Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: wallpaperviking on July 30, 2018, 02:35:29 am
-
Just saw this on the Fuji GFX Facebook page....
http://www.martin-zwick.de/2017/10/29/howto-convert-gfx-50s-raf-files-to-capture-one/2017/
Seems to work pretty well, slower than native obviously but still seems useable to me...
Thoughts?
-
I'll just repeat my previous PSAs on the topic...
C1 does not and will not support the GFX. If you choose to use one of the currently-circulated hacks to force C1 to open GFX raws:
- The hack may stop working at any future release of C1
- The hack may stop working at any future firmware update to the GFX
- Can't use Next Capture Naming or Next Capture Adjustments
- If there are any bugs, crashes, limitations, issues related the hacked workflow they won't be fixed
- Speed (time to screen, time to process, time to view at 100%) may be deleteriously impacted, in some cases dramatically
- No tweaked algorithms for demosaic, noise reduction, diffraction etc
- No lens profiles
- No bespoke color profiles
- No camera controls from within C1
- No Live View from within C1
- If you follow best practices for archiving you'll need to keep two versions worth of disk space for each raw you capture (the native and altered version)
Based on the above I'd strongly suggest against using such a hack in a professional workflow, or even a serious enthusiasts' workflow. If you like the GFX, great, it's a nice camera; you should use it with software that supports it.
Of course each person can do as they choose. I just want to make sure that choice is made with the above issues and limitation in mind.
-
And X-Transformer does this too, from an active developer. I'd be more inclined to pick up this if I wanted to use C1 with a GFX.
https://medium.com/@kellydunphotography/revisiting-iridient-x-transformer-and-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s-312661c14a7d
But frankly I'd be keener on using the more full-featured Iridient Developer to extract the full value from the GFX raw files as my primary raw processor, it does a stellar job. Then tweak the resultant TIFF files in C1, the tools are great for adjustments and the DAM approaches Aperture's level.
-
thanks for that info!
C1 is great software and there are plenty of people out there who at this point wont buy a "professional" system unless can use C1 for tethering.....
C1 takes the time and effort to support nikon, canon, sony, but refuses to support competing systems even if they use the same sensors their own systems use....sounds like a desperate attempt to force people to buy into a phase system other then hasselblad or (now) fuji....
of course people will try to find a way to make it work....
as far as tethering goes, LR is really, really solid with the GFX, i am in no way a fan of adobe but i dont really see the big issue either....in the end most files get their final touches (or most heavy lifting) in adobe products....LR has made HUGE steps, conversions are getting better and better and the introduction of a profile workflow is great....
i think C1 would be better off taking on the challenge and start selling software to GFX (and other) owners....
-
C1 takes the time and effort to support nikon, canon, sony, but refuses to support competing systems even if they use the same sensors their own systems use....sounds like a desperate attempt to force people to buy into a phase system other then hasselblad or (now) fuji....
That's an odd statement, given that Phase One is the only camera manufacturer that supports tethering other people's cameras in their own software.
- Hasselblad's Phocus does not tether any camera other than a Hasselblad.
- Canon's DPP does not tether any camera other than a Canon.
- Nikon's Capture NX does not tether any camera other than a Nikon.
- Fuji's Acquire does not tether any camera other than a Fuji.
- Leica's ImageShuttle does not tether any camera other than a Leica.
- etc etc etc.
Would you say that Hasselblad, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Leica, etc are "desperate"?
I suspect the difference here is not that P1 is acting any differently than any other camera maker; indeed, in providing the best tethering software for Nikon, Canon, and Sony users (and raw processing for a myriad more) Phase One supports other brands of cameras far more than any other camera maker does. Rather the difference is that P1 is producing software good enough that users of other cameras very much want to use it. That's understandably frustrating for users of cameras that P1 does not support.
For clarity, Phase One has more than a decade of clear and consistent policy: They support every significant small-format camera, and their own medium format cameras. I'm not personally endorsing/supporting that policy; I am just clarifying the policy in case a reader is not clear on the criteria by which a camera is or is not supported in C1.
-
That's an odd statement, given that Phase One is the only camera manufacturer that supports tethering other people's cameras in their own software.
- Hasselblad's Phocus does not tether any camera other than a Hasselblad.
- Canon's DPP does not tether any camera other than a Canon.
- Nikon's Capture NX does not tether any camera other than a Nikon.
- Fuji's Acquire does not tether any camera other than a Fuji.
- Leica's ImageShuttle does not tether any camera other than a Leica.
- etc etc etc.
Would you say that Hasselblad, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Leica, etc are even more "desperate"?
I suspect the difference here is not that P1 is acting any differently than any other camera maker; indeed, in providing the best tethering software for Nikon, Canon, and Sony users (and raw processing for a myriad more) Phase One supports competitive cameras far more than any other camera maker does. Rather the difference is that P1 is producing software good enough that users of other cameras very much want to use it.
For clarity, Phase One has more than a decade of clear and consistent policy: They support every significant small-format camera, and their own medium format cameras.
Capture One is also the only one in that list that costs money. So, they’re both a camera mfg and a software vendor. Seems like people project whichever of those identities onto them that benefits their argument. It can’t hurt the cause if people keep up a steady stream of requests to Phase directly.
Personally, I’ve stopped upgrading C1 Pro because of this lack of support.
-
Capture One is also the only one in that list that costs money.
Just for clarity (and not in direct response to the rest of your comment): Capture One Pro (for Canon/Nikon/Fuji/etc) costs money. Capture One DB (for Phase One cameras) is and always will be free. I find a lot of people are not clear on that point (though I know you are).
-
That's an odd statement, given that Phase One is the only camera manufacturer that supports tethering other people's cameras in their own software.
- Hasselblad's Phocus does not tether any camera other than a Hasselblad.
- Canon's DPP does not tether any camera other than a Canon.
- Nikon's Capture NX does not tether any camera other than a Nikon.
- Fuji's Acquire does not tether any camera other than a Fuji.
- Leica's ImageShuttle does not tether any camera other than a Leica.
- etc etc etc.
Would you say that Hasselblad, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Leica, etc are "desperate"?
I suspect the difference here is not that P1 is acting any differently than any other camera maker; indeed, in providing the best tethering software for Nikon, Canon, and Sony users (and raw processing for a myriad more) Phase One supports other brands of cameras far more than any other camera maker does. Rather the difference is that P1 is producing software good enough that users of other cameras very much want to use it. That's understandably frustrating for users of cameras that P1 does not support.
For clarity, Phase One has more than a decade of clear and consistent policy: They support every significant small-format camera, and their own medium format cameras. I'm not personally endorsing/supporting that policy; I am just clarifying the policy in case a reader is not clear on the criteria by which a camera is or is not supported in C1.
no need to clarify C1s policy....i have been a phase customer since before they supported cameras other then their own....and since back then C1 was by far the best and in most cases the only player in terms of tethering, it made sense to start supporting the lower end competition to sell software....i am sure this has worked well since it became the de facto tethering "photoshop".....
i dont understand why nikon, sony, fuji,....should support any other cameras? i honestly dont know anyone who actually uses those apps.....tethering for the most part is just about enabling the camera to talk to a computer to transfer files....and in most cases a plug in or extension does the trick.....just like this guy came up with an App to make the GFX work with C1....i honestly dont know what the problem is with that or again why C1 just does not provide it, sell more software, everybody is happy....
the fact that the policy sticky only excludes direct competitors honestly seems a little desperate to me now....2 years ago, nobody cared...now things are different because the direct competitors have more or less pulled the rug out under phase with the release of the mirrorless systems and as amazing as the absolute top end product might be, i somewhat doubt phase can fund serious competition to fuji or hasselblad cameras (using the same sensors as phase at a much lower price)....
i am not disputing that phase might have a superior product for certain applications right now.....and superior software...but that is exactly why the stated policy seems so strange to me....not selling the software to a certain market in the hope that this market will turn to phase hardware? not sure about that....
the other side to this is that it seems like there is new software coming out every year....full blown imaging solutions taking a slice...maybe those aren't ready for "professionals" yet, but i am sure they are more then happy to sell to the far higher number of "prosumers" or just all those people who have 10000s of images and finally want to figure out an easy way to store and organize them....every single person with a cellphone is a potential customer for a DAM these days.....and that is a lot of people, most of which havent heard about C1 and dont work with ADs who might ask for it.....
as a long time phase and C1 user i just dont want to see it slip into some obscure end of the high end niche, wherever that is....i have little brand loyalty, i have owned and worked with most brands, i have loved and loathed certain things about all, funny enough the only software i still use and have used every day for the last 25 years happens to be adobe, which i might like less then most others, but in the end they have always made sure that i cannot do without them....and a huge part of this is that they have always, always supported everything.....
-
Just for clarity (and not in direct response to the rest of your comment): Capture One Pro (for Canon/Nikon/Fuji/etc) costs money. Capture One DB (for Phase One cameras) is and always will be free. I find a lot of people are not clear on that point (though I know you are).
its also free to sony owners....
-
no need to clarify C1s policy....
Forgive me. When I clarify things like this it's almost always for the benefit of the 100 people who read the post for every one person who participates in it. While you and I are very familiar with the details, often new readers aren't even familiar with the basics.
-
now things are different because the direct competitors have more or less pulled the rug out under phase with the release of the mirrorless systems and as amazing as the absolute top end product might be, i somewhat doubt phase can fund serious competition to fuji or hasselblad cameras (using the same sensors as phase at a much lower price)....
Regarding the proverbial rug... Phase One's revenue and profit were up in 2017 compared to 2016, has been steadily growing for ten years and I expect it to be up again in 2018.
Regarding "using the same sensor" - a camera system is far more than a sensor. In fact between an X1D/GFX and a Phase One IQ3 50mp the only real similarity is the sensor; they are very different camera systems, each with unique strengths and weaknesses. Not to mention that only the smaller sensor that P1 uses (50mp crop) is found in these cameras. The full-frame-645 sensor in the IQ3 100mp Trichromatic is not found in any other camera.
the other side to this is that it seems like there is new software coming out every year....full blown imaging solutions taking a slice...maybe those aren't ready for "professionals" yet, but i am sure they are more then happy to sell to the far higher number of "prosumers" or just all those people who have 10000s of images and finally want to figure out an easy way to store and organize them....every single person with a cellphone is a potential customer for a DAM these days.....and that is a lot of people, most of which havent heard about C1 and dont work with ADs who might ask for it.....
Indeed! It's great news for all the prosumers out there how many new companies are now making photo software. My dad very badly needs a photo program focused very heavily on basic features and ease of use (I'm not being facetious).
I think it's also great that, while other software vendors focus on the masses, Phase One has made it very clear that they will keep Capture One's feature set, performance, and design philosophy exclusively focused on the Pro and high-end enthusiast.
Both markets (general population, and pro/high-end-enthusiasts) need great software to be made specifically for them. In my experience Any attempt to make one work for both has had very lackluster results for either.
-
I stopped using Phase One well over a year ago. I kept using C1 for our Sony files and did the hack for our GFX files until one day I noticed that I could and still do get just as good files in post by using Adobe ACR and PSCC as I did with C1. I’ve tried over the years to learn to like LR however I never could.
I can’t tether to C1 nor can I with PSCC. I can however tether with LR which is the only time I ever use the program. I just loaded a new laptop recently and the one program I didn’t load is C1. I have found I don’t need it and more importantly I don’t miss it.
-
this is a little unrelated but not really....
DJI leaked their new drone today....with hasselblad lenses.....which is of course pretty funny since hasselblad has never made lenses afaik....but it shows why DJI bought hasselblad....X1D to keep the brand going and slap that brand on a completely unrelated (great) product which all of a sudden got a serious high end upgrade....if by name only....but those things sell like crazy and make how much ever money was spent on hasselblad in no time....which in turn will help funding X2D which will really start to hurt phase.....
doesn't DJI make lenses for their bigger drones? i would not be surprised if they move the (actual, X mount) hasselblad lenses in house as well....makes sense....
if i was phase i would bring out C1 drone tethered software....sooner then later....
-
if i was phase i would bring out C1 drone tethered software....sooner then later....
The iXM system is the Phase One drone/aerial platform. They've got the only 100mp 33x44 camera in existence. The buy in is high, and with the dedicated lenses even higher, but it's the top end product.
-
The iXM system is the Phase One drone/aerial platform. They've got the only 100mp 33x44 camera in existence. The buy in is high, and with the dedicated lenses even higher, but it's the top end product.
yes! you are correct, totally forgot about that one! so it is somewhat relevant here:)
i wonder what the sale ratio is...mavic to iXM
-
I personally, think it is pathetic in addition to being unwise, for C1 to not support Pentax 645Z, GFX etc. directly.
Software margins are much higher than hardware (camera) margins, so getting $300 in nearly pure profit (marginal revenue) from a "person who bought from a competitor" is still better than getting "nothing"; and to remain the standard among fashion photographers and others that use C1 is more important than selling just a few more backs.
C1 is likely to lose "its top of mind" position in the market due to these short-sighted shenanigans: Adobe with its money-spigot of cash flowing in each month via subscriptions could, if they chose to, spend many millions in crushing C1. C1's decision to not aggressively defend its market will end up costing them.
-
It's an interesting question.
The tidal wave of cameras that swept across the range of digital options is still in full flow at the higher end of the market, I'd be curious to hear what the leaders of Phase One and Fuji and others see the future being when it becomes the quiet pool that prosumer DSLRs are.
If I was P1, I'd be looking to reach down and bridge to the current APS-C and FF camera owners and make their systems seem possible, they could open up a channel for new consumers to migrate up. Introduce a direct alternative to the GFX or X1D in short.
I'd also be opening up C1 as a raw processor to all cameras, keeping P1 features, tethering principally but perhaps others, visible and intriguing. I hear a lot from high end / Pro LR users moving to C1 for various reasons, from speed to features. I would be wary, if I was running Phase One, of being seen to limit options in the future for them. The inability to process your raws is too much for new customers, but can't tether is not so much an issue.
-
Just chiming in to say that, for me, the app is solid, dependable and fast enough for my work which is architecture and hotels. For now, I'm out of the C1 upgrade path unless they choose to add native support.
-
I find these sort of questions strange.
It is a bit like asking why Ducati doesn't make motorcycles with 4 wheels.
I shoot Hasselblad (and Canon) and tether to Phocus.
I could tether to Lightroom but I don't like Lightroom at all.
To me it is a jack of all trades, really master of none.
So for a capture and raw converter software I use the best for my camera.
If your camera doesn't come with decent software for what you want to do then you are probably buying the wrong camera, at least until they do.
-
Within a few years’ time the by Doug described scenario will simply become too expensive for Phaseone to continue. Let’s be clear, Phaseone is not able to cope with the innovation speed of Fuji or Hasselblad, having their 100Mpix products around the corner. From that moment on the competitive advantage for Phaseone cameras will largely be vanished. Their products will still be best in class but due to the price difference only suited for a very small niche market (a bit like Alpa). So sales volume drops down, not being profitable enough to finance their R&D camera department. Then profits from their Captureone division need to be used to keep the camera development going, something their CEO and CFO will not allow for a long time, in the end resulting in a restructuring.
As ‘HonorableSensor’ mentions software margins are much higher, nearly pure profit after supporting Fuji or Hasselblad cameras. Low hanging fruit so to speak.
This all is by no means rocket science and the Phaseone marketing department is of course well aware of this and so are the CEO and CFO.
Long story short: the scenario that worked in the past will not work in the future anymore. In the end it is not a question ‘if’ Captureone will support Fuji or Hasselblad but ‘when’. I see Phaseone move in the direction as software-only company because there lies their strength and future.
I’m sure Doug will deny anything of this (the future will exactly continue the way it has been the past) and that’s perfectly understandable as Doug needs to protect his own business. I would exactly do the same in his place.
-
I don’t deny the future, though I do disagree with your “sky is falling” prediction of it. My prediction is that P1 will have it’s best-yet 5-year period the next five years. Time, and only time, will prove one of us right :).
If you would like to make a friendly wager please PM me or email me. Betting against various “doomsday scenarios” has made me a lot of money over the years.
-
I am going to chip in on C1 here. I have been a LR user since the first beta. Always really liked it primarily for its intergration with PS. For tethered Capture I used Leaf Capture as most of m6 studio work was MF. Ditched my backs and now shoot Sony exclusively and was forced into a clunky cumbersome workaround to tether using LR. Loads of peo0le rabbiting on about C1 so 8 gave it a go. Cheap if you get the version that runs only Sony files.
I was immediately annoyed and irritated with C1. Took a few days to work through various YouTube videos and Phase videos and just bacame more and more annoyed. C1 is a fantastic tethering tool. Offers so much over LR. Why is LR tethering so awful anyway. Then there is the C1 workflow. Catalogue or sessions. It’s wonderful. Then the colour. Sony cameras are different things using C1. So much better. Color correcting/grading with C1 is also much better in my opinion. Get the colour I want for my personal work so much easier, a fantastic tool set. I can’t believe it took me so many years to try it out. I’m really irritated with myself over it.
-
I don’t deny the future, though I do disagree with your “sky is falling” prediction of it. My prediction is that P1 will have it’s best-yet 5-year period the next five years. Time, and only time, will prove one of us right :).
Doug, I never stated that the sky was falling and it’s by no means a doomsday scenario, on the contrary. From time to time restructuring business is a necessity to survive while not restructuring, keeping everything as always has been, could on the other hand result in a by you mentioned doomsday scenario.
It’s about the dynamics between competitive markets and changing future. I see for PhaseOne a very bright future ahead. As mentioned not with their camera department but all the more with CaptureOne as best-in-class product, being able to generate lots of revenue after giving up on their protectionism, i.e. supporting Hasselblad and Fuji MF.
-
If Phase One really think they can hold off they are crazy and stupid.
It's just software. Fuji, Hasselblad, Adobe or some other payer will catch up, it's just a matter of time.
The last version of Phocus is significantly better than previous.
-
It's just software. Fuji, Hasselblad, Adobe or some other payer will catch up, it's just a matter of time.
I can't predict the future, but the phrase "It's just software" belies the cost and difficulty of creating, maintaining, and improving industry-leading software. It also underplays how specific and niche the target market is for Capture One vs broader prosumer-majority software like LightRoom. The target market strongly influences the features, resource allocation, and prioritization decisions of your software team.
Just look at Apple; they have fantastic developers and practically unlimited resources, and as they pivoted to a more consumer-oriented rather than professional-oriented company their Aperture software languished and then was discontinued altogether.
Phase One is laser-focused on performance-oriented high-end users and consider tethering a core function rather than a feature. The current state of Capture One is a result of that market-focus combined with significant and consistent funding, accumulated over a decade-plus of work.
Can someone else compete with them in this area? Absolutely. The future is an unknown country and many things that come to be were hard to see in advance, and Phase One does not have exclusive access to talented programmers or money to invest. But as of now, no one is bothering to try, and it would be a steep uphill if they did. However you weight the relative probabilities, in the very least it's definitely not just "a matter of time."
-
I can't predict the future, but the phrase "It's just software" belies the cost and difficulty of creating, maintaining, and improving industry-leading software. It also underplays how specific and niche the target market is for Capture One vs broader prosumer-majority software like LightRoom. The target market strongly influences the features, resource allocation, and prioritization decisions of your software team.
Just look at Apple; they have fantastic developers and practically unlimited resources, and as they pivoted to a more consumer-oriented rather than professional-oriented company their Aperture software languished and then was discontinued altogether.
Phase One is laser-focused on performance-oriented high-end users and consider tethering a core function rather than a feature. The current state of Capture One is a result of that market-focus combined with significant and consistent funding, accumulated over a decade-plus of work.
Can someone else compete with them in this area? Absolutely. The future is an unknown country and many things that come to be were hard to see in advance, and Phase One does not have exclusive access to talented programmers or money to invest. But as of now, no one is bothering to try, and it would be a steep uphill if they did. However you weight the relative probabilities, in the very least it's definitely not just "a matter of time."
zzzz
So until such time someone else has caught up we shall continue using apps like "Capture Fix for Hasselblad" and "Capture Fix for Pentax" which work very well.
-
Completely in favor of people hacking GFX files across to C1, and/or someone developing a program that automates this.
Couldn't care less about tethering personally, just want to process. I own the software, I own the camera, therefore should be permitted to use it how I wish. Period.
Watch out for C1 'upgrades' that seek to block this in future, (by reading metadata or whatever) - anyone doing this should be cautious about upgrading C1 from here-on.
-
Completely in favor of people hacking GFX files across to C1, and/or someone developing a program that automates this.
Couldn't care less about tethering personally, just want to process. I own the software, I own the camera, therefore should be permitted to use it how I wish. Period.
Watch out for C1 'upgrades' that seek to block this in future, (by reading metadata or whatever) - anyone doing this should be cautious about upgrading C1 from here-on.
I tried tethering just to make certain I could make it work. It does however for what I shoot I simply don’t have a huge need.
I’ve had my GFX since last March and for the first couple months went nuts doing the hack in order to open the files in C1. What I found was that while I could open and process in C1 I was still going over to PSCC (much the same as I had when I shot with my IQ100) to finish the processing. I stopped using C1 over a year ago going solely with Adobe ACR and PSCC and found I haven’t missed using C1. I’ve since sold all my Phase One gear and now shoot just with the GFX as it works for me.
I haven’t open C1 in many months and am now thinking about deleting it as I just don’t need it. C1 was great and much needed for Phase One however it isn’t with the GFX.
-
I own the software...
Actually you do not. You own a revocable license to use the software which is very different as you are subject to a licensing agreement. Unless you wrote it yourself, there isn't a single piece of software that you own. It's always a license and by using it you are agreeing to their terms of usage agreement.
That said, I wish C1P would support other MF cameras just like everybody else except P1.
-
I’ve had my GFX since last March and for the first couple months went nuts doing the hack in order to open the files in C1. What I found was that while I could open and process in C1 I was still going over to PSCC (much the same as I had when I shot with my IQ100) to finish the processing. I stopped using C1 over a year ago going solely with Adobe ACR and PSCC and found I haven’t missed using C1. I’ve since sold all my Phase One gear and now shoot just with the GFX as it works for me.
I haven’t open C1 in many months and am now thinking about deleting it as I just don’t need it. C1 was great and much needed for Phase One however it isn’t with the GFX.
That makes sense. Some of the "secret sauce" of C1 is the great algorithms, but a big part is the amount of time the dev team puts into catered/specific support for every camera supported. Hundreds of hours are spent on an ongoing basis, doing both lab and real-world testing of new cameras to create lens profiles, sensor profiles (to tweak the demosaic and noise reduction algorithms), color profiles, and file handling. This especially true of their own cameras - for obvious reasons they spend inordinate amounts of time tweaking performance for their own cameras. You can hack the raw file of a Fuji to force C1 to mistakingly open them, and you can even create and use color profiles using 3rd party, but these are, in my opinion, a poor substitute for the secret sauce of native support, and I'm unsurprised if you found the results lackluster.
-
Not so much lackluster rather than the time expended on getting there is better spent opening in Adobe and achieving the same results with less effort.
-
Not so much lackluster rather than the time expended on getting there is better spent opening in Adobe and achieving the same results with less effort.
That would meet my definition of lackluster (ease and effort, not just end result). But either way, you've found a camera and software that work well for you, and that's a great thing.
-
just sold my GFX but shooting tethered with LR for more then a year has been such a great experience that I was honestly surprised how clunky and slow the latest version of C1 feels....will be shooting mostly sony for now and havent really done much tethering with the RIII but i cant really see myself going back to C1....and in total i have much, much more experience with C1 then with LR over the years....
i am in no way an adobe fan but at this point, anyone who wants to use PS is in the subscription trap...forever...so LR comes with it....as does mobile LR, which is great....the LR CC cloud thing is a while new level of great...not cheap but amazing...
I honestly dont think i can get better files out of C1.....the new profile workflow in LR is great, some 3rd party profiles are heaven the same profiles in (and for) C1 are funny enough not on the same level....
i was also really surprised to see that the "free" sony version is really 80?$....upgrades from former pro versions are...70$....to upgrade my old full C1 version is 200? 300? all the versions i got with my backs dont work for other cameras and after talking to a friend who uses only C1, he said he is still on the last version because he got tired of paying 100 for every upgrade....
the worst though was how slow image preview is (with the latest version) for sony files....on the same mbp LR is noticeably faster....
i wish C1 all the best and i dont doubt that C1 and the latest phase backs provide the absolute best that is out there....but i dont have a phase back and all the amazing things C1 used to do for me LR does now...better....
not getting as many systems as possible on board is a strange business move.....
-
@pschefz, this is the exact opposite of my experience. And the crying over CC has gotten a bit old, the price is identical to previous if you upgraded every cycle.
-
@pschefz, this is the exact opposite of my experience. And the crying over CC has gotten a bit old, the price is identical to previous if you upgraded every cycle.
not sure i understand...the crying over LR CC being too expensive? or C1 being too expensive? everybody complains about adobe and the "forced" PS and LR subscription, i was surprised to see C1 asking twice as much as adobe for one app?
the exact opposite of? speed? or workflow? i have worked with aperture, LR, C1 on and off for over 20 years on mac only and i always felt adobe might be slightly slower on mac, and LR definitely used to be slower then everything else...that has changed drastically....
like i said, i hope that C1 not only stays around but actually pushes ahead, things are moving fast, i dont take the other apps coming on to the market too serious...yet...but they are being used and bought....
most people i know and really the way C1 became THE tethering software was not because of phase backs but because DSLR shooters needed solid tethering solutions.....what is the license ratio? for every one C1 with phase back, there have to be 100?1000? for DSLR? getting sony on board was incredibly important to keep people in the system....
i am planning to do a serious tether test with the sony, every digital tech rolls their eyes when asked to tether with LR (although most of them use it as DAM once way or another and we all use PS) and i am not sure how the watched folder solution will work out in reality....
-
@pschefz,
So are you tethering your sony A7R3 with LR at the moment?
Thank you
-
@pschefz,
So are you tethering your sony A7R3 with LR at the moment?
Thank you
like i said, i just sold my GFX which i tethered with LR exclusively (no other options really) and that combo has been the best, most solid tethering experience i have ever had...(incl anything with C1)....
i never tethered the sony but since C1 seems to be the way to go with the A7RIII, i was simply going to go back to C1....
but now after actually looking into it, i might give the sony app/LR with watched folder solution a try.....
I will report back on this once i can make a better assessment....
I am very comfortable and used to C1, having used it for years, same with LR, on first glance it just seemed a step back....
i wont go into features, both have features the other does not, so unless i run into something missing from my workflow (which i doubt) I am really just looking for tethering performance, how fast files come in, how easy it is to make quick adjustments to be reflected in all incoming shots and how fast it is to flip though images.....which is one area where (judging by using the same files in the same location) LR was noticeably faster....something i would not have said 18 months ago (when i probably last really used C1 because of switching to the GFX).....
I also have to add that i will really only use LR or C1 for tethering.....since i use LR CC these days (yes, there ware glaring shortcomings but also mind numbing speed, interface and connectivity advantages) i will probably have to re-import the files regardless of what it shoot into.....so LR will not necessarily have a workflow advantage over C1.....
and i am not buying the obvious C1 quality advantage....over the years i have preferred some files from one developer and some from another.....i have a friend who prefers his sony colors in LR, nikon colors in C1 but nikon BW in LR....he, like so many people is simply using C1 because that is what he is used to....as would i be if i would not have been forced into LR tethering by the GFX or C1 however you look at it......
-
Crying over the Adobe subscription plan. You're not the only one. Most photographers I know have adapted, as if it do the math, it's not really any different than previously if you upgraded every cycle.
And the exact opposite re:speed, workflow. Capture One just runs faster as a piece of software on my machines, and tethering in Lightroom is a joke. It's SUPER unstable, while C1 works all day, every shoot, flawlessly.
And re: "quality" that's pretty subjective, and camera dependent. But I find the color profile options so much more expansive in C1, and the color tools much easier to make micro adjustments that add up to noticeable differences in how skin tones are rendered.
-
Crying over the Adobe subscription plan. You're not the only one. Most photographers I know have adapted, as if it do the math, it's not really any different than previously if you upgraded every cycle.
And the exact opposite re:speed, workflow. Capture One just runs faster as a piece of software on my machines, and tethering in Lightroom is a joke. It's SUPER unstable, while C1 works all day, every shoot, flawlessly.
And re: "quality" that's pretty subjective, and camera dependent. But I find the color profile options so much more expansive in C1, and the color tools much easier to make micro adjustments that add up to noticeable differences in how skin tones are rendered.
The issue with subscription plans is not really that they cost more on an ongoing basis. Usually the price is set to roughly the same either way.
The issue with subscription plans is that the create a mandated ongoing cost. The user must pay to continue using it. That's problematic in the case that either the user has a temporary down turn in business or cashflow issue, or that the vendor does not improve their software in a way that warrants ongoing recurring expense. In contrast with subscriptions, with perpetual licenses if the software is not improved in a way that is relevant to you there is no ongoing obligation to pay. It's also one more bill to keep track of and one more monthly charge on the credit card you have to switch over in the (not so infrequent) case that your credit card number is compromised or otherwise must be changed. It's one more thing you can forget about after you've stopped using it and forget to disable the subscription.
I guess you could say I'm biased in this area (I always try to disclose relevant biases) in that P1 offers subscription and perpetual licenses for C1. But the above opinion is as much derived from my own personal life as it is from my professional life. As a nerd, photographer, and tinkerer, I have have lots of software I buy or subscribe to apart from my work.
I like the choice of a subscription. Corporate clients often prefer it since a small fixed monthly charge is easier to account/plan for then sporadic larger charges. New users often prefer it because they can "limp in" by paying the subscription for a few months to decide if they want to buy it. Some people just straight prefer it because their minds/workflows/preferences are different than mine. But regardless, I sure as heck don't like being forced to a subscription, whether for an Adobe product, Parallels Pro, or any other software that I've been forced to rent. Forcing a subscription, and not offering a perpetual license purchase, is a trend that is 100% about the company and not the customer, and is, IMO, not a good trend.
-
I agree, ideally there'd be both options. But it's a small fixed cost, and the company's would tell you it helps with their cash flow, allowing them to iterate faster/better products. I think you can certainly argue that Adobe has done this with PS.
Also, it's $10/mo, if that's the difference in your business staying afloat, you've got way larger problems!
-
95% of my commercial work is tethered. I have Used Leaf Capture a lot but moving off that platform and onto Sony I did the LR watched folder thing. I have used this system for about two yearstethering the a600, a6300, a6500 and A7R 3. These cameras won’t tether directly into LR.
The system is a total dog in my opinion. Clunky and slow, tedious to set up. In frustration I bit the bullet and gave C1 a go. I had looked at it previously and didn’t get along with it.
C1 tethering is a dream. The whole session system is a well thought out workflow and makes things simple and versatile. I can change camera settings easily.
Then there is the colour. The Sony files out of C1 are remarkably good. It’s a whole other level. The tools are terrific and I have moved my whole workflow over to C1. I still have and use LR but less and less.
-
had some time today to do a little testing tethering the A7RIII, i used all latest software versions...
first of all, yes, C1 is the tether solution with sony....the sony remote/viewer, watched folder into LR classic works but it is not what i would call smooth....i did not have any real issues but all in all it does mean running several apps, which have to be set up and have to behave and it is slower....
C1 is definitely faster then the watched folder solution....
what is surprising to me is how much smoother and faster GFX tethering is with LR compared to A7RIII with C1....capture speed might be similar but previews are much snappier with GFX/LR....
i also have to say that i have been working with LR CC cloud version for a while now and really like it....there are some things i would like to see (export options are a joke) so i have had to go back to LR for a few things other then tethering the GFX, bbut in general everything is done in LR CC.....and it is night and day compared to LR classic and C1.....i was amazed how clunky the workflow felt to me after not using it for less then 2 years but having used it for so long before that.....
i guess i will have to figure out what the better solution is for me right now, because regardless, the files will end up in LR CC asap, no matter what i use to get them into the computer....LR classic would give me consistency in terms of raw processing, but the tethering is not so hot and i am worried about it in a job situation....C1 seems solid in terms of tethering ,every digital tech will ask for it anyway and in the end i can just import the raws into LR CC....
i am honestly amazed that tethering is still such an issue after all these years.....the fuji GFX software to LR classic shows what can be done....it is the best tethering solution i have ever worked with....
also: why, why, why is it that the raws are not on the card when i shoot tethered? i really have gotten so used to that with the GFX....instant back up....
-
what is surprising to me is how much smoother and faster GFX tethering is with LR compared to A7RIII with C1....capture speed might be similar but previews are much snappier with GFX/LR....
This will depend very heavily on computer configuration and settings.
Notably Capture One heavily leverages the graphics card and development is heavily biased toward squeezing the most performance from high-end graphics cards, so the overall experience in C1 lives and dies by that.
Capture One also has a preview/proxy size selection that if mis-set for the given setup you're running can cause performance to be far lower than normal. I don't want to hijack this thread with a lot of off-topic back and forth but would encourage you to start a new thread in the Capture One section about how to max out your performance and asking for points of comparisons with other computer configurations so you can trace down why your performance is subpar.
-
so i had some time to look into this now and just wanted to share my findings....
I will definitely use C1 with the sony for tethering....I will also use it with the sony files in general, color IS better for me then LR/ACR....
I havent figured out how to work this into my existing LR workflow, but it will probably come down to simply adding final files to LR....
I dont think C1 catalog workflow is an option, I am willing to listen to other opinions but LR and especially cloud (with portfolio and behance) just offers much more for delivery.....
to bring this back to the initial topic: I tried converted GFX files in C1 and dont see any reason at all to use C1 with the GFX....and there are still 2 things i much prefer with GFX/LR tether workflow to A7RIII/C1 tether workflow....the GFX automatically saves to laptop AND card....this is huge...and great....this also somehow makes switching between tether and untether easier....i got really used to being able to pull the cord, plug it back in and somehow it all works great, maybe there is a trick for C1? but i remember this always being a little bit of an issue before....the other thing is speed, GFX into LR still seems faster to me, not sure why, i did tweak some settings, maybe it is because of that little delay of the files "sharpening up" after they come in in C1? it might not actually be that GFX files do come in faster, ut having the preview pop up "solid" makes it feel faster when you stand at the screen....
I also do prefer GFX files in LR, the same way i prefer A7RIII files in C1....
so i guess my recommendation right now would be stick with LR when shooting GFX, stick with C1 when shooting sony....