Scenario: you have a shoot with 20 selects all of which involve a model with a particular pair of shoes on which are rendering in a slightly off color (according at least to what the client wants/expects)
At the Photoshop Stage
1. Open the first image (twiddle thumbs while 16 bit 30+ megapixel file opens)
2. Create Adjustment Layer and make changes
3. Save the first image (twiddle thumbs while 16 bit 30+ megapixel file saves)
4. Repeat 1-3 for each of the 20 images
OR
At the Raw Stage
1. Select one image and adjust it
2. Select all images (Apple-A) and push the Local Copy and Apply button
The same goes for exposure tweaks, contrast, clarity, lens correction (huge time saver versus manually or script-based distortion correction).
Plus for the majority of adjustments the resulting file will have more quality/fidelity if the adjustments are made prior to processing rather than after. So for instance pulling up the shadows in C1 vs. processing strait and then lifting them in Photoshop will result in much better shadow quality (tonality, noise, saturation accuracy etc).
That's not to say that most final image won't go to Photoshop at the end, but simply that the more you can do in raw as a batch adjustment the more time you save. This is true regardless of whether you are using LR, Aperture, Phocus, or Capture One.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Doug, I fully agree with what you just said. When working in a set of multiple images that have to be corrected the same way, I also do that step in Capture because it's way faster and reliable.
But we have to end on layers anyway at one stage or another.
Scripts in PS are really powerfull but not user friendly. (and more scripts...)
About the lauching, I was refering to the option to load the C1 or full or simplify for the very beginning. That is interesting for tether (I now refuse to tether but a lot do) or when you want the program for very basics adjustments. In C1 as you pointed you can choose but you first need to open the software, so the idea is to quit that step and ask the user from the very beginning.
C1 can insipre itself from the competition and the competition from C1 of course, like the very good styles that all raw devellopper should have IMO.
About the speed, I must join Doug's view. Phocus is rather faster
at first, but then C1, and specially if you have a lot of volume, because of its arquitecture is really fast and efficient.
John, I have a Lightroom and hardly (now never) use it. This is not because I think that Lightroom is bad, it's because I find it too integrated. It might seems a paradox but the powerfull way Lightroom deals with folders is a step to learn and I'm not ready to cross the Rubicon because there are so many softwares to master that adding another learning curve on the yet very long list just repulses me.
On the contrary, I find the Capture idea much more interesting to associate with a separate software to do those tasks, a software that is capable to read any kind of extention included the layers, videos and sound. So for B&W convertions I use PS with Silver Effex that is great because it works on layers and therefore is non intrusive.
About Phocus, I don't want to start a war between the big boys, I downloaded it in the case I rent a Blad back, and it's never bad to have the choice. To be honest, I find both Phocus and Capture 1 very good. Each has its own strengh. C1 is without hesitation more complex (didn't say more complicated) and therefore more heavy, but when it runs in cruise speed it runs. Phocus seems to me in a slightly different spirit, maybe more minimalist but very efficient too. 2 nice tools.
The only thing I'd like is to understand this DNG stuff. Why not a common format in the end? Is that because manufacturers want to keep their secret sauce for their backs?
Then, why Leica choosed the DNG for its S2 ? (and the Pentax will do too, but Pentax has been a strong supporter of DNG. Honestly, I shooted both on the Pentax and I'm unable to see any difference between the native raw and the DNG version. If you guys can find where are the differences I'd like to know where I should look). If there is a Pentax engineer that read those lines he's very welcome to bring the light on the 2 formats.