[gatorguy]

Thanks for the information on Capture One.

I have not used PS or LR for many years because of their pricing structure and have been looking for an alternative. I have recently been using a program called PhotoDirector from Cyberlink and it is okay, but of course not as sophisticated as some high end programs. I do some stitching now and then and Capture One does that as well. I found out that Luminar does not do stitching and they said that they might add that feature later.

I think it may be in V.4 slated for release in a few weeks? They're dribbling out official announcements of upgrade stuff and offering various "limited time" specials which seems a little dishonest because they aren't, but FWIW it looks like the new version of Luminar may be a worthy one for common PP needs.

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 10-07-2019 at 11:27 AM.

[Class A]

I do some stitching now and then and Capture One does that as well.

?

Capture One does not support stitching. Maybe you are confusing it with another piece of software when it comes to stitching?

BTW, an excellent stitching software is ICE by Microsoft. Photoshop does not produces results as good (but supports manual correction).

[gatorguy]

?

Capture One does not support stitching. Maybe you are confusing it with another piece of software when it comes to stitching?

BTW, an excellent stitching software is ICE by Microsoft. Photoshop does not produces results as good (but supports manual correction.

Thanks for pointing out MS ICE. I'm not familiar with it but seeing as you've endorsed it I certainly will have a look now.

[PDL]

What issues do you mean?

They had shoddy camera profiles for the K-5 and K-3 but these have been replaced.
I think the K-1 profile could be much better and I don't believe they've put any effort into it at all. However, this can be addressed by using the color editor and one can even create one's own camera profile using the color editor.

Besides profiles, (a non-issue for me since X-Rite allows me to create custom icc profiles now) Capture One does a very poor job (meaning nothing) with "camera lens", body serial number and some, but not all, of the owner information. When I add in city, state, country, location metadata using third party tools (since I have to update "camera lens" in ExiftTool why not update location Exif information) Capture One ignores all non "camera lens" metadata. Capture One does nothing at all with Pixel Shift - something I have been requesting for over four years. (I started asking for this feature before I bought my K-3II).

ExifTool code:
exiftool -overwrite_original "-exif:LensModel < ${Composite:LensID}"
This code will work on the Pentax Lenses I have, but not my old manual 300mm lens, my 8mm fisheye nor my Tokina 28-75mm. I use ExifToolGUI to set these, but that tool has not been updated for the last few years and most likely it will die soon, especially since Google changed their map interface tool.

From a service request:
"We offer equal support for Pentax 35mm DSLR, it is simply the 645d and 645z which we do not support." dated 2015-11-20.
This statement is still false.

I have used Capture One since version 5 (2010) and I have sent in update requests since then to have them pay more attention to Pentax. Given that they do not support the 645Z in any shape or form, I reiterate, Capture One has issues with Pentax and for the most part - they don't care.

Now before you go all anti-rant on me, I use Capture One almost exclusively as my primary Post Process software. I only use LR (with broken Google maps) because it is on my very underpowered laptop from 2008 that I take on long vacations, as the laptop does not have either the horsepower or screen real-estate to run Capture One worth a darn. (It is v6.14 - perpetual license) From my perspective, CO beats LR with a blunt, heavy stick, but it does have issues with Pentax.

---

Last edited by PDL; 10-07-2019 at 04:11 PM.

[wings]

?

Capture One does not support stitching. Maybe you are confusing it with another piece of software when it comes to stitching?

BTW, an excellent stitching software is ICE by Microsoft. Photoshop does not produces results as good (but supports manual correction).

I contacted them directly and they said that they do support stitching.

[ThorSanchez]

?

Capture One does not support stitching. Maybe you are confusing it with another piece of software when it comes to stitching?

BTW, an excellent stitching software is ICE by Microsoft. Photoshop does not produces results as good (but supports manual correction).

But then you have to run Windows, and who wants to put themselves through that?

[morenjavi]

CaptureOne 12 and Affinity Photo

I have it too. Great combo. I have been a Lightroom user during years, but I keept in 4.4 version, LR5, LR6 and so were slower. Compared to LR, C1 have some advantages to me, just to mention some:

* faster, importing, editing, exporting... it saves me a lot of time
* way better rendering. Nicer RAW rendering, and the most important, a RAW just imported on C1 is good, you need way less editing compared to LR, so it saves time here too
* the color editor is terrific
* normalize funtion is great

I needed some time to get used to C1, but now I just can't come back.

Affinity photo can be added to the workflow with C1. I use the TIFF format with AP, so I can work with layers and save the TIFF file including the layers. This way I can see the file in C1 but also can continue editing later in AP if needed.

Good luck.

[Class A]

I contacted them directly and they said that they do support stitching.

Perhaps they can point out how to do it or where this is documented?

From the online help

"When you need to make highly-specific image modifications, such as advanced retouching, stitching or stacking, you can select an external editor or a standalone plug-in for Capture One to use."

I understand they supported stitching in versions 2 and 3. The current version is 12.

[Class A]

...Capture One does a very poor job (meaning nothing) with "camera lens", body serial number and some, but not all, of the owner information.

Agreed.

It sucks that C1 does not read out the lens name; it wouldn't take much to implement it.

Capture One ignores all non "camera lens" metadata.

Hmmh, that's definitely not true. I can see quite a bit of metadata information, e.g. all the shooting parameters, the copyright and creator info, the camera model, focal length, etc.

Capture One does nothing at all with Pixel Shift

Yes, but LR's implementation is not that useful either. It doesn't cope with any movement whatsoever (unless they fixed it in the meantime).

something I have been requesting for over four years.

I don't think they'll ever budge on this one.

The common hypothesis is that Phase One want to sell their MF cameras and hence don't want to make FF cameras better than they already are.
Another reason could just be that the return (additional sales) is not worth the effort they would have to put in to make it work well.

This code will work on the Pentax Lenses I have, but not my old manual 300mm lens, my 8mm fisheye nor my Tokina 28-75mm.

Not trying to defend C1 at all cost but these issues could be caused by Pentax. Pentax cameras don't support very focal lengths like 8mm. The Tokina may have an incorrect or missing lens ID. Maybe it's fine, but the issue with low focal lengths definitely also exists in LR.

Capture One has issues with Pentax and for the most part - they don't care.

I don't think they "don't care". It seems more likely that they don't regard it as a good investment to put in work for the small Pentax customer base they have.

I'm not a Phase One apologist -- I've made many feature suggestions myself and have been vocal about how the preview quality is lacking sometimes ("Proof" mode alleviates that but shouldn't be required) or how image "variants" are not nearly as useful as LR's "virtual copies" -- I'm just not convinced they have any beef with Pentax.

[PDL]

Hmmh, that's definitely not true. I can see quite a bit of metadata information, e.g. all the shooting parameters, the copyright and creator info, the camera model, focal length, etc.

You misunderstand what I mean. When I add City, State, Country, Location to my images in ExifToolGUI - Capture One ignores that information. Exposure information is not modified. And yes, copyright information is carried over (it is a default on my K-3II but I have to add it in using other tools for my other bodies) My point is that I want this information to be embedded into the RAW file, not just some arbitrary location in the catalogue. I have had yearly issue requests into Phase One for catalogues losing data and also keeping incorrect data forever.

Where is the lens serial number that Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, Sony - ad nauseum - have?

---------- Post added 10-08-19 at 06:29 PM ----------

Yes, but LR's implementation is not that useful either. It doesn't cope with any movement whatsoever (unless they fixed it in the meantime).

My version of LR does not do pixel shift, so it is moot. I only have DCU and I do not use that more than once or twice a year - if that.

---------- Post added 10-08-19 at 06:32 PM ----------

I don't think they'll ever budge on this one.

This comment was about pixel shift, if anything, they will implement it for Sony before anyone else.

---------- Post added 10-08-19 at 06:40 PM ----------

The common hypothesis is that Phase One want to sell their MF cameras and hence don't want to make FF cameras better than they already are.
Another reason could just be that the return (additional sales) is not worth the effort they would have to put in to make it work well.

Excuse me?
Is that why Capture One supports the high megapixel - lets see - Nikon @ 45, Canon @ 50, Sony @ 60, Fuji @ 50-100 (medium format no less) - cameras? Full on with tethering, custom profiles and with the Fuji's - film simulations? I question your assumptions on this tidbit.
As for sales, they could make a bit more money, if they just let Pentax users get in on the game.

---------- Post added 10-08-19 at 06:47 PM ----------

Not trying to defend C1 at all cost but these issues could be caused by Pentax. Pentax cameras don't support very focal lengths like 8mm. The Tokina may have an incorrect or missing lens ID. Maybe it's fine, but the issue with low focal lengths definitely also exists in LR.

Eh? All of my Pentax cameras with SR support my 8mm fisheye - what are you talking about. The focal length in the metadata is provided by me - and it is the same with my 300m Vivitar. The Tokina is recognized in Pentax Metadata as a Pentax 28-70mm - that is what ExifTool breaks out the Pentax code as. I simply change the name from smc Pentax to Tokina. Yes, that is a Pentax problem, but it is easily fixed - long before Capture One gets ahold of the images.

---------- Post added 10-08-19 at 06:55 PM ----------

I don't think they "don't care". It seems more likely that they don't regard it as a good investment to put in work for the small Pentax customer base they have.

You may be correct on this point, but if after those of us who have been requesting non 645 "fixes" for Pentax bodies for multiple YEARS to no effect. To me, they just do not care.
Now that said, I have been a regular webinar user and on those occasions where I have asked questions about common features available to other brands but not Pentax, when asked what brand I shoot with the answer is always the same, along the lines of:
Wait
What
Really
[Fill in the word of choice from above] you shoot Pentax?
There is usually a pause and then something along the lines of "we (the support team) will send your request off to the development team - thank you and have a good day." After which all I get is a closed case and crickets... If you catch my drift.

---------- Post added 10-08-19 at 07:08 PM ----------

I'm not a Phase One apologist -- I've made many feature suggestions myself and have been vocal about how the preview quality is lacking sometimes ("Proof" mode alleviates that but shouldn't be required) or how image "variants" are not nearly as useful as LR's "virtual copies" -- I'm just not convinced they have any beef with Pentax.

There are two types of "variants" and yes they are virtually identical to LR's "virtual copies". (see what I did there?) On both platforms the RAW data are not touched (except where Adobe writes garbage into DNG files) and all of the modified information is written into the catalogue.
Preview quality is selectable in preferences - not a problem - for me at least.

Where we disagree is, I don't think Capture One/Phase One really cares about Pentax users. Our reputation, somewhat justified, for being a group of grumbling old angry people as exemplified by "Tony and Chelsey" - DPR etc. and anyone else who disses the brand has carried over to Phase One. I am sure that with the release of the 645D, Phase One saw that as a direct competitor and made their mind up. Unfortunately, Capture One's management has let that attitude fall on to the non 645 bodies as well.

Now, for a solution to this ----- ?

Please, please oh pretty please Ricoh - Sell the Pentax brand to Phase One. That will cure our ills. (I know this will never happen, but I don't think Phase One would drop the ball as many times as Ricoh has)

[Class A]

When I add City, State, Country, Location to my images in ExifToolGUI - Capture One ignores that information.

That's not good.

Perhaps the information needs to go into another section?

If the information is not stored in the manufacturer notes then C1 ought to read it. Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps it only reads such data from the manufacturer notes of other cameras. I don't know.

Is that why Capture One supports the high megapixel - lets see - Nikon @ 45, Canon @ 50, Sony @ 60, Fuji @ 50-100 (medium format no less) - cameras?

It doesn't support PixelShift for them, does it?

Anyhow, it seems they struck a deal with Sony and Fuji because they are offering specialised (cheaper with less functionality) versions for those brands. So the fact that they support the Fuji MF camera isn't surprising.

As for sales, they could make a bit more money, if they just let Pentax users get in on the game.

I'm not sure that is true.

First, there aren't that many.
Second, you and I bought the license regardless of the few shortcomings.
Would they really earn more, if they fixed these issues?

I'm not defending them. Of course, they should ideally make some small changes to make a big difference to us. I'm just trying to see their perspective and am assuming that they've got a lot of other things on their hands (such as coming up with new functionality like the luminosity masking).

BTW, I didn't upgrade to C1 12, did you?

All of my Pentax cameras with SR support my 8mm fisheye - what are you talking about.

I'm talking about the fact that Pentax cameras do not record the focal length of very wide angle lenses in the EXIF data.

The focal length in the metadata is provided by me - and it is the same with my 300m Vivitar.

In this case, it seems odd that it isn't read by C1. After all it reads focal length for other lenses. Again, maybe the data needs to go into a different field, or it trips up about something else.

Now that said, I have been a regular webinar user and on those occasions where I have asked questions about common features available to other brands but not Pentax, when asked what brand I shoot with the answer is always the same, along the lines of:
Wait
What
Really

Well, David Grover is not a Pentax user, is he?

I don't doubt that he passes the information on to the software team, but the tickets probably end up where similar user-submitted tickets go: At the bottom of a tall pile. I've submitted many tickets myself. Some are attended to, some (fewer) are not. They are prioritising. I always encourage other users to create their own tickets because Phase One states that they prioritise the requests/bug fixes depending on demand (i.e., number of people making the same point).

N.B., my experience with Phase One customer support is infinitely better than with Adobe. Adobe ignored all my suggestions for improvement, even though they were backed by tons of other users. Phase One, implemented a *lot* of my feature suggestions. I can't claim that they did it only for me, I'm sure there were others that had similar requests, but the amount of features they added that I requested via support tickets, is simply amazing.

There are two types of "variants"

Which two types do you mean?

I only know one type in C1.

Preview quality is selectable in preferences - not a problem - for me at least.

You can select the size of the preview image, but not quality attributes like post-sharpening, denoising, etc.

The standard Viewer display is too fuzzy and they make shortcuts, such as not applying full noise reduction. Many times this is not a huge issue but now and then an image looks really out of focus until one zooms in or uses the "Proof" mode to see that there is nothing wrong with the image. I hope they keep working on the preview quality because right now it is only somewhat acceptable but not really on par with the quality of the rest of the software.

Please, please oh pretty please Ricoh - Sell the Pentax brand to Phase One.

Now that would be an interesting experiment!

Of course, if Phase One wanted to branch out into selling enthusiast DSLRs (which they probably don't) then this could work well. However, have you looked at Phase One pricing for their cameras? I don't think you'd still get a Pentax DSLR for anywhere near the same money as you do now.

[morenjavi]

When I add City, State, Country, Location to my images in ExifToolGUI - Capture One ignores that information.

I admit that since I acquired the C1 license I have not geotagged any photo or put any of location data manually. I will try it. Do you add this metadata info before or after you imported the picture in C1 ?

[PDL]

I admit that since I acquired the C1 license I have not geotagged any photo or put any of location data manually. I will try it. Do you add this metadata info before or after you imported the picture in C1 ?

My workflow:

1. Take the picture - DUH
2. At the end of the day/project - copy the SD contents to my portable SSD or to my Wolverine Flashpac.
3. After the end of the day - copy to SSD or external drive.
4. Once back at home, copy the SSD content or Wolverine content to my desktop.
5. Open ExifToolGUI and run the macro to copy lens information to exif:LensModel tag.
6. Where the lens is not a Pentax, I manually copy the Lens Name where necessary.
7. I move to Location Info tab and enter City, Provence, Country and Location as necessary
8. If the GPS failed to obtain a lock, then I manual input GPS even though ExifToolGUI is using Google Maps with its broken interface.
9. After all this folderol, I copy the modified RAW files to my NAS.
10. After the copy is complete - I open Capture One and either import the images to an existing catalogue or create a new one as required.

Note:

1. I am using a K-3II these days so GPS is always on.
2. Google broke the interface, on purpose, so ExifToolGUI maps, Lightroom v6.14 maps and default GeoSetter maps don't work all that well.
3. This important part is, all of these modifications are completed before I open Capture One. In most - but not all - cases if you change EXIF information after importing into Capture One, it will ignore those changes unless you do a pain in the backside fiddle with the information. I use the above process before opening Lightroom too. I use Lightroom to do panoramas and when I am in the field (i.e. vacation) my old PC I take with me will not run Capture One and it does not do panorama's anyway.

---------- Post added 10-09-19 at 02:40 PM ----------

It doesn't support PixelShift for them, does it?

Anyhow, it seems they struck a deal with Sony and Fuji because they are offering specialised (cheaper with less functionality) versions for those brands. So the fact that they support the Fuji MF camera isn't surprising.

You are conflating my comments with pixel shift. The comment was in reference to yours about not wanting to support high megapixel 135 format cameras to not support better image quality.
i.e. "The common hypothesis is that Phase One want to sell their MF cameras and hence don't want to make FF cameras better than they already are.
Another reason could just be that the return (additional sales) is not worth the effort they would have to put in to make it work well.

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/32-digital-processing-software-printing/388628-photo-editing-software-4.html#ixzz61tZnhROf"

---------- Post added 10-09-19 at 02:48 PM ----------

BTW, I didn't upgrade to C1 12, did you?

Yes I did, currently running v12.1.3 and yes they did add a few Pentax Lenses into their List, but the support is extremely weak.

---------- Post added 10-09-19 at 02:54 PM ----------

I'm talking about the fact that Pentax cameras do not record the focal length of very wide angle lenses in the EXIF data.

My ultra wide angle (8mm fisheye) is a manual focus so I have to enter the focal length, just like my late 70's era Vivitar 300mm and my Rokinon 85mm. I have to enter the focal length for these lenses as they do not support auto-focus. The focal length is embedded in the metadata. On the Vivitar, the f/stop is not recorded so I have to enter that too.

[PDL]

Well, David Grover is not a Pentax user, is he?

I don't doubt that he passes the information on to the software team, but the tickets probably end up where similar user-submitted tickets go: At the bottom of a tall pile. I've submitted many tickets myself. Some are attended to, some (fewer) are not. They are prioritising. I always encourage other users to create their own tickets because Phase One states that they prioritise the requests/bug fixes depending on demand (i.e., number of people making the same point).

N.B., my experience with Phase One customer support is infinitely better than with Adobe. Adobe ignored all my suggestions for improvement, even though they were backed by tons of other users. Phase One, implemented a *lot* of my feature suggestions. I can't claim that they did it only for me, I'm sure there were others that had similar requests, but the amount of features they added that I requested via support tickets, is simply amazing.

David is not the issue. I was not clear with my comments - it was the service people who I have had email and voice communications with who are "Shocked" when they hear someone is using Pentax. Other than the patronizing attitude their support team has been helpful. I have even shipped catalogues and logs back to them of several occasions. Once their recommendation was to delete the catalogue and recreate it - losing edits on over 8K of images. That did not go over so well.

Which two types do you mean?

I only know one type in C1.

Two types, basically a clone of the original (before edits) and a clone of the edited original. Two variant types.
Also, if you move the image from our standard location and embed it into the catalogue - that can be seen as another variant - similar to "managed copies".

You can select the size of the preview image, but not quality attributes like post-sharpening, denoising, etc.

The standard Viewer display is too fuzzy and they make shortcuts, such as not applying full noise reduction. Many times this is not a huge issue but now and then an image looks really out of focus until one zooms in or uses the "Proof" mode to see that there is nothing wrong with the image. I hope they keep working on the preview quality because right now it is only somewhat acceptable but not really on par with the quality of the rest of the software.

This is pretty much untrue. When you are looking at the preview in the browser, you are using the profiles as defined by Capture One - you can change/manage that profile by creating your own. When you click on the small image in order to "develop it", for lack of a better term, all of the attributes of the canned profile are applied. If fact there are several pundits who complain about that because CO profiles are not the "same" as Adobe's. CO basically adds more sharpening, contrast and saturation than adobe. So in DPR's words, they "cook" the image. If you do not like how it is, there are tutorials out there on how to create your own personal profile for your camera and apply it on import.

If you want to see what is really going on, just follow the steps to create a non-profiled image using the X-Rite ColorChecker so you can create your own custom icc file. A good over view: The X-Rite ColorChecker Passport Finally Supports Capture One, Here's How to Use It | Fstoppers
If you go through and follow the steps
ICC Profile - no color correction.
Set curve to - "Linear response"
Then look at that image - it has no profile/curve associated with it and it will look pretty grim.

Of course, if Phase One wanted to branch out into selling enthusiast DSLRs (which they probably don't) then this could work well. However, have you looked at Phase One pricing for their cameras? I don't think you'd still get a Pentax DSLR for anywhere near the same money as you do now.

So you are casting the K-1 and 645 series as enthusiast cameras? Really dude, get with the plan.
As for money, heck, they could use a loss leader and they would benefit on Pentax IBIS and Pixel shift (especially in their Cultural Heritage products) to no end.

[Class A]

This discussion is not constructive. You are talking at cross purposes to the points I'm making.
I don't see a point in continuing this.

Just to make a couple of clarification for the benefit of others:

Two types, basically a clone of the original (before edits) and a clone of the edited original. Two variant types.

The fact that you can create a variant in two different ways, does not constitute two types of variants.

There is only one kind of "variant". You can create a variant by either starting from scratch using the raw data from the donor image, or by transferring all the adjustments of the donor image as well.

According to your logic -- that takes history into account -- a change to any of those variants, e.g., increasing the brightness, would create yet another kind of variant.

Also, if you move the image from our standard location and embed it into the catalogue - that can be seen as another variant - similar to "managed copies".

No, not in the sense of the technical term "variant" as used in C1.

This is pretty much untrue.

All of it was accurate and true. You are, again, talking about different things. I'm not confused about camera profiles.

It's OK if you don't understand the problem I described -- which Phase One admitted to and which has been a discussion point in several C1 forums -- but please don't lecture me about basics, claiming that what I wrote is "pretty much untrue".