Phase One forum: Not the right way to behave

[dougpeterson]

The part I put in bold is not quite correct. On OS X, Phocus will support any camera supported by the derawtising routines of OS X, MF or not. I just tried with a sample file from a Pentax 645 Z.

I should have been more detailed. The mac version of Phocus does allow the use of the iPhoto/OSX library to provide basic raw editing of raws from cameras which that library supports. Tethering and many advanced adjustments are not supported when doing so.

Regardless it's a fair point! My statement as I wrote it is wrong and I appreciate your correction!

I'm curious if you use Phocus as your primary editor or browser of non Hassy files or are aware of anyone that does?

 

[JoshMerwin]

Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
I was told a story that someone posted in DJI's forum about how to modify a drone to carry a sensor from the Canon G1X, and DJI immediately deleted the thread and banned his account.

Seems like a total waste of G1X and DJI.

Not to mention a HUGE liability and danger issue. There is a huge difference between deleting a post that could encourage someone to modify a drone that flies above PEOPLE and could affect the flight ability of the drone and a post that could corrupt someones images/workaround the software restrictions for certain cameras. Plus DJI will have the X1D sensor in a drone it pretty soon! :bugeyes:

 

[etto72]

Again the policy is very clear, and has been the same for a decade. C1 supports a list of cameras (including native raws from those cameras as well as DNG repackaging of those raws). No other cameras should be expected to work; rather you should fully expect that other cameras will not work, and that hacking raw files or the software to behave otherwise may cause issues.

Doug first of all let me tell you that I have always enjoyed reading your article on LULA and DT
They have been always very interesting and helpful !

Going back to my situation I really want to clarify that I am not asking any kind of support for those other MF cameras, so no profiling, no fine tuning, no work required !

I am just begging to let the software to read all DNG 1.4 files, so that existing user have a chance to keep their workflow
Is that an optimal solution?? of course not!!

A new user would never buy C1 if they don't support their camera, but what about the C1 costumers? what would you do in their place?

At last, do you really thing that allowing DNG import from files of the X1D or GFX would effect sales of Phase One cameras?

Thanks for listening!!

Ettore

 

[stephengilbert]

"[D]o you really thing that allowing DNG import from files of the X1D or GFX would effect sales of Phase One cameras?"

What difference does it make what we (including Doug) think? Apparently Phase thinks so, or they'd support more cameras.

 

[jerome_m]

I should have been more detailed. The mac version of Phocus does allow the use of the iPhoto/OSX library to provide basic raw editing of raws from cameras which that library supports. Tethering and many advanced adjustments are not supported when doing so.

Yes, the support is limited.

I'm curious if you use Phocus as your primary editor or browser of non Hassy files or are aware of anyone that does?

Actually, I sometimes use its colour editing functions, which I don't have in another program. I admit I don't do it often.

 

[dnercesian]

Can someone please correct my recollection if it is inaccurate here? I seem to remember being able to work on native DNG files from my old Leica S 007 in C1 when I tried a few times. I also seem to remember C1 working quite well with those files. Now I am really questioning if I am actually remembering this correctly as it has been a while and I have moved on to shooting Phase systems. Is my memory of this totally off?

As for the file hacking, OF COURSE THIS WORKS. It works for getting raw support in Adobe software for cameras they have yet to add. It works in C1. Not to mention, there are multiple ways to do it to achieve better compatibility. Regardless, this is something that is typically kept hush hush, and it is no surprise that Phase shut the conversation down in their own house.

I will say this though, as a life long student of hacking everything from software, networks, and people. There is really nothing like using a product the way it was meant to be used. It is really none of my business, nor do I care to judge whether Phase is right or wrong in how they choose to support camera systems. I simply look at it from a practical standpoint as someone who does not make decisions at Phase. That is to say I consider C1 part of the Phase ecosystem, and I like to use it with my Leica M and Nikon systems as well. If I had to use Adobe for my M and Nikon systems though, then so be it. I don't think this is really that big an issue. Just my opinion though.

 

[MGrayson]

Yes, C1 (at least version 9) works with Leica S(006) and S(007) files. But they are not supported. There is an unsubtle difference.

--Matt

 

[Pentax645]

I should have been more detailed. The mac version of Phocus does allow the use of the iPhoto/OSX library to provide basic raw editing of raws from cameras which that library supports. Tethering and many advanced adjustments are not supported when doing so.

Regardless it's a fair point! My statement as I wrote it is wrong and I appreciate your correction!

I'm curious if you use Phocus as your primary editor or browser of non Hassy files or are aware of anyone that does?

Doug and Etore let me tell you my story with Phase One:

When i decided to upgrade to medium format I was already using Capture One,
it was version 7 but luckily at that time you could export the 645Z pef in to Adobe dng (via Adobe dng converter)
and still use Capture One for all the edits

When v.8 came out, the same dngs that were in my Capture One 7 catalog were not compatible any longer
Phase One intentionally prevented that you could use those dngs just because were from the 645Z !!!

I try multiple times to be in touch with the support team, and i only heard all kind of stories and legends about the dng compatibility, but no one would ever admit that was done in purpose.

It took long time to get over that, eventually I switched to LR (though I still badly miss Capture One)

Funny to think that since Hasselblad closed their camera system (which as Michael Reichmann wrote at that time absolutely unacceptable!), Phase always likes to underline that they are an open company with an open platform, they want their customers to be able to choose... :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
Thanks certainly not my experience

Cheers
David

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think we need to remember what type of forum Phase One is and what type is GetDPI. We are a public forum and not a sponsored one so we have far more freedom on topics and discussion and for the record no OEM has ever asked us to pull something and we probably would not anyway. It's a open forum period. Certain topics we will avoid are like politics and religion as it has no bearing on photography. But Phase is a private forum for Phase users and they have a different set of rules than any public forum like us.

 

[mediumcool]

Doug has a point

In other industries and jurisdictions, and on other occasions, this sort of thing has been characterised as a restraint of trade.

 

[algrove]

Perhaps this has been mentioned sometime ago, but I do not remember.

It seems those of us who own Phase cameras and therefore use and purchased C1 ought to be permitted to use other MF cameras with C1. Since we are not interlopers, but true Phase users who have purchased Phase gear and spent a lot of money doing so, ought to be able to use our other MF gear even if it used for backup purposes. Very narrow minded in my opinion and it will influence my future Phase purchasing habits, for sure. If I didn't like my 100MP +XF so much I would sell it in protest, never to enter the Phase prison again.

ARE YOU LISTENING PHASE ONE?

 

[DrakeJ]

Perhaps this has been mentioned sometime ago, but I do not remember.

It seems those of us who own Phase cameras and therefore use and purchased C1 ought to be permitted to use other MF cameras with C1. Since we are not interlopers, but true Phase users who have purchased Phase gear and spent a lot of money doing so, ought to be able to use our other MF gear even if it used for backup purposes. Very narrow minded in my opinion and it will influence my future Phase purchasing habits, for sure. If I didn't like my 100MP +XF so much I would sell it in protest, never to enter the Phase prison again.

ARE YOU LISTENING PHASE ONE?

You can send the back to me, I'll even pay for shipping

 

[JoshMerwin]

Perhaps this has been mentioned sometime ago, but I do not remember.

It seems those of us who own Phase cameras and therefore use and purchased C1 ought to be permitted to use other MF cameras with C1. Since we are not interlopers, but true Phase users who have purchased Phase gear and spent a lot of money doing so, ought to be able to use our other MF gear even if it used for backup purposes. Very narrow minded in my opinion and it will influence my future Phase purchasing habits, for sure. If I didn't like my 100MP +XF so much I would sell it in protest, never to enter the Phase prison again.

ARE YOU LISTENING PHASE ONE?

I agree as a Phase One owner as well.

Some other thoughts. Hasselblad made a mistake by closing their system before... Phase is already going to lose market share to the X1D and GFX. And they could gain money back in software licenses from each of those cameras by opening up their software to those cameras, the Fuji especially. If it really is the best software, then wouldn't you want every photographer in the world be able use it? And use that in your marketing material to make more money from the software and elevate the brand image overall. And before people chime in and say that it would hurt their bottom line. If they raised the price to $500 a license for other medium format cameras, so a higher level of the software for medium format, that would be an additional $500,000 per 1,000 licenses sold, of basically pure profit for them. The price points of the new mirrorless cameras are no where near their cameras. If their budget is around $10,000, they aren't going to magically find an extra $40,000 to spend on an IQ350, and they most likely aren't spending an extra $40,000 just for the software. Part of the reason that people get so upset with them is that they do things to serve themselves instead of serving their customers. I realize they are a business and need to make money. But their clients are creative people who use their cameras and software to create inspiring mages and we want to be emotionally attached to our gear and work. Doing petty things like disallowing DNG files just by blocking the camera name pisses us off. And without us, they would't be around.

 

[algrove]

You can send the back to me, I'll even pay for shipping

I said "sell" not give.:grin:

 

[dnercesian]

Perhaps this has been mentioned sometime ago, but I do not remember.

It seems those of us who own Phase cameras and therefore use and purchased C1 ought to be permitted to use other MF cameras with C1. Since we are not interlopers, but true Phase users who have purchased Phase gear and spent a lot of money doing so, ought to be able to use our other MF gear even if it used for backup purposes. Very narrow minded in my opinion and it will influence my future Phase purchasing habits, for sure. If I didn't like my 100MP +XF so much I would sell it in protest, never to enter the Phase prison again.

ARE YOU LISTENING PHASE ONE?

I am not influenced by this as you are, however, I think you make a valid point here. Personally, I hate changing my workflow because it really effects the efficiency by which I get my work done. Moving to Phase One forced me to learn Capture One. For a long time I was using Capture One on my Phase images and then reverting back to Lightroom/Photoshop for everything else. Obviously I ended up preferring Capture One, but the ease of my Adobe workflow kept pulling me back.

I recently removed Lightroom and Photoshop from the dock on my Mac, just to discourage me from clicking on them and using them with my Leica M, SL, and Nikon files. I figure the more I dedicate myself to Capture One, the better I will get with it and really be able to use it exclusively (with PS for layers and complex cloning and things of that nature of course). Makes sense.

Now, I am lucky because all of my camera work in Capture One. But what you are saying made me think. I tend to purchase a lot of duplicates for work for the sake of redundancy. The idea of purchasing a second IQ3100 though? Not going to happen. Don't get me wrong, it would be my first choice. But One of them is all I can shoulder financially. I think it is fair that a customer like myself would be permitted to maintain my workflow if i bought a 645Z or GFX or X1D or anything of that nature to use as a backup.

All that being said though, I didn't buy the IQ3100 because it was the best at this or that. I bought it because it was the right tool for the job and gave me a leg up for my work and how I like to work. So everything must be built around this because I am fully aware of Phase One's stance on the matter. So I may not end up having a medium format backup to my IQ3100, but I will make it work because giving that up in any sort of protest would be cutting off my nose to spite my face.

Anyhow, I never though of it like that and I think you make a good point.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

Again the policy is very clear, and has been the same for a decade. C1 supports a list of cameras (including native raws from those cameras as well as DNG repackaging of those raws). No other cameras should be expected to work; rather you should fully expect that other cameras will not work, and that hacking raw files or the software to behave otherwise may cause issues.



I think the reason is pretty much common sense. But if you'd like an official response from Phase One directly on any topic you can contact them under "contact support" here; they always reply within 24 hours. It's possible they also emailed you, or will email you.

It's censorship, pure and simple. These are forums. There should be open discussion.

It is also a remarkably silly thing to do. If the idea was to shut down an unwanted discussion, it plainly has not worked.

 

[Pelorus]

I think it's important to make a clear distinction here between Phase One and its users. Users often come to identify with software and tools to the extent that they forget the nature of the relationship.

Phase One owns and manufactures C1 and they own the forums. It's their right to limit or extend the software in any way they see fit. They can add or delete features...as they see fit. They can limit or ban posts, topics or users on _their_ forums as they see fit. It's their gear.

Users on the other hand can love the gear, hate the gear, think Phase One is <insert invective> to limit or change the gear or to make it do something in a particular way.

Two separate sets of rights and they are non-interacting _except_ where we try to exercise user rights on the property of Phase One and the rights we try to exercise don't suit them. That's their right to deal with.

What would happen if tomorrow Phase One decided to, for instance, discontinue C1? We'd all rant and rave...but it'd be their choice, for their business reasons, not ours.

It sounds like stating the bleeding obvious...but if it is then this thread wouldn't exist.

PS: On re-reading this, the obvious other interaction is the consumer decision to buy or not to buy!!

 

[tjv]

I use the DB version of C1 with my Credo 60. I really like the software, although find it far less intuitive to use than Lightroom. Is it better or worse? I think it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. I personally find LR faster–both in processing speed and to get the files where I want–but C1 more powerful for certain colour edits, particularly a more refined curves / levels pallet and colour editor. But LR has panoramic stitching built in, better printing options, etc. So again, it's kind moot...

To be honest though, if LR had the same quality and way of dealing with LCC corrections, I'd prefer to use it. Purely a subjective thing on my part, I just find the workflow easier. If C1 was faster and did a few things better, however. Wonder what's planned for V11?

 

[GrahamWelland]

Personally what would make my day would be if there was a way to round trip raws as Capture One smart objects in Photoshop. Obviously Adobe has no interest in pursuing that but I would think that technically it could be done within the Photoshop framework for smart filters.

I can make most raw converters work, even the colours of ACR, but I am much more comfortable with the rendering from Capture One.

With respect to the stated aversion by Phase One to support competing camera systems - it just seems so short sighted overall IMHO. Getting a C1 Pro license for a non-Phase One camera has got to be better than no license at all and bummed out/pissed off users that you impress and entice with a better colour rendering solution than tools like SilkyPix, Phocus or ACR.

 

[MrSmith]

i find Blackmagic’s approach interesting in that it is the opposite of phase one’s yet seems to work for them. they sell mid-range cameras and software yet still support Sony, Panasonic, RED, Arri etc.

i would happily pay a £300-£400 subscription for capture one if it worked with just about any camera i have in the arsenal.

a lot of software and hardware companies have had to seriously look at their pricing/access models in the moving image world and it would appear that being open and accessible rather than restrictive works.

i have a grading plug-in for FCP-X imagine a tethering plug-in (for whatever camera you have) for capture one that wasn’t blocked.