Just tried C1 with 20D

[Stef_T]

Have any experience with Adobe's Raw Converter?

[dlashier]

> Using C1 Pro interupts that process.

How so? I am also a low volume user (usually), shooting a couple hundred shots and converting only a handful.

> I get a charge out of culling them in ACR

But this is what I find very awkward in ACR. If you've got a dozen variants of the same shot how to you cull to the best in ACR? I didn't know you could have two open at the same time.

>  no choice other than to get the pro version if you expect to not have to shift product levels

Aside from the disappearance of the $29 version, features have only migrated down, not up. LE would now mostly meet my needs even though I have Pro.

Aside from workflow clumsiness the bigger issue I have with ACR is shadow noise, artifacting, and lack of adequate tonal controls forcing you to complete in PS. With C1 I skip PS entirely for ~80% of images and go straight to IP with the TIF.

- DL

[Ray]

C1 has always been able to handle shadow detail much better than ACR and is why I almost always use it for images shot in low-light.

Can anyone post a couple of images demonstrating this? My trial version of C1 expired some time ago. I don't recall noticing any superior ability to handle shadow detail, but maybe I wasn't looking for it.

As I recall, C1's ability to recover highlight information was about the same as ACR, but C1 was very marginally sharper, perhaps because of a different default sharpening setting.

I didn't see any good reason to get involved in yet more expense for such subtle improvements, although I can appreciate that any workflow that saves the busy professional time is worth considering.

But much better ability to handle shadow detail I would consider a big advantage on its own.

[Dinarius]

dl,

Thanks for that.

That just about decides it for me.

Will download the trial version and give it a go.

One last question, what is the batch queue limit? i.e. how many?

Thanks.

D.

[Dinarius]

I downloaded the demo C1 LE and did a head to head with DPP using my 20D.

I simply shot a Kodak Colour Test Strip and compared them side by side on my monitor.

I used default settings. I changed nothing in either program.

C1 has a slight edge in terms of "out of the box" colour saturation, albeit a very small one: nothing that couldn't be altered quite easily.

However, in terms of user friendly interface, DPP wins hands down. Though I confess that this may be a case of what I'm used to.

Is there any online C1 tutorial that comes close to the superb DPP one here> http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp/index.html

Thanks.

D.

[RobertJ]

I tried out Capture One 3.6 Pro yesterday with a few of my 20D RAW files.  I've always used other converters, so I'm sorry if you guys already know how great C1 is, but I decided to give C1 a try, and WOW!  This program beats everything else I've ever used.  20D files tend to have slight color banding/noise in certain conditions, especially in shadows, but C1 gets rid of all color noise, and instead, makes it very fine grained, non-colored specs.  It's amazing.  It also captures noticeably more detail than any other RAW converter I've used.  The images are sharper, less noisy, no color banding or patterns at all, and just look better, even when I enlarge the file by 200 percent.

I haven't really had any banding problems with my 20D, but if you are, C1 will clean it right up.  It might be doing some noise reduction, but I can't say for sure, since my images from C1 look much sharper and cleaner, with NO color banding.  Just wanted to let that out, I'm just amazed.  Ok, I'm done now.

T-1000

[RobertJ]

Bibble, which I didn't like too much, (actually, the files seemed worse than the files from the Canon programs), DPP, which I didn't think was too bad, and EVU, which I thought was ok, since it ties to the in-camera settings.  Since capture one didn't support the 20D until recently, couldn't really use that.  I knew having a good Raw converter was a big deal, but not a HUGE deal.  However, I'm sold on C1 now.

T-1000

[RobertJ]

I know that's a very popular converter, but haven't used it.  Have you compared ACR with C1?  I'd like to hear your thoughts.

T-1000

[RobertJ]

Indeed.
I was just amazed at how the colored noise patterns just disappeared in C1, while in Bibble they were still there, and even worse with the Canon software.  I guess you could say that those who were having banding problems with their 20D should be able to get rid of it with C1.  I had a horrible looking ISO 3200 image, then I opened it up in C1, and it seemed like an ISO 800 image from the other converters.  I don't know about other people's results, but I'm getting incredible files from C1.  It actually made me want to capture more images, more often.  

I really need to try ACR as well.  The more converters, the better!  But C1 is orgasmic.

T-1000

[ratz]

C1 Pro is the absolute best I have tried. I also agree with the statement that it made me want to take more captures. It really brings out the BEST in my photos as compared to the other converters. To me it just seems like a Professional product compared to the other converters. I did a test using WhiBal grey cards on ACR and C1 Pro and C1 Pro's white balance correction was much better. The colors were just as they should be where as ACRs were off with a tint. The comparison between the two corrected images was very revealing. I am a big Photoshop fan but C1 Pro did a much better job.

[dnone]

just wondering whether the 'new' C1 is faster compared to the last version?

did they change the memory management?

because that really sucked! if the folder contained more than 20-50 pix it took ages to get thenm preprocessed.

but I must admit the picture quality is impressive, as well as the tweaking pssibilities - way better then ACR!

dn

[61Dynamic]

20D files tend to have slight color banding/noise in certain conditions, especially in shadows, but C1 gets rid of all color noise, and instead, makes it very fine grained, non-colored specs.  It's amazing.  It also captures noticeably more detail than any other RAW converter I've used.

C1 has always been able to handle shadow detail much better than ACR and is why I almost always use it for images shot in low-light.

C1 also handles color for the 300D much better than ACR which is another point in favor of C1.

Unfortunatly, C1 has some big flaws the biggest of which was made evedent with the many-month delay of the PC version of C1 3.6. They have excellent algorythms for conversion and great potential but they aren't able to be competative in this market. Add to that their software is considerably over-priced (for Pro) I don't see them being around long-term if they don't get their act together.

One of the things C1 is known for is workflow. That may have been the case before PS CS, but not so anymore. The combination of ACR and the filebrowser (flagging/ranking/renaming/metadata editing/etc) along with the ablity to edit and combine RAW dev with actions in CS just totally kicks the butt of C1. There are four things C1 has over ACR in regards to workflow. These are the speed at which C1 can operate, the fact that it can process images in the background while you continue to work on other images, the fact that you can see a histogram while previewing images (filebrowser needs this ability stat!), and the fact that you cna develop several versions of an image without having to manually save them.

I did a test using WhiBal grey cards on ACR and C1 Pro and C1 Pro's white balance correction was much better. The colors were just as they should be where as ACRs were off with a tint

I have only had color problems in ACR using the 300D. Were you using a 300D and was this comparison was done with a properly calibrated ACR?

[61Dynamic]

But much better ability to handle shadow detail I would consider a big advantage on its own.

It's not much better in most cases. C1 does seem to resolve better shadow detail but the difference is minor for properly exposed images. It's the images that you f-up on that C1 really shines.

Under-exposed images always come out better in C1 IMHO than in ACR and the difference is noticeable.

I would describe the difference as c1 being less "muddy." It gives better definition between shapes in the shadows.

BTW, it has nothing to do with sharpening settings - I always have that turned off for PhotoKit Sharpening.

[dlashier]

> IF the conversion algorithm is identical to the full PRO version.

Yes it is. The reason they refer to "low volume" is because of the batch queue limit. However even many high volume users never exceed the limit depending on work habits of course. There's been a couple times when I needed to reprocess a batch of already adjusted images to a different size and/or profile and then the pro queue has been handy, but other than that, two years and 35,000+ images and I've never had more than a half dozen in the queue.

- DL

[RobertJ]

C1 LE allows 20 files in the batch, maximum.  There is no limit with the PRO version.  I, myself, probably don't need more than 20.  LE would be fine.  But why is it so much cheaper than PRO?  Maybe because PRO also has support for the digital backs, and LE doesn't?  It seems like a wide gap between LE and PRO, which is more than 300 bucks more.

T-1000

[61Dynamic]

Also, ACR keeps data on the settings used for an image, so if you revisit you know what you did and start from there. You can also apply the previous image's settings as well as save them as files and recall them. I couldn't find any such features in C-1, and they are truly valuable features. If they do exist, can someone let us know? TIA.

C1 does the same. All edits are automatically saved in .work files so you can make an adjustment to a file and it will remember that adjustment. These files are saved when you exit but you can change that to save in timed intervals. You can envoke this manually by going to Workflow > Selected/All Capture settings > save

Adjustments can be archived in a directory you choose, otherwise all .work files are kept with the image cache.

As for saving settings to apply to different captures at different times/places, ACR has an advantage. In C1 only WB (but pathetically not tint) and the curve can be saved.

-__--

Both programs are lacking on the handling of the image cache. They both should save the cache in the directory that contains the files as ACRs "export Cache" does but it should happen automatically without human intervention by default (or at minimum make it an option to do so). C1 should also save the .work files with the RAW files just as ACR does.

[Ray]

These are cropped images, but see color of the eye !
And C1 noise reduction set to the minimum.

Sorry! Can't see the pictures or find them from the URL.

[RobertJ]

I find C1 to be faster and easier to use than DPP, and the image quality can be worlds better depending on the contents of the image.  But whatever works for you.  I used DPP for a while.  There's really nothing wrong with it.

T-1000

[Stef_T]

Would you mind telling us what other RAW converters you have used?

[boku]

I own both pieces of software. I have always heard that the C1 solution is a workhorse, but I have to tell you, each time I try to use it I feel like I'm missing something that will open the door of greatness.

Admittedly, I am a low volume user. I go out on a weekly shoot and take maybe 100-200 exposures. I get a charge out of culling them in ACR and taking my 5-10% of "keepers" to first-cut fruition as I am converting them. All told, a Sunday well spent. Using C1 Pro interupts that process.

Also - I know this is chcken-sh*t - but my working file format is Adobe .psd, not .tif (I try to save as much workflow info as possible). Converting to .tif and then .psd seem like a waste.

I have to tell you that a large amount of my negativity comes from the ever-changing product marketing schemes that leave you with no choice other than to get the pro version if you expect to not have to shift product levels. Further, the long delay to support the 20D on Windows made me feel like this firm is troubled. I know they probably aren't, but I waited a good 3 months after I got my 20D before I could even use the C1 Pro product. In the meantime, I got very comfortable with my long established ACR workflow.

I might thing differently if I was a high volume user.