Topic: Phase One back users - What software do you use? (Read 5443 times)

hdomke · « **on:** February 07, 2012, 10:55:00 pm »

I'm a new user of a Phase One P65+ back and I'm trying to decide if I really need to learn another complicated raw conversion program (Capture One) or if I can stay with Lightroom.

When I started shooting a Nikon D1X in 2001 I used Nikon Capture and Bibble but eventually settled on Adobe's raw converter.
In 2003 I switched over to Canon's 1-series DSLRs and gave Canon's Digital Photo Professional program a try. Soon I was back with Adobe's software.
I switched to Lightroom in 2008 and have been quite happy using Lightroom and Photoshop.

Now I am adding a tech camera with a Phase One back for my landscapes.

The excellent team from Capture Integration is encouraging me to try Capture One.

I would like to hear what other Phase One users think, especially those of you who know Lightroom well.

Capture One does have the advantage of being able to use LCC profiles to correct problems with my Rodenstock HR 32 lens. I don't see a way to do that with Lightroom. On the other hand, Capture One's unique interface and workflow seem alien to me, even after spending many hours with it over the last week.

Comments? Suggestions?

How many people use both programs?

What raw conversion software do you use with your Phase One back?

marcmccalmont · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2012, 02:22:34 am »

Capture One

ctz · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2012, 05:19:36 am »

Capture One for P45+. Occasional 5dmkII shots also on Capture One.

gazwas · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2012, 07:17:32 am »

I'm a P65 user and Capture One by far the best RAW software to use with this back.

LR is great for noise, DAM and very large image library's but for tip top IQ, which is probably why you bought the P65, C1 is the only way to go.

hdomke · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2012, 08:12:38 am »

Quote

...for tip top IQ, which is probably why you bought the P65, C1 is the only way to go.

Can you be specific about why image quality with C1 files is better than with Lightroom?

Paul2660 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2012, 08:34:29 am »

Henry, as I recall from a previous post you are going to use the 32mm Rodenstock.

If that lens or any other tech camera/Rodenstock or Schneider lens is in your line up, you will need
Capture One to generate the LCC for each series you take. If you use the DF body and traditional
glass you can use Capture One or Lightroom which ever you prefer. I don't know of a way (wish I did
for Lightroom to take out the color cast/vignetting etc. created by the lenses I use with the Arca rm3di.
The Rodenstock 32mm will have colorcast issues (all the lenses do) which only can be fixed by a LCC.
As for vignetting, I have not shot this lens, and have no opinion. All the others in the S family, I have shot,
23, 28, 35 and all vignette to some degree and IMO require a center filter for the best exposure. Even if
you use the center filter you will still have colorcast issues that will require LCC correction. Shooting without
the center filter most likely will require LCC for both colorcast and vignetting which will require Capture One
since you are using a P65+.

I guess you could open the images in Capture One first, and correct LCC, then save the image as a DNG
and then open the DNG in Lightroom. I have thought of trying that but have not as of yet.

As for which program works better? I prefer both as I feel that each has areas where they are superior to the other. But with the beta of LR4, it's gotten very close IMO. (I don't shoot tethered which is another big reason
for Capture One with a P65+).

I hope you will post some images once you get the 32mm!

hdomke · « **Reply #6 on:** February 08, 2012, 10:16:52 am »

Quote

I guess you could open the images in Capture One first, and correct LCC, then save the image as a DNG and then open the DNG in Lightroom.

That seemed like a great idea so I tried it. Unfortunately the changes made in a DNG file exported from Capture One are not read by Lightroom. When Lightroom reads a DNG file created by Capture One all it will see is the original unaltered raw data. Any corrections you made (such as apply LCC corrections) are ignored.

Paul2660 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 08, 2012, 10:23:49 am »

Interesting. Not sure why that is since when you process the file the LCC is applied. That is one to take back to
Phase One. From what I can tell the changes apply if you save as jpg. But that is not where you need to be.

The LCC is really key to the whole tech camera shot. So that points for now at least to Capture One, maybe LR
will offer something similar? in the future.

Paul

MichaelEzra · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2012, 12:12:11 pm »

Henry,

You can give it a try using RawTherapee 4.0.7 (http://rawtherapee.com/downloads) with the floating point engine - just convert PhaseOne raws to DNG first (you can open .IIQ files directly by adding IIQ in Preferences/FileBrowser/Parsed Extensions, however camera white balance will not be recognized, converting to DNG should solve this problem as RawTherapee recognizes PhaseOne's white balance in DNG format).
RawTherapee has flat field correction (illustrated in the manual http://rawtherapee.googlecode.com/hg/doc/built/pdf/en/RawTherapeeManual_4.0.7.pdf page 36) that would correct the lens cast.

Frits · « **Reply #9 on:** February 08, 2012, 07:20:05 pm »

Capture One Pro for me (P25+ back on Hasselblad H1).

Schewe · « **Reply #10 on:** February 08, 2012, 07:41:31 pm »

Quote from: hdomke on February 07, 2012, 10:55:00 pm

What raw conversion software do you use with your Phase One back?

I use C1 when I tether...but for raw conversion I use Lightroom/Camera Raw...

The current versions (LR3.6 & ACR 6.6) now officially support all Phase backs...my P65+ and now my IQ 180 were not officially supported for a long time. The default color for the P65+ was pretty bad but I made my own dual illuminate DNG profile and had no problems adjusting color after that.

There is no doubt that C1 is much better at color than LR/ACR at program defaults but I have no problem getting optimal results in IQ, tone and color from ACR/LR. I happen to think LR's sharpening and noise reduction is superior to C1's and LR's local controls go much further than C1. ACR/LR has added lens corrections for pretty much all of the Phase/Mamiya lenses (except for some of the most recent Schneider lenses).

Yes, there is no way currently, to use LCC in ACR/LR. Note, I said "currently". The DNG spec does have the ability to process LCCs but there's no UI currently for selecting the correction files. I expect to see something in the not too distant future that would make that possible.

Jack Varney · « **Reply #11 on:** February 08, 2012, 11:08:06 pm »

C1 Pro.

pindman · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2012, 12:11:55 am »

I've been using Phase back for over 4 years, currently the IQ180. C1 Pro more often than not does better development of the raw than LR, but despite 4 years of trying still find the C1 interface clumsy and awkward, so I'll export a good quality TIFF and do as much as possible in LR.

Paul

Ben Rubinstein · « **Reply #13 on:** February 09, 2012, 04:53:32 am »

Is it just me or does ACR/LR handle highlights so much better than C1 for all that the colour isn't as good in general? I have to do a lot of work in C1 to get highlights close to what I get as standard in ACR.

hdomke · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2012, 08:51:30 am »

Quote

The default color for the P65+ was pretty bad but I made my own dual illuminate DNG profile and had no problems adjusting color after that.

Are those built into LR now? If not, could you make them available?

Quote

There is no doubt that C1 is much better at color than LR/ACR at program defaults

What makes you say that?

Quote

Yes, there is no way currently, to use LCC in ACR/LR.

Until LR can apply Lens Cast Corrections (LCC) what do you think about this workflow:
1. Import the files into C1.
2. Apply Lens Cast Corrections (LCC)
3. Export the files as a 16-bit TIFF file. For the color profile select "Embed camera profile"
4. Import the TIFF file into LR and resume my previous workflow.

Schewe · « **Reply #15 on:** February 09, 2012, 01:48:45 pm »

I would no export using the camera profile...if you are going to process a 16 bit TIFF, I would use ProPhoto RGB.

As for the recently supported Phase back, they were added in ACR 6.6 and LR 3.6. My profile prolly wouldn't do you any good since it's for my back.

When I say that C1 has better color at default, I mean Phase tweaks the colors with their profiles to achieve their "looks" ACR/LR normalize color from cameras...but using a custom DNG profile and setting up your own "Defaults" (or presets) makes getting what you want out of ACR/LR pretty easy.

Either program is capable of outputting really excellent image files. Some people prefer one over the other. I prefer Lightroom (which I'm pretty darn good at).

Don Libby · « **Reply #16 on:** February 09, 2012, 03:51:10 pm »

Listen to the team at Capture Integration.

It wasn't until C1 Pro offered a 64bit version that I truly felt comfortable using it. I too shoot with a P65+ and switch it back and forth between a Cambo WRS (75%) and a Phase DF (25%) and found C1 Pro has become a very critical part of my workflow. I process the images in C1 Pro before saving them to a separate file to be opened by CS5.

As much as I've tried I just never got to the point where I liked using Lightroom; instead I've been using CS5 (since photoshop was just a baby years ago) as what can best be described as co-dependant software to C1 Pro. I'd think you'll be able to do the very same using C1 and Lightroom.

Don't worry too much on the training curve for C1 as Capture Integration offers great training.

Just and end note - I use C1 Pro in processing my wife's 1DsIII as well as it has made life just a little easier.

Don

Wayne Fox · « **Reply #17 on:** February 09, 2012, 09:04:15 pm »

Personally I use Lightroom and C1. Import via LR. If the file doesn't need much in local adjustments, I'll may work it up in C1, save it out as a tiff, then bring it into Lightroom. There I might add some local adjustments or other tweaks. If I need some pixel fixing, I open it as a smart objection Photoshop, copy and paste the areas I'm working on and do the cloning/fill etc.

I only print from Lightroom now, so everything ends up there, even if I start out in C1.

If on the other hand I need some work with graduated filters (and with landscape/seascapes that's quite often) I usually start out in LR. Most of the time I'm pretty happy with the results, there have been a few times I went back to C1 and rendered out two different densities and blended them in PS.

Unless C1 does some major revamping and improvement in Local Adjustments as well as take a look at how LR 4 manages the sliders/development process I may be using it less. I've never worked up the same file in both to try and see just if and how much better C1 is than LR. I think at this point it's pretty close.

Schewe · « **Reply #18 on:** February 09, 2012, 10:54:57 pm »

Quote from: Wayne Fox on February 09, 2012, 09:04:15 pm

I've never worked up the same file in both to try and see just if and how much better C1 is than LR. I think at this point it's pretty close.

Wayne...I have. 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other with some qualifications...

Obviously since I teach at PODAS I use C1 when out in the field at a workshop (or shooting tethered)...I use C1 to import and duplicate at ingestion. Course, I also import the ingested files into Lightroom on the road so I have both.

I would say at this point C1 6.3.3 and LR 4 are pretty much equal when talking global corrections with C1 slightly better at color and LR 4 better at sharpening and noise reduction. When it comes to local corrections, C1 is lagging...although in the long run C1 may exceed LR because C1 intends to eventually have all controls available locally. But currently, C1 does not have a grad filter which is a pain. So a lot of what I can do in LR4 has to happen either as TIFFs in LR or Photoshop.

On the other hand, LR4 can't currently do LCCs. And while my Phase lenses are supported in lens corrections–LR and C1 are about equal (but C1 does LCCs).

I like both apps...I'm more involved with the development of LR and ACR...but I really like the way Claus Mølgaard and the Phase team are advancing the ball. A couple of years ago, Claus Mølgaard and Eric Chan were together on a PODUS in Iceland. Aside from Eric getting sick, that was really, really fun watching Claus and Eric getting geeky on each other. A lot of good came from that including a lot of cross company support (like the P65+ and IQ back support and lens corrections for pretty much all Phase/Mamiya lenses). While Phase and Adobe compete with each other, it's a healthy competition with each company helping rather than hurting each other. Far different than say Adobe and Nikon/Canon (although Leica and Hasseblad seem to be working well together as well).

The one area where LR wins hands down is in image organization. Sessions are fine for a project based organization but you can't easily work with multi-sessions. LR's database is superior from an organizational perspective...course, I have hope Phase does something interesting and useful with Media Pro. It's not there yet, but the bright boys in Denmark may come up with something interesting...

Look, this is really a case of use what you want to use. Good/Great results can be accomplished from either app. Which is why I really like both companies...they are pushing the envelope and advancing the industry. Ya gotta love that!

theguywitha645d · « **Reply #19 on:** February 09, 2012, 11:01:10 pm »

P25+. Capture One to tether and as a raw processor and basic processing. Photoshop for the other stuff I need to do.

Author Topic: Phase One back users - What software do you use? (Read 5443 times)