Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Stacks?  (Read 949 times)

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 521
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Stacks?
« on: March 21, 2017, 07:25:44 AM »

Is there something I'm missing? C1 doesn't have the ability to stack arbitrary images in the browser, a feature other RAW workflow tools have had for years and years.

Is there something about the C1 "typical" workflow that eliminates the need for stacks?

Situations I find I need stacks in:
  • A group of shots to be used in a panorama
  • Multiple exposures of nearly identical portrait poses
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com

nemtom

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
Re: Stacks?
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2017, 07:38:01 AM »

Is there something I'm missing? C1 doesn't have the ability to stack arbitrary images in the browser, a feature other RAW workflow tools have had for years and years.

Is there something about the C1 "typical" workflow that eliminates the need for stacks?

Situations I find I need stacks in:
  • A group of shots to be used in a panorama
  • Multiple exposures of nearly identical portrait poses

Long story short: it is not supported for arbitrary raw files as of now. The XF camera can shoot sequences (focus stack, exposure sequence, time lapse), and the raw files of these batches contain a sequence ID identifying the batch. Obviously it would be some work to open up this capability to other images. To be able to weight this feature and prioritize, please send in a feature request to Phase One's support.
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6782
Re: Stacks?
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2017, 07:54:49 AM »

Is there something I'm missing? C1 doesn't have the ability to stack arbitrary images in the browser, a feature other RAW workflow tools have had for years and years.

Is there something about the C1 "typical" workflow that eliminates the need for stacks?

Hi Bob,

No, you are not overlooking something, it's just that such functions are more common for dedicated postprocessing workflows and photoeditors. Capture One is single file conversion oriented in its tools. It does allow to hand-off files or conversions to specialized applications, like for FocusStacking, Panorama Stitching, HDR tonemapping. Such specialized applications usually do a better job than a bolt-on function.

It would be cool though, if such functionality could be added e.g. with plugins, but that's maybe something for the future?

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 521
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Stacks?
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2017, 08:10:08 AM »

No, you are not overlooking something, it's just that such functions are more common for dedicated postprocessing workflows and photoeditors. Capture One is single file conversion oriented in its tools. It does allow to hand-off files or conversions to specialized applications, like for FocusStacking, Panorama Stitching, HDR tonemapping. Such specialized applications usually do a better job than a bolt-on function.

It would be cool though, if such functionality could be added e.g. with plugins, but that's maybe something for the future?

I'm not so interested in the ability to do panoramas or focus stacking within C1. I would like to create stacks in C1, possibly for images sent to other programs for that function.

If I'm taking a portrait, for example, I may end up with four or five images that are essentially the same. I'd like to stack those.
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6782
Re: Stacks?
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2017, 09:13:02 AM »

I'm not so interested in the ability to do panoramas or focus stacking within C1. I would like to create stacks in C1, possibly for images sent to other programs for that function.

If I'm taking a portrait, for example, I may end up with four or five images that are essentially the same. I'd like to stack those.

Hi Bob,

Thanks for clarifying.

In that case it would help if e.g. an optional exposure matching functionality would be implemented. Maybe an ability for outputting a Layered TIFF would be not too difficult (although dealing with crops might be a bit tricky) to implement, because it would be more of an output formatting issue than an all new Progam architecture functionality. Could be interesting to see if there is enough interest in that from users. I could see uses for that.

It would then be up to the receiving application to do Layer alignment, blending, etc.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 521
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Stacks?
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2017, 09:26:37 AM »

In that case it would help if e.g. an optional exposure matching functionality would be implemented. Maybe an ability for outputting a Layered TIFF would be not too difficult (although dealing with crops might be a bit tricky) to implement, because it would be more of an output formatting issue than an all new Progam architecture functionality. Could be interesting to see if there is enough interest in that from users. I could see uses for that.

How about just straightforward stacks similar to Lightroom and Aperture? ON1 Photo RAW is planning for groups (their word for stacks). It almost seems like a no-brainer for Phase One to implement.
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6782
Re: Stacks?
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2017, 12:06:44 PM »

How about just straightforward stacks similar to Lightroom and Aperture? ON1 Photo RAW is planning for groups (their word for stacks). It almost seems like a no-brainer for Phase One to implement.

My guess would be that that requires quite a different infrastructure to handle files, having to load several (or many) into memory and making calculations with different ones. In my view that is a specific Photo editor's functionality, not as much a Raw converter's. But I would not object ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3932
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Stacks?
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2017, 12:24:35 PM »

It sounds like Bob is not referring to stacking as a blending mechanism, but simply the term's other use of displaying similar images as a group. It is designed mainly for selection, with the best picture shown in the grid and the others hidden, many people use stacks to group the component frames of techniques like HDR, panorama, etc. C1 might be better off avoiding the stacking metaphor and finding other ways to lock together these component frames.
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6782
Re: Stacks?
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2017, 12:38:42 PM »

It sounds like Bob is not referring to stacking as a blending mechanism, but simply the term's other use of displaying similar images as a group. It is designed mainly for selection, with the best picture shown in the grid and the others hidden, many people use stacks to group the component frames of techniques like HDR, panorama, etc. C1 might be better off avoiding the stacking metaphor and finding other ways to lock together these component frames.

Currently only variants of a single image can be collapsed into one thumbnail. Grouping different files in the current C1 version would be possible by using keywords (e.g. Portraitgroup001) and filtering on that, although that's admittedly a bit of a cludge.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 521
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Re: Stacks?
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2017, 01:04:41 PM »

It sounds like Bob is not referring to stacking as a blending mechanism, but simply the term's other use of displaying similar images as a group. It is designed mainly for selection, with the best picture shown in the grid and the others hidden, many people use stacks to group the component frames of techniques like HDR, panorama, etc. C1 might be better off avoiding the stacking metaphor and finding other ways to lock together these component frames.

Exactly - grouping of related images.

It's such a common organization technique that I wonder why C1 doesn't already have it. It's one reason I think Lightroom's DAM features are better than C1's. I love the image quality of C1, but the organizational features keep me from going full C1.
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com
Re: Stacks?
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2017, 07:48:53 AM »

Exactly - grouping of related images.

It's such a common organization technique that I wonder why C1 doesn't already have it. It's one reason I think Lightroom's DAM features are better than C1's. I love the image quality of C1, but the organizational features keep me from going full C1.

Would not the use of a "User Collection" serve a similar purpose to "stacking" similar images?
Logged

Bob Rockefeller

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 521
  • Mac, iOS, Olympus OM-D E-M1, Epson 3880
    • Bob Rockefeller
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Midway, GA   www.bobrockefeller.com
Pages: [1]   Go Up