@ Bart
I've tried the copy adjustments approach to applying keywords to multiple images. Sorry--doesn't work.
Hi,
Depends on what you exactly want to achieve and how you go about doing it. Copying an identical set of settings is consistent throughout C1 (all individual tools have a little diagonal double arrow at the upper right of the tool for copying tool settings, as does the Keywords tool). Adding to an existing set of parameters is something different than copying and overriding settings (and one can usually select what to include and what not on the adjustments overview).
Drag to filter label in filters panel works. It's easy enough.
Yes, that's a way to
add keywords, although version 9 has added a lot of new functionality to manage key-wording, compared to version 8 we were discussing in this month(s) old thread here. In V9 one can click on a keyword for it to be added to the selected variants, and one can delete whole hierarchies by the click of a mouse button.
The problem is not the inconsistency with "other products". Certainly to be as peculiar as possible is a strange virtue--sometimes "other products"--especially when it is multiple other products--represent good ideas. Not always of course, but just sometimes. The inconsistency issue is really within Capture One itself. There is a whole tab with several tools devoted to managing metadata. It would seem consistent to assign keywords there and inconsistent to use a filtering tool for assignment.
I'm not sure I follow. Filtering tool for assignment of keywords? And as to "other products" they may have patents to protect some ways of doing things, so other methods may need to be found. And from my experience with managing change processes, shedding old habits is one of the hardest things when learning a new tool or skill. That also makes it difficult for people who are merely trying out the new product, but remain using their old/current product. As I said, immersing oneself in the new methodology may reveal some benefits, or inconveniences, in workflow or resulting quality. Both can be used to improve (either oneself or by suggesting feature requests).
You seem to apologize more for C1 than Phase One employees who are more forthcoming on Phase One's own forums.
To quote myself from
post no. 18 in this thread:
Are there any improvements possible? Sure there are, both technical and in user interface. But as we can also see, such improvements are continuously being made/added.
And the improvements in version 9 show that. Is it perfect now? No there is more that can be done, and I assume it will be dealt with over time, also based on user feedback (which is why I suggested to raise feature requests with a Support case).
I do understand evangelizing for a product you use and admire. Maybe acknowledging good points of C1 (many!) while also acknowledging weak points (some) could generate more support. Software is complicated and written by humans; it can't be perfect. All products have inconveniences. You are correct that we prefer the inconveniences we know to new, unfamiliar inconveniences. But, it feels off-putting to deny that inconveniences exist. It's not credible.
I'm not denying issues if they exist, and I also said that improvements are possible. Some issues are caused by bugs, some are due to hardware acceleration, others are due to user unfamiliarity with a different (not always, but maybe better) workflow, and some need a revision/redesign of the tool.
The good news is that products improve. "Other products" have improved. C1 has improved immeasurably over its releases; it will continue to improve. So, it is not a terrible concession to admit some need for additional refinement.
I agree. Frankly, I'm still a bit surprised that the acquisition of Media Pro hasn't been integrated faster into the C1 environment. Maybe Phase One is trying to do something that will be better in the end, I don't know. But I also have no idea what the user feedback signals are doing to the prioritization of many improvement areas. I have several requests myself (more to do with sharpening, and layering, and darkframe subtraction), but it will only have a chance of being implemented if enough users ask for it (or the development team 'see the light'), but I've already said so in my earlier posts.
Cheers,
Bart
