Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: David Eichler on December 05, 2015, 05:13:43 pm
-
From the perspective of RAW processing only, for those who are familiar with the latest versions of Lightroom and Capture One and continue to use Capture One, why do you prefer Capture One as a RAW processor?
-
FujiFilm x-trans shooters swear CO handles details much better than LR.
-
I can vouch for the better image quality (sharpness and color fidelity) that I get with C1P8, now C1P9, with my Fuji-x cameras as compared to Lightroom 6 cc. After you get the hang of C1P9's interface and workflow, which reminds me Aperture, then you can get better results with less fussing with sliders.
I've been a user of Lightroom since the pre-public beta and a Photoshop user since version 2. I got tired of the disappointing results that LR was producing since I dumped my Canon DSLRs and lenses and switched to Fuji-X cameras and Fuji XF lenses 2 years ago.
Apparently, Adobe can't seem to get de-mosaicing of the Fuji-X files right. They should buy the one man operation of Iridient Developer to get better results.
You can try C1P9 free for 30 days by downloading it from the CaptureOne website.
You can check out my China and Dog show portfolios on my web site, www.budjames.photography, to see examples. I used C1P8 for all of the images.
Cheers.
Bud
-
Okay, I have seen the comparisons for Fuji and Capture One is superior to Lightroom with fine detail here. So, let's leave Fuji out. I would also assume that CO is superior with Phase One backs as well. So, any opinions about other brands of camera, especially Nikon, Canon and Sony?
-
Okay, I have seen the comparisons for Fuji and Capture One is superior to Lightroom with fine detail here. So, let's leave Fuji out. I would also assume that CO is superior with Phase One backs as well. So, any opinions about other brands of camera, especially Nikon, Canon and Sony?
I prefer CO for developing files from any camera without an AA filter.
-
So, any opinions about other brands of camera, especially Nikon, Canon and Sony?
C1 is now the default converter for Sony ARW files so It'll only get better in the years ahead plus there's a CaptureOne Pro for SONY (only) version at fraction of the price of the 'full' version - if price is a consideration.
No opinion on the CaNikon output, 'cos I don't use them, but I've yet to hear a complaint in regard to either of them. The strong points of C1, by all accounts, are the rendering engine, colour controls and tethering. What C1 gains in IQ, Lightroom compensates for in workflow. Both are excellent for B&W.
Personally, I've given up on the battle, and have settled on using all three - Lightroom, CaptureOne, and Iridient Developer. Lr is the main 'core' and I drop out ( replace the Develop module) with one of the other two, as the mood or need takes me. Iridient is not only an excellent IQ converter with advanced sharpening routines but also has the advantage of accepting, like Lr, .dcp profiles, if you need/use them which of course, C1 doesn't.
If you settle on one against the other - there'll be times when you'll curse and long for the one you don't have. Sod's law.
-
Nikon shooter here.
What I have found is that neither one does a great job on every photograph.
Lightroom's weakness is color manipulation and UI. In my opinion its too simple, with not enough control.
Lightroom's strength is its catalog. On my system, its quick and conducts searches effortlessly.
C1's weakness is its immature catalog, however this can be overcome by using sessions. Its UI is confusing at first, but way more customizable.
But the catalog is just terrible. They should have spent more time on Media Pro and allowed users to use it and sessions.
C1 just seems faster in image manipulation. Just hovering the mouse over a slider, one can adjust using the scroll wheel. To me, this is just quicker and more natural.
As a matter of fact, if Adobe would add that little convenience, I would use LR a whole lot more.
Now "out of the box" color rendition with Nikon is better in LR, but fixing color issues is easier in C1. Ironic, isn't i?
In the end, I use both and will continue to do so as both companies seem to be improving all the time. Plus the CC model allows me to do this without too much cash outlay.
-
But the catalog is just terrible. They should have spent more time on Media Pro and allowed users to use it and sessions.
Very true. I'm just amazed that a company who already owns a mature DAM product can't integrate its features into CO or make the two work seamlessly together.
Just hovering the mouse over a slider, one can adjust using the scroll wheel.
!!! Great tip! I never knew that.
-
Plus the CC model allows me to do this without too much cash outlay.
C1 also has subscription model.
-
As for Fuji conversions, I have to disagree. LR, can produce a more detailed image, with less bloat than C1. I have been a C1 user since the days of 3.7.x, and am pretty familiar with it. I just don't see the details on images with a lot of finer details to resolve. LR, can get painterly, but that can be controlled. But you can't remove the bloated look to the C1 conversions. It's a personal issue but I have spent tons of time on Fuji raw as the camera has so much capabilities.
I think a lot of folks are fooled by Retina displays, I have been. But when you view the images on a NEC 30 or 27 inch monitor at full resolution on the screen the differences become more apparent.
Here a comparison study I did:
http://photosofarkansas.com/2015/10/27/fuji-x-trans-raw-conversions-which-is-best-lightroom-or-capture-one/ (http://photosofarkansas.com/2015/10/27/fuji-x-trans-raw-conversions-which-is-best-lightroom-or-capture-one/)
However on color C1 is spot on, no doubt about that, so depending on the file and the details depends where I go.
More thoughts on C1, vs LR
LR to me now has an excellent auto mask, by far superior to C1's
C1 has the best color editor really upgraded in C1 9 to an excellent toolset
C1 allows multiple layers that can be treated independent of each other, in LR the adjustment brush is all or none, you can't just turn off 1 adjustment brush to see it's effects ( still believe they do this to keep CC photoshop around)
C1 has no history, LR has by far the best history I have ever used. If you work on multiple images at once having an independent history is very important. I know I am a voice in the wilderness on this, as most don't see it as important.
LR offers no session mode, I prefer that over a catalog.
LR has an excellent well designed print engine, C1 is not there yet.
LR will work on all MFD back images, C1 only Phase files.
C1 to me has a much better implementation of the GPU and open CL, LR, well they have a ways to go there quite a ways sadly
C1 has support through their web support and Phase One dealers, albeit most Phase One dealers are windows illiterate by choice. It's always been that way.
Edit: I forgot to mention LR's pano merge and HDR merge, both create a dng file which is a basically a new raw file, the photographer has a tremendous amount of power to work on the output in LR with LR's toolset. This should be at the top of my list.
I use both programs daily enough, I would never just move to one.
Paul C
-
Please, let's stick to RAW processing only, per my original post.
-
Please, let's stick to RAW processing only, per my original post.
I guess you lost me? Everything I listed was in regards to "raw" processing. There is a lot more to LR or C1 both than just a simple raw conversion, with the tools each software provides. But I understand everyone has their own definition of raw processing and methods.
Paul C
-
I guess you lost me? Everything I listed was in regards to "raw" processing. There is a lot more to LR or C1 both than just a simple raw conversion, with the tools each software provides. But I understand everyone has their own definition of raw processing and methods.
Paul C
My comment did not really relate to you, but to some comments previous to yours.
-
Hi David.
Sorry for the misread. I was watching Carolina and got too stressed.
Paul C
-
My comment did not really relate to you, but to some comments previous to yours.
Just a observation, maybe the subject header could have been a bit more specific.
For my workflow as a retired amateur who is not time constrained, I seek the best I can achieve with the workflow of the particular application.
a. My first and primary concern is the quality of the raw file rendering and output. + 1 for Capture One. (here i speak only for my camera models Olympus and Panasonic)
b. Sharing my work with friends and family. + 1 for Lightroom with the "Publish" and "Mobile" options.
c. File management, not a priority, I use an import file structure based on capture date and actual content, travel, golf, family events etc. No client stresses. No real issue but +1 for Lightroom.
d. I use and like the publishing features of Lightroom. +1 for Lightroom.
e. Slideshow, non issue.
f. Printing, no comment, I use an alternative option. However I believe Lightroom has a solid alternative to what I use.
g. Web, no comment.
To wit at the moment I consider Capture One to have the better rendering of raw files, but the overall features of Lightroom would probably appeal to the time constraints of the professional photographer.
-
Apparently, Adobe can't seem to get de-mosaicing of the Fuji-X files right. They should buy the one man operation of Iridient Developer to get better results.
Iridient Developer has had a reputation as the best ‘capturer’ of detail in Fuji files, but because the developer uses Apple technology to achieve his results (ID is an OSX-only app), Adobe would have no interest in acquiring it.
-
I have been using Capture One and Lightroom simultaneously for processing raw files from Canon 5D3 and 5DSR.
Lightroom's 2015.3 output is 90%-95%
Capture One 9 output is 100%
I believe C1 9 engine is superior to the latest LR.
My workflow is somewhat faster in LR, however I tend to use more C1 v9 lately.
I have been processing some Hasselblad files as well but they are not compatible with C1 so I was left LR and Phocus, of those the former is the king.
-
Hi,
I feel that C1 handles non OLP filtered sensors better than Lightroom/ACR.
Other than that, C1 gives punchier colours and sharpening at defaults. I think both can deliver quite accurate colour, when used with a near linear tone curve.
It is easy to use colour calibration with Lightroom/ACR using DNG-profiles and those DNG-profiles are usable with most other raw converters but not with C1. C1 uses ICC profiles and making those requires a lot of knowledge. Adobe has DNG Profile Editor which is useful to generate/tweak colour profiles.
It is quite possible that Capture One is carefully tuned to give excellent rendition of skin tones.
Personally, I am quite happy with Lightroom except the demosaic issue. On the other hand those issues needs to be put in perspective:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104708.msg860933#msg860933
Best regards
Erik
From the perspective of RAW processing only, for those who are familiar with the latest versions of Lightroom and Capture One and continue to use Capture One, why do you prefer Capture One as a RAW processor?
-
It is easy to use colour calibration with Lightroom/ACR using DNG-profiles and those DNG-profiles are usable with most other raw converters but not with C1. C1 uses ICC profiles and making those requires a lot of knowledge. Adobe has DNG Profile Editor which is useful to generate/tweak colour profiles.
Hi Erik,
It is also quite easy to tweak profiles with C1. The Color Editor tool allows to change color response and save that as an adjusted ICC profile, which can then be used as a new default, or picked when needed (e.g. a landscape/portrait/product color/reproduction profile).
The new C1 version 9 has an even further improved Color Editor, which can now additionally be used to generate a mask for the adjustment layers, based on a color selection. This allows to even further tweak images on an image-by-image basis with a mask based on color, and not only to tweak color, but e.g. also sharpness, and/or exposure, and/or curves, and/ or noise reduction, etc. .
Cheers,
Bart
-
...
The new C1 version 9 has an even further improved Color Editor, which can now additionally be used to generate a mask for the adjustment layers, based on a color selection. This allows to even further tweak images on an image-by-image basis with a mask based on color, and not only to tweak color, but e.g. also sharpness, and/or exposure, and/or curves, and/ or noise reduction, etc. .
Hi Bart,
That is something I'd like to have but the upgrade price of C1 from version 8.3 to 9 (within 1 year) is way too much for me. They should do something about the pricing imo.
To stay on topic though, I prefer the raw conversions of C1 8.3 to LR6 but LR is better in certain areas. Such as the upright correction, noise reduction and sharpening.
-
Hi,
This is a bit complicated by the experience we have using each program. I sort of have found my way of processing images in Lightroom's 2012 pipe line, but finding my ways in C1 would take a lot of time and effort.
From a workflow point of view I feel definitively prefer Lightroom. With demosaic, I feel that Adobe has undone homework. So for really critical work I would use RawTherapee for conversion but still do processing in Lightroom.
Capture One is in all probability a very good product, but is is hard to learn old dogs how to sit and I am "grown up" with Lightroom.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Bart,
That is something I'd like to have but the upgrade price of C1 from version 8.3 to 9 (within 1 year) is way too much for me. They should do something about the pricing imo.
To stay on topic though, I prefer the raw conversions of C1 8.3 to LR6 but LR is better in certain areas. Such as the upright correction, noise reduction and sharpening.
-
Hi Bart,
I am not really in tweaking colour rendition. Part of that is that I don't have a very obvious preference of colours. I feel quite comfortable with making my colour profiles using Adobe DNG Profile Editor or Color Checker Passport, but both of those support DNG-only. Of the two, I prefer DNG Profile Editor as I feel it offers more flexibility.
Worth to mention is DCamProf that Anders Torger has developed, but that tools is not really easy to use for GUI-dependent users. DCamProf can generate ICC profiles for C1 from a ColorChecker chart.
Once upon the time I have examined colour reproduction accuracy on both C1 (v7) and LR5 and found that both were quite close in accuracy: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition?start=3
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
It is also quite easy to tweak profiles with C1. The Color Editor tool allows to change color response and save that as an adjusted ICC profile, which can then be used as a new default, or picked when needed (e.g. a landscape/portrait/product color/reproduction profile).
The new C1 version 9 has an even further improved Color Editor, which can now additionally be used to generate a mask for the adjustment layers, based on a color selection. This allows to even further tweak images on an image-by-image basis with a mask based on color, and not only to tweak color, but e.g. also sharpness, and/or exposure, and/or curves, and/ or noise reduction, etc. .
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
That is something I'd like to have but the upgrade price of C1 from version 8.3 to 9 (within 1 year) is way too much for me. They should do something about the pricing imo.
Hi Cem,
I agree, these (frequent) upgrade costs do cumulate (although often a better deal than subscriptions) and especially now that C1 has added a 3rd activation and raised the upgrade price by almost a 3rd as well, one might hesitate a bit before biting the bullet.
To stay on topic though, I prefer the raw conversions of C1 8.3 to LR6 but LR is better in certain areas. Such as the upright correction, noise reduction and sharpening.
Yes, that's the problem, there is no single perfect solution, they all have something going for them. Although I have to say that Capture One is getting better all the time (and it already wasn't bad to start with), and Lightroom, as a relatively mature product, seems to be stagnating a bit (and occasionally get worse, stability wise and user interface, before it gets fixed again). Lightroom tries to be a SwissArmy knife, but we all know that those get to be a bit too bulky to carry along all the time.
Personally, I tend to prefer solid/innovative specialized solutions (like a dedicated panostitcher, or dedicated HDR tonemapper) over an integrated solution that is just not quite as good at all those specialized tasks. It has to do with focus from the software engineers. Integration of workflows between applications is of course welcome, but that can sometimes be solved with using hot-folders and exporting to (edit in) image editors or other utilities.
Capture One does still have some improvement potential though, like sharpening also after (already improved) rescaling, and even more solid/easy keywording functionality (although improved with V9), and multi-exposure support (both shifted and non-shifted, for resolution enhancement and e.g. noise reduction), and ...
But most of that is quality improvement rather than adding of feature bloat. If new features are added, they should be well implemented and a real alternative to existing specialized alternatives, not just a me-too proposition.
But we can dream, can't we?
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't know if you get good answers inside the capture one forum. :)
I had some time yesterday to work with the new features of C1v9. And my last holiday shots were still not processed, so I had a perfect object to work with. I'm really impressed of the results with selecting a color in the color editor, adjust the selection, create a layer and work on the luma curve of this layer.
-
Worth to mention is DCamProf that Anders Torger has developed, but that tools is not really easy to use for GUI-dependent users. DCamProf can generate ICC profiles for C1 from a ColorChecker chart.
if you like more GUI then you can use rawdigger + makeinputicc (which is a gui frontend for argyll utilities) to create icc/icm profiles for CaptureOne... with CC24/passport (18 color patches) the school of thought exists that it is certainly makes sense only to create matrix + TRC(gamma/table function) because 18 reference points are not really going to allow code to predict colortransform beyond gamut of those patches, it will be just software code reasonable guessing and trying to make LUT feasible in terms of smoothness...
so you make for example matrix+TRC (gamma initially) profile for C1 there and then you replace gamma with table = "transfer function" that DCamProf can extract (that's just one command in DCamProf and simple operation in GUI of "ICC Profile Inspector" for example) or you can make gamma around ~1.8 for C1 and leave it as is...
now the next issue is that matrix + trc profiles do not allow C1 color editor to work as it expects AToB0 tag with LUT... for that I wrote a simple matlab code, few lines, that transfers TRC to input 1D luts used before 3D lut "as is" and converts "RGB to cieXYZ PCS" matrix into that 3D LUT (lut simply replicates what matrix 'd do... PCS stays cieXYZ) - then modified profile allows C1 color editor to work
-
I'm really impressed of the results with selecting a color in the color editor, adjust the selection, create a layer and work on the luma curve of this layer.
Yes, I agree. The Luma adjustments, and the Color Editor selection with masked local adjustment layer creation, are two of the many V9 improvements, and their practical benefit is huge. And given the up to 16 (maskable) Local Adjustment Layers, this creates an enormous level of control and, since it's parametric, it is reversible and re-adjustable.
The improved new rescaling quality should also help to achieve better quality with lens distortion and keystoning corrections and rotation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
So you think this information is helpful for a guy who just wants to make a simple profile for Capture One?
Personally, I have no issue with DCamProf or command line tools, but I happen to have something like 30 years of UNIX/Linux experience. Most folks don't have that.
Best regards
Erik
if you like more GUI then you can use rawdigger + makeinputicc (which is a gui frontend for argyll utilities) to create icc/icm profiles for CaptureOne... with CC24/passport (18 color patches) the school of thought exists that it is certainly makes sense only to create matrix + TRC(gamma/table function) because 18 reference points are not really going to allow code to predict colortransform beyond gamut of those patches, it will be just software code reasonable guessing and trying to make LUT feasible in terms of smoothness...
so you make for example matrix+TRC (gamma initially) profile for C1 there and then you replace gamma with table = "transfer function" that DCamProf can extract (that's just one command in DCamProf and simple operation in GUI of "ICC Profile Inspector" for example) or you can make gamma around ~1.8 for C1 and leave it as is...
now the next issue is that matrix + trc profiles do not allow C1 color editor to work as it expects AToB0 tag with LUT... for that I wrote a simple matlab code, few lines, that transfers TRC to input 1D luts used before 3D lut "as is" and converts "RGB to cieXYZ PCS" matrix into that 3D LUT (lut simply replicates what matrix 'd do... PCS stays cieXYZ) - then modified profile allows C1 color editor to work
-
So you think this information is helpful for a guy who just wants to make a simple profile for Capture One?
may be for some it will be useful...
Personally, I have no issue with DCamProf or command line tools, but I happen to have something like 30 years of UNIX/Linux experience. Most folks don't have that.
well, better late than never... documentation available
-
As others have mentioned, many think that CO does a better job with AA-less cameras than does LR. I'm shooting an OM-D E-M1 most often, these days, and find that CO looks better on its defaults.
But after enough tweaking on both, I can get pretty much the same results in the end with LR or CO.
My primary gripe with LR is its interface, not its RAW processing.
-
As others have mentioned, many think that CO does a better job with AA-less cameras than does LR. I'm shooting an OM-D E-M1 most often, these days, and find that CO looks better on its defaults.
But after enough tweaking on both, I can get pretty much the same results in the end with LR or CO.
My primary gripe with LR is its interface, not its RAW processing.
I also use an E-M1 and agree with the first part but I will have to work at the CO interface. I am a lot more familiar with LR than CO.
-
I just checked LR again and the results are better now for my 5dsr with cproper camera profile.
So that might be marginal to choose on quality.
Other factors are tether and mobile integration.
c1 tethers better. faster and more reliable, to me.
then there is the c1 pilot. very cool if you work with customers, images appear right on their mobile device. the bad thing about c1 pilot, once you shut you computer, your c1 pilot is useless.(can be an advantage with customer environment though).
LR is the opposite. the mobile version is near to ueseless during shoots. however it allows to carry on your work for basics like ratings on the go. I did end up not using as much as expected, as it's a hassl to get your images on the ipad. you can only sync from one library, and you have to send them around the world and back, and you need to create collections.
Other then that I dont like LR because I have to switch between modules to get access to certain functions, comparison of pictures can be painfull. especially to check at 100%.
-
It might be time for interested folks to open a separate topic here to tackle some of the broader difference beyond RAW image conversion. Although, for many, that's the beginning and ending point of the discussion - all other topics (importing, DAM, exporting, printing, etc.) can be done with other tools, if need be.
-
While I love C1 and won't be going back to LR, I have never liked the graduated filter tool in C1. I have always preferred the lines of the LR version - much more informative, in my view.
If I need to correct a cast in a corner or side of an image, I will still return to LR with the (C1 exported) TIFF to do so. I also like the way you can drag and see the angle of the filter in LR. It's just easier.
Finally, I like the way the lines stay in view until you're done with them.
D.
-
My 2 cents: LR - I can post process an image in under 1 minute. I can take a mundane image and create a surprisingly interesting image in a few seconds. I also like the new Radial Filter, which, to me, is one of the best new tool Adobe has added to Lr. Also, Lr offers more options for several tools, such as vignetting or sharpening. I learned a few Lr tips from Art Wolf during a seminar that made processing time even quicker. Lr's History and Snapshot are great. Finally, Lr plays nice with many 3rd party apps.
Cap1 - So, why Capture One? I can match anything done in Lr, but it does take more time. The UI is more flexible, but the font is a bit too small. User defined Workspaces is nice. Lr doesn't have anything to match CO's levels and curve tools. I prefer how CO handles colors. Adjustment layers sets CO way above Lr and they just increase the number layers and added more tools.
I would like to see CO incorporate a true DAM. Final thought, I would love to see Phase One work closely with a company, such as FocalBlade (German company), to incorporate their sharpening tools into CO.
-
My 2 cents: LR - I can post process an image in under 1 minute. I can take a mundane image and create a surprisingly interesting image in a few seconds. I also like the new Radial Filter, which, to me, is one of the best new tool Adobe has added to Lr. Also, Lr offers more options for several tools, such as vignetting or sharpening. I learned a few Lr tips from Art Wolf during a seminar that made processing time even quicker. Lr's History and Snapshot are great. Finally, Lr plays nice with many 3rd party apps.
Cap1 - So, why Capture One? I can match anything done in Lr, but it does take more time. The UI is more flexible, but the font is a bit too small. User defined Workspaces is nice. Lr doesn't have anything to match CO's levels and curve tools. I prefer how CO handles colors. Adjustment layers sets CO way above Lr and they just increase the number layers and added more tools.
I would like to see CO incorporate a true DAM. Final thought, I would love to see Phase One work closely with a company, such as FocalBlade (German company), to incorporate their sharpening tools into CO.
Exactly! I can't say it any better ( except for the font size, I'm fine with it as it is).
-
I've been using C1 steadily now for just over a month on my professional work and can now say, I can get a better processed image with it than LR. I started with LR with the first Beta so am quite comfortable with it. I find that images brought into C1 are better right off the bat and require less tweaking. LR controls seem more like a sledge hammer compared toC1. The C1 controls make more subtle changes and seem easier to control. Mind you, it took me almost that whole month to get used to it, but now that I have, I prefer it. HOWEVER, I still prefer the DAM options in LR and the Print Module. My workflow now goes like this:
1. Import into C1 (with my pro work I usually use Sessions), Sort, Select, Tag.
2. Process in C1 for just about everything except extensive retouching.
3. Export to PS CC for retouching and saved as 16-bit Tif in ProPhoto RGB to create my 'master neg'.
4. Delete any unwanted images, rejects or not selected by client.
5a. If it's just digital delivery (commercial work) then export in whatever variations are needed through process recipes.
5b. If it's Prints being delivered, open LR and import the folder. Select 'masters' and print.
6. Done!
-
I've been using C1 steadily now for just over a month on my professional work and can now say, I can get a better processed image with it than LR. I started with LR with the first Beta so am quite comfortable with it. I find that images brought into C1 are better right off the bat and require less tweaking. LR controls seem more like a sledge hammer compared toC1. The C1 controls make more subtle changes and seem easier to control. Mind you, it took me almost that whole month to get used to it, but now that I have, I prefer it. HOWEVER, I still prefer the DAM options in LR and the Print Module. My workflow now goes like this:
1. Import into C1 (with my pro work I usually use Sessions), Sort, Select, Tag.
2. Process in C1 for just about everything except extensive retouching.
3. Export to PS CC for retouching and saved as 16-bit Tif in ProPhoto RGB to create my 'master neg'.
4. Delete any unwanted images, rejects or not selected by client.
5a. If it's just digital delivery (commercial work) then export in whatever variations are needed through process recipes.
5b. If it's Prints being delivered, open LR and import the folder. Select 'masters' and print.
6. Done!
I find myself in much the same boat, but started with Aperture at v1 and moved to Lightroom upon its death, however.
CO image quality is a clear win, to me, too. CO9 is a small step forward in DAM with its keywording (or will be after they fix the bugs brought along). But every step is welcome and I hope they get most of Media Pro into v10.
What drives you back to Lr for printing? I'm frustrated by CO's lack of printer/paper/profile presets. But I'm suffering through hoping for improvements in the 9.X series of updates.
-
I've been using C1 steadily now for just over a month on my professional work and can now say, I can get a better processed image with it than LR. I started with LR with the first Beta so am quite comfortable with it. I find that images brought into C1 are better right off the bat and require less tweaking. LR controls seem more like a sledge hammer compared toC1. The C1 controls make more subtle changes and seem easier to control. Mind you, it took me almost that whole month to get used to it, but now that I have, I prefer it.
Hi Mike,
The hardest part is not trying to mimic the behavior of the old/familiar tool. The fresh, and I agree improved, Raw conversion look does deliver higher quality conversions. And the controls are somewhat different, and that takes adjusting one's habits. However, the recent improvements of several tools make adjustments less risky (for unintended color/saturation changes) to use and more thus powerful.
HOWEVER, I still prefer the DAM options in LR and the Print Module.
I agree that these functionalities in C1 need more work to become (more than) competitive. But with the resources that Phase One has, I see a well thought out path of gradual improvement.
They first changed the internal software development process, which allowed faster roll-outs of improvements. They added Adjustment Layers. Then they started tackling specific tool quality, one-by-one. Now they changed more tool enhancements and some under the hood fundamentals, like Luminance curves and rescaling. Not all as obvious for the casual user, but there is a pattern.
I would not be surprised if sharpening, and further improvements in the DAM functionality, are to follow. Print module improvements are then not too difficult to improve, given a solid foundation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I would not be surprised if sharpening, and further improvements in the DAM functionality, are to follow. Print module improvements are then not too difficult to improve, given a solid foundation.
From your history with the program, would you see these improvements as part of the v9.X series, or as part of a future v10?
-
I find myself in much the same boat, but started with Aperture at v1 and moved to Lightroom upon its death, however.
CO image quality is a clear win, to me, too. CO9 is a small step forward in DAM with its keywording (or will be after they fix the bugs brought along). But every step is welcome and I hope they get most of Media Pro into v10.
What drives you back to Lr for printing? I'm frustrated by CO's lack of printer/paper/profile presets. But I'm suffering through hoping for improvements in the 9.X series of updates.
It's likely that I'm just more familiar with the interface and understand how it works. I also print images from .psd files which CO has difficulty with, especially layered, so again, LR just works. When I have more time in the new year I'll be looking at it more. I'm currently having a problem printing sheets at the moment and getting a "Filter Failed" error, but this is coming through on CO as well as LR (of PS for that matter).
In addition, LR has more options for watermarks, printing a border (I like a 1 or 2 pixel black line around the images when I print an image to be matted with a reveal showing base paper), etc. There's a few more features and options I would like to have in LR, and LR is ahead of CO, so I find CO limiting in that respect.
-
Two or three years ago when I was looking at processors because I had just bought a Fuji camera, I bought the C1 Express 7 and tried the DxO. I hated the forced catalogging of C1. At that time one of the two didn't do DNG and the other didn't do Pro Photo. I have never bothered with either of them since. Iridient is my processor and Photoshop is my print interface to Epson. Iridient handles Fuji RAW like it was native and does geometry to boot. Photoshop loves Epson. I have Lr but i'm too lazy to catalog even though I have 20 gB of images, really should get around to it.
-
From your history with the program, would you see these improvements as part of the v9.X series, or as part of a future v10?
Hard to say, Bob. As we've seen in the past, it's not beyond Phase One to add or improve functionality during the update cycles of a version. But some of the things I'm hoping for would potentially (if fully implemented) require a significant recoding of some procedures, so that would be more in line with a new version. Partial implementation could be done faster, but they can not spread their resources too thin over too many branches of code, and I do not know what they are currently working on.
However, (preview of) sharpening after rescaling (linked to output recipe and from the print module) should not be postponed too long, it's really strange to not have it, and it might be relatively manageable to create, IMHO. A future new sharpening algorithm can then utilize that already present preview functionality.
BTW, AFAIK also Lightroom doesn't offer a real preview of the sharpening on output, just a choice of a few levels which have then to be judged on the real output, and compared with other iterative output attempts. So yet another opportunity for both companies to take a lead.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Richard - Capture One doesn't force you to use the catalog option only offers it up as an option. You're perfectly welcome to use sessions. It's Lightroom that forces a catalog. C1 doesn't like dng files very much but will save into any ICC defined profile space you might want - as long as it's in your system. I have and use Iridient and have run into Brian in Monterey a few times, and as nice as his program is, it's still agonizingly slow when you have to run through, say, a couple thousand images, like I did last week. And, for some reason, the Iridient profile for the Canon 5DS is leaving a lot to be desired, with C1 providing the best conversions that I've yet seen on that camera. But you have to use what's best for you and your equipment and the way you shoot.
-
BTW, AFAIK also Lightroom doesn't offer a real preview of the sharpening on output, just a choice of a few levels which have then to be judged on the real output, and compared with other iterative output attempts. So yet another opportunity for both companies to take a lead.
I don't know that print sharpening even can be previewed on screen - the resolutions of the two devices being so very different. PK Sharpener uses an algorithm for print sharpening that is supposed to be "scientifically" correct based on the physical nature of different papers, inks, and the human eye at different feature sizes.
-
I don't know that print sharpening even can be previewed on screen - the resolutions of the two devices being so very different. PK Sharpener uses an algorithm for print sharpening that is supposed to be "scientifically" correct based on the physical nature of different papers, inks, and the human eye at different feature sizes.
I've heard that argument before, and IMHO it's only partly valid. It's probably also why some applications do not bother to give a useful preview.
However, it is quite well possible to get a good impression about the amount of sharpening needed visually, when the resampling can generate a properly scaled preview, and that scaling is now available. I can go into much more detail (about artifact free resampling, viewing distances, medium surface diffusion, etc.), but that's perhaps going to take too much focus away from the general discussion at hand.
Suffice it to say, if we are going to down-sample the very finest (1 pixel) detail in our image by, say, a factor of 8, then we can't see it anymore if that pixel becomes significantly smaller than one output pixel. However, the 8 pixel large detail in the original image may become very high resolution 1 pixel detail in the output, so we need to sharpen with something like an 8x larger radius (if that is a meaningful parameter) if we can only view our original size. That's much harder to mentally envision than something that's properly dimensioned and only will vary a bit due to ink diffusion in the medium. That latter difference is quickly learned in practice, and is basically the only thing Lightroom (and probably Capture One as well) does.
I've also dealt with significantly upscaled output, and different things play a role there (including lack of resolution for reading distance viewing). But there are solutions that differ depending on the sharpening that's available.
Finally, there are sometimes innovations that go unnoticed for large groups of people. One example is the (also used for Smart Output) sharpening technique using so-called "Deep Focus Sharpening" that Mike Chaney developed for his Qimage Ultimate software. That is a completely Halo free output sharpening algorithm he developed, and it works great.
While I do not necessarily agree with the artistic choice of radius shown in this video (https://www.youtube.com/embed/AiVoXcB1uzk), it does demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm (without the need for halo masks or such), and it works very well for printed output.
The premise is simple, if no artifacts are created in the image, then no artifacts will show in the output, WYSIWYG. It basically just becomes a matter of amount if the radius is adapted to the output size and viewing distance.
Cheers,
Bart
-
While I do not necessarily agree with the artistic choice of radius shown in this video (https://www.youtube.com/embed/AiVoXcB1uzk), it does demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm (without the need for halo masks or such), and it works very well for printed output.
The premise is simple, if no artifacts are created in the image, then no artifacts will show in the output, WYSIWYG. It basically just becomes a matter of amount if the radius is adapted to the output size and viewing distance.
That's a pretty convincing video. I wonder if it's all "free?" Are there downsides to that algorithm that the presenter didn't show?
If there's not, he needs to be licensing that algorithm to all comers for a very profitable price. And I assume if it's applicable to output sharpening, it would be equally good at capture and creative sharpening?
-
That's a pretty convincing video. I wonder if it's all "free?"
Well, free in the sense that he thought of it first, so it's copyrighted, but I don't think it is patented or such.
Are there downsides to that algorithm that the presenter didn't show?
No, I've not experienced anything negative, and it's not particularly slow either.
If there's not, he needs to be licensing that algorithm to all comers for a very profitable price.
Guess it depends on the terms. I know he once turned down Microsoft who were interested in some of his resampling and other findings, so it's not like money alone will do the trick. Qimage is his baby, so he'd need some real convincing to turn over part of his inventions.
And I assume if it's applicable to output sharpening, it would be equally good at capture and creative sharpening?
Not quite. Capture sharpening can actually restore a lot of seemingly lost resolution. We can actually increase resolution. His algorithm doesn't, but it does help restore edge contrast (without halos) which helps a lot perceptually. So it is typically used with (large) output, where enlarging will not add resolution.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Too bad it isn't Mac-able.
-
Too bad it isn't Mac-able.
Well, it doesn't run natively on Mac OS, but seems to do fine under Parallels and similar emulators.
Cheers,
Bart