Tweet
I have had this program for quite a few years as it can work with the digital backs for my Hasselblad's. It's also way more comprehensive than any Adopie product available or more like Photoshop and Light room all rolled together, and then some. I just downloaded Version 20 and paid up my yearly fee. I got the activation code back and now it makes you go on line to your profile and enter that emailed code to get another activation code that is supposed to make the thing light up. Dual codes... sheesh.... are they paranoid much? All I can say is it was not like this last year. Anyway in the merry-go-round of activation it failed to work. Yes, have written with them, but was curious of anyone else here that does photography has had activation issues with it like this?
-
-
It's fixed and activated. The issue was that TLS 1.2 has to be activated in Winderz in order to communicate with the server at Capture One in Copenhagen. TLS 1.2 is not activated by default in 7 Pro. So one has to go into "regedit" and write it in and then reboot so it is a normal available protocol. Apparently is is there by default in Winderz 10 Pro. -
And thereby add a new attack target and reduce the security of your Windows installation. (If the words security and Microsoft Windows actually belong in the same sentence.)Comment
-
Not too worried about anyone hackng in because I run a hardware firewall (Untangle). If they are able to get through that fire wall, then I am.fine with them taking what ever they want. Winderz 10 also automatically comes with TLS 1.2 activated. Of course, you may disable it if you don't need it.Originally posted by Frank Cox View PostLast edited by Mark Gulbrandsen; 11-01-2020, 03:47 PM.Comment
-
I've never used Develop One, but I've been using Affinity Photo for years now for some raw data editing. It comes with some on-line instructions here:
https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/tut...deo/331997643/
Affinity Photo has largely replaced Photoshop for most workflows for us, except for those that require PSD file compatibility...Comment
-
Aside from it being the best photo editor I have ever used, most of my need for Capture One is because I own three of their Hasselblad digital backs. It allows me to interface the backs directly to my laptop for capturing images. Because these are large file raw images(60 to 100 MB files) capturing that way is much faster than.capturing on internal memory cards. Capture One will also do this with almost all other digital cameras that have the required connection. I rarely use Adobe stuff any more...Comment
-
This is the reason why I don't do very much digital photography. I use digiphotos when I want to post things on the internet or send something by e-mail. I'll take a random cat picture (or other stuff) with digicams. Any photos I want for keeps, won't be digital.
Virtually all digital cameras either store their photos in proprietary formats (within the camera) or they outright encrypt the data. The formatting/encryption changes with the model of the camera and sometimes even with firmware updates. If the user doesn't have the specific driver that works on a given camera you can't access your photos.
Those photos are YOUR property. How can a camera manufacturer get away with denying a person access to their own property?
That should be a crime!
If somebody came along and locked the front door of your house, changed the key and said that you can't go inside until they pay a fee, you'd be all up in the air about that! Why do people just accept it when it comes to digital photography or other computer things?
I have two digicams. Both were given to me. One's a Canon-something and the other's a Minolta.
The Minolta, I have set to store photos directly to the flash memory card in TIFF format. The other, I store as Camera RAW+JPEG then, after transferring to my computer, I translate them to DNG format.
This way, at least, I'll have half a chance to access those pictures in the future when I need them.Comment
-
Randy Stankey said...
"Virtually all digital cameras either store their photos in proprietary formats (within the camera) or they outright encrypt the data. The formatting/encryption changes with the model of the camera and sometimes even with firmware updates. If the user doesn't have the specific driver that works on a given camera you can't access your photos."
Ha? I guess you mever heard of RAW format. Thats tends to be what 99% of photographers use when.they shoot digital images.Comment
-
The RAW files are encrypted in the camera. The driver from the manufacturer that reads the file and allow you to access it also decrypts it.Comment
-
I think the amount of encryption used differs between manufacturer. Most don't encrypt the raw image data but do encrypt part of the metadata, often including data essential for white balance, etc. In the end, none of those formats is properly documented, so most of what we know about them has been reverse-engineered over time. I would love camera makers to embrace a generic, open, RAW format, like OpenRAW, but they all seemingly think that their layer of secret sauce is important for them.
Once a camera maker will introduce a camera as good as those from the big boys and supports something like OpenRAW, you'll see me switching towards them.
Comment
-
Very definately not in any digital cameras I presently own Randy. Even my crappy Moto G7 stores images as RAW or JPEG (or both). The Phase One backs store RAW on their mem cards or you can directly capture shots in RAW format. My earlier cameras going all the way back to a Kodak DC20 in 1997 which was the exception, the others after that being Nikon or Canon, stored them as JPEG which could be read directly by any computer you stuck the memory card into.Originally posted by Randy Stankey View PostComment
-
Yes, you most likely can access those RAW files, but many vendors, including Kodak, Canon and Sony are known to encrypt certain metadata parts of those RAW files in such way that only their own tools are able to access that data.
I don't know if Hasselblad does so with their digital backs, but their 3FR file format also is a proprietary format.Comment
-
So far the only time I have actually needed the manufacturers software is to do firmware updates... There was no metadata recorded at all by my DC20, probably because of the limited memory in the camera and you had to have that to connect and access the images, but the others do it just fine by directly reading the cards, itsvalso a lot faster to access images. No Canon's or Sony's here except for some Canon film cameras.Comment
-
Somewhere in your computer's operating system, there is a series of files... drivers - .dll files - .kext files or some other sort of add-on... that the computer and/or software programs use to read in the data from your photos to whatever image editing software you are using. Without those drivers, you can't access your picture files or, at least, some part of them. (White balance and/or other metadata.)
Yes, there are some camera companies that encrypt part or all of the data, making your photos inaccessible or unusable in some way. When operating system software is updated, you might need to also update your image file drivers, too. Sometimes those drivers are included in the OS updates. Sometimes, the old drivers work with the new OS. But, sometimes, those drivers are not updated and there have been instances where people have needed to find old versions of operating systems that include the necessary drivers in order to access their pictures.
Hasselblad is one of the better companies in this regard. They have embraced the unencrypted DNG format and many of their cameras can use it. But, as Mark alluded to, companies like Nikon, Sony or Canon do use encryption and/or proprietary formats, specifically for the reason to confound the user's ability to read all or part of the data, making it a requirement to use their software and/or drivers.
Yes, most people can open their image files using PhotoShop, GIMP or other programs but, underneath the hood, there is work going on to read in that data and, without the right drivers, people might not be able to access the data in their own pictures.
Those pictures are MINE! Nobody has the right to say whether I can access my own damn pictures!
Mark is right to avoid cameras made by companies that obfuscate image data in their cameras.
I have negatives from photos that I took forty years ago or longer but some of the pictures that I took with digicams is likely to be inaccessible either because the drivers to access them no longer exist or because they are locked in a computer system that doesn't have the right software to read them in.
I know that I have a few pictures that I can't read anymore. Most of them, I have translated into formats that I can read and will be able to read for the foreseeable future but I have run across a few that I can't read.
They are my pictures! MINE! MINE! MINE!
Why can't I see them?
Because some other people, who I don't know, who I have never met, have decided that I should not be allowed to see them unless I follow their arbitrary rules... Like paying money for access codes to software that reads them, without which I can't see my own damn pictures!Comment
-
You can make the same argument about proprietary data formats of any kind. Microsoft doc files being a front-and-center example.Comment
Comment