results - but in essence the objective is similar. The big difference is that the adjustments and the mask travel together for each adjustment in the stack, unlike C1 where adjustments and mask are separate.

As they ARE separate it seems to me there may be a case for proposing separate copy control options for tools and masks. Normally they would travel together. Sometimes moving them individually might be the more efficient approach.


Grant
SFA
 
Posts: 7725
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:32 pm

Re: Layer madness

Postby Horseoncowboy » Mon Dec 16, 2019 10:39 am

SFA wrote:As they ARE separate it seems to me there may be a case for proposing separate copy control options for tools and masks. Normally they would travel together. Sometimes moving them individually might be the more efficient approach.


Grant


good point ! I would for sure use this but in general I think raw converter have already become much to complex, the avalanche of presets and styles are a clear indicator that user are overwhelmed . over the years only more and more tools had been added to mask the core issue of every raw converter: they are still unable to transform the captured data, today even with sufficient dynamic range , easy into something close to human vision without much interaction . my use of layer and masks in c1 only tries to compensate for this deficit, the creative editing follows later in PS with better tools and options. so it is no surprise that every layer tutorial uses a landscape image where the instructor adds a layer / mask to make it look closer to reality , I find it very sad that we still have to do this and nobody revolts. photoninja is the only converter I’m aware of which offers an adaptive approach with sometimes surprisingly good results but it seems development has stopped but i´m convinced others will follow, luminar seems on the right track for example. for professional user I can also see the advantage of 32bit workflows where only basic adjustments are made at the raw stage and the rest is done in an full featured image editor like affinity photo, adobe will also make more tools useable in ps with 32bit.
Horseoncowboy
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:31 pm

Re: Layer madness

Postby Mark492 » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:46 am

ericstaud wrote:I prefer the previous version of copy and paste. I only use copy and paste to match ALL the settings from one image to another. Once I've made adjustments to my primary image I copy and paste those settings to the other images. If I go back and make a change to the primary image, I copy and paste again. Then maybe I'll make another change and then copy and paste again. With the new tool behavior, each time I copy and paste settings, the layers double on all but my primary image.

With the new behavior, I must first select all the secondary images, Reset Layers adjustments, then paste from the primary. Not the end of the world, but definitely more steps to get to the same outcome.



This. The new systems sucks and has added a bunch of extra steps to my workflow. I appreciate that some people like it, but surely a checkbox in the preferences as to whether you want this or not would be sensible? There are some other adjustment pasting issues as well - if you apply a style, it makes the copying and pasting of adjustments very flaky. There's also a weird issue where it only applies the compositional adjustments on the second time you paste - which means all the layers double up. It's a mess.
Mark492
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: Layer madness

Postby Mark492 » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:52 am

IanL wrote:LOL no one can with us photogs :-)

A couple of points. First while I appreciate that this change effects people who were making use of the previous behaviour, it should be noted that the new behaviour means that people that want to add layers can and those that want to replace layers still can (agreed with a small amount of more work). The old way basically blocked adding layers. The workaround involved creating temporary styles to apply to new layers to creating layers manually and figuring out what adjustments to copy and paste over.

Sorry they moved your cheese but there is no successful argument that this is worse than the old way!

On the subject of preferences or options etc. to put the old way back. I, personally, am against that. How many preferences are they going to be to revert new behaviour to old behaviour? At some point will we ask them to bundle them up into a single setting "make the product old again"?

They moved the cheese. Learn the new cheese location - it's not that different - we can all learn it.

I my not so humble opinion :)


So you're saying that we should have to do loads of extra work because you like it better the new way, and that there should be no way to turn this stupid 'feature' off? You clearly don't have deadlines or commercial pressures. Must be nice...
Mark492
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: Layer madness

Postby Mark492 » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:55 am

Horseoncowboy wrote:
IanL wrote:
Ian3 wrote:No, I suppose what I am saying is that if the situation were the opposite way round (so that it used to add extra layers but had now changed to replacing existing layers) work could be lost. At least this way round, if you find the new way it works annoying, at least your work is not over-written.


A point that has been made a few times now. He disagrees so adamantly that he is not really paying attention to that clear fact that the new way can be made to work for people that want to replace exiting layers and those that wan to add them. But the way it was could only satisfy those that want to replace exiting layers.


the argument you can make it work is theoretically BS and tells me you have no first hand practical experience. yes of course you can make it work, when you think wasting time to delete hundreds of useless layers with the same name every time you made a change of the layer settings is great. I very much think working with layers should be easy for everyone, for those who never process more than a handful of images and those who need to work with a few hundred and a lot of layers especially when a software is featured as the best "professional" tool.



This.
Mark492
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: Layer madness

Postby Emile » Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:35 pm

If C1 would just present a dialog box asking wether it should replace or duplicate layers with the same name during a paste operation most of the grievances would be over I think. I also think that makes more sense than adding a preference checkbox. I’ll put in a request. Gives me a chance to experience the new customer support workflow too :D
Emile
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Layer madness

Postby Mark492 » Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:33 pm

Emile wrote:If C1 would just present a dialog box asking wether it should replace or duplicate layers with the same name during a paste operation most of the grievances would be over I think. I also think that makes more sense than adding a preference checkbox. I’ll put in a request. Gives me a chance to experience the new customer support workflow too :D


Exactly this. Although a checkbox in the preferences would mean you only have to do it once, rather than every time.
Mark492
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: Layer madness

Postby IanL » Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:20 pm

Mark492 wrote:So you're saying that we should have to do loads of extra work because you like it better the new way, and that there should be no way to turn this stupid 'feature' off? You clearly don't have deadlines or commercial pressures. Must be nice...


No, I'm saying that claiming they messed up the UI and failed to test and reading the the cowboy wrote his posts is way way over the top. I can totally see that there is an issue and I would never have written my response the way I did if it wasn't for the ridiculous arrogance that was on display by the cowboy. I'm only human and I'll try not to continue in that vein - please don't take offence to what I wrote to you in the other thread.

Yes, I agree that tweaking the UI could make things work for everyone. I sincerely hope they do.
User avatar
IanL
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:24 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Layer madness

Postby Mark492 » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:41 pm

No worries, I think that would be a good compromise...
Mark492
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: Layer madness

Postby NN635680879799322049UL » Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:45 pm

Mark492 wrote:... the the cowboy wrote his posts is way way over the top.


The name is "Horseoncowboy," so the Horse (on the cowboy) is the one you want to show as being over the top. The cowboy is merely carrying the horse and its message. Same message, different perspective.

Just trying to inject some humor,

Jerry C
NN635680879799322049UL
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 7:12 pm

Re: Layer madness

Postby Emile » Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:20 am

So I sent in a request for a dialog box plus some other improvements and got an answer (as in: an actual human took an effort) in less than 12 hours. I’ll let the world decide whether that’s quick or not - before you know it you’re an apologist these days.

Anyway, it’s on their list. Doesn’t mean they’ll do anything about it, but at least it’s there. If you want half a chance at their doing anything about it, send in a feature request as well.

Have a great day,
Emile
Emile
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Layer madness

Postby Corin » Wed Jan 29, 2020 1:49 pm

A few things that have surprised me, and some thoughts:

1. The whole management and synchronisation of layers between images has never been perfect. But it is powerful.
2. I remember being frustrated at being unable to copy/add layers from one to another properly in older versions when I started using layers. But I got used to working with it.
3. I was surprised when the such a significant way of handling copy/paste in layers CHANGED. Not "Improved" but fundamentally changed. When a core function in a workflow changes then it going to cause frustration and annoyance. This is clear from some of the replies in this post. I believe this was quite a big oversight and it brings into question how the developers beta test - if they had beta tested with photographers, like myself, who work with large numbers of images and do a lot of back/forward on colour matching/grading etc., then it would have been flagged. But the current system would suggest that the developers are still quite firmly focused on a single image-single edit workflow. But this is only an opinion/thought, I've science to back that up.
4. Because this change was so 'workflow' altering it has cost me time. Quite a bit. I've spent at least a day figuring how to change my super fast workflow to work with the new system. That could have been avoided with a simple Layers handling preference tab. Legacy option perhaps?
5. C1 is still an amazing tool. I hope their beta testing takes on a more robust approach which represents a more diverse group of photographers/workflows. Yes, I'm annoyed with this change and the time it cost, but I'll get over it.
6. Belated Happy New Year.
Corin
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Layer madness

Postby SFA » Wed Jan 29, 2020 2:29 pm

Corin wrote:A few things that have surprised me, and some thoughts:

1. The whole management and synchronisation of layers between images has never been perfect. But it is powerful.
2. I remember being frustrated at being unable to copy/add layers from one to another properly in older versions when I started using layers. But I got used to working with it.
3. I was surprised when the such a significant way of handling copy/paste in layers CHANGED. Not "Improved" but fundamentally changed. When a core function in a workflow changes then it going to cause frustration and annoyance. This is clear from some of the replies in this post. I believe this was quite a big oversight and it brings into question how the developers beta test - if they had beta tested with photographers, like myself, who work with large numbers of images and do a lot of back/forward on colour matching/grading etc., then it would have been flagged. But the current system would suggest that the developers are still quite firmly focused on a single image-single edit workflow. But this is only an opinion/thought, I've science to back that up.
4. Because this change was so 'workflow' altering it has cost me time. Quite a bit. I've spent at least a day figuring how to change my super fast workflow to work with the new system. That could have been avoided with a simple Layers handling preference tab. Legacy option perhaps?
5. C1 is still an amazing tool. I hope their beta testing takes on a more robust approach which represents a more diverse group of photographers/workflows. Yes, I'm annoyed with this change and the time it cost, but I'll get over it.
6. Belated Happy New Year.



Public beta testing is self elective. So if the people with the need don't register and turn up then things may not be reported. But in this instance it seems it all goes back to the initial requirements discussions and the resulting design concept.

That said I do wonder whether there are other developments related to batch processing that could be created to make this entire functional area far more effective. Especially the sort of things that a feature like Normalize might be expected to address.

Whether a broad base of working pros with batch processing needs could be recruited to act as beta testers and actually undertake the work is probably a question that needs to be discussed.

Just my thoughts.

Grant
SFA
 
Posts: 7725
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:32 pm

Previous

Return to Capture One 20.x Software for Mac



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron