Why CaptureOne Pro 10 and Not Photoshop/LR CC?

[Michael Erlewine]

I'm coming from the DSLR side of things and I have always used Adobe, and for still photographuy Adobe CC, Photoshop and Lightroom. What is it that CaptureOne Pro 10 offers that I should be aware of, please and thank-you.

[Paul2660]

I would consider the following:

1.  Adjustment layers that operate independently of each other up to 15 per image
2.  Wonderful color selection tool set, I feel vastly superior to LR/Adobe
3.  Session or Catalog (I prefer sessions)
4.  With version 10 new sharpening options which use deconvolution
4.  With Version 10 sharpening options for output (depending on web view, printing etc)
5.  The best tethering solution out there, for Nikon, Canon, Sony, P1 and maybe Fuji if current rumors of C1 support come true
6.  Very well designed layout for a workspace
7.  Ability to control WB per layer (huge for my workflow)
Edit:
8.  ease of copying adjustments from one image to another
9.  Side by side viewing (I have never liked LR's way of enabling this, just too complicated for me)


Issues I have:

NO history as LR has (huge issue if you work a lot in LR or C1 instead of CC which I do)
No Fringing eyedropper, and C1 IMO can miss some of the fringing of ultra wides like the 28mm LS
Auto Mask can't handle finer demarcations like tree branches against a sky
No HDR or Pano toolset, Love the HDR toolset in LR just for exposure bracketing and the pano tool with the boundary warp is a huge asset for me
C1 really could use a "dehaze" tool, the one in LR is really a great asset and has a tremendous amount of power.  and now LR allow dehaze in with an adjustment brush
ND tool is still behind LR IMO, but useable and allows wb adjustments unlike LR so I call it a tie (edited) LR has the ability to do WB manually, just does not have the eye dropper within the ND filter. 

I am sure there are a lot more but these are the ones that come to mind for me in my daily use of both tools.

Paul Caldwell

[Michael Erlewine]

Thanks Paul:

I use PS and only use LR for preparing stacks for Zerene Stacker. So my question is: can we easily use C1 without using their image management feature. I don't want to get my photos locked up in the way LR does it. I use Adobe Bridge to read my disk files, which are stored by date in folders. I am on the PC. I have a number of Macs, but I prefer the power and flexibility of PC... at this point.

[Paul2660]

Hi Michael:

I would do a search on the Zerene Stacker and C1, as Phase One has a close relationship with them along with the other stacking software (I am blocking on the name).  Since the XF has a built in focus stacking tool (which is very good unless you have movement) and Capture One works well with both of the software tools.  There are quite a few videos out there from both Capture Integration and Digital Transitions showing the process and integration.

Paul Caldwell

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks Paul:

I use PS and only use LR for preparing stacks for Zerene Stacker. So my question is: can we easily use C1 without using their imagine management. I don't want to get my photos locked up in the way LR does it. I use Adobe Bridge to read my disk files, which are stored by date in folders. I am on the PC. I have a number of Macs, but I prefer the power and flexibility of PC... at this point.

Yes, just use it in the sessions mode. I store my images like you do and it works great.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'm coming from the DSLR side of things and I have always used Adobe, and for still photographuy Adobe CC, Photoshop and Lightroom. What is it that CaptureOne Pro 10 offers that I should be aware of, please and thank-you.

Hi Michael,

A basic thing to decide upon when opening a Raw file is if you want to go with a built-in 'film tonecurve' (with highlight roll-off in the shoulder) or a linear one. A linear tone curve allows using a better-exposed image, since the film curve suggests that the image is 1/2 to 1 stop overexposed ('clipped' highlights).

I prefer starting with a linear tone-curve, because I can use the better exposed exposure bracket (less noise and more shadow detail), and design/use my own tone-curve based on image content. This may be important for your type of close-up photography, where you'd want more control over semi-specular highlight on e.g. leafs.

Another important thing to get familiar with is LCCs. These Light Cast Corrections, although designed for something else, also allow to stack images without dust or, more importantly, dust-trails (which can show up in resized and stacked images).

Also very useful is the Adjustment Layer capability.

Color editing is pretty advanced, may be useful to learn the ropes of that as well.

For the rest, there is 'just' a learning curve to get acquainted with all the other common features, and specific ones like working in Sessions (which I prefer) or in a Catalog, but Capture One is mostly very logical and aimed at image quality.

Rumour has it (although I'm a bit skeptical at this point in time) that the new Medium Format mirrorless Fuji GFX will be supported by Capture One. If true, that would be a major thing.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes, just use it in the sessions mode. I store my images like you do and it works great.

+1

I also use a file structure that makes it easy to find files (including file-stacking), and sessions are a logical extension of that.

Cheers,
Bart

[Wayne Fox]

I would consider the following:

1.  Adjustment layers that operate independently of each other up to 15 per image
2.  Wonderful color selection tool set, I feel vastly superior to LR/Adobe
3.  Session or Catalog (I prefer sessions)
4.  With version 10 new sharpening options which use deconvolution
4.  With Version 10 sharpening options for output (depending on web view, printing etc)
5.  The best tethering solution out there, for Nikon, Canon, Sony, P1 and maybe Fuji if current rumors of C1 support come true
6.  Very well designed layout for a workspace
7.  Ability to control WB per layer (huge blue for my workflow)
Edit:
8.  ease of copying adjustments from one image to another
9.  Side by side viewing (I have never liked LR's way of enabling this, just too complicated for me)


Issues I have:

NO history as LR has (huge issue if you work a lot in LR or C1 instead of CC which I do)
No Fringing eyedropper, and C1 IMO can miss some of the fringing of ultra wides like the 28mm LS
Auto Mask can't handle finer demarcations like tree branches against a sky
No HDR or Pano toolset, Love the HDR toolset in LR just for exposure bracketing and the pano tool with the boundary warp is a huge asset for me
C1 really could use a "dehaze" tool, the one in LR is really a great asset and has a tremendous amount of power.  and now LR allow dehaze in with an adjustment brush
ND tool is still behind LR IMO, but useable and allows wb adjustments unlike LR so I call it a tie

I am sure there are a lot more but these are the ones that come to mind for me in my daily use of both tools.

Paul Caldwell

I would add that the Auto Mask tool is vastly inferior to the one in LR for many tasks.  Using color selections and turning them into masks does help but there is a lot of power in using LR's automask feature to achieve results that are even difficult to in with masks in PS.

Also I feel LR is much better at controlling tonal ranges when trying to handle high dynamic range files.  The shadow slider in C1 has much more effect on the midtones that I would like to see.

I prefer LR's implementation of the graduated filter as well, with C1 you are just creating a mask, and if you don't like it, you either fix it with brushes or you do it again.  LR allows you to reposition, change the transition area/size, and alter the angle, so much faster to get it "correct".  Now that you can use a brush to edit the graduated filter and with the quality of the automask tool, graduated filters can become very useful because you can paint it out of areas so quickly. 

I use both, but currently find I'm going from C1 to tiff into LR for quite a bit of editing work because of some of the tools.  If LR ever manages to support the IQ3 100 back, I will most  likely find myself using LR more with raw files, probably maybe around 50/50 mix.

[Paul2660]

Good points on the Auto mask, as I fully agree (I watched your video) on it's abilities.  C1 has a lot to improve on there. 

ND filter is limited also. 

Paul Caldwell

[camgarner]

I use all 3 - LR, PS and C1.  My problem is I started with a DSLR and have only moved to medium format in the last few years.  I have made such a historical commitment to LR as my image management software it made the thought of converting to C1 more than I wanted to handle.  I do basic image processing for all images captured with my Phase1 in C1 then I export them to LR for any further processing in PS.  This is perhaps less than ideal but it works for me.

[dchew]

Hi Michael,

A basic thing to decide upon when opening a Raw file is if you want to go with a built-in 'film tonecurve' (with highlight roll-off in the shoulder) or a linear one. A linear tone curve allows using a better-exposed image, since the film curve suggests that the image is 1/2 to 1 stop overexposed ('clipped' highlights).

I prefer starting with a linear tone-curve, because I can use the better exposed exposure bracket (less noise and more shadow detail), and design/use my own tone-curve based on image content. This may be important for your type of close-up photography, where you'd want more control over semi-specular highlight on e.g. leafs.

Cheers,
Bart

I use both, but currently find I'm going from C1 to tiff into LR for quite a bit of editing work because of some of the tools.  If LR ever manages to support the IQ3 100 back, I will most  likely find myself using LR more with raw files, probably maybe around 50/50 mix.

I feel the same way and this is how I work. I start with the linear curve, apply lcc's and work the image either to completion or as good as I can with C1, the tiff to LR to either just store it in the master catalog or to finish it off. Although in my case now the majority of images are finished in C1 with no adjustments in LR. But the final image resides in a master LR catalog.

Dave

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am quite a bit biased in favour of Lightroom as it has been my tool of choice since 2006. I generally use my own colour profiles with Lightroom but I have not taken that effort with Capture One.

Generally, I use the highlight and shadow sliders in Lightroom quiet a lot to map the high dynamic range of the images to the limited luminance range of screen and print. I would say that these controls work more subtle than the corresponding tools in Capture One.

There are some areas where I think Capture One works better, one of those areas is the demosaic process which may show less artefacts than LR/ACR.

I attach an image shot with P45+ and processed by Capture One and Lightroom. Both are processed to taste. The Lightroom image is using my own colour profile created by Anders Torger's DCamProf while the Capture One processed image uses the built in default colour profile. Both are white balanced for the same separate grey card shot.

My processing skills with C1 are not any good, so the comparison is not really even.

Eleanor Brown, who just got an X1D has run some tests comparing Hasselblad's own Phocus and Lightroom and finds the results are near identical. So, it may seem that Lightroom can yield very good colour when combined with a good colour profile.

Best regards
Erik

I would add that the Auto Mask tool is vastly inferior to the one in LR for many tasks.  Using color selections and turning them into masks does help but there is a lot of power in using LR's automask feature to achieve results that are even difficult to in with masks in PS.

Also I feel LR is much better at controlling tonal ranges when trying to handle high dynamic range files.  The shadow slider in C1 has much more effect on the midtones that I would like to see.

I prefer LR's implementation of the graduated filter as well, with C1 you are just creating a mask, and if you don't like it, you either fix it with brushes or you do it again.  LR allows you to reposition, change the transition area/size, and alter the angle, so much faster to get it "correct".  Now that you can use a brush to edit the graduated filter and with the quality of the automask tool, graduated filters can become very useful because you can paint it out of areas so quickly. 

I use both, but currently find I'm going from C1 to tiff into LR for quite a bit of editing work because of some of the tools.  If LR ever manages to support the IQ3 100 back, I will most  likely find myself using LR more with raw files, probably maybe around 50/50 mix.

[john beardsworth]

I use PS and only use LR for preparing stacks for Zerene Stacker. So my question is: can we easily use C1 without using their imagine management. I don't want to get my photos locked up in the way LR does it. I use Adobe Bridge to read my disk files, which are stored by date in folders. I am on the PC. I have a number of Macs, but I prefer the power and flexibility of PC... at this point.

If you only use Lr for preparing stacks (and even have the idea that Lr somehow "locks" up photos), I'm not sure it makes any sense comparing Lr against C1. Surely your comparison is PS against C1?

On the one hand, you know Photoshop will continue to support your camera system, and it does so much more besides. On the other, maybe C1 will support your GFX, maybe it won't, but you're always going to feel at the mercy of P1 and how it resolves its conflict of interest. Great if C1 does support the GFX, but how sure can you be that in a couple of years' time C1 will decide to support your next GFX (or you go back to Hasselblad) that may be even more competitive with P1's bodies? So much for those new skills....

Tethering is one area where you might see a benefit, if that's important to you. C1 and the related iOS app are clearly better in this area. But you're again running into that conflict of interest. How exactly will any support for GFX be defined? It might mean processing raw files, but will it include a tethering experience equivalent to P1's and non-competitive cameras? If not....

John

[Michael Erlewine]

If you only use Lr for preparing stacks (and even have the idea that Lr somehow "locks" up photos), I'm not sure it makes any sense comparing Lr against C1. Surely your comparison is PS against C1?
John

I thought I mentioned somewhere here that I use Adobe Bridge to manage my image folders and ACR/Photoshop to post-process. I know how to use Lightroom very well, but refuse to use their catalog system, since it repeatedly crashes and trashes my metadata,. etc. I love PS, which I find more elegant than LR, but am always interested in other post-processing software that might do a better job. This whole move toward MF, even on the small end with the GFX/X1D, is a sea-change. I bet I am not the Lone Ranger either. Many DSLR owners will take the plunge and the MF community will swell.

[douglevy]

To me, the advantages of C1 over LR (and I've processed hundreds of thousands of photos in LR, and tens of thousands in C1).

• color - the color refinement tools allow for much more precise control than the sliders in LR
• profiles - being able to force any camera makers' profiles onto your camera allow for a far broader range of interpretations than LR's does
• layers - you can do more in C1 without having to process out TIFFs or PSD's, so you can stay in one place and maintain smaller files
• tethering - DRAMATIC difference in stability vs LR tethering, which imo is completely useless

Really the only thing that LR has that I wish C1 did is history states.

-Doug

[john beardsworth]

I thought I mentioned somewhere here that I use Adobe Bridge to manage my image folders and ACR/Photoshop to post-process. I know how to use Lightroom very well, but refuse to use their catalog system, since it repeatedly crashes and trashes my metadata,. etc. I love PS, which I find more elegant than LR, but am always interested in other post-processing software that might do a better job. This whole move toward MF, even on the small end with the GFX/X1D, is a sea-change. I bet I am not the Lone Ranger either. Many DSLR owners will take the plunge and the MF community will swell.

Yes, it was in the bit I quoted. I suspect you are right about prospects for this DSLR-MF intersection, though I feel it will only have a marginal effect on choice of software. C1 might benefit, but we don't yet know if the Fuji rep's statements indicate any lasting change of policy, do we? If you're not using Lr fully, you've little to lose by trying C1 for yourself.

[Michael Erlewine]

Yes, it was in the bit I quoted. I suspect you are right about prospects for this DSLR-MF intersection, though I feel it will only have a marginal effect on choice of software. C1 might benefit, but we don't yet know if the Fuji rep's statements indicate any lasting change of policy, do we? If you're not using Lr fully, you've little to lose by trying C1 for yourself.

I thought I made it clear I do not use Lightroom, except for sending stacks to Zerene Stacker. I have processed many hundreds of thousands of photos with Lightroom, but now do all my work (except for the setup I mentioned) with PHotoshop and Bridge as the finder.

[john beardsworth]

I thought I made it clear I do not use Lightroom, except for sending stacks to Zerene Stacker. I have processed many hundreds of thousands of photos with Lightroom, but now do all my work (except for the setup I mentioned) with PHotoshop and Bridge as the finder.

Yes, you did make it clear, and I twice made it equally clear that was the case, even paraphrasing your "only use Lr for preparing stacks" comment. Hence my suggestions. Just change "little" for "nothing".

[Wayne Fox]

On the one hand, you know Photoshop will continue to support your camera system, and it does so much more besides. On the other, maybe C1 will support your GFX, maybe it won't, but you're always going to feel at the mercy of P1 and how it resolves its conflict of interest. Great if C1 does support the GFX, but how sure can you be that in a couple of years' time C1 will decide to support your next GFX (or you go back to Hasselblad) that may be even more competitive with P1's bodies? So much for those new skills....

Personally I don’t think this really applies.  C1 has never removed support for a camera, much like all the other raw processor makers.  The GFX will not be supported by C1 (unless Fuji specially licenses the software from them which is highly unlikely).  C1’s primary mission is to support Phase One equipment, and as such they have a policy not to support other MF backs.  There is no reason to believe if they ever changed that policy they would suddenly pull the rug out from users.

They do not arbitrarily  decide to support cameras or suddenly pull support from cameras, their policy is clear and has never changed. The recent thread about GFX support at this point appears to be a Fuji representative who assumed C1 would support the GFX because it supports all of Fuji’s other cameras.  This has been clarified by another Fuji representative who said the original statement should not have been made.  So nothing new, no one expected GFX support, just like there is no Hasselblad or Pentax support.  Some of us still hope that they may find a reason to change their policy ... but if they did there is no reason or evidence to support this change would be “temporary”. 

[Rory]

I would consider the following:

1.  Adjustment layers that operate independently of each other up to 15 per image
2.  Wonderful color selection tool set, I feel vastly superior to LR/Adobe
3.  Session or Catalog (I prefer sessions)
4.  With version 10 new sharpening options which use deconvolution
4.  With Version 10 sharpening options for output (depending on web view, printing etc)
5.  The best tethering solution out there, for Nikon, Canon, Sony, P1 and maybe Fuji if current rumors of C1 support come true
6.  Very well designed layout for a workspace
7.  Ability to control WB per layer (huge for my workflow)
Edit:
8.  ease of copying adjustments from one image to another
9.  Side by side viewing (I have never liked LR's way of enabling this, just too complicated for me)

I'd be interested in a clarification on several of these points, which by way of being on your list implies they are better than LR or do not exist in LR.

1.  Adjustment layers that operate independently of each other up to 15 per image

     Is there a functional advantage to adjustment layers over the LR paradigm of unlimited adjustment brushes and gradients?

4.  With version 10 new sharpening options which use deconvolution   
     
     I believe LR also uses deconvolution when you move the detail slider past 50.  Is the C1 sharpening superior?

4.  With Version 10 sharpening options for output (depending on web view, printing etc) 

     Is the C1 implementation more sophisticated than the LR low, medium and high options?

7.  Ability to control WB per layer (huge for my workflow) 

     Is this functionally different from creating different WB in adjustment brush or gradients in LR?

8.  ease of copying adjustments from one image to another 

     There are multiple ways to do this in LR.  How is the C1 implementation better?

9.  Side by side viewing (I have never liked LR's way of enabling this, just too complicated for me) 

     Does this comment include LR's reference view?  If so, how is the C1 implementation better?