Capture One on the A7RII giving me disappointing results

[Robert Ardill]

Hi,

I've been very disappointed in my efforts to get a good result from C1 on my A7RII images, compared to Lightroom.  This seems to go against others' experience (at least with other cameras).  I would be very grateful if you would try this image to see if you can get a better result in C1 than LR.  The dng has the LR settings ... just exposure adjustments (with luminance noise reduction and sharpening off).

Here is a link to the image: Link to A7RII image

I've picked this photo because it has a wide dynamic range and a mix of high-frequency and low-frequency detail.  What I did in LR was to open up the shadows and bring back the highlights and pretty much nothing else. I can't get C1 to come near to the result I'm getting with LR, even after multiple attempts.

Cheers,

Robert

[AlterEgo]

Hi,

I've been very disappointed in my efforts to get a good result from C1 on my A7RII images, compared to Lightroom.  This seems to go against others' experience (at least with other cameras).  I would be very grateful if you would try this image to see if you can get a better result in C1 than LR.  The dng has the LR settings ... just exposure adjustments (with luminance noise reduction and sharpening off).

Here is a link to the image: Link to A7RII image

I've picked this photo because it has a wide dynamic range and a mix of high-frequency and low-frequency detail.  What I did in LR was to open up the shadows and bring back the highlights and pretty much nothing else. I can't get C1 to come near to the result I'm getting with LR, even after multiple attempts.

Cheers,

Robert

1) if you try to achieve in C1 the output from ACR/LR - then just use ACR/LR ...

2) if you want "open up the shadows and bring back the highlights" in C1 then what is exactly that you did not like in C1's HDR tool (highlight/shadow sliders) ? unless you want something else from C1 that you did not mention in the original posting...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Both Higlights and Shadows sliders do tone mapping in LR. Those tools work very differently in C1.

I have the same issues with C1 as you, but I am a happy camper with LR...

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

I've been very disappointed in my efforts to get a good result from C1 on my A7RII images, compared to Lightroom.  This seems to go against others' experience (at least with other cameras).  I would be very grateful if you would try this image to see if you can get a better result in C1 than LR.  The dng has the LR settings ... just exposure adjustments (with luminance noise reduction and sharpening off).

Here is a link to the image: Link to A7RII image

I've picked this photo because it has a wide dynamic range and a mix of high-frequency and low-frequency detail.  What I did in LR was to open up the shadows and bring back the highlights and pretty much nothing else. I can't get C1 to come near to the result I'm getting with LR, even after multiple attempts.

Cheers,

Robert

[Robert Ardill]

Hi,

Both Higlights and Shadows sliders do tone mapping in LR. Those tools work very differently in C1.

I have the same issues with C1 as you, but I am a happy camper with LR...

Best regards
Erik

Thanks for the reply Erik.  There's no question in my mind that for the A7RII files that LR does a much better job (in my hands, that is) ... and this is not at all restricted to shadows and highlights.  Here is the image processed in C1 and LR to the best of my ability (multiple tries in C1, one try in LR) to try to show the differences. However, to really see them it's much better to have the files opened as layers in Photoshop and then just to toggle the layers ... it's pretty dramatic.

So what I see is:
- much better local contrast in LR - and I don't see how to correct that in C1. What would be needed would be a micro-contrast adjustment. Clarity doesn't do it.
- much better high-frequency detail in LR (I have sharpening off in both)
- better color in LR (not too worried about that as that would be easily adjusted I think)

Overall this makes the LR image look sharper and punchier.

Of course I could just ditch C1 and stick to LR ... which is what I'll probably do.  But I do wonder if this is an issue only with the A7II/A7RII images, because it seems that pretty much everyone thinks that C1 is a far superior raw converter to LR.  If the issue is just with the Sony images then Phase One should be able to correct it ... especially as C1 is the raw converter that comes with the Sony cameras (Light version, admittedly).

Cheers,

Robert

[Robert Ardill]

1) if you try to achieve in C1 the output from ACR/LR - then just use ACR/LR ...
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/Themes/lula/images/bbc/left.gif
2) if you want "open up the shadows and bring back the highlights" in C1 then what is exactly that you did not like in C1's HDR tool (highlight/shadow sliders) ? unless you want something else from C1 that you did not mention in the original posting...

1) I'm not trying to make C1 images look like LR images. I'm trying to get the best from each converter and I'm finding that the best from LR is significantly better that the best from C1 ... for the A7RII images.

2) What I said in the original posting was that I chose the image because it has a high dynamic range but ALSO because it has a mix of high frequency and low frequency detail.  On the whole C1 does a good job with shadows and highlights (different to but no better than LR) ... the issues are with local contrast and detail.

Cheers

Robert

[Manoli]

(1)  You're working on a .dng file. How did you get from an .arw file to a .dng one ?
(2)  Have you imported the .arw file directly into C1 and compared the two ...

Edit:
.. and what version of Lr are you using ?

[AlterEgo]

1) I'm not trying to make C1 images look like LR images.

you do - you started with ACR/LR rendering, you liked it and you are trying to achieve the same a little hdr-ish like rending in C1 converter

I'm finding that the best from LR is significantly better that the best from C1

the right wording is = you find that you subjectively like ACR/LR rendering that you can achieve

for example I might say that I actually like what I can get from C1 (left from ACR using DNG settings, right from C1) = http://s26.postimg.org/7axyngh9j/ACR_vs_C1.jpg

[AlterEgo]

(1)  You're working on a .dng file. How did you get from an .arw file to a .dng one ?

Adobe products (ACR, LR, DNG converter) will do that for you

(2)  Have you imported the .arw file directly into C1 and compared the two ...

recent C1 versions almost achieve the good work with converted DNGs... C1 is almost there

[Manoli]

Adobe products (ACR, LR, DNG converter) will do that for you

yup, we know - it was a rhetorical question ...
point being that the OP is introducing another variable - whereas best to compare C1 v ACR on an .arw file directly.

recent C1 versions almost achieve the good work with converted DNGs... C1 is almost there

'almost' isn't comparing like with like

[AlterEgo]

point being that the OP is introducing another variable - whereas best to compare C1 v ACR on an .arw file directly.

while I am not using DNG myself I say - Sony A7* converted (from native raw) DNGs are very much doable in in C1 v9.1.* at this moment ... the OP is advised either to actually invest the time & effort before coming swinging that raw converter that he abandoned long time ago suddenly can't reproduce output in ACR/LR in 1 minute of him moving sliders around (may be rereading the manual, "The Image Quality Professor's Blog", etc)... or stop looking to replace what is working for him (ACR/LR).

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I actually have similar issues with C1 on the P45+ I have. If you are a long time user of say LR I guess you would adopt to the philosophy of Adobe. So, if you switch to say C1 the tools you are familiar with ain't there or work differently.

C1 is sort of pretty aggressive in sharpening for instance, default settings definitively over sharpen my Planar 100/3.5 on the P45+, while LR has very little sharpening as default. C1 also applies a lot of noise reduction by default. LR is much more conservative.

C1 has a lot of advocates, but oddly enough I never met a single photographer in person who is actually using C1. I have been trough two workshops with Hans Kruse, and no single participant did use C1. We had a guy at our camera club who was sold on C1 but now days he is sold on LR.

I would say that those tools are different. I have actually bought C1 in version 7 and version 8 and it is actually free if used with Phase One backs, so it is not an economic issue for me, but I have never felt that C1 was a program I wanted to use. I have probably spent some hundred hours with it and it doesn't work for me.

But , I do see a tiny advantage with C1 when pixel peeping crops from say 40"x60" prints at 10" viewing distance compared to LR. 

Best regards
Erik

Thanks for the reply Erik.  There's no question in my mind that for the A7RII files that LR does a much better job (in my hands, that is) ... and this is not at all restricted to shadows and highlights.  Here is the image processed in C1 and LR to the best of my ability (multiple tries in C1, one try in LR) to try to show the differences. However, to really see them it's much better to have the files opened as layers in Photoshop and then just to toggle the layers ... it's pretty dramatic.

So what I see is:
- much better local contrast in LR - and I don't see how to correct that in C1. What would be needed would be a micro-contrast adjustment. Clarity doesn't do it.
- much better high-frequency detail in LR (I have sharpening off in both)
- better color in LR (not too worried about that as that would be easily adjusted I think)

Overall this makes the LR image look sharper and punchier.

Of course I could just ditch C1 and stick to LR ... which is what I'll probably do.  But I do wonder if this is an issue only with the A7II/A7RII images, because it seems that pretty much everyone thinks that C1 is a far superior raw converter to LR.  If the issue is just with the Sony images then Phase One should be able to correct it ... especially as C1 is the raw converter that comes with the Sony cameras (Light version, admittedly).

Cheers,

Robert

[Paul2660]

I pulled down the file, not sure what the LR/Adobe looks like and the real place, but to me C1 can do a fine job. 

This is quick run in C1, a few layers for foreground shadows and sky.  I did not correct what I see is slight vignetting on the upper corners.  Shadows look good to me, plenty of details and no noise (nice camera!) and lens.

Again no two folks will process a file the same way, and I did pull it into LR, just ran it in C1.  Sharpening is set to defaults for C1.  I believe in sharpening raw, many don't, just works for me.   

Thanks for sharing, this corner of the world.

Paul C

[Tim Lookingbill]

I can hardly see a difference in the OP's posted LR/C1 crops, but I do note that the C1 is compressing highlights on the far right example. LR's PV2012 does this as well but can be over ridden by setting Highlight slider all the way to the left (-100) and increasing White slider which restores the linear behavior of PV2010's Exposure slider when zeroing out all settings and retaining Medium Tone Curve.

Other than that I can't see a difference. Maybe he could find the same linear brightening slider in C1 that doesn't compress highlights.

[Robert Ardill]

the OP is advised either to actually invest the time & effort before coming swinging that raw converter that he abandoned long time ago suddenly can't reproduce output in ACR/LR in 1 minute of him moving sliders around (may be rereading the manual, "The Image Quality Professor's Blog", etc)... or stop looking to replace what is working for him (ACR/LR).

Thanks for your helpful advice.  My own to you would be not to assume that others just come whingeing about things after spending only 1 minute playing around with sliders.  I've spent many hours with C1 and the reason why I have is that if I find that if it is better than the raw converter that I currently use, I intend to use it instead.  I am not in the business of knocking software just for the fun of it. The reason for my post was that I thought that perhaps I was not using C1 as well as I could and that others with more experience than me might have a better shot at it.

Robert

[AlterEgo]

I've spent many hours with C1

indeed...

[Robert Ardill]

Hi,

I actually have similar issues with C1 on the P45+ I have. If you are a long time user of say LR I guess you would adopt to the philosophy of Adobe. So, if you switch to say C1 the tools you are familiar with ain't there or work differently.

C1 is sort of pretty aggressive in sharpening for instance, default settings definitively over sharpen my Planar 100/3.5 on the P45+, while LR has very little sharpening as default. C1 also applies a lot of noise reduction by default. LR is much more conservative.

C1 has a lot of advocates, but oddly enough I never met a single photographer in person who is actually using C1. I have been trough two workshops with Hans Kruse, and no single participant did use C1. We had a guy at our camera club who was sold on C1 but now days he is sold on LR.

I would say that those tools are different. I have actually bought C1 in version 7 and version 8 and it is actually free if used with Phase One backs, so it is not an economic issue for me, but I have never felt that C1 was a program I wanted to use. I have probably spent some hundred hours with it and it doesn't work for me.

But , I do see a tiny advantage with C1 when pixel peeping crops from say 40"x60" prints at 10" viewing distance compared to LR. 

Best regards
Erik

I've tried the acr image and it's no different to the dng, as far as I can tell, so C1 Pro 9 seems to handle dngs fine.

But I think you've put your finger on the issue.  I was using the HDR sliders in C1 pretty much as I would use the Shadows/Highlight sliders in LR, and the effect is a loss of local contrast.  In order to retain the local contrast I had to adjust the sliders to these sort of settings:



The LR & C1 versions then are pretty comparable in terms of low frequency detail (again, both converters set to no sharpening and no luminance noise reduction) ... except that C1 is clearly applying luminance noise reduction even with the setting at zero.  This does clean up the dark noise well at the cost of some loss of high frequency detail.  If some noise reduction is applied in LR then the two converters pretty much equalize on high frequency detail.

So I've learnt a couple of things;
- raw converters may apply sharpening and / or noise reduction under the hood with no user override. In this case I would say that C1 is the culprit with noise reduction.
- the HDR sliders in C1 are not at all equivalent to the Shadows/Highlight sliders in LR. For a high dynamic range image like the one posted here, and one that has quite a lot of local contrast detail, it's necessary to use the sliders in C1 in a very non-intuitive way to get the best result.  If I had not been comparing the C1 image to the LR image I would not have spotted the need to do so.

Cheers,

Robert

[Robert Ardill]

I pulled down the file, not sure what the LR/Adobe looks like and the real place, but to me C1 can do a fine job. 

This is quick run in C1, a few layers for foreground shadows and sky.  I did not correct what I see is slight vignetting on the upper corners.  Shadows look good to me, plenty of details and no noise (nice camera!) and lens.

Again no two folks will process a file the same way, and I did pull it into LR, just ran it in C1.  Sharpening is set to defaults for C1.  I believe in sharpening raw, many don't, just works for me.   


Paul C

Thanks Paul ... C1 certainly does an excellent job, I'm not denying that.  It's just that when I compared the image processed in LR to the one processed in C1 I found that the LR image was quite significantly better in many areas of the image.  I deliberately did not add Local Adjustments and tried to compare apples to apples as much as possible and tried to keep the comparison as simple as I could, so I turned off things like sharpening and noise reduction.

I think Eric called it right when he said that one needs to adopt (or adapt to) a different mindset when using a different raw converter.

Cheers,

Robert

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I've tried the acr image and it's no different to the dng, as far as I can tell, so C1 Pro 9 seems to handle dngs fine.

Hi Robert,

I'm not so sure, yet. I've downloaded your DNG file with some hesitation, because it adds another unknown variable to the equation (and I do not know from experience, how good the Camera profiles are). When I use the DNG's "as shot" White Balancing, I get 4978 Kelvin and 16.9 tint. The latter 16.9 tint is in my experience an extreme correction value that I do not feel comfortable with, since my experience with Canon cameras and with an incandescent illuminant (which the sun is, even with some sky.cloud filtration) rarely shows a tint value exceeding +/- 1. But that's about colo(u)r.

Next observation is that you probably are not using a "Linear Response" tone curve, which in my opinon is much better than the default "Film curve" based profiles that were useful for CCD based profiles for Phase One backs to avoid hard clipping of specular highlights (and with the limited DR of those, clipping was a major issue to avoid). Unfortunately, as per our Anders "Torger" contributions, supplied profiles are mostly filmcurve based. So, tuned profiling may be a better basis for comparison, as far as colo(u)r is concerned, but it also appears to have a significant influence on things like noise, yes noise (due to pushing color differences near clipping).

But I think you've put your finger on the issue.  I was using the HDR sliders in C1 pretty much as I would use the Shadows/Highlight sliders in LR, and the effect is a loss of local contrast.  In order to retain the local contrast I had to adjust the sliders to these sort of settings:

Another problem in comparion is in which image is taken as the basis, for the other image to look similar to. Had you started with the Capture One image, it would perhaps also be hard to achieve something similar in LR. Let's face it, they both give different results by default, and it takes more or less effort to match the 'looks'.

The LR & C1 versions then are pretty comparable in terms of low frequency detail (again, both converters set to no sharpening and no luminance noise reduction) ... except that C1 is clearly applying luminance noise reduction even with the setting at zero.

Not my experience, but that's mostly based on Canon Raws, not Sony Raws. Anyway, for my Canons I have noise Reduction practically disabled, maybe an amount of merely '1' color noise reduction. This is also based on ETTR shot exposure levels, and the fact that I mostly shoot at ISO 100 (adding illumination or exposure time when possible).

This does clean up the dark noise well at the cost of some loss of high frequency detail.  If some noise reduction is applied in LR then the two converters pretty much equalize on high frequency detail.

To repeat, it matters which converter (and tuning) is taken as 'base' for conversion. Most 'other' converters will have a difficult challenge to match the results.

So I've learnt a couple of things;
- raw converters may apply sharpening and / or noise reduction under the hood with no user override. In this case I would say that C1 is the culprit with noise reduction.

Don't blindly use the defaults. I use mostly zero noise reuction, but the I also use ETTR and (rarely, but if needed) external specialized NR applications. In fact, Raw converters rarely perform better than specialized Noise Reduction applications.

- the HDR sliders in C1 are not at all equivalent to the Shadows/Highlight sliders in LR.

Correct, and an issue for simple comparisons.

{quote]For a high dynamic range image like the one posted here, and one that has quite a lot of local contrast detail, it's necessary to use the sliders in C1 in a very non-intuitive way to get the best result.  If I had not been comparing the C1 image to the LR image I would not have spotted the need to do so.[/quote]

Correct, as I pointed out earlier. The base conversion may be hard to match by any alternative converter.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. I'll post my conversion when questions about profile and creative intent are more clear to me.

[AlterEgo]

supplied profiles are mostly filmcurve based.

and so are Adobe's... in the sense that they have tone curve typically already inside the profile

[Robert Ardill]

Hi Robert,

I'm not so sure, yet. I've downloaded your DNG file with some hesitation, because it adds another unknown variable to the equation (and I do not know from experience, how good the Camera profiles are). When I use the DNG's "as shot" White Balancing, I get 4978 Kelvin and 16.9 tint. The latter 16.9 tint is in my experience an extreme correction value that I do not feel comfortable with, since my experience with Canon cameras and with an incandescent illuminant (which the sun is, even with some sky.cloud filtration) rarely shows a tint value exceeding +/- 1. But that's about colo(u)r.

Next observation is that you probably are not using a "Linear Response" tone curve, which in my opinon is much better than the default "Film curve" based profiles that were useful for CCD based profiles for Phase One backs to avoid hard clipping of specular highlights (and with the limited DR of those, clipping was a major issue to avoid). Unfortunately, as per our Anders "Torger" contributions, supplied profiles are mostly filmcurve based. So, tuned profiling may be a better basis for comparison, as far as colo(u)r is concerned, but it also appears to have a significant influence on things like noise, yes noise (due to pushing color differences near clipping).

Another problem in comparion is in which image is taken as the basis, for the other image to look similar to. Had you started with the Capture One image, it would perhaps also be hard to achieve something similar in LR. Let's face it, they both give different results by default, and it takes more or less effort to match the 'looks'.

Not my experience, but that's mostly based on Canon Raws, not Sony Raws. Anyway, for my Canons I have noise Reduction practically disabled, maybe an amount of merely '1' color noise reduction. This is also based on ETTR shot exposure levels, and the fact that I mostly shoot at ISO 100 (adding illumination or exposure time when possible).

To repeat, it matters which converter (and tuning) is taken as 'base' for conversion. Most 'other' converters will have a difficult challenge to match the results.

Don't blindly use the defaults. I use mostly zero noise reuction, but the I also use ETTR and (rarely, but if needed) external specialized NR applications. In fact, Raw converters rarely perform better than specialized Noise Reduction applications.

Correct, and an issue for simple comparisons.

{quote]For a high dynamic range image like the one posted here, and one that has quite a lot of local contrast detail, it's necessary to use the sliders in C1 in a very non-intuitive way to get the best result.  If I had not been comparing the C1 image to the LR image I would not have spotted the need to do so.

Correct, as I pointed out earlier. The base conversion may be hard to match by any alternative converter.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. I'll post my conversion when questions about profile and creative intent are more clear to me.

Thanks Bart ... I'll check this all out when I get home tonight (I'm travelling at the moment).  I'll also post the arw file (and check out things like the white balance myself).

C1 appeared to me to be applying quite a bit of noise reduction on the image, with luminance noise reduction slider at zero.  This can be seen in the darks under the bridge ... in LR noise is visible whereas there is none in C1.  Perhaps this is because the image was shot at ISO 400 and the shadow noise is being boosted a lot (perhaps C1 is being 'intelligent' here and applying noise reduction selectively?).  I would need to check it out with an ISO100 image.

Cheers,

Robert