Switching between browser and image

[Sapphie]

In LR you can easily switch between 'grid' view, showing your catalog thumbnails and 'loupe' view, showing your image.

I can't see an easy way to do this in C1. I know I can switch the browser on and off with Cmd-B but that also keeps the image on-screen. The nearest equivalent is to go to the View menu and select Hide Browser but then double-clicking a thumbnail doesn't bring the image back.

I must be missing something?

Lee

[jeanvalentin]

There is no easy way (with a shortcut) like in LR. The only way I was able to achieve this was via workspaces. It's a pain (since you can't easily make a shortcut for workspaces). Also, to make it a little bit easier, add the workspace icon to your toolbar for each of the new workspace. This way you don't have to go through the menu each time you want to change.

[Doug Peterson]

There is no easy way (with a shortcut) like in LR. The only way I was able to achieve this was via workspaces. It's a pain (since you can't easily make a shortcut for workspaces). Also, to make it a little bit easier, add the workspace icon to your toolbar for each of the new workspace. This way you don't have to go through the menu each time you want to change.

au contraire

Assuming you're on a Mac you can make a shortcut for workspaces using the standard OSX system preferences > keyboard > keyboard shortcuts by simply referring to the name of the workspace. This takes less than 60 seconds, and you only have to do it once :-).

Or you can add a standard C1 keyboard shortcut (using Capture One > Edit Keyboard Shortcuts) for "hide viewer" so that you can use one hand and two quick shortcuts (only slightly more work than one shortcut) to hide/show the browser and hide/show the viewer.

But IMO it's best not to try to make one program emulate the behavior of another, but rather embrace the advantages and disadvantages of each program to make each work to it's best ability. For instance if you are at a stationary system I love two monitor setups and C1's ability to provide browser, tools, and a 100% preview on one monitor, and the full-screen of just the image and histogram on the other monitor. Whatever your goals/workflow needs there are likely several layouts C1 can provide you that would be more efficient than simply trying to emulate what you had previously done in a separate software suite.

We cover a lot on layouts for efficient workflow in our Capture One Training classes.

[jeanvalentin]

....
But IMO it's best not to try to make one program emulate the behavior of another, but rather embrace the advantages and disadvantages of each program to make each work to it's best ability...

For me, it's about the best implementation of a feature. LR has that better implemented than C1 and it makes sense to try to emulate it (if possible). There are other things that C1 does better (customization of toolbars/tools for example) as well.

I decided that I will use LR for certain things and C1 for others. While C1 was my first RAW converter, I would never use it for working on weddings anymore. LR has a MUCH better workflow than C1. I do use C1 for portraits where the volume of images is much lower and the workflow doesn't get in the way too much. Yes, you can create shortcuts at OS level, but that's a backwards way of implementing it (and what about Windows? Is it possible there?) and then you have to make sure you don't have any conflicts within the app (there is no warning since they don't communicate back and forth; within the app you do get a warning). Again, not saying it's not possible, but a pain (although Doug might have a higher pain threshold than me ).

So, maybe the solution is to try to see where each one fits within your workflow. Luckily for users, there are both mature applications and you get great output from both nowadays (they will always up one another in certain areas, but overall they are both good).

[Doug Peterson]

While C1 was my first RAW converter, I would never use it for working on weddings anymore. LR has a MUCH better workflow than C1. I do use C1 for portraits where the volume of images is much lower and the workflow doesn't get in the way too much.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

For weddings I started with Aperture, then LR, then C1, and am very happy now doing them entirely in C1. For me the ability to throw all of my tools and feedback mechanism that I need to edit a wedding on a single screen (nothing more, nothing less) is invaluable and the speed/instantaneous of sequence editing (applying a new style/look/correction to a series of a few dozen images taken in similar situations) is better in C1 over LR because of the proxy-editing concept.

I'm sure if we switched styles of editing that we would probably switch preferred processors as well. They both do quite well, and do even better if you really get educated on them.

[jeanvalentin]

Different strokes for different folks I guess.
....

Most definitely (and believe me, I tried to like C1 for weddings ... that's where I miss the 3.7 version ... despite of better processing engine of current version(s), I think that version 3.7 will go down in history as one of the best Phase have ever had ... KISS at it's best).