Capture One Pro 9 with Photo Supreme Workflow

[Larry56]

I too found that once C1 reads metadata there doesn't appear to be a way to update if it's changed outside C1. At least I haven't found a way yet.

I wanted to check how C1 processed Sony images from two cameras I've had. One a RX-100 Mark I and the other an A6000. Interestingly after processing the results of the two were different. The RX-100 seems processes just fine but the A6000 ends up with a gray color for the label in PSu. Although both say "None" the results are different.

I processed the same image twice and the strangest thing happened on the labels in PSu. In one the labels are correct in the other it's showing the parent label as well as the child labels. Can't explain that one.

[Stephen]

More tests. I have tried:
Opening C1 first, marking the images I wish to edit it in C1 and then clicking the C1 label and also
Closing C1 and then marking the images I wish to edit it in C1 and then clicking the C1 label (which was the only way to do it previously).
So far, no difference between the 2 methods.

I have not yet got C1 to import the descriptions, as I could in the first test.

All camera data is there, as as model and property release fields.

Keywords / labels are inconsistent and still C1 is creating a new keyword PLACES, or CONTROLLED VOCABULARY as the uppermost parents, although the labels are not programmed as such. And of course, synonyms are a mess and land under miscellaneous, which is why I make this suggestion in Mantis to help keep order. Photo Supreme is powerful in being able to correct mistakes made by other applications.
http://mantis.idimager.com/view.php?id=3080

[PhilBurton]

I'm not a C1 user, so I hope that this suggestion is received in the spirit that it is made.

My impression is that bugs or people here have identified various shortcomings in the way that C1 handles metadata. I also have the impression that C1 is not that responsive to individual users who raise issues.

Would it make sense for the C1 users here to create a master list and then for Hert to contact C1, "developer-to-developer?" Maybe as a professional courtesy, they will listen more Hert than to individual users.

Phil

[vlad]

I don't understand how Hert (or anyone else) could (legitimately) raise issues with C1 (or any other party) that he hasn't personally experienced/tested/validated. (Moreover, the reported issues do not appear to affect PSU's development, do they?)

Just my 2 cents - and I sincerely hope they don't start a side (fruitless) debate.

[fbungarz]

I tend to agree with Vlad. I believe Hert has virtually no leverage with C1. It is not as if PSu is a large powerful company and even though the software has many highly committed, enthusiastic users it is still not anywhere as widely adopted as that of other, large companies. I doubt C1 would even listen to lightroom users and that is an extremely widely distributed program.
If they don't want to listen, they won't.
I also believe Hert has in the past contacted C1. I am not sure where, but I think I read this somewhere here on the forum.

Moreover, the reported issues do not appear to affect PSU's development, do they?

They probably won't. But I think this is not the point. PSU does have a problem: it is being sold primarily as an asset management. If other products, particularly raw developers, don't play nicely with PSu users have a choice: they can drop PSu - if its powerful database capabilities are less relevant to them than the raw developer of their choice OR they can look for a different raw developer - if they are actually committed enough to stick with PSu.
That is a problem for PSu. For it to be more widely adopted it needs to play nicely with as many other products as possible: Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One, DxO, PhotoNinja ...
If it doesn't it will loose customers.

Now, what about metadata corruption by third party products?
I have advocated many times that the best choice is to strengthen PSu's versioning capabilities as a safeguard against metadata loss. If you always keep an original inside PSu that is not touched by third party products and treat the derivatives as a subversion, then, in theory, you can cascade lost metadata back into these derivatives.
In my opinion that would be the best strategy, because it will work independently of what third party product developers do to the files. With this strategy in place a product could even delete the entire metadata block from a file and one could use PSu to get it back.
For this to work, however, it will be necessary to improve how versioning currently operates. It must become more powerful, more functional and more flexible...
Form what I have read so far here, some of the technical metadata are not being cascaded, even if the script is being used. And then there seems to be some PSu users, who generally do not like the idea of having to use versioning. That is understandable, because the way version detection currently works is not as smooth as it could be.

But, versioning aside: no program (including C1) should corrupt/delete metadata. So, I do completely understand anyone who complains that it does.
However - reading through the various posts here on the forum; I agree with Vlad that the various different complaints here need to be validated.
If you cannot specifically point out where exactly C1 is at fault, why and how it corrupts specific metadata fields, then they very likely will simply not listen, ignore the complaints.
Just have a look at Phil Harvey's complaints why basically all image metadata information standards are problematic: http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftoo ... ntary.html
To me it seems that C1 is very much convinced they are not doing anything wrong. Looking at the various recent complaints here, it seems not very well documented yet exactly what is actually going on. And it seems to be a problem that is rather difficult to pinpoint down.

[Stephen]

PSU does have a problem: it is being sold primarily as an asset management. If other products, particularly raw developers, don't play nicely with PSu users have a choice: they can drop PSu - if its powerful database capabilities are less relevant to them than the raw developer of their choice OR they can look for a different raw developer - if they are actually committed enough to stick with PSu.
That is a problem for PSu. For it to be more widely adopted it needs to play nicely with as many other products as possible: Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One, DxO, PhotoNinja ...

Absolutely, that is the point.

As far as I know, there are two problems to be corrected when C1 touches an image:
1. If the exif version number field has an entry, then it should not be changed
2. The maker notes should be kept intact.
PSu should then be able to cope.

I am not aware of other issues.

[fbungarz]

2. The maker notes should be kept intact.

Well, given what a complete mess maker notes can be, perhaps it is a deliberate decision by C1 programmers to change/"correct" them?
Have a look at Here Phil Harvey's comments on maker notes:
http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftoo ... acies.html

[fbungarz]

Well, on a side-note, looks like at least Hert is doing the best he can. Regarding the Panasonic Problems previously mentioned here, I have just noticed this:

2582: Added improved support for lens info as recorded in Panasonic and Leica RAW files (use Metadata->Convert to XMP to read for existing images in the Catalog)

see http://www.idimager.com/WP/?page_id=1374

[vlad]

That is a problem for PSu. For it to be more widely adopted it needs to play nicely with as many other products as possible: Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One, DxO, PhotoNinja ...

That's a reasonable perspective, but let me suggest a hypothesis: it could well be the case that certain quircks associated to various tools are conflicting, with the logical implication that no single, coherent policy to play nicely with all the tools out there is possible.

Now, what about metadata corruption by third party products?
I have advocated many times that the best choice is to strengthen PSu's versioning capabilities as a safeguard against metadata loss. If you always keep an original inside PSu that is not touched by third party products and treat the derivatives as a subversion, then, in theory, you can cascade lost metadata back into these derivatives.
In my opinion that would be the best strategy, because it will work independently of what third party product developers do to the files. With this strategy in place a product could even delete the entire metadata block from a file and one could use PSu to get it back.

That's a very good and interesting point. As a first thought, I concur that strengthening the versioning and metadata cascading appears promising in many scenarios and could therefore be framed as a strategic goal.

Another scalable strategy (which could very well complement the strengthening of versioning) would be to design and implement the interfacing with external tools via some kind of independent and open (scripted) modules/plugins, which could be also developed or tweaked by end users (with enough scripting knowledge, of course). This way, someone could write or modify at will a certain script and automatically achieve the desired corrections for all images processed by the associated tool. (In particular, such corrections could involve a metadata cascading procedure, as suggested by Frank.) To achieve the desired processing, (re)importing and folder verifying sessions could be associated to external tools too.

Such a modular architecture has the potential to reconcile seemingly incompatible requirements: the core framework would continue to implement metadata policies in full compliance with the official standard(s), while the bridging (open, editable) plugins would flexibly adapt to and account for de facto implementations and practical differences among various tools (including variations across different versions or editions of the same product).

In my opinion, moving towards a modular architecture could be a major win-win strategy for both Hert and we, the customers - and could fit very well with other conceivable undertakings to make Supreme significantly more flexible (e.g., label templates), while still very strong and predictable. (I could even see implications for the business model - for example, the modules/plugins could be sold and supported separately from the core product; however, I prefer to restrict my opinions to the technical matters.)

Any thoughts on this?

[Stephen]

2. The maker notes should be kept intact.

Well, given what a complete mess maker notes can be, perhaps it is a deliberate decision by C1 programmers to change/"correct" them?
Have a look at Here Phil Harvey's comments on maker notes:
http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftoo ... acies.html

I prefer not to guess what other companies might be thinking.

In the case of Sony cameras, that should be no problem as C1 work hand-in-hand with Sony. They even have a dedicated Sony version of C1, which I believe is free to download. Not that I like free software, however

[PhilBurton]

don't understand how Hert (or anyone else) could (legitimately) raise issues with C1 (or any other party) that he hasn't personally experienced/tested/validated. (Moreover, the reported issues do not appear to affect PSU's development, do they?)

Just my 2 cents - and I sincerely hope they don't start a side (fruitless) debate.

Obviously Hert can't validate each and ever issue with C1 metadata compability, but there seems to be a substantial community of C1 users. Hert could set up a separate forum where bugs and issues could be reported by one person and validated (or not) by other people. Then someone can assemble a list of validated bugs and issues for Hert's use with C1.

I tend to agree with Vlad. I believe Hert has virtually no leverage with C1. It is not as if PSu is a large powerful company and even though the software has many highly committed, enthusiastic users it is still not anywhere as widely adopted as that of other, large companies. I doubt C1 would even listen to lightroom users and that is an extremely widely distributed program.
If they don't want to listen, they won't.
I also believe Hert has in the past contacted C1. I am not sure where, but I think I read this somewhere here on the forum.

Moreover, the reported issues do not appear to affect PSU's development, do they?

They probably won't. But I think this is not the point. PSU does have a problem: it is being sold primarily as an asset management. If other products, particularly raw developers, don't play nicely with PSu users have a choice: they can drop PSu - if its powerful database capabilities are less relevant to them than the raw developer of their choice OR they can look for a different raw developer - if they are actually committed enough to stick with PSu.
That is a problem for PSu. For it to be more widely adopted it needs to play nicely with as many other products as possible: Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One, DxO, PhotoNinja ...
If it doesn't it will loose customers.

Please note where I have bold-ed part of the above quote. I would argue that is in Hert's "enlightened self-interest" to raise these issues. And Hert has a reputation for careful and scrupulous adherence to metadata standards. That gives him some moral authority to raise the issue with C1 (and others?). Note my use of the term "professional courtesy" in my earlier posting. It is in their interest to confirm to these standards. Here is why:

PSu is a complementary product that helps C1 better compete with Lightroom, which is both a RAW editor and a DAM. Hert might be able to communicate this message to some of the business people in C1, who might be more sensitive to this issue than the software developers.

Phil

[Hert]

The fact that photographers continue to use a product that knowingly corrupts their metadata illustrates that for photographers the quality of a raw converter is more important than metadata. Sad but true. For the vendors reason enough to give low priority to such metadata issues.

[PhilBurton]

The fact that photographers continue to use a product that knowingly corrupts their metadata illustrates that for photographers the quality of a raw converter is more important than metadata. Sad but true. For the vendors reason enough to give low priority to such metadata issues.

Hert,

You are (sadly) probably right for many photographers, but not for the photographers who use PSu. I would argue that it's still worth the effort to at least initiate a conversation with C1 about this issue, with the promise of backup data if they are interested.

A very smart salesman once told me, "If you don't ask for the order, you will never get it."

Phil

[Stephen]

Comparing companies size is not important, if you have the product / technology! PhotoSupreme does and certainly has no reason to hide on that score.

[peter wijn]

Interesting material.
Thanks for sharing.

I use COP 11 for first selection (removal), conversion and editing.
Then export a 100%-JPEG or TIFF
and only then import in PSu and add metadata and keywords.

If a photo is needed in a different color space, size or whatever, I find it in PSu, open it in COP and make a new version. I do not save export versions.

I work in only one session in COP, I don't use the selection directory - only the removal bin -, I don't use any metadata in COP, and use the metadata of versioned NEF-JPEG-TIFF in PSu. Also on using stacking, stitching or whatever crippled thirdparty software metadata may get lost in resulting files. Since I keep the associated NEF in the version, it only takes a bit of grinding. There are far bigger problems, like recurring bad drivers for my Wacom pen and tablet .

Also not more than a bit of grinding: if after a while, you think you want to remove a photo, if you don't start removal in COP, there will be remaining COP-files associated to the photo in the subfolder. Not a big problem.

Best combination of software since Capture NX2 was dicontinued. Rather expensive off course.

As a philosopher, metadata are the key to heaven, as a photographer I try not to drop my camera.