Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: Endeavour on September 25, 2016, 08:36:07 am
-
Am I alone in being confused by the term 'variants' in capture one?
It seems to me that its a word used contrary to it's proper definition in the English language
1) Say I open up Image01 in C1. That's now a variant right?
2) Then I open up Image02 in C1, that's another variant. So I now have 2 variants - is this correct?
3) Yet I can duplicate Image01 in C1 (I know the file isnt physically duplicated) and make adjustments to it and this becomes a new variant.
this is where I fall down. the first two examples are not variants in the true sense of the word as they are not variations of the same source. They are two separate entities.
The 'New Variant' in example #3 can only be classed as a variant because it is a variation based on the same source (Image01)
So how can 2 unique images be classed as 2 variants. What are they variants of?
To my befuddled mind, its just confusing.
Shouldn't Image01 and Image02 be classed as 'source' or 'original' when imported. And any clones, or duplicates with adjustments are classed as variants?
-
Am I alone in being confused by the term 'variants' in capture one?
It seems to me that its a word used contrary to it's proper definition in the English language
1) Say I open up Image01 in C1. That's now a variant right?
Hi,
More exact would be to call it the "Selected Primary Variant", because it is selected, and parameter changes will be applied to this file only (unless the Edit all selected variants is toggled on). This allows to differentiate between multiple variants of the same image if one makes duplicates or clones of the same image file (without really making a duplicate or the original Raw file, but rather only of the parameter settings). Variants of the same Raw image can be promoted or demoted e.g. to denote their importance or preference.
2) Then I open up Image02 in C1, that's another variant. So I now have 2 variants - is this correct?
Another variant, yes, although it obviously is a different image and not so much a variant of Image01. Technically it could be, if both images involve the same subject but with e.g. only different exposure settings.
3) Yet I can duplicate Image01 in C1 (I know the file isnt physically duplicated) and make adjustments to it and this becomes a new variant.
This is really the creation of a real variant of the same Raw file (a copy without the primary selected variant's parameters, or a clone of all settings). As you say, not a copy of the Raw itself, but of the default or the adjusted settings for the Raw file.
this is where I fall down. the first two examples are not variants in the true sense of the word as they are not variations of the same source. They are two separate entities.
Correct, although in the sense that I mentioned before, the two images (distinct Raw files) could be marginally different variations of the same subject.
To my befuddled mind, its just confusing.
Shouldn't Image01 and Image02 be classed as 'source' or 'original' when imported. And any clones, or duplicates with adjustments are classed as variants?
I agree, although it would still be possible to select different variants of different Raw files instead of the 'originals' and apply parameter changes to all of them or only the Primary Selected one of them (determined by the toggle setting, see attached).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I too find this confusing. Somehow the terminology in LR and Aperture seemed more clear and intuitive to me.
-
..
Another variant, yes, although it obviously is a different image and not so much a variant of Image01. Technically it could be, if both images involve the same subject but with e.g. only different exposure settings.
if I take two photos of the same subject, I would never class them as variants of the same source, regardless of the only difference being exposure settings
In C1, I can import an image of my left foot and an image of a sweeping landscape, and according to C1 I now have 2 variants.
it's nonsense
-
Am I alone in being confused by the term 'variants' in capture one?
What's in a name? I have no problem with the terminology, you will get used to it once you start working with the tool and enjoy the super high quality of the rendered images.
-
if I take two photos of the same subject, I would never class them as variants of the same source, regardless of the only difference being exposure settings
In C1, I can import an image of my left foot and an image of a sweeping landscape, and according to C1 I now have 2 variants.
it's nonsense
Agreed. Its more than just an atypical word or a name I'm not used to, it is a poor implementation of that word. Fortunately it is not something I come up against much in my work flow so it does not bother me.
-
My god, you have way too much time on your hands!
-
My god, you have way too much time on your hands!
and you need better time management, if you dont have the capacity to take a step back and question things in life
-
Aren't they all variants because they are all (including the first one you see) an interpretation of the "same" raw file.
The first one you see just happens to be the Capture one default variant, out of the infinite number of possible variants.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Usually the terminology reflects the underlying data structure and I'd be surprised if the terminology is wrong. Checking through the Scripting dictionary, which usually gives a fair indication of a programme's data structure, it shows an Image object and a Variant object. Variants are children of Images, each Image having one or more Variants. The Image is the actual RAW file. The RAW file is never changed. It therefore makes sense that there is some other thing that is a converted and edited version of the RAW image. And probably one default variant is created for each Image either when it's imported or, to save space, when first edited.
So, you said:
1) Say I open up Image01 in C1. That's now a variant right?
2) Then I open up Image02 in C1, that's another variant. So I now have 2 variants - is this correct?
3) Yet I can duplicate Image01 in C1 (I know the file isnt physically duplicated) and make adjustments to it and this becomes a new variant.
Which isn't quite right. You don't actually open up either image; you open up the first, default variant of each image. So:
1) You edit the default variant of Image01
2) Then you edit the default variant of Image02.
3) You duplicate the default variant of Imagle01.
Does that make more sense?
-
The Image is the actual RAW file. The RAW file is never changed. It therefore makes sense that there is some other thing that is a converted and edited version of the RAW image. And probably one default variant is created for each Image either when it's imported or, to save space, when first edited.
Isn't that what I just said, but with fewer words :-)
Cheers,
Graham
-
I felt you needed clarifying.
-
I felt you needed clarifying.
Fair enough.
Cheers,
Graham
-
No offence intended, I should add. :-)
-
No offence intended, I should add. :-)
That's OK, I did start off with a longer post, and cut it back, obviously by too much.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I agree with KimALdis and myotis here, the terminology makes sense, in that C1 doesn't really have 'originals' and 'copies', just one or more versions (i.e. variants) of the editing parameters applied to the raw file (or even JPEG). One of those is the 'primary' but this is a little arbitrary in that any of the variants of an image can be made the primary; it's not in any way canonical.
Really what you're dealing with in C1 is an abstraction layer on top the actual image files.
-
As a physician I understand the proper use of technical terminology. But technically precise terminology, even though correct, is not always the most useful way to communicate concepts particularly when you are communicating with a mixed audience (patient, nurse, family member or even another physician outside of your specialty.)
So we can talk about abstraction layers, potential images, "actual image files" etc. but even amongst technically minded photographers this is not always going to be an intuitive or useful way of understanding how their images are managed.
Just the length of this thread is an indication that the "variant" terminology is not intuitive even if it is technically precise.
-
Just the length of this thread is an indication that the "variant" terminology is not intuitive even if it is technically precise.
I fear this could run and run :-)
Until this thread, it had never given it any thought, so I guess it was intuitive enough for me, but I have made heavy use of variants from first starting to use C1.
As an aside as I teach statistics to biology undergraduates and postgraduates, I am all too aware of trying to balance technical correctness with "conceptual understanding".
Cheers,
Graham
-
I fear this could run and run :-)
Until this thread, it had never given it any thought, so I guess it was intuitive enough for me, but I have made heavy use of variants from first starting to use C1.
If we take the view of the Raw file being the 'original', then it makes perfect sense to call the conversion(s) variants. I also didn't give it much thought because it was clear enough how to deal with things.
Cheers,
Bart
-
But technically precise terminology, even though correct, is not always the most useful way to communicate concepts
I disagree. Correct terminology describes what is actually going on. To describe it any other way is, by definition, incorrect. If the correct terminology is unclear the best way to clarify it is to get a clearer understanding of the underlying process.
-
Tell that to a doctor who explains your complicated condition in totally precise and accurate terms that leave you unable to form a practical understanding of the implications you face and the options that you have. You would probably not be happy with him and you'd probably complain of his bedside manner....and you'd be right.
Often times, overly precise terminology increases confusion rather than eliminate it. It largely depends on the understanding of the one receiving that info. In this case some photographers will still think of things in terms of a 'negative' and everything that comes after it as something else. Maybe this is not directly applicable to RAW file management, but the concept can still be useful in terms of practical understanding. I think other apps have better terminology than CO. Are they more or less precise? I don't know.
-
Tell that to a doctor who explains your complicated condition in totally precise and accurate terms that leave you unable to form a practical understanding
That's not a reasonable analogy. The patient doesn't need the precise technical terms. The doctor, on the other hand, who is going to be prescribing the cure, does.
Capture One is a technical tool. If you don't have a precise understanding of it, you're not going to be using as well as you could.
-
Capture One is a technical tool. If you don't have a precise understanding of it, you're not going to be using as well as you could.
Maybe. But I could say the same thing to my patients about making decisions about their health and it would be equally true. At some point they have to trust me or be able to know what I know. Same with technology. I have an intimate understanding of my track car, and need to in order to get the most performance out of it. The average driver need not know all that in order to access the full potential of their car for street use.
Again, CO could have used better terminology in my opinion. It has confused some of us and for no real good reason. I even wonder if it is a translation issue.
-
It has confused some of us and for no real good reason
Those of who understand how it works it aren't confused, though.
-
Those of who understand how it works it aren't confused, though.
I understand that but that sort of thinking led to the persistence of the command-line interface (back in the day) far longer than it had any business enduring. I can understand all sort of archaic, and yet extremely precise medical terminology, neither my understanding of it nor its precision make it preferable to better terminology.
We are, of course, splitting hairs here. But I am a huge proponent of elegance in software design. That's why I never liked LR and only grudgingly left Aperture. Apple used to be the undisputed kings of intuitive and elegant software. I came to CO, paying a considerably higher price than Aperture or LR because of what I perceived as elegant design. Like all software it has some shortcomings in this field. I think it's 'variant' terminology is a good example. A better word or way of conceptualizing the idea would be both intuitive, easy to understand by all levels of users (as it is a fundamental concept after all) and still be precise. That is elegance in design.
What do I suggest? Don't ask me. I'm neither a designer, a techy or even that good of a photographer.
-
What do I suggest? Don't ask me. I'm neither a designer, a techy or even that good of a photographer.
I am struggling to think of anything better or more easily understood than "variant", but as I said before, I had not given it any thought until this thread.
Variant is "a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing"
according to the online dictionary I found.
Isn't this exactly what it is describing. The "something" is the raw file and each variant is an interpretation (a form or version) of the same raw file.
I felt the OP found it confusing because he wasn't thinking in terms of the raw file being the original, which is a fairly essential concept for anyone using a raw convertor, and one I think its fair for Phase One to expect from its users.
But I am struggling to follow why you think the term is confusing or inelegant. To me, the term seems particularly apt for what its describing.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I'll just defer to Bart's initial reply to the initial post.
-
I'll just defer to Bart's initial reply to the initial post.
I'm afraid I struggled to follow that post, as in responding the OP point by point it seemed to make something very simple (they are all variants of the original raw file) into something complicated.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I'm afraid I struggled to follow that post, as in responding the OP point by point it seemed to make something very simple (they are all variants of the original raw file) into something complicated.
Sorry for trying to be complete, but the most likely explanation for the naming that Capture One chose is, that we are talking about variants of an original Raw file.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sorry for trying to be complete, but the most likely explanation for the naming that Capture One chose is, that we are talking about variants of an original Raw file.
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, that is what I said, here and in earlier posts, they are simply variants of an (the) original raw file. I just felt that in your completeness to answer the OP, this simple concept was made more complex than it needed to be. But I appreciate that you gave a point by point response, and didn't think there was anything to apologise for, but nor did I think it provided an answer to the question I asked N80, when he sent me to your post, instead of answering it.
I was suggesting the concept was simple and I think he directed me to your post of evidence that it wasn't simple.
Cheers,
Graham