![]()
It's completely non-destructive, so allowing easy readjustments of each stroke after the fact.Īdvanced Search: On1 says that finding the right photos will get a lot easier with the new Advanced Search dialog. Liquify Tool: This tool lets you push, bloat, and pinch areas of your photo, reducing flaws and reshaping regions. The new tools in the 2022.1 version include features that address the criticisms that some have made in the past: #On1 photo raw sidecar files softwareOn1 has been releasing sneak peeks of their software updates over the last few weeks, and they look like they are pulling out all the stops to polish off what I think is not only a viable but, for many, an even better alternative to the Lightroom/Photoshop combination. #On1 photo raw sidecar files updateThe update is, of course, also included in the subscription packages. ![]() #On1 photo raw sidecar files upgradeThere are major releases to On1 Photo Raw twice yearly, and the one released in the winter is a free upgrade to the latest version for those who bought the current perpetual license. There are a lot of variables and gobs of ways I could be off the tracks here.This major midterm upgrade to On1 Photo Raw brings more exciting and unique features that will certainly win it more converts from other asset management, raw development, and editing software programs ****It would be great if somebody would try to replicate my results. Layers subsequent to the first one - that came from the "parent" raw - seem to basically be copies of the RAWs from whence they came, stored in the onphoto. ** An onphoto seems to be related only to a single parent RAW. Onphotos don't seem to care one way or the other about. * The onphoto's IPTC metadata appears to be in its on1 file. As much as I personally would personally love to be able to move or delete files paired with their ON1 sidecars. Maybe if Photo Mechanic acted on all four files if an onphoto was detected and threw a warning that informed the user that onphotos and their RAWs were treated as pairs, like RAWs and JPEGs? Does that seem like it would work?**Īnd maybe that phone call to your opposite number at ON1 might be a good idea indeed.Īs complicated as it is, this might be an issue for another day. I would think it would make things more stable for them generally. If ON1 RAW simply always wrote an independent on1 file for each onphoto, it would seem to me that the issue would go away. I'm not sure what could be done about that - throw an error if the user tries to act on a RAW file when an onphoto of the same name is deteced? Seems complicated at best. ![]() So, it would appear that the risk is if a RAW and its sidecars are moved or deleted while ON1 RAW is not running, a related onphoto could lose its edits. If, on the other hand, I rename the onphoto in the first step above, or go back to it after removing the parent's on1 file and make an edit to it, a new on1 file is created for the onphoto and it appears to become independently portable. (And the RAW retains its edits).įrom this, I conclude that the onphoto's edits are carried in the parent RAW's on1 file. If I reunite all the files in the new folder, the onphoto regains its edits. If I then move the onphoto to a new folder - it does not retain its edits. When I then go back to the onphoto, it retains its edits (from the database, I assume.) If I quit ON1 RAW and remove those files, no on1 file is generated for the onphoto. If I leave ON1 RAW running and remove the RAW, on1 and xmp files, a new on1 is generated for the onphoto and all is well. If I start with a RAW file and edit it, then add a layer to make an onphoto, I end up with four files: a RAW, an on1, an xmp, and an onphoto. I went back and tried to make my experiment more rigorous, to try to isolate sidecar behavior from the behavior of ON1 RAW's live database. Or maybe acting on RAWs and onphotos as pairs - see below. But, when I copy one to a new folder, or rename it, it has both a. ![]() xmp if they exist in the same folder as their ancestor files. You can only make one by adding layers to an existing image. ![]() If I can help figure this out (after a good night's sleep), please reach out. It's been a long week and this is making my brain hurt. onphoto, it would seem you would be breaking the relationship between the parent files and its sidecars. But, if you moved the sidecars along with the. If an onphoto is living with its parents (a millennial file? :-), its sidecars would be the parent's. xmps with the same name would be sidecars to it. In other words, until they are renamed or moved, they seem to use their parent's. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |