For me, Capture One is history…

[alifatemi]

Actually I somehow agree with Jeff; some differences between them when I first load IIq pictures to both ones, C1 got more punch but if you spend a little time to fine tune both LR and C1 together you reach the same results just that I am very comfortable and easy with LR but C1 interface is like hell. maybe I just don't get use to it but whatever it is, for sure it got long learning curve. working with LR is really a joy and a breeze. I used to like C1 quality over LR2 in good old days but after LR3, there are the same to me. I am working with both of them side by side now to find if there is any differences right now. I will post if finding anything interesting...

[Paul2660]

Yes Capture One, when it loads the "film" curve is adding quite a bit of exposure or something, as you can watch the thumbs pop as they load, however the features/and tools of the Capture One have long appealed to me (minus the history of adjustments as everyone knows).  With a Phase One back I will always feel it gives the best results and I am a big Lightroom user.    I have long questioned the reason for the pop as images load and you can easily get around it by using a liner curve, (which I use at times).  This pop used to drive me crazy with my P45+ as often the images did not have blown highlights until the pop of the film curve was loaded.  I find now with the IQ160 files that this

I am most likely not as detailed as Eric, as I am  happy to use the stock profiles that Capture One provides as they give me good results, I often do shoot a xrite colorchecker in the field and adjust my WB from that.  This works about the same in LR as in Capture One, but I don't take it the next step and create a camera profile.   I feel that Phase has the profiles for their backs down good, but there is room for improvement on other cameras.  However I understand that is not a 1st priority for them.  With cameras like the Nikon D800 LR offers many different profiles to start with, but for example with Fuji only one. 

There are some images that the color selection tools of Capture One, just work better for me, and then others that the LR color tools work better.   

Using a tech camera 100% with my digital back, thus requires a LCC.  I never got the handle on the LR method of doing this and the attempts I made did not produce good results.  Capture One has got this down pat, and their corrections are excellent. 

I work in session mode in Capture One, have no desire for catalog and would love to see a session option for LR.  I don't feel the need to catalog all my images especially in my workflow. 

So as always it's an individual's choice and both are excellent tools.

Paul Caldwell

[alifatemi]

As I am digging more in C1, one obvious fault I have found with LR is in C1, you can zoom in and out in whatever scale you like but in LR picture just jump from one preset to another e.g. 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 etc. but in C1 you can tune in whatever degree zoom you like without jumping. Meanwhile in LR it is easier to crop than C1: you can see the cropped part just by clicking R but in C1, you have to change cursor from crop position to other position like pan to see only the cropped  part and it is annoying; if there is a short cut, I don't know.

[allegretto]

As I am digging more in C1, one obvious fault I have found with LR is in C1, you can zoom in and out in whatever scale you like but in LR picture just jump from one preset to another e.g. 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 etc. but in C1 you can tune in whatever degree zoom you like without jumping. Meanwhile in LR it is easier to crop than C1: you can see the cropped part just by clicking R but in C1, you have to change cursor from crop position to other position like pan to see only the cropped  part and it is annoying; if there is a short cut, I don't know.

you can set the density of the mask in the cropped area in Preferences

Also, Command-v will take you to cursor and show the remaining area full-sized. So, r vs. Command-v     Not much difference

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would say I have a much more relaxed attitude to Capture One, once I decided not to use it.

I was forced to make my own profile for LR5, because I found that Adobe Standard did not work with my back, magenta cast, bluish reds, to yellowish greens, so I created new profiles first day, it is very easy. Only one profile is needed for each camera, by the way. Other tools, like RawDeveloper and RawTherapee can also use those profiles.

Best regards
Erik

Yes Capture One, when it loads the "film" curve is adding quite a bit of exposure or something, as you can watch the thumbs pop as they load, however the features/and tools of the Capture One have long appealed to me (minus the history of adjustments as everyone knows).  With a Phase One back I will always feel it gives the best results and I am a big Lightroom user.    I have long questioned the reason for the pop as images load and you can easily get around it by using a liner curve, (which I use at times).  This pop used to drive me crazy with my P45+ as often the images did not have blown highlights until the pop of the film curve was loaded.  I find now with the IQ160 files that this

I am most likely not as detailed as Eric, as I am  happy to use the stock profiles that Capture One provides as they give me good results, I often do shoot a xrite colorchecker in the field and adjust my WB from that.  This works about the same in LR as in Capture One, but I don't take it the next step and create a camera profile.   I feel that Phase has the profiles for their backs down good, but there is room for improvement on other cameras.  However I understand that is not a 1st priority for them.  With cameras like the Nikon D800 LR offers many different profiles to start with, but for example with Fuji only one. 

There are some images that the color selection tools of Capture One, just work better for me, and then others that the LR color tools work better.   

Using a tech camera 100% with my digital back, thus requires a LCC.  I never got the handle on the LR method of doing this and the attempts I made did not produce good results.  Capture One has got this down pat, and their corrections are excellent. 

I work in session mode in Capture One, have no desire for catalog and would love to see a session option for LR.  I don't feel the need to catalog all my images especially in my workflow. 

So as always it's an individual's choice and both are excellent tools.

Paul Caldwell

[alifatemi]

thnx I got it, just it is Shift+C and Shift+V on Mac

[Paul2660]

Eric:

Hopefully you saw my comment as a compliment as that was how I meant it.   

Do you have any articles on your site in regards to generating a custom profile, as it is something I would like to learn more about.  For example I have never been very pleased with Capture One's default profile for the Nikon D800, and now the Fuji X-E1.  I followed some posts about a year ago on using the xrite color checker to generate a custom profile.  I feel LR has a bit more leeway with the Nikon files in regards to profiles offered.  Capture One never really seemed to get the D800e just right. The generation of a custom profile for a particular camera is would definitely be seen as a benefit for me.

Paul 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Unfortunately, I don't have any info on generating ICC profiles for Capture One. My understanding is that it is quite a bit tricky, this thread gives some insight: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=82891.msg671193#msg671193

Regarding the Adobe/DNG/Lightroom route, there is an excellent video by Andrew Rodney, the Digital Dog, here: http://www.digitaldog.net/files/DNG%20Camera%20profile%20video.mov

There is a tool called QPCard, that uses a different set of colour patches. QPCard can generate ICC profiles, but they also state that making ICC profiles for Capture One is problemetic, and indeed their ICC profiles don't work.

Sorry for not being helpful, but this pretty much what I know. What I did was making P45+ specific profiles in LR5.3 and I was using Adobe DNG Profile editor. The latest profiles I made were shot with studio flash using the flash tubes for 6500K and the modelling light for 2800K, keep the targets clean and illumination even.

Update: link fixed.
Here is an article I wrote about colour on the P45: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition

Best regards
Erik

Eric:

Hopefully you saw my comment as a compliment as that was how I meant it.  

Do you have any articles on your site in regards to generating a custom profile, as it is something I would like to learn more about.  For example I have never been very pleased with Capture One's default profile for the Nikon D800, and now the Fuji X-E1.  I followed some posts about a year ago on using the xrite color checker to generate a custom profile.  I feel LR has a bit more leeway with the Nikon files in regards to profiles offered.  Capture One never really seemed to get the D800e just right. The generation of a custom profile for a particular camera is would definitely be seen as a benefit for me.

Paul  

[Paul2660]

Eric

Thanks for the info.

Paul

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

QPCard says their next release will support Capture One and Phocus. The code changes are in late beta.

Best regards
Erik

Eric

Thanks for the info.

Paul

[georgehudetz]

Eric:

Hopefully you saw my comment as a compliment as that was how I meant it.   

Do you have any articles on your site in regards to generating a custom profile, as it is something I would like to learn more about.  For example I have never been very pleased with Capture One's default profile for the Nikon D800, and now the Fuji X-E1.  I followed some posts about a year ago on using the xrite color checker to generate a custom profile.  I feel LR has a bit more leeway with the Nikon files in regards to profiles offered.  Capture One never really seemed to get the D800e just right. The generation of a custom profile for a particular camera is would definitely be seen as a benefit for me.

Paul 

Hello, first post here.  Learning a lot and intending to use C1 with my Fuji X-Pro1.

FWIW, if you google "fuji xe-1 icc profiles" you'll get a hit to one of the larger gear forums where somebody has posted ICC profiles for several of the Fuji bodies.  I'm using the X-Pro1 profiles with results that look good to me, but then I don't claim to have a highly trained eye.

I refrained from posting the actual link as I don't yet know the rules around here regarding such things.

George