Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Camdavidson on December 19, 2007, 04:19:27 pm
-
Phase One (http://www.phaseone.com) Caption One Pro - Version 4.0 (not beta) is now up. (It is Capture One - Pro Version is coming later. Edit:CD)
It is a free upgrade for 3.7 users and LE users. No tethering yet. Files are good. Much faster than 3.7.
http://www.phaseone.com (http://www.phaseone.com)
-
Any major changes? Wayne
-
It's a pity is took so long. My workflow is great now with LR, so unless the RAW conversion (pure image quality) isn't much better with C1 4.0 it's too late for me to change. Waiting for the first reviews.
-
It's a pity is took so long. My workflow is great now with LR, so unless the RAW conversion (pure image quality) isn't much better with C1 4.0 it's too late for me to change. Waiting for the first reviews. :)
I used the beta of 4.0 a few times. It seemed to do a competent job of converting some of the 5D raw files I fed to it (though not all). In a couple of cases I was seriously impressed by how well its default conversion looked. But not all...
But there were irritating problems with the beta's UI. Judging by forum traffic on PhaseOne's site, long-time users of CaptureOne weren't universally thrilled by all the UI changes. I disliked the previous version's UI quite a bit. I'm not unhappy about the changes overall. But I could see from message threads in the forum that the company seemed to be on the verge of seriously irritating part of its established user base. During the short time that I participated in their forums, the PhaseOne people themselves were noticeable in their absence -- few company responses to the forum messages. It was hard to tell what weight, if any, they were giving to the end-user comments. (Absence of evidence ain't evidence of absence, but still...)
Some people who keep an eye on industry news -- I think Michael Reichmann might have been one of them -- have wondered "aloud" if the C1 update won't be too little, too late. I don't know the answer, but it's certainly true that they took a long time getting this update to market. In the meantime Lightroom seems to have become quite a bit more popular (its own UI quirks notwithstanding).
The last C1 v.4 beta I downloaded didn't have anything like the extensive HSL controls that are available in Lightroom, SilkyPix, and others. It had a somewhat crude drag-a-tiny-spot-around-a-color-wheel-with-the-mouse control. Even if the quality of its conversions turns out to be very good...once you've had a chance to work with the HSL controls in a converter, software lacking them seems...well, lacking.
One thing I noticed in C1's favor: excellent rendering of fine image detail. Well...I'll download the release version and hope for some significant UI improvements since the last beta version.
Given what C1 "pro" is liable to cost and given all the image-organizing tools available in Lightroom, I wonder how (if) C1 can steal some of Lightroom's (probably less expensive) thunder.
-
Just to mention one supremely irritating UI problem in the beta: the method whereby you add files to a processing queue seemed unreasonably obscure to me. It was easily possible to add the same file multiple times with the program providing no warning or query about it. Now to be sure, you might want to process more than one variant -- so multiple addition of the same filename isn't bad of itself. But, enabling multiple additions by accident of the same filename without any variants involved -- and no query or warning...that's just wrong and it should have been obvious to them without the need for anyone to point it out.
[But...I work in the software biz. Sometimes, programmers have to be dragged kicking and screaming, fighting every step of the way, into making a decent user interface.]
Once the queue had been populated, there didn't seem to be any UI feature whatsoever for removing a file you'd added in error -- except by clearing the entire queue. HUH? It seemed like sheer thoughtlessness -- something that shouldn't have been omitted even in a beta version.
Maybe there was a way to do this and I just missed it -- in which case, shame on me. That aside, no response about it from the CaptureOne people. I do hope they fixed it (or documented it better) for the release version.
-
Are you sure this Pro? I think it's LE. I can't imagine them giving a free upgrade to Pro from LE unless they're dropping the LE versus Pro.
-
Are you sure this Pro? I think it's LE. I can't imagine them giving a free upgrade to Pro from LE unless they're dropping the LE versus Pro.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The current Capture ONE 4 is a replacement for LE. The Pro version is coming later.
-
Are you sure this Pro? I think it's LE. I can't imagine them giving a free upgrade to Pro from LE unless they're dropping the LE versus Pro.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My dealer said it was PRO. In the ABOUT page - it says - Capture One. I have a free upgrade to PRO so I'm not worried about cost.
There are some very good things in this program. I like the conversions - better than any other program. Sometimes Raw Developer is a wee bit better. I prefer C1's skin tones. I processed some M8 DNG files and and one 1Ds III file today and I'm happy with the results.
-
My dealer said it was PRO. In the ABOUT page - it says - Capture One. I have a free upgrade to PRO so I'm not worried about cost.
There are some very good things in this program. I like the conversions - better than any other program. Sometimes Raw Developer is a wee bit better. I prefer C1's skin tones. I processed some M8 DNG files and and one 1Ds III file today and I'm happy with the results.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The phaseone site says:
Capture ONE 4 is the successor of Capture ONE LE. Until the next generation of Capture ONE Pro is available, PRO owners can download and use Capture ONE 4 free of charge.
Pretty conclusive.
-
The phaseone site says:
Capture ONE 4 is the successor of Capture ONE LE. Until the next generation of Capture ONE Pro is available, PRO owners can download and use Capture ONE 4 free of charge.
Pretty conclusive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hmmm. Not sure what to do. I currently use C1 Pro 3.7 , my instinct is to not deal with V4 until Pro comes out, any comments/advice on this is appreciated.
-
Are you sure this Pro? I think it's LE. I can't imagine them giving a free upgrade to Pro from LE unless they're dropping the LE versus Pro.
Didn't mean to imply that it's the Pro version. My remark about the upcoming Pro version was just me wondering how it will measure up to Lightroom, which as I recall costs less.
-
I was one of the vocal critics on the C1 beta forum. There were so many things that were completely unacceptable and they were never once acknowledged by the PhaseOne staff manning the boards. You have to wonder if suddenly they forgot how to read. To me, it seemed like they were starting from the ground up rather than building on a proven base. The decisions about the user interface seemed to have been made by people who never actually used the program. Itty bitty controls and illegible black type on dark gray made no sense, common or otherwise. Now to be fair, the Phase people have said that many of the concerns will be addressed in the Pro version, but they seem uncommonly tight-lipped about any prospective features, as if they're worried about someone copying them. To add insult to visual injury, too many of the Phase responses on their forum have been vague, defensive and condescending or just seemed implausable.
All that being said, I love CaptureOne (at least v3.7) primarily because it makes the best raw conversions of any converter I've used and once you get your head around the Danish way, it's pretty damned efficient. I'll download the LE version tomorrow and have a new look.
-
> I was one of the vocal critics on the C1 beta forum. There were so many things that were completely unacceptable and they were never once acknowledged by the PhaseOne staff manning the boards. You have to wonder if suddenly they forgot how to read.
They have a public-image problem -- due in part to their lack of response -- but I have to assume that it doesn't matter to them. (Perhaps they would simply disagree that the lack of response is a problem.) The same problem existed with the author of RawShooter -- formerly of PhaseOne, right? -- on his site. I never saw him respond once.
> The decisions about the user interface seemed to have been made by people who never actually used the program. Itty bitty controls and illegible black type on dark gray made no sense, common or otherwise.
PhaseOne isn't the only company to have decided that near-illegible type on a dark grey or black background is the right approach. Type in RawTherapee's UI is hard to read in some places as well. At first I found Lightroom incredibly irritating due to the user interface in which it was difficult to see some of the UI elements (tiny black targets for the mouse on a dark grey background and that kind of thing). Maybe they do this in part because it all looks "hip" to them. But maybe it's also to keep color out of the UI that might adversely affect one's perception of colors in the images themselves. But surely there must be some better way to keep a user interface more legible, generally. (Using little bits of yellow here and there for emphasis would be better than an endless sea of grey-on-black-on-some-other-shade-of-grey-on-black...)
> Now to be fair, the Phase people have said that many of the concerns will be addressed in the Pro version
But not in updates of the "LE" version? I wonder if that will be of much comfort to people who would be paying ... what is it, something like $100? ... for "LE".
I haven't yet downloaded the release version of v.4. I sure hope there is now a way to remove a single file from the processing queue -- as opposed to having to clear the entire queue just to remove one erroneously added file.
Working in the software biz has made me something of a cynic about how this stuff gets done, especially when there are too many engineers making fundamental graphic-design/UI and "usability" decisions, with nobody in an "end-user ombudsman" position (or no such person with any clout). Then you sometimes get seriously bad UIs designed by people who are convinced that they must have done the best possible thing because, well, how could it be otherwise since they designed it that way? Of course I have no idea what happens within that company but I have certainly noticed plenty of "attitude" in the software business -- as in: "end-users...what is wrong with these people, anyway? Isn't everyone 18 years old and possessed of better-than-perfect eyesight?"
No argument about the quality of the C1 conversions, though, and it struck me as being somewhat faster to do the conversions than Lightroom (haven't timed them, though).
-
Hmmm. Not sure what to do. I currently use C1 Pro 3.7 , my instinct is to not deal with V4 until Pro comes out, any comments/advice on this is appreciated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Personally, I'd stick with 3.7 or ditch it entirely (that's what I've done, unfortunately for C1 - I just like the DAM capabilities of Lightroom and Aperture; but can't decide which one of those to settle with!).
4 has some good features, but as others have said, it doesn't really feel like a natural evolution of 3.x, it feels like a product that they've put a lot of effort into making it a bit more like the current trend of DAM + RAW converter (actually, I think it's closest to Bridge with the ability to create new versions/variants of an image).
For my needs, the only features I've found that are a genuine improvement over 3.7 are:
1. Variants
2. Highlight/Shadow recovery
The noise reduction seems to be quite poor, and what you see is not what you get - last night I was trying to tweak a 3200 ISO Nikon D80 NEF, thought I'd give it a go in C14. Nothing much was happening when I tweaked the noise sliders, so I slid 'em up to max, both luminosity and colour. No real change on screen, not even when zoomed in (not to 100% though). So I processed the image and opened it in PS. Absolutely trash - I had a wax crayon drawing, totally different from what I saw in C1. That's not good!
Beyond those 2 things mentioned above, I really can't see anything that makes me able to recommend it to anyone. In a very competitive period in digital photography and its associated software (just how many RAW converters are there out there?), I think PhaseOne has got it totally wrong, considering just how long this has been in the making.
-
I shot some portraits today and processed the files with C1 3.7.7. Later I decided to try processing a few with C1 V4. Here is one image done with C1 V4. Shot with D2X and 85mm f/1.4 @ f/5.6-ISO200.
-
I shot some portraits today and processed the files with C1 3.7.7. Later I decided to try processing a few with C1 V4. Here is one image done with C1 V4. Shot with D2X and 85mm f/1.4 @ f/5.6-ISO200.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is it different from the 3.7.7 file? Do you notice an improvement?
-
Is it different from the 3.7.7 file? Do you notice an improvement?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The image from V4 seems to be warmer and has richer skintones. Could be I have not played around with it as much as I have with V3.7.7 but I like the results.
-
I used to be a CL Pro user until Leopard came up and Phase one presented me with a lack of clear communication on when they updates for CL PRO would come up for MAC OS X users.
As of today, users do not have a straight answer from Phase One on when would a release of CL Pro will be out that allows for the proper functionality with Mac OS X 10.5.
Notice I am not complaining that is taking long, I am complaining that they are not saying anything (a day, a month, a quarter?)
When users asked ADOBE when would CS3 be ready to work with Leopard the answer was not "By the way, feel free to upgrade to Photoshop Elements and use it with Leopard"
Since then, I switch to LR and I am very happy. So for me it is too little too late.
-
Been using v.4 all afternoon.
It is awesome. Really. The phase one forums are full of bellyachers who haven't taken the time to learn (really, re-learn) how to use it.
My only complaint, which I consider a bug, is that in a dual monitor set up it only takes the profile of the monitor it was first opened on (on windows, don't know about mac). This caused me about 20 minutes of dismay because I open things on my notebook and move them to a LaCie monitor, the notebook's display is crap. So the colors were off.
I figured out a workaround by having C1 automatically load into my graphics monitor, but they should put in something where it auto-detects what display its being used on.
Other than that, after I read the manual (this is important), I found lots of improvements on how 3.7 worked and some very cool new features. I like being able to import, assign a copyright AND automatically back up to my spare drive, in one click.
The Export to Web gallery is fantastic. It's slick looking, easy to use and FAST.
Couple things to look out for... make sure its using the right camera profile and double check the sharpening settings... for my D200 it was oversharpening out of the box. You can change its default by clicking the little arrow by the sharpening tools, and thats the first thing I did.
Theres tons of other little improvements... I really dig it. Great improvement over the betas and nevermind the internet bellyachers...just read the manual and then use it for awhile.
-
The Export to Web gallery is fantastic. It's slick looking, easy to use and FAST.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The export to web gallery is just slimbox, which is also available in LR. I do like it (in both), but C1 version frustrates me because I would like to have my images show up with their titles or captions, which you can't do with the C1 export to web.
In respect of the rest of your comments - just because one person (e.g. me) says they don't like the new C1 and you do, doesn't make either of us right or wrong and it certainly doesn't someone like me a bellyacher. C1 v4 doesn't do it for me - it feels too little, too late ; having been a C1 fan for a long time, I was *really* looking forward to this new version, hoping to see something that I could use to oust LR and Aperture, neither of which are quite perfect; I love Aperture's organisation, love Lightroom's develop module, love Aperture's workflow, love LR's web export when combined with TTG's Slimbox templates.
-
The export to web gallery is just slimbox, which is also available in LR. I do like it (in both), but C1 version frustrates me because I would like to have my images show up with their titles or captions, which you can't do with the C1 export to web.
In respect of the rest of your comments - just because one person (e.g. me) says they don't like the new C1 and you do, doesn't make either of us right or wrong and it certainly doesn't someone like me a bellyacher. C1 v4 doesn't do it for me - it feels too little, too late ; having been a C1 fan for a long time, I was *really* looking forward to this new version, hoping to see something that I could use to oust LR and Aperture, neither of which are quite perfect; I love Aperture's organisation, love Lightroom's develop module, love Aperture's workflow, love LR's web export when combined with TTG's Slimbox templates.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually my reference was to many of the posters on the Phase One forum who have spent 5 minutes with it, haven't read the manual, and in case one was still using a beta, and still complain. Internet asinism at its finest.
Of course there are legitimate concerns with it and a few bugs are there. You can't make everyone happy, especially if you change some aspects of functionality. I like C1's workflow and the file output can't be beat. I haven't seen anything like your noise reduction problem - I can see changes right on screen in the preview (were you at 100%?) , and if you max out the sliders, yes it looks quite poor, just like if you max out every other noise reduction program..
Anyway, C1 isn't a DAM and I'm glad its not. Too much bloat. I want it to process files fast and make them look good. It does this. Lightroom and ACR output just don't look as good to me, and thats what it all comes down to. I like the carefully thought out features that apply to professionals on the job - I use C1 while shooting with various staff surrounding and watching. Probably why every top studio I've worked in is using it.
-
Of course there are legitimate concerns with it and a few bugs are there. You can't make everyone happy, especially if you change some aspects of functionality. I like C1's workflow and the file output can't be beat. I haven't seen anything like your noise reduction problem - I can see changes right on screen in the preview (were you at 100%?) , and if you max out the sliders, yes it looks quite poor, just like if you max out every other noise reduction program..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wasn't at 100%, but even when I do go 100% it doesn't reflect what I end up with. Same for sharpening - looks great on screen, then pull it into PS, and it's hugely oversharpened.
I have to say that the Highlight recovery is very very good, though.
-
I wasn't at 100%, but even when I do go 100% it doesn't reflect what I end up with. Same for sharpening - looks great on screen, then pull it into PS, and it's hugely oversharpened.
I have to say that the Highlight recovery is very very good, though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162390\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting, I can't say I've seen that at all. The output looks identical to 3.7 over here, all settings being the same.
One bug I found is that the process tab vastly overestimates the size of JPEGs when they are scaled down. Something like ~240kb for a "40" quality jpeg at 600x500 px... the actual file size was like 20 kb and looked awful . 100 quality jpegs were acceptable and still only about 80kb.
I agree, the highlite recovery is very natural, and can be used in everyday shots, not just emergencies.
I also like the Targets in levels. It took a few minutes to wrap my head around what it does, but its nice in that it rolls off clipped data smoothly instead of just chopping it.
That's great if you're going to a limited gamut medium like offset printing. Little things like that are what made C1 the working pro's choice I think...
-
I've been using C1 v4 for just a couple of days. My usual processor of choice is C1 Pro v3.7.
From what I can tell, the biggest change is the interface and this has slowed me down considerably. I can work much more efficiently on v3.7. The gallery is not as intuitive and on my G4 and G5 Macs it is dreadfully slow to process images. On the upside is the additional image processing controls of High Dynamic Range and an updated sharpening algorithm.
I don't think I'll be using this program for jobs until the pro version is released and I've also upgraded to Intel Macs some time next year (I have a few more programs that must be ported over to UB before Intel comes my way).
-
I installed the release-version of v4 and went through the documentation carefully. I have again observed some of the problems users in the C1v4 user-to-user forum have been talking about. Despite the facile and not especially convincing dismissive remark about "bellyaching," elsewhere in this thread, there are still serious problems with this release.
Activation succeeded the first time. So I thought. Then the program somehow lost track of the activation and I was back in demo mode. It worked the second time (and is "holding" so far). It seems not everyone was so fortunate.
The unpleasant screen-display bug with the curves panel is still in the program; it is explained away in the release notes as a "known issue."
PhaseOne has now seen several messages about its failure to provide the option of using a ".\Converted" subdirectory as a default for output -- the kind of setting that can be made once and need never be changed. For people who prefer that kind of output-directory scheme, having to pick an output directory via a crude tree-control, every time, is a pain in the neck. It's flat-out inefficient. (If memory serves, Lightroom also lacks this feature; it's hardly some revolutionary thing and why it keeps being omitted is baffling; people DO use such features). The documentation has a rushed-together look about it. It contains some notable mistakes, such as documenting a major feature that doesn't seem to be in the program at all, documenting keystrokes that simply don't work, and not documenting certain keystrokes or mouse-wheel controls that do work.
In failing to respond to end-users both in the beta-test forum and in the newer v4 forum, the company is doing itself no favors -- their silence is having the predictable effect of fanning the flames. (There has to be some middle-ground between coddling customers to some ridiculous degree, and on the other hand simply ignoring them...)
Those problems aside for a moment, the conversions seem very good to me and as I think I said before in the thread, C1's rendering of fine image detail is the best I've seen. (Though I'll keep an eye out for the sharpening-related problems mentioned elsewhere in this thread.) The dynamic-range controls are great and so is the highlight recovery feature -- it seems better even than Lightroom's, and Lightroom's is good. So there's a lot of potential in this release. But they had better start taking care of business more effectively...
-
I installed the release-version of v4 and went through the documentation carefully. I have again observed some of the problems users in the C1v4 user-to-user forum have been talking about. Despite the facile and not especially convincing dismissive remark about "bellyaching," elsewhere in this thread, there are still serious problems with this release.
Activation succeeded the first time. So I thought. Then the program somehow lost track of the activation and I was back in demo mode. It worked the second time (and is "holding" so far). It seems not everyone was so fortunate.
The unpleasant screen-display bug with the curves panel is still in the program; it is explained away in the release notes as a "known issue."
PhaseOne has now seen several messages about its failure to provide the option of using a ".\Converted" subdirectory as a default for output -- the kind of setting that can be made once and need never be changed. For people who prefer that kind of output-directory scheme, having to pick an output directory via a crude tree-control, every time, is a pain in the neck. It's flat-out inefficient. (If memory serves, Lightroom also lacks this feature; it's hardly some revolutionary thing and why it keeps being omitted is baffling; people DO use such features). The documentation has a rushed-together look about it. It contains some notable mistakes, such as documenting a major feature that doesn't seem to be in the program at all, documenting keystrokes that simply don't work, and not documenting certain keystrokes or mouse-wheel controls that do work.
In failing to respond to end-users both in the beta-test forum and in the newer v4 forum, the company is doing itself no favors -- their silence is having the predictable effect of fanning the flames. (There has to be some middle-ground between coddling customers to some ridiculous degree, and on the other hand simply ignoring them...)
Those problems aside for a moment, the conversions seem very good to me and as I think I said before in the thread, C1's rendering of fine image detail is the best I've seen. (Though I'll keep an eye out for the sharpening-related problems mentioned elsewhere in this thread.) The dynamic-range controls are great and so is the highlight recovery feature -- it seems better even than Lightroom's, and Lightroom's is good. So there's a lot of potential in this release. But they had better start taking care of business more effectively...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've been using C1 for several years, both on the Mac and PC. The Mac version of 3.7 was very polished, the Windows version, while the quality of output was the same, had an ugly interface and many missing features.
There were a number of other differences too, the PC version cached all previews in a central folder while the Mac placed them under the folder the raw files were stored in. There are reasonable arguments for doing it either way, but I preferred the Mac way because there was no way to clear out the hundreds of megabytes of past job previews on a PC without wiping out all the previews of what jobs you were currently working on. Thus you had to have a lengthy preview rebuild if you cleared the cache.
There definitely is a few areas that I have identified PO needs to work on.
- The relative output directory is one.
- The noise reduction has a different look to it. You can remove more noise than you could in 3.7, but I find that at similar amounts of noise reduction, the grain is not as smoothed off as it was in 3.7... it's subjective but there.
- There is less highlight recovery in the initial load of a file, though you can use the highlight tool to get more data out than you could before.
- Inability to load 3.7 settings. They do have a logical reason for this - the control algorithms changed and so the same settings on 3.7 are not the same in 4.0, but it would be nice if they approximated it or at least loaded some things in like exposure, levels and white balance changes. Some of us have thousands of files and settings from 3.7 that can't be loaded in at the moment.
I've seen a couple bugs too where a thumbnail didn't have a profile applied to it, and some sorting problems in the browser. Pretty minor.
The amount of detail it pulls out is impressive. I now have to use very little sharpening at all. I wonder if this is why the noise reduction works differently, because it does seem like it has the look of the old + more inadvertent noise detail.
I like the interface. It's a little different but thus far I've found it works pretty well and is a step forward, especially on the PC.
-
> the Windows version ... had an ugly interface
I thought that UI was downright user-hungery. I didn't use 3.7 much. So the UI change overall doesn't bother me. But, leaving the partially-undisplayed Curves panel as a "known issue" is lame -- likewise, not implementing the missing keystrokes (that are nevertheless documented). I can think of at least one way to mitigate the current curves display problem. If I could think of such a thing, so could they.
It seems a number of other users are irritated about the current cache arrangement, which leaves files scattered around the drive. You're right that there are arguments for both approaches. Pity they didn't implement some kind of either/or arrangement, as with Lightroom and its sidecar-files-vs.-no-sidecars approach.
Having used 3.7 only as a paperweight :), I don't have the problem of un-translatable settings. I see that the v4 settings are stored as XML. I suppose the 3.7 settings must have been stored as binary data, making a translation from the old system to the new -- even an approximation -- not breathtakingly simple. Still it's a shame they did not provide a way to get users into the ballpark, as it were.
I'm a bit surprised that image files I never processed in C1 (any version) are showing up in its history list. Some sort of added-value feature, I guess. :-)
> The amount of detail it pulls out is impressive.
Agreed. I have done a few (decidedly unscientific) 'shoot-outs' between raw converters. I found that Canon's DPP (which I find pretty unpleasant in general) did the best job of rendering fine image detail via the sharpening slider in its RGB panel (not the one in its raw panel -- too crude). But C1v4 seems to equal or match DPP in rendering image detail, at least with these 5D files. From what I've seen so far, I can leave sharpening entirely to Photoshop sharpening plug-ins.
-
Phase One (http://www.phaseone.com) Caption One Pro - Version 4.0 (not beta) is now up. (It is Capture One - Pro Version is coming later. Edit:CD)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161804\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have downloaded the trial version and started to play with my D3 files.
I am impressed so far by the quality of the conversions.
- very good sharpness and detail preservation,
- natural colors.
Those feeling that their D3 is not as sharp as their D2x should really give C4.0 a try.
Regards,
Bernard
-
How does the v4 deal with IPTC/xmp info when processing RAWs?
I had stopped using C1 3.7 pro for some time simplybecause of this workflow obstacle. I had always favoured the RAW processing capabilities of C1 over ACR, but the Adobe workflow is smooth. I havent started using Lightroom yet but am seriously considering adding it in the new year as i have only really read mainly very favourable reports.
Regarding free upgrade status, if i use this as a free upgrade will it reduce one of the upgrades i have if a pro version comes out?
Cheers
Rodney