Capture One Edits

[Mike Buckley]

I would like to understand why.

Maybe I'm completely missing something (though I don't think I'm missing anything), but Hert explained all of that to my understanding in considerable detail.

[vlad]

There's no technical data in XMP (exactly how I expected it to be). But there is LensInfo written to XMP, but this lens info is not written to Exif! When you do a conversion from metadata to XMP in PSU to fix this stupidity from C1 then the Exif is converted to XMP. But as they don't write the LensInfo to Exif your existing LensInfo is removed as there's no LensInfo for this image in Exif.

Hert, that explanation makes sense to me. But couldn't the conversion feature be improved to actually merge the Exif info with any existing XMP info, i.e. to not remove any existing XMP info that is missing from Exif? Are there any cases where this would *not* be desirable?

As far as I understand the matter, this shows (to me) that the info is available in that file, which I have isolated on a USB stick

IIUC, all the technical info is indeed there - but the problem is that not all of it is written to XMP: part of it (the lens info) is inside XMP, part of it is only inside the Exif block. Right now, PSU is able to convert the Exif info to XMP - it does not merge together the different pieces of info.

[Mike Buckley]

couldn't the conversion feature be improved to actually merge the Exif info with any existing XMP info, i.e. to not remove any existing XMP info that is missing from Exif? Are there any cases where this would *not* be desirable?

It would be undesirable when the information being left in place is wrong. Considering that Capture One is known to be handling some of the data wrongly, I wouldn't assume it is handling any of the data properly. So, if I was a developer of a DAM, I wouldn't change my software trying to fix the inaccurate results produced by other software.

Moreover, let's assume that Phase One finally corrects this issue in Capture One. If Hert changes Supreme to merge rather than replace data when converting metadata to XMP data, the information about the lens would appear twice in the same text field. He would receive complaints about that.

[vlad]

Moreover, let's assume that Phase One finally corrects this issue in Capture One. If Hert changes Supreme to merge rather than replace data when converting metadata to XMP data, the information about the lens would appear twice in the same text field.

Not necessarily. Merging could be implemented to replace any existing data, except when some existing XMP data would be replaced by a blank value (that is, erased). (In addition, any XMP data left in place could then perhaps also be propagated back to the legacy blocks, such that (legacy) data mirroring is ensured - a useful property, IMHO.)

I reckon that could still leave stale data inside XMP: the practical question is whether this would happen - all scenarios considered - in a majority or in a minority of cases. Personally, I have no idea - but I would expect that Hert, with his wealth of practical experience, might be able to sensibly weigh in on this and enlighten us.

EDIT:

Btw, I find all the existing duplication amongst the various standards and metadata - EXIF, IPTC, XMP - really unfortunate, as it is hard to comprehend for the average DAM user and OTOH it also makes metadata handling a nightmare for any (sensible) DAM program developer. As far as PSU is concerned, my impression is that it goes to quite a bit of length in accomodating and trying to fix the mess left around by different tools - both legacy programs and, sigh, programs still in use. Kudos to Hert for being mindful about this!

[Stephen]

PLEASE DON'T REPLY. I WILL EDIT THIS SHORTLY AS I HAD MISSED THE LAST FEW POSTS AND THEY MIGHT ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS. I HAVE TO GO OUT


There are apparently differences in the results shown by ExifTool (which I do not know) and Apple's tool. So which tool do we believe? It appears that people here prefer to believe ExifTool. If that is the correct tool, then OK, but I have no idea because Apple's tool shows the lens model and focal length in the EXIF field!

If ExifTool is the Holy Grail then the suggestion made to merge the data sounds good. If that is likely to cause problems then a "click this button if you use Capture One" on import could be used. Alternatively, possibly the field which shows what program was used to edit the file could be used and interpreted accordingly.

The regular photographer needs both a DAM and an editor to be able to function.

I would have thought that Photo Supreme and Capture One would be an ideal partnership, as both companies obviously strive to provide the best in their field. If I was in management at IDimager, I would be negotiating with Capture One. Phase One is clearly trying to lead the field and now have a close cooperation with Sony, who builds 40% of the sensors worldwide and is leading the pack with their mirrorless technology.

This is a great forum with very helpful participants to support a good program which I see as a tool to help me do my job. We have not yet reached that point.

[Mike Buckley]

PLEASE DON'T REPLY.

Sorry, Stephen, but I just can't restrain myself.

<<<Maybe you can use metadata cascading to re-cascade your metadata from the original file to the "C1 developed" file.>>> I have no idea what that is

Once two or more images are versioned, hover over any version tab. Then click the arrowhead that appears to open the dropdown menu. Then select "Cascade from this Version to the Version Set." Then select "Cascade Image Details (XMP)." Even so, I'm skeptical that this will solve your problem.

I have invested many hours trying to get this to work and these are really problems for software engineers to solve, not users.

Completely agreed. The Phase One software engineers should be ashamed and should fix this problem they have created as soon as possible.

I am trying this workaround because the color rendition is too far off to be usable, but some might say that is not the function of a DAM.

I would clarify that to say that so long as Phase One keeps their information proprietary, it is not the function of a DAM because only Phase One can make it happen by their design.

The regular photographer needs both a DAM and an editor to be able to function.

That depends on how you define "regular" photographer. My point is that one of the reasons Phase One has botched this situation for so long without fixing it is that so relatively few photographers need or use a DAM. As a result, too few have complained to Phase One about the problem they have caused. Most photographers don't even use post-processing software and even fewer use a DAM.

[Stephen]

Please delete your last post it just confuses the issue. Let's not get emotional

[Mike Buckley]

Sorry that my last post confuses you, Stephen. My response was not emotional; it was purely my opinion offered with helpful intent. Now that I realize that you object to it, I'll end my participation in your thread.

[Stephen]

Mike Buckley wrote:
"My response was not emotional; it was purely my opinion offered with helpful intent. Now that I realize that you object to it, I'll end my participation in your thread."

Sorry that you feel that way. My message just did not make so much sense in light of a whole page of posts which I has not seen before. I noticed them just after posting my message, but had to leave the building, hence my comment that it would be revised.

Back to the case.
There are apparently differences in the results shown by ExifTool (which I do not know) and Apple's tool. So which tool do we believe? It appears that people here prefer to believe ExifTool. If that is the correct tool, then OK, but I have no idea because Apple's tool shows the lens model and focal length in the EXIF field!

If ExifTool is the Holy Grail then the suggestion made to merge the data sounds good. If that is likely to cause problems then a "click this button if you use Capture One" on import could be used. Alternatively, possibly the field which shows what program was used to edit the file could be used and interpreted accordingly.

The regular photographer needs both a DAM and an editor to be able to function.

I would have thought that Photo Supreme and Capture One would be an ideal partnership, as both companies obviously strive to provide the best in their field. If I was in management at IDimager, I would be negotiating with Capture One. Phase One is clearly trying to lead the field and now have a close cooperation with Sony, who builds 40% of the sensors worldwide and is leading the pack with their mirrorless technology.

This is a great forum with very helpful participants to support a good program which I see as a tool to help me do my job. We have not yet reached that point.

[fbungarz]

Hi everyone,
I apologize if this is off-topic, but I am currently running a Capture One Trial (8.2.) to assess if I should use it together with PSU as my raw editor (see http://forum.idimager.com/viewtopic.php ... 00#p109400).
There are a couple of oddities that I experience:
Capture One (8.2.) reads metadata that I have written to files in 2006 using IDimager correctly. Metadata written with later versions of IDimager are apparently not seen anymore.
It is possible to configure how Capture One treats xmp sidecar files (Edif-Preferences-Imnage-Metadata); the options for "autosync xmp sidecar files are" are "none (default)", "load", and "full sync". I have tried all options. "None" does not touch the metadata (as expected), "load" still does not show the correct data that was written and is visible in IDI/PSU, "full sync" destroys/replaces the existing sidecar file.

This is all not very promising. It looks like using the two together is not an option. I cannot figure out how to have PSU show (even approximately) any of the raw adjustments made in Capture One, and touching the metadata using Capture one is definitely not working at all. In fact the way this seems currently implemented I would be afraid to use Capture One fearing the program inadvertently destroys metadata.



Frank

PS: It seems that Phase One is trying to resurrect iView Media Pro. That program was a complete mess handling XMP when it first came out. I remember Hert kindly wrote me script fixing a huge mess of metadata errors written to my files when I ran a trial of iView Media Pro. Perhaps Capture One is now inadvertently inheriting the iView problems?

[Stephen]

I apologize if this is off-topic, but I am currently running a Capture One Trial (8.2.) to assess if I should use it together with PSU as my raw editor (see

Not at all, your post is very relevant.

A RAW image shot in the studio today with a PhaseOne back tethered with Capture One 8 full version and then converted to jpg was imported into PSu and the result was quite similar to those image shot on other cameras and imported into Capture One 7.

[Hert]

Hi Frank,
From all what I've read, I can only agree with you that C1 its metadata support is still in its early stages. With MediaPro in their portfolio they obviously know how critical metadata handling is. Here's hoping that they can get to the next level soon. Make sure you also report your findings to them so they are aware of it.

[hantayo49]

That's really odd, Stephen. You mentioned that the images you edited in 2014 were done using the same version of Capture One as you're now using. Is the version number exactly the same. As an example, is it possible that one version is 8.1 and the other version is 8.2?

I am seeing meta data problems with jpegs exported from C1 8.3. It is obvious fixing meta data corruption is not a priority for them if this was happening in the 7x version line. I have to rethink using C1.

[Jana]

Hello everyone, I got now problem with color management as well. We have some of our pictures saved in CMYK mode. We use the server version and so it is easier for our graphics for printing. But then we realized, that the colors in preview are totally changed - and that is the same, when we want to export these pictures in the folder. Please, does anyone have any idea, what to do with that?

Thank you very much

Jana