Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: John McDermott on November 16, 2017, 09:23:17 pm
-
I am new to C1 (just going through the LuLa videos starting with C1-7) but have been a Lightroom user since day one. C1 is impressive but truthfully, I haven't see anything I couldn't do in LR.
However, there is one aspect of C1 that I think is terrible: keywords. LR leaves something to be desired in keywords, but C1 really sucks IMHO.
Anyone agree or disagree?
-
I am new to C1 (just going through the LuLa videos starting with C1-7) but have been a Lightroom user since day one. C1 is impressive but truthfully, I haven't see anything I couldn't do in LR.
However, there is one aspect of C1 that I think is terrible: keywords. LR leaves something to be desired in keywords, but C1 really sucks IMHO.
Anyone agree or disagree?
Personally, having used LR since V1 I found that the problem with looking at alternative software is that you expect to see the same controls and way of working. Unfortunately, you need to spend the time to understand how the software is designed to work.
For example it took a lot of time for me to get my head around the fact that the UI was customisable. After 10 years of LR this is something that never crossed my mind because it is not an option in LR. A customisable UI enables me to work the way I want to and I have found it a big time saver, as well as removing annoyances that I had simply learned to accept, because you had to:-) Improved work flow is a big plus for me with C1. You also don't have that constant switching between Library and Develop modules. As I remember, one of the most asked for improvements on the Lr forums in the early days, until we all eventually gave up asking because it wasn't going to happen:-)
The other aspect to bear in mind is that C1Pro is much more like PS than LR. LR was developed as the antithesis of PS even to the point of changing the way cropping worked. Again the topic of great angst in the forums. C1Pro uses levels and curves as one of its main adjustment tools much like photoshop. It even has the option of a Luma curve as well as the normal RGB. When you adjust contrast with curves you also affect saturation. That was how Thomas Knoll (who created PS) designed the curves to work. With the Luma curve, contrast can be adjusted but saturation is unaffected. I find this a great help in getting the results I want quickly. You can even have 2 instances of the Curves dialogue open at once. Remember, customisable UI:-) See the attached jpg for an example.
You also have clarity but you can choose between various types, plus you have the structure slider which LR does not have.
Most of the adjustments are available in layers which is the way C1Pro goes about local adjustments, again like PS rather than LR. It is easy to miss what options are available until you become familiar with the UI. See attached jpg which shows the menu option on layers which people sometimes miss.
There is no "syncing" adjustments C1Pro works with the simple "copy" and "paste" methodology, again like PS.
You also get the option of "not" working in catalogues but directly with the files!! Again, not a possibility with LR so you would not be aware of it. As I said looking at new software is not easy:-) When you work directly with the files it is called "session" mode. You can rate, keyword, adjust etc in sessions and your work is not lost as these sessions can be imported at a later date into a catalogue. Note the catalogues are slower than LR when you have over 50,000 images in them.
One last final thought, C1Pro tries to get you close to your final image by default. If you prefer the flat, low contrast starting point that Adobe standard gives you just use linear profile, see jpg.
With regards to key-wording C1Pro was not comparable with LR but with V10 there is not so much to complain about. You can have key word libraries, hierarchical key words etc. Remember that once you are familiar with how key-wording works in C1Pro you can set up your own workspace optimised for that task.
I hope this helps. I "evaluated" C1 a couple of times in the past. But the truth is I just opened up a file in C1, pulled a few sliders that I recognised the name of and then went Mah, not as good as LR. Only when I really had the motivation to really evaluate C1Pro did I realise the potential.
Ian
-
I am new to C1 (just going through the LuLa videos starting with C1-7) but have been a Lightroom user since day one. C1 is impressive but truthfully, I haven't see anything I couldn't do in LR.
However, there is one aspect of C1 that I think is terrible: keywords. LR leaves something to be desired in keywords, but C1 really sucks IMHO.
Anyone agree or disagree?
Disagree. Like Ian wrote, you have to give yourself some time to fully understand how it works. You can make keywords, assign them to your images, make child keywords, search on keywords in multiple ways. So what's to desire? Besides, I have better results with my images in C1 than in LR.
Henk
-
However, there is one aspect of C1 that I think is terrible: keywords. LR leaves something to be desired in keywords, but C1 really sucks IMHO.
Anyone agree or disagree?
Yes, I agree. I wouldn't say "terrible", probably "adequate", but C1's keywording is less flexible than LR's. No synoyms, no private keywords, not as many alternative ways to apply them, more steps to filter on a keyword. I don't think you need to spend much time to fully understand this.
-
Yes, I agree. I wouldn't say "terrible", probably "adequate", but C1's keywording is less flexible than LR's. No synoyms, no private keywords, not as many alternative ways to apply them, more steps to filter on a keyword. I don't think you need to spend much time to fully understand this.
Synonyms and private keywords, hardly major issues John? You could also say that LR needs alternative ways of applying keywords because the UI is not customisable, so you can't set up a dedicated workspace :-)
If these are the major issues you can highlight, I think that says C1 has made a lot of progress:-)
Perhaps it would help if the OP could post where he found inadequacies for his use?
Ian
-
Synonyms and private keywords, hardly major issues John? You could also say that LR needs alternative ways of applying keywords because the UI is not customisable, so you can't set up a dedicated workspace :-)
If these are the major issues you can highlight, I think that says C1 has made a lot of progress:-)
Perhaps it would help if the OP could post where he found inadequacies for his use?
Ian
It depends how far you push keywords, Ian. As I said, C1's keywording is adequate, not "terrible" as the OP said, but LR's is just better. What's not to like about applying one keyword and automatically applying its synonyms? Does C1 have any equivalent of the keyword suggestions which help you enter keywords based on previously-entered keywords? The end result is that you enter more keywords and enter them more consistently with LR.
LR offers more ways to input keywords because users need different ways in different circumstances. It's nothing to do with whether you can fiddle around with the UI - and C1's UI customisation is more to make a virtue of necessity, isn't it?
-
Perhaps it would help if the OP could post where he found inadequacies for his use?
Your listing of C1 attributes addresses many interesting things about C1. However, I'm trying to decide whether an additional $300 is worth it to me inasmuch as I am already reasonably proficient in LR and have been/am paying for the monthly subscription.
John Beardsworth pretty much laid out what I believe are the advantages of LR keyboarding. I can't add much more.
Thanks for taking the time to articulate your thoughts Ian.
-
I used LR since the pre-public beta. However after switching from Canon FF DSLRs to Fuji X, I was not happy with the Fuji RAW conversions from LR. I tried CaptureOne Pro then and the quality difference was tremendous. I switched to C1P and have not looked back.
The most recent versions of C1P have gotten much better for DAM and key wording, however, it is less developed than LR's implementation. Nonetheless, it is still very usable.
What I miss most from LR is the Print module. I print from C1P, but LR's printing capabilities was fantastic. However, the IQ from C1P is worth putting up with its printing capabilities.
Even when I go back an reprocess my old Canon RAW files, the IQ with C1P is better and easier to achieve.
I cancelled my Adobe Creative Cloud subscription about 18 months ago and have not looked back.
Regards,
Bud James
www.budjames.photography
-
Yes, I'd agree that keywording options are severely lacking in CO compared to LR.
I'd guess that comes from the origins of LR being designed from the start as a 'one stop shop' for digital photography, whereas CO seems to be a raw converter as an item within an overall workflow of several applications.
It will be interesting to see how Phase One move CO forward and if they want to improve the DAM part of CO.
-
Yep.. Now would be the IDEAL time for C1 to shore up their DAM functionality - including the horrendously slow catalog database. Given that you-know-what has happened with LR & Adobe.
Will they pounce on this golden opportunity?? Hmm...
-
It depends how far you push keywords, Ian. As I said, C1's keywording is adequate, not "terrible" as the OP said, but LR's is just better. What's not to like about applying one keyword and automatically applying its synonyms? Does C1 have any equivalent of the keyword suggestions which help you enter keywords based on previously-entered keywords? The end result is that you enter more keywords and enter them more consistently with LR.
LR offers more ways to input keywords because users need different ways in different circumstances. It's nothing to do with whether you can fiddle around with the UI - and C1's UI customisation is more to make a virtue of necessity, isn't it?
"Does C1 have any equivalent of the keyword suggestions which help you enter keywords based on previously-entered keywords?"
Yes.
Also the ability to have multiple Keyword libraries and decide which Keywords to include from what Library on export.
-
"Does C1 have any equivalent of the keyword suggestions which help you enter keywords based on previously-entered keywords?"
Yes.
Never found that yet. Where is it ?
Sorry, but CO really has a HUGE amount of catching up on this aspect compared to LR, and LR could be a lot better anyway. E.g. as far as I can see it's impossible to add keywords when importing batches of images, how basic is that ?
-
Never found that yet. Where is it ?
Hi,
Not sure what kind of equivalence you are looking for, but when you type your keyword in the Keyword Library filter, the list of current keywords is limited to the matching ones, and a single mouse click will apply your choice to the selected images. If you instead click the plus sign to add a keyword, it will pop up a list Keyword Library keywords that match the letters you typed which you can select, and apply. Simply 2 mouse clicks.
Sorry, but CO really has a HUGE amount of catching up on this aspect compared to LR, and LR could be a lot better anyway. E.g. as far as I can see it's impossible to add keywords when importing batches of images, how basic is that ?
If you want to apply the same keywords to the most recently imported images, just select them and one file with the required keywords, then apply those keywords to all selected files. Quite simple.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not sure what kind of equivalence you are looking for, but when you type your keyword in the Keyword Library filter, the list of current keywords is limited to the matching ones, and a single mouse click will apply your choice to the selected images. If you instead click the plus sign to add a keyword, it will pop up a list Keyword Library keywords that match the letters you typed which you can select, and apply. Simply 2 mouse clicks.
Bart, this comes from my question "Does C1 have any equivalent of the keyword suggestions which help you enter keywords based on previously-entered keywords?"
In LR after you keyword a photo the Keyword Suggestions panel examines previous photos in the catalogue which have the same keyword(s) and it then suggests 9 other keywords that you might want to add.
So for example, if I apply the keyword "dry stone wall" to a photo, the Keyword Suggestions panel might suggest a keyword like "Wall" which is pretty obvious and could come from a hierarchy. But it would also suggest words like "Lake District" and "Borrowdale" and "Geometry" because those happen to be keywords which I have previously added to lots of photos of dry stone walls. It's dynamic so if I add "dry stone wall" and "dog", it would probably suggest "sheep", "sheepdog", "shepherding", "agriculture", "farming" and so on. Its suggestions are often surprising and quite clever, based on some "fuzzy logic" algorithm.
I think the answer is no, there is no equivalent, David says yes, Rhossydd says where?
-
Not sure what kind of equivalence you are looking for
Same as Lightroom, or preferably even better. LR offers recently used keywords and suggested keywords, not just alphbetically similar words that might be totally inappropriate.
If you want to apply the same keywords to the most recently imported images
No, I said ON import, not afterwards.
-
Bart, this comes from my question "Does C1 have any equivalent of the keyword suggestions which help you enter keywords based on previously-entered keywords?"
In LR after you keyword a photo the Keyword Suggestions panel examines previous photos in the catalogue which have the same keyword(s) and it then suggests 9 other keywords that you might want to add.
So for example, if I apply the keyword "dry stone wall" to a photo, the Keyword Suggestions panel might suggest a keyword like "Wall" which is pretty obvious and could come from a hierarchy. But it would also suggest words like "Lake District" and "Borrowdale" and "Geometry" because those happen to be keywords which I have previously added to lots of photos of dry stone walls. It's dynamic so if I add "dry stone wall" and "dog", it would probably suggest "sheep", "sheepdog", "shepherding", "agriculture", "farming" and so on. Its suggestions are often surprising and quite clever, based on some "fuzzy logic" algorithm.
I see, so it's fuzzy logic that 'Rhossydd' wants. Since I oppose to subscription software for mature products, I don't have a recent Lightroom license, so thanks for explaining. Well, PhaseOne is open to suggestions, so if enough people ask for it, it might happen.
Cheers,
Bart
-
These keyword suggestions have been in Lr since version 1, long before subscriptions. That's why we're saying that C1 keywording is adequate, LR's better.
-
These keyword suggestions have been in Lr since version 1, long before subscriptions.
Thanks for explaining. Apparently, I never missed/noticed it (I have also used LR since V1, but came to prefer the Raw conversion quality of C1). Working in Sessions makes keywording less important to me, my Sessions are usually focused on a specific project or specific client, so easy to find with a decent file structure and less need for fuzzy logic. But I can see how it might be nice for those who use large Catalogs with diverse subjects.
What might help though, is setting up a decent Keyword hierarchy in C1. That will allow filtering on keywords that will trigger a higher abstraction level (which then reveals a larger number of keywords).
Cheers,
Bart
-
What might help though, is setting up a decent Keyword hierarchy
<groan> Anything that makes keywording harder is no help.
Part of the problem here is that there are primarily two uses for keywording; One on export to end clients, the other for cataloging/finding/sorting large image libraries.
LR seems to have been designed primarily to work best as one big library, so for that 'cataloging' requirement hierarchical keywording isn't much help. What does help is the ease and speed with which appropriate keywords can be assigned, you then use it more. The fuller your keywording, the more efficient and versatile the searching and sorting options become.
CO really isn't so good for this sort of use yet.
-
I am considering moving from LR6 to Capture One. However, I have an extensive keywording hierarchy that I could not afford to have corrupted in the process of moving. I have perhaps a thousand macros of plant and animals with a keyword hierarchy like Flora>Family>Genera>Species. I need to be sure that this will translate easily. To have to recreate this manually would be horrendous. Can anyone assure that this can be done and how would I go about it?
-
I am considering moving from LR6 to Capture One. However, I have an extensive keywording hierarchy that I could not afford to have corrupted in the process of moving. I have perhaps a thousand macros of plant and animals with a keyword hierarchy like Flora>Family>Genera>Species. I need to be sure that this will translate easily. To have to recreate this manually would be horrendous. Can anyone assure that this can be done and how would I go about it?
I'm curious about this as well. A while ago when trialing C1 (I think I also retried it in the previous version, IIRC), the convert-catalog refused to work - so I had to rely on a complete import with the DNG files containing all the LR hierarchical keywords.
C1 did a thorough job of mangling them. Rather impressively, I might add - in a bad way.
If nobody else comes along with a way to make it work, you could just try doing it and see if it works for you. If you have a large library, just try doing a subset. Just be warned that for large catalogs, C1 sucks donkey balls.
-
Just be warned that for large catalogs, C1 sucks donkey balls.
That's a worry. Why would this be? Surely it doesn't have a limit to catalogue size?
-
That's a worry. Why would this be? Surely it doesn't have a limit to catalogue size?
I don't think it actually has a hard limit. Rather, things just get slower and slower. For instance, you start up the program and it has to reorder all the images in the current collection right away. Switch to collection x, another re-ordering - switch to collection y, another re-ordering - switch back to collection x again, yet another re-ordering. In LR, all that happens instantly. .... And I've only trialed a measly 3000 image catalog in C1!
In the past C1 has enjoyed the excuse of having been first built for session workflows. But after so many versions with no improvement, that excuse is worn thin, IMNSHO. It apparently will just suck forever for catalog use.
-
I am considering moving from LR6 to Capture One. However, I have an extensive keywording hierarchy that I could not afford to have corrupted in the process of moving. I have perhaps a thousand macros of plant and animals with a keyword hierarchy like Flora>Family>Genera>Species. I need to be sure that this will translate easily. To have to recreate this manually would be horrendous. Can anyone assure that this can be done and how would I go about it?
Hi Bob,
Migrating between systems is usually a painful process. Companies seem to make it more difficult than it needs to be, just to lock in existing customers and discourage switching. How well Capture One has managed to reverse engineer the LR keywording, I don't know, but you can try it without risk because you still have your LR setup.
Capture One uses a very transparent way of importing (and exporting/backing up) keyword lists, it's just in the form of a simple text file. I'm not sure if Lightroom can export the keywords in such a flexible way?
As said, very large Catalogs can slow down operations in Capture One, so it might be useful to consider working in Sessions mode. Having some structure in your stored files never hurts. So you may want to do some homework before diving into the deep end. Look at some of the tutorials or stored Webinars about the Cataloging and Sessions workflow, and about keywording, on the Phase One website, and on their channel on YouTube.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't think it actually has a hard limit. Rather, things just get slower and slower. For instance, you start up the program and it has to reorder all the images in the current collection right away. Switch to collection x, another re-ordering - switch to collection y, another re-ordering - switch back to collection x again, yet another re-ordering. In LR, all that happens instantly. .... And I've only trialed a measly 3000 image catalog in C1!
In the past C1 has enjoyed the excuse of having been first built for session workflows. But after so many versions with no improvement, that excuse is worn thin, IMNSHO. It apparently will just suck forever for catalog use.
Hi Hoggy,
FYI, Large Catalogs in Capture One 11 has been much improved. Please try it if you haven't yet.
My own catalog of 20,000 images opens considerably faster, and the ALL IMAGES collection is also much snappier.
David
-
Capture One uses a very transparent way of importing (and exporting/backing up) keyword lists, it's just in the form of a simple text file. I'm not sure if Lightroom can export the keywords in such a flexible way?
Of course it can, and has been able to do so for over 10 years. As was recently pointed out, its keywording is more advanced than C1's in a number of ways.
-
How well Capture One has managed to reverse engineer the LR keywording, I don't know, but you can try it without risk because you still have your LR setup.
Also, on this point, LR certainly doesn't make it hard to decode.. It's written as standardized plain text in both xmp sidecar files as well as the embeds in dng/jpg/tiff/psd. Especially for someone that knows how to code, figuring it out should be child's play.
-
FYI, Large Catalogs in Capture One 11 has been much improved. Please try it if you haven't yet.
My own catalog of 20,000 images opens considerably faster, and the ALL IMAGES collection is also much snappier.
Thanks for replying, David. I did just install C1-11, and unfortunately it's still quite bad in regards to the continuing re-ordering.. As in, switching back and forth between the 'all images' and a smart collection that filters on 'keyword - doesn't contain - Testing'. It will look like it does it quickly, but go down further in the filmstrip-equivalent and things will still be shifting and re-ordering for quite a while.
But the worst part is the keywords that 'transferred' over via DNG-embeds (yes, that word that shall not be spoken here :D ) - they're a mess. And I wouldn't want to have to redo them all.
But perhaps Bob could still try it if he uses native raw with sidecars.. Maybe that will work better for that situation. After all, C1 has a consistent history of kicking and screaming against DNG. It still refuses to even recognize DNG's made from LR-merges, even though ON1 already does if I'm not mistaken. ACDSee doesn't, last I checked, but I think it was ON1 that did recognize those.
I do want all these programs to get closer to LR.. I despise the software-as-a-service mindset that is unfortunately taking over the corporate world. But unfortunately nothing comes close just yet - ON1's DAM features still seem quite primitive as of now.
-
I am new to C1 (just going through the LuLa videos starting with C1-7) but have been a Lightroom user since day one. C1 is impressive but truthfully, I haven't see anything I couldn't do in LR.
However, there is one aspect of C1 that I think is terrible: keywords. LR leaves something to be desired in keywords, but C1 really sucks IMHO.
Anyone agree or disagree?
Check out version 11. Very stable and fast. The layers function as massive improvements and new capabilities. Since switching to Capture One Pro, I retired all of the plug-ins that I used to use with LR and PS.
For FujiX, the IQ is way better out of the box. That was my major motivation to leave LR after using for over a decade since the first pre-public beta.
Regards,
Bud James
www.budjames.photography
-
How well Capture One has managed to reverse engineer the LR keywording, I don't know,
Well, it seems to me that they have not even tried. Just comparing the database structure and how the data is stored (using a SQLite management tool) shows that LR is much better at keyword handling, or at least the database schema follows better practices.
LR:
Each keyword has a code, there is a table that relates image code to keyword code. If an image has multiple keywords, there will be multiple entries in this "mapping" table. Since this table only contains the codes it is small and efficient.
C1:
Even if there is a table for keywords, they don't use codes. Instead, they parse the entire text of the keywords in a field of a table (ZVARIANTMETADATA) along with the rest of metadata for each image. This way of handling keywords is not what I would call a "Best practice".
Just performing a search of images by keywords would be simpler and quicker in LR.
Final note: C1 and LR are both great in their own ways, but if keywording is very important in your workflow, stay with LR (you may use C1 just for raw processing if you prefer the results)