Yeah - I think once people start using this, they're going to wonder how they ever lasted without it. Global brush settings - so 2020.... ;-)

Ha! Yeah, the last "flight" I took was with the doors off, 30 miles from my house...!

100%. It's a real improvement to one of the key editing frustrations!

Yeah - this is the biggest "little improvement" I've seen for a long while!

No worries - and yeah, will be good to see how it changes peoples' workflows in the future :-)

Yeah - it's a great way to get repeatable results without having to resort to transferring tool settings as a global style or series of presets. They did a good job with this one!

I think for the viewer, there's a case for it being primarily focused around those who need to "cull". Personally, I don't - I shoot low numbers and import all of them, with no intention to scrap any volume of shots. But the style brushes will allow you to reuse adjustments across many images - over time, across catalogs, etc - which is a welcome improvement to workflow, and trust me when I say you're going to find brush linking really handy...!

Honestly, there are a few influences - usage data of cameras used for image imports, commercial agreements in place, etc. I wouldn't like to bet on older models being high on the priority list, and I'd ask what you feel is missing in the existing profiles that ProStandard could "fix"?

Personally, I'm not a fan of adding those things in. Want a tilt/shift effect? Use a tilt shift lens. Want a photograph of golden hour? Shoot at golden hour. Want motion blur? Use ICM, or... "move"? The orton/glow effect is actually possible with the existing toolset, with the right adjustments. Likewise, enhancing sun tones is possible to achieve in the colour editing tools. But the more "toys" in the raw editor, the less focused it is on getting the best out of the original image. To me, those plugins result in fabrications - which is fine, as there are dedicated tools out there to provide that - but don't belong in software that's designed around image integrity. We can let the "AI Fanboys" enjoy those (sometimes awful) digital tricks on their own... That said - that's just an opinion - not "fact", and it may well be that they become a note on a future road map, who knows. I just hope not... ;-)

If you're on 21, this one is included :-)

@@Paulreiffer I'm not. On a photo 'enthusiast' budget.

Ah - oooops. Sorrryyyyy....! ;-)

Still at 16 for now :-)

@@Paulreiffer well, that's disappointing... 🤔

How often do you hit 16 layers? In my edits, I don't - but maybe there's a different approach to re-using the same adjustment but with different mask strengths on the same layer.

@@Paulreiffer yes, that's what I was wondering. If you use the same (type) brush on various different sections of an image I guess you could use masks. If you want to avoid that you could use custom brushes that basically do the same thing, but with different settings and on different sections of an image, I can see how you can hit 16 layers. I've got 16 layers on multiple of my images, with just trying to keep things separated and be able to use multiple masks... But I do see your point about how often that could/would happen...

Yeah - I mean, more layers would always be good, of course. But then I wonder is the performance impact "worth it" for the sake of being tidier with editing. If you have 16 healing layers - do they run slower than 1 healing layer with 16 points - for example. Layers adjusting over other layer adjustments will all impact speed, so I have a feeling the limit might also be to keep editing smooth...

It was announced that it's on its way (for April, I believe) :-)

@@Paulreiffer ahhhh many thanks!!

Ah Tee Hee

It was a much more polite version of my first incarnation...!

Hmmm... At £180/year, that's just above the cost of a single decent quality 150mm ND filter. I'd use that filter on, maybe, 20% of my shots. I use Capture One on 100% of my shots. To me, that'd be good value ;-)