Media Pro's Value to C1?

[James R]

Before downloading Media Pro, I'm trying to determine if Media Pro is a worthwhile DAM tool?  Anyone using it?

[syncrasy]

I don't use C1, but I have used Media Pro's predecessors iView MediaPro and Expression Media for about 10 years. In my opinion iView/Expression Media is the best standalone DAM software for a single user workflow. I did not update my software to Media Pro because of the reported instability and usability flaws introduced by Phase One. I also wasn't happy with the cosmetic changes Phase One made to the interface. If it weren't for these factors, I would wholeheartedly recommend that you buy Media Pro. But you should definitely download the trial version and see how you like it.

Regarding C1 and Media Pro, this is from the Capture One FAQ:

Q / What is the role of Media Pro now?
A / Media Pro will still be available for purchase after the release of Capture One Pro 8, but integration with Capture One Pro 8 is no longer available. Media Pro is a dedicated digital asset management application making it fast and easy to manage your digital assets. Built to be fast and intuitive, it is a powerful photography assistant that will supercharge the way you find, organize, and share your images and videos wherever your files are stored.

If I interpret this FAQ correctly, the de-integration of MP from C1 v8 means that Phase One recognizes Media Pro's value as a standalone DAM.

I suggest you visit the Media Pro forums to see what people are saying. Some users say they are using Media Pro with no problems; others have sought alternatives. (Lightroom and PhotoSupreme get mentioned most frequently.)

I intend to use Expression Media as long as it works on my OS. It's possible that I might update to Media Pro in the future if PO shows more commitment to the software.

[kers]

I use media pro only for small catalogues only that i save with my files.
So i don not have one big catalogue although you can, if you want.
It works very intuitive...
Just throw the folder on it and it starts to built a catalogue from that.
you can sort the material as you like and mark them with lables and stars.
The catalogue is saved as a document - it does not transport you files or anything.
You can open the files from the catalogue - rename your files-en compare maximum of six files in the lightbox.
on a mac that is    CMD/   
I use it in combination with other programs so i can track all my photographs very quickly.

[Jimmy D Uptain]

I own Media Pro, but I get these weird color issues where everything is super saturated so as to render it unusable.
Other than that, I like it OK.
Phase One's dedication to this software seems to be waning. At least some folks seem to feel this way.
Check out their user forums to get a general feel of the software.

[kers]

...
I own Media Pro, but I get these weird color issues where everything is super saturated so as to render it unusable.
...

1.5 is out and maybe it has some solutions for these problems.

I work on a mac 10.9.5 with d810 raw images.
They look OK- until you want to rebuild them (Command B)
If you do that they come back with more contrast and more saturation ( one of the quirks- also in version 1.5)

My tifs and photoshop files look OK. Also after rebuilding.
It is a pity they do not support PSB-files- but then they rely for a large part in this rendering proces on Apple system software and Adobe's support.

[James R]

Morbid curiosity caused me to download the program.  I use a Mac Pro (the super fast garbage can) with SS drive.  MP v 1.5 did not impress, but it may be my inexperience that was reason.  When looking at individual images, they were smaller than I wanted and I needed to increase/decrease the size with the control + or - keys--each image.  I could not find a way to set the default viewing size.  Also, it was slow to render images, which surprise me.  Now I'm trying to determine if it's best to move images using MP.  I'll play with it for a couple of days. 

[syncrasy]

When looking at individual images, they were smaller than I wanted and I needed to increase/decrease the size with the control + or - keys--each image.  I could not find a way to set the default viewing size.

This is easy. If the UI is the same in MP as in ExpMedia, you simply open the little arrow at the top right and select the desired default viewing size (e.g, "Scale to Fit").

Also, it was slow to render images, which surprise me.  

I've heard that's a common complaint. Might be related to your chosen rendering engine in Preferences (Apple vs Capture One?) but I'm not sure.

Now I'm trying to determine if it's best to move images using MP.  

Do you mean moving images from one folder to another? Once you have images inside an MP database, you should move images only from within MP (using the Catalog Folders panel). Otherwise your paths will get screwed up.

[James R]

This is easy. If the UI is the same in MP as in ExpMedia, you simply open the little arrow at the top right and select the desired default viewing size (e.g, "Scale to Fit").

I've heard that's a common complaint. Might be related to your chosen rendering engine in Preferences (Apple vs Capture One?) but I'm not sure.

Do you mean moving images from one folder to another? Once you have images inside an MP database, you should move images only from within MP (using the Catalog Folders panel). Otherwise your paths will get screwed up.

Thanks, I've been able to increase the base image size.  Speed still sucks big time.  It's odd that clicking on an image to see it full size returns an image that is soft.  While using the Light Table renders the same image size but it's tack sharp.   One other oddity: the thumbnail viewer defaults to rows of 8 (24" Eizo).  When I reduce the number per row, to say 4, it gives me 4 images per row but the images size remains basically the same as the 8 per row thumb.  Adding more images per row obviously reduces the thumb size, while decreasing the per row number doesn't seem to increase image size.  I don't understand the reasoning behind this.  Guess I would need to adjust to this program's quirkiness, because it isn't going to adjust to me; or just send the program to the trash bin.

[syncrasy]

...decreasing the per row number doesn't seem to increase image size.  I don't understand the reasoning behind this.  Guess I would need to adjust to this program's quirkiness, because it isn't going to adjust to me; or just send the program to the trash bin.

It's your inexperience with the program. Whenever you change the thumbnail size, you must rebuild the thumbnails to display at the desired size. Select the thumbs, open the Action menu, then choose Rebuild Items.

[kers]

Speed still sucks big time.

that is not MP fault but Apples ( what camera are you using) and could be Nikons fault as well
In every Nikon RAW image there is a basic full size jpeg , but Apple cannot/is not allowed to use that to preview so it has to render the complete raw and built a thumbnail.
programs as Photomechanic have found a way to use the inclosed jpeg and are a lot faster in this respect...

One other oddity: the thumbnail viewer defaults to rows of 8 (24" Eizo).  When I reduce the number per row, to say 4, it gives me 4 images per row but the images size remains basically the same as the 8 per row thumb.  Adding more images per row obviously reduces the thumb size, while decreasing the per row number doesn't seem to increase image size.  I don't understand the reasoning behind this.  Guess I would need to adjust to this program's quirkiness, because it isn't going to adjust to me; or just send the program to the trash bin.

yes i also find it a quirk...also the max size could be made into 1280px
i would suggest this way of dealing with the situation:

on making a catalogue ; start with an empty one and put the thumbnails size to 640px ( max)
now throw your raws in....


---
The problem with this very nice program is:
It has been sold first to microsoft- they did some good things to it then they changed their view on the future and sold it to Phase one-
Phase One basically only changed the appearance and enlarged the maximum size of the catalogue.
Now Phase one seems to abandon it- or at least do not make any effort improving it.
It is also very depending on the support it gets from the OS for making the tumbnails.

on the bright side you can say it works very nice and it works since a very longtime.
If you had your catalogue in Aperture - you have a problem
If you have your catalogue in LR- you might have a problem in the future if you cannot buy it anymore, but have to pay every month to open it.

[James R]

Thanks for all the info.  MP is in need of some Phase One love before I will invest much more time in it.