Please make it possible to dynamically / non-destructively define a Color Range, as it is already possible with Luma Range.

Hi 375613028478,

Aside other things I am busy with evaluating 16.3 to see if I want to buy a perpetual license, that is especially important as you provide no commitment whatsoever for bug fixes / service releases.

After Black Friday sales I might possibly have some time for samples, will you provide a landing place for uploading? As I tend to agree with Prasad, are there specific samples or use cases you have in mind?

375613028478

Like the Luma range, I have a conviction that the Color Range feature can be used in all genres of photography. The use cases Capture One had in mind when designing Luma Range pretty much apply to Color Range as well; the only difference here is color (Hue + Saturation).

Throughout this discussion thread, we have elaborated on the need for the Color Range feature based on our experience with photography, working knowledge with various editing tools, and specifically Capture One now. It is probably possible for you to come up with a solid list of reasons and use cases. Don't get offended, but I am not sure everyone can put in the effort again to list use cases with supporting images. If you share a location to upload, most of use will be happy to share RAW images.

In conclusion, I would like to summarize (again) my point of view, which probably aligns with most of the users' view....

1. As Advanced Color Editor (ACE) adjusts HSL only, a new layer has to be created through "Create Masked Layer From Selection" for the selected Color Range in order to use other tools like Levels, Curve, Contrast, Dehaze, Clarity, Sharpening, Noise Reduction and Color Balance etc... As the resulting mask is "Static" (rasterized), a new layer and mask has to be created again if the selected color range needs to be modified. Whereas, if the proposed "Color Range" is implemented, the resultant mask will be "Dynamic" (auto calculated) which will allow users to tweak the "same" mask instead of recreating.

2. When adjustments are copied from image "A" and applied to multiple images, the "Color Range" mechanism ensures the range is recalculated for each image individually and the mask gets generated precisely. Whereas, if source image "A" has a static (rasterized) mask created through "Create Masked Layer From Selection" in ACE, then no recalculation will happen. All target images will have precisely the same rasterized mask as the source during Copy => Apply.

3. "Save Luma Range and Masks in custom styles" request is "In Works" as per C1. When it gets implemented in the future, then both Color and Luma Range features will become invaluable since whenever style is applied to multiple images, range masks are re calculated independently and precisely.

1. Even though the "Magic Brush" selection mechanism is based on "range of colors" (Tolerance option), the resultant mask is also "static" (rasterized). As it works based on an experimental approach (trial and error) and is additive in nature, it is cumbersome and difficult to create precise masks in many situations. It can neither be copied and pasted nor added to styles (future).

2. Another important advantage is that dynamic Vibrance (muted saturation range) and Saturation (high saturation range) masks can be created. If the proposed "Color Range" is implemented, the Vibrance and Saturation masks will be "Dynamic" which will allow users to tweak instead of recreating.

3. Last but not least, the important advantage is that due to the "Self-Feathering" nature of "Range" masks, Color and Luma range tools can produce high quality masks based on "Luminance+Hue+Saturation".

Thank You all for some awesome input. 

Can You provide some sample images (in raw format), that I can use internally (only), along with Your usecase for Color Range Masking for the respective image? 

I have missed out on an important one - Saturation Mask

In Advanced Color Editor (ACE) I can create mask presets for various saturation ranges as shown in the pictures. A saturation mask includes the full spectrum of hues (360 degrees) for the selected saturation range (0 to 100). Despite presets helping to choose the range, the mask produced will remain static. Therefore, the Color Range will allow ranges to be copied and applied dynamically or saved as styles with adjustments.

Use cases:

1. Vibrance Mask: It encompasses the muted (lower) portion of the Saturation Range, approximately from 0 up to 60. Bright scenes with low saturation tend to look dull, flat, and lack detail when shot at a bright time of day. I found that contrast, exposure, saturation and clarity adjustments to the midtone-highlight region (Luma Range) of a muted saturation mask gave better results than other options. I have found this technique to be very useful when photographing spring flowers, fall foliage, and beach scenes.

2. Saturation Mask: It covers high saturation ranges - approx 70 to 100. I use this mask for 2 purposes.

   1. To reduce oversaturation if it overpowers. Sometimes for fall foliage and spring flowers I like to increase to enhance.

   2. High saturation values in shadows and the lower midtone region create the illusion that it is more saturated than it actually is.To achieve pleasing results, I reduce the saturation and increase the luminosity of the range.

Would just like to make it abundantly clear that just because somebody is a moderator, doesn’t mean they represent the views of Capture One.

Generally speaking, I don’t see the point in negating somebody else’s idea or viewpoint. I use about 10% of the features in Capture One and if something new is implemented that I don’t find useful, I just don’t use it…

Everyone has different wants and needs. And we are absolutely committed to facilitating that sort of healthy discussion, as are the moderator team. 

Kevin, quite the opposite. I don’t dismiss your opinion. Rather I invest time every day so we can have a space free(er) of spam and the occasional mean-spirited post. I’m a bit hurt that you took my reply the way you seem to have. I was acknowledging that you could have the feeling that we are representatives of the company and somehow speak for them but “nope” that’s incorrect here. We’re just community members with a few janitor’s keys. Nothing more. Rather than feel attacked by that, maybe cut us a little slack for the time we spend cleaning up.

6938618439453, you can say "nope" dismissively, but that is not my perspective and, from my perspective, it has negatively impacted my view of Capture One. Coincidentally, being dismissive about my perspective negatively affects my view of Capture One; you are, very unfortunately, contributing to it now. Please do recognize that while you may be entitled to comment here, those comments are not viewed by everybody as detached from the company. As a moderator of the company's official forums, mods do act in an official capacity, and they do speak from a heightened position of authority.

Kevin, nope. I get what you’re angling at but we are only community members who have volunteered to try to help keep posts inside the community rules. I spend more time than you’d believe just deleting spam posts. While I personally take pains to make sure to state that my posts are my own opinion when I post something I think may be controversial, we are all still members of this community and Capture One users. Please do recognize that we have and are entitled to the same opinions and rights to comment here as any other user.

When someone becomes a community moderator, they are representing the company whose website that forum resides on, volunteer or not. Don't give someone a position of authority to represent the interests of the company if they are not aligned. Hire a community manager.

370130521737 My sincere thanks go out to you for understanding my effort and for your kind words... :) I have published this thread in couple of popular FB forums, asking for users to provide use cases. Looking forward to see this Color Range feature soon.  

375234899998 - Moderator is not an official member of Capture One, but rather a C1 user who has volunteered to help. I know a moderator with solid knowledge of C1 is 368108974477 , who is also the manages C1 Technical Group on Facebook. Additionally, he provided compelling reasons why this feature is needed.

368995393158's points above represents his own personal view and not the one of Capture One.

Please keep the illustrated use cases coming, it helps us understand the feature request better. 

368995393158 I suppose I see your point about how people can jump on a bandwagon, though to me this gives the bandwagon credibility. Again, why would I make this stuff up to justify a request if it didn't serve my own needs. Honestly I don't have time to put effort into these posts for no reason. 

Regarding the idea of a popularity contest - unfortunately that's exactly how companies understand what features the users want most. That's specifically why they have Voting features on these posts so that the team can better understand which features have the most users supporting them. Making the ideas popular is exactly what users have to resort to in order to get a company to even listen. Just because a feature isn't useful to you doesn't make it un-professional. You used the examples of HDR and Panorama, suggesting those are popularity features rather than professional ones - I personally have saved countless hours because of the Panorama feature, this is absolutely a professional feature to me, and it is probably the most impactful feature to my workflow that C1 has ever released. It's borderline offensive to call this an unprofessional feature, as it suggests the people who use it are therefor not professionals. 

Again. I don't see how any of these features make this a less focused product. All of them are simply tools that allow photographers to get the most out of their images, which is the overall goal here, and exactly what makes the product focused. It seems like you want C1 to only cater to a specific type of photographer, ie. Portrait Studio Photographers for example, and any tool that doesn't serve a purpose for "professional" portraits should therefor be cut out. This is incredibly short-sighted. None of them are "toys" - and even if they were, toys and exploration and fun and play, are exactly the things that fuel creativity. I thought that's what we were all here for.

368995393158 I take issue with these things you've said here, and it demonstrates a viewpoint I have not previously seen from this company.

1. "...whether the people who answered the 'what is the use case' question, Didn't see the idea and then tried to justify use cases after the fact, In order to have an answer to a question."

2. "...trying to do 'sanity checks'..."

3. "Rather than investing in popularity contests (HDR, Panorama, Film scanning module, Etc.)."

4. "...instead of investing in a professional, Focused product."

5. "...adding all these 'toys' (In my opinion)..."

6. "...adding hundreds if not thousands lines of code, Making the software buggy and laggy."

It's sad to find out that your opinion of the 38 professional here who have upvoted this request is so low that you assume they are making up use cases to justify a "toy" as you call it.

Your assumption that adding thousands of lines of code would make software buggy and laggy is hyperbolic and suggests that maybe the programmers at C1 are not competent enough to make stable software. By this very premise, software such as Photoshop and Davinci Resolve should work because there's too many lines of code. Please! I used to be a programmer. I know this is a falsehood and an exaggeration to try to back up your viewpoint, which is coming across to me as hostile and not professional.

As for popularity contests, you should consider the fact that if a lot of people are asking for something that maybe it has value. If something is popular, it doesn't make it inherently bad, it just means a lot of people see a need and a use for it, even if you personally don't. And referring to your responses to people's use cases as "sanity checks." could not possibly be any more disrespectful.

Does your job as a moderator of these forums extend to being a linebacker for the devs? 375613028478 has respectfully asked for use cases and we're providing them. Shutting us down in the process makes us feel unheard. And honestly, this is first time in almost a decade where I've had any negative feelings towards C1, and it's solely due to the way you are responding. I hope that's something the company addresses with you.

375613028478, exactly what 370130521737 mentioned, plus...

Skin Tone Tool — I use this tool extensively on colour work that is not even skin-related to harmonize the HSL values across a colour block. Pretty much anything you see in this video: https://youtu.be/eCeZ7mipCbQ

In fashion, ecomm, product, etc., being able to apply layer tools to a colour range (such as opening up the shadows on a coloured fabric that is absorbing more light than wanted), is incredibly valuable.

Whenever I use darktable to develop my raw files and use masks and colored areas are involved, I use the parametric masks, and I do NOT search for a way to rasterize them.

Whenever I am a little unhappy with my mask created in C1 after I have done my non-color adjustments, or copy it over to another image in the series, I am searching for a way to quickly amend the masks and I AM searching for a way to this quickly do this.

With all respect, Sharon, but questioning my motivation here is a slap in my face and disrespectful!

I have so many other wishes for C1 that I would not waste the companies time, nor mine, to support the implementation request for this feature, just because I think it would be a nice-to-have feature.

! ! !

Hi 370130521737

1. That's one thing we don't agree on. Yes, I agree the thread wouldn't exist without the initial "need" but I would ask if it's a "need" or nice to have from the company's stand point, And also whether the people who answered the "what is the use case" question, Didn't see the idea and then tried to justify use cases after the fact, In order to have an answer to a question. But, again, I agree regarding the initial request. Just not regarding the justifications afterwards.

2. "your questions suggest that you are looking for a reason to NOT implement a feature, rather than trying to understand HOW to build and implement that feature" - I'm merely trying to do "sanity checks" and ask questions. Because in any company , eventually, you have a finite amount of resources, Something has to be "nice to have" and not everything can be developed and implemented as "needed" or "urgent". I would much prefer a company that invests in stability and security, And of course performance of what's already implemented, Rather than investing in popularity contests (HDR, Panorama, Film scanning module, Etc.).

In a theoretical perfect world, Your notion of "C1 competitors already have this feature" would actually prove my point: it's a popularity contest, So C1 , As other vendor, Should develop popular and consumer features (Someone mentioned "Sky replacement"?) instead of investing in a professional, Focused product.

And no, I do not agree on the fact that adding all these "toys" (In my opinion) would be "a specialized product". That will kill the specialized product, adding hundreds if not thousands lines of code, Making the software buggy and laggy.

375613028478

I don't do Portrait photography. But re your question to 375234899998 about "What image adjustments would you apply the layer, if you had a Color Range mask applied to the seamless background?"

Some examples I could think of:
- maybe the person was shot against a solid colour painted wall that has a texture, I might want to add some defocus to that colour area to reduce any distractions the texture may be causing. Or perhaps I need to control the contrast of that texture more without affecting the rest of the image
- Or potentially the reverse, maybe the colour block is so smooth and flat that it doesn't look like a photograph and I want to add some film grain or noise to those colours in the background.
- most importantly, if I need to apply these same edits to the same colour background across 10 or more images, then having this features saves the time of creating individual masks for each image. Or more than likely, saves me a trip to Photoshop for all 10 of those images to be able to get that level of control.

I really appreciate seeing Product Managers and Moderators getting involved in here.

368995393158 Maybe Im the only one who sees this as weird, but your questions suggest that you are looking for a reason to NOT implement a feature, rather than trying to understand HOW to build and implement that feature - which is exactly what I think 375613028478 is looking for here by asking us for use cases, which I think we all very much appreciate.

For the sake of “Food for thought” as you suggested - Here are my thoughts.

1. Whether the use cases were here, where an after-thought in order to show a use case, Or is it a use case that created the need in the first place... Chicken or the egg. Is the tail pulling the dog? (Steve Jobs was famous for explaining why you need a new device, When you didn't even knew you needed one)

I don’t think this thread wouldn’t exist if the Use Case didn’t come first. Users aren’t just making stuff up in order to get C1 to add features we don’t need. It happens when users hit a point in our workflows which there are no tools to support that workflow, Then we come to the forums looking for a solution. To suggest that users are just making up these use cases is a little out of touch. I really don’t think anybody has time for that.

2. How would all the requests affect C1 in terms of lines of code addition and the performance afterwards

I don’t really see how this is a question for the forums. It should be the C1 Dev team who’s responsible for ensuring clean code and performance while accommodating the needs of the customers. Sure every new feature might affect performance, but we shouldn’t seek to stagnate progression for the sake of performance. This will always be a constant tug-of-war, but it’s required for advancement.

3. Does C1 wants to be a tool of many - master of none? a "Navy seal" or an "all around soldier"?

I believe this software is meant for all photographers creating all kinds of images, who want a great deal of control and quality when processing their RAW images. C1 is already a Navy Seal of processing RAW Photos, I don’t see how adding this tool make it less specialized. 

---

The bottom-line common-denominator that I see in most of these uses cases, is about saving time when editing many photos; dynamic non-destructive masks give us a lot of control at a rapid speed of output. This is the very strong WHY behind all of these requests - to speed up an otherwise very time-consuming workflow. Speed is the name of the game in this modern world.

I think another strong WHY point to address here, is that C1 competitors already have this feature. This is partially a game of catch up and staying relevant. For me this is most important because I do see C1 as a best-in-class raw processor, If I didn’t I would have long-ago switched to Lightroom to gain access to features released at a quicker pace. I still really want those features, but I don’t want give up C1 RAW processing. (In fact the only reason I Use Lightroom, is to Geo-Tag my untagged images since C1 doesn’t have this feature at all - would also love to do this all in one place)

I think the Use Cases already provided in here from 376215157598, 374928758978, 369260519517 and a few others are spot on, and I really don’t have much to add that hasn’t already been shared. Prasad specifically has put so much time and effort into thinking about how this feature could work and be implemented including UI mock-ups; Thank you so much for that. I really hope your efforts are rewarded. I specifically love the “Luminance+hue+saturation” combo of creating a dynamic mask - this is incredibly flexible. 

All in all my use cases are similar to what others have mentioned. I work most specifically on landscape images, where having the tools to apply non-colour-based adjustments to specific colour ranges is highly important. These can range from Sharpening/De-Sharpening, Clarity, Contrast, Noise Reduction, etc. Essentially all of the tools NOT found in the Advanced Colour Editor which focuses specifically on colour based adjustments. Heck knowing me I would probably even adjust White Balance to a specific colour range.

Selection and Isolation are nearly the most important tools of any image editor, and this is often a time-consuming process to get the selection right. Anything that can be done to speed this up, while remaining accurate, is highly welcomed.

In any case I’m glad to see this feature getting attention and progressing forward.

375234899998

What image adjustments would you apply the layer, if you had a Color Range mask applied to the seamless background?

6938618439453, 368995393158 and 375613028478 - Happy to see active involvement of moderators and Project manager.

While myself and many others have already discussed/explained the importance and necessity of this feature in detail, I would like to summarize my view (again).

1. Since Advanced Color Editor (ACE) adjusts HSL only, a new layer has to be created through the "Create Masked Layer From Selection" option in ACE for the selected Color Range to use other tools like Levels, Curve, Contrast, Dehaze, Clarity, Sharpening, Noise Reduction and Color Balance etc... As the resulting mask is "Static" (rasterized), a new mask has to be created again if the selected color range needs to be modified. Whereas Layer Mask through the proposed "Color Range" will create a "Dynamic" mask which allows users to tweak the "same" mask instead of recreating.

2. When adjustments are copied from image "A" and applied to multiple images, the "Color Range" mechanism ensures the range is recalculated for each image and the mask gets generated precisely. But, if source image "A" has a static (rasterized) mask then no recalculation happens instead all images will have masks at the same locations as source due to direct Copy => Paste.

3. "Save Luma Range and Masks in custom styles" request is "In Works" as per C1. When it gets implemented in the future, the Color Range and Luma Range will become so invaluable since when ever style is applied, range masks are re calculated precisely.

1. Even though "Magic Brush" selection mechanism is based on "range of colors" (Tolerance option), the resultant mask is also "Static" (rasterized). As it works based on an experimental approach (trial and error) and additive in nature, it is cumbersome and difficult to create precise masks in many situations. It can neither be copied and pasted nor added to Styles (future).

2. Finally, due to the "Self-Feathering" nature of "Range" masks, Color and Luma range tools can produce high quality masks based on "Luminance+Hue+Saturation".