Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: wizard_of_dof on November 04, 2018, 05:02:40 pm
-
Hi,
I'd like to drop LR, as they do not update the desktop version with the support for Z7, and start using CaptureOne.
Before buying I'd like to asses, which features I am not going to find in CaptureOne.
As I understand it CaptureOne does not have HDR and Panorama support, what else?
Thank you.
-
Huh? LR has supported the Z7 since the middle of last month. C1 still doesn't.
-
Huh? LR has supported the Z7 since the middle of last month. C1 still doesn't.
As I said, I do not have the cloud license, but the desktop version of the product, I do not know if it still has a name. That version of LR does not get anymore updates whatsoever.
-
Huh? LR has supported the Z7 since the middle of last month. C1 still doesn't.
LR6 doesn't support the Z7 and he doesn't want to pay the subscription fee.
-
As I said, I do not have the cloud license, but the desktop version of the product, I do not know if it still has a name. That version of LR does not get anymore updates whatsoever.
You didn't say that you don't have the cloud licence.... Maybe try saying "subscription" instead of the vague "desktop version" which has never been used as a name anyway. If you just want to save money, just use Adobe's free DNG converter.
Why not download C1 and try if it meets your needs? It lacks many features of LR, like the whole of the mobile and web aspects, and Photoshop, while LR lacks some of C1's, but the missing features may be irrelevant to you.
-
Why not download C1 and try if it meets your needs? It lacks many features of LR, like the whole of the mobile and web aspects, and Photoshop, while LR lacks some of C1's, but the missing features may be irrelevant to you.
Well, as you noted, as things stand it doesn't meet his primary need (Z7 support) AT ALL. Another option will be to test DxO PL2 which claims to have Z7 support coming in December.
Not to mention, of course, just paying to upgrade to the latest Lr.
-
Well, as you noted, as things stand it doesn't meet his primary need (Z7 support) AT ALL.
True, but that is only temporary. One assumes he already has pictures from less-new cameras.
-
which features I am not going to find in CaptureOne.
As I understand it CaptureOne does not have HDR and Panorama support, what else?
You'll also loose the book, map and slideshow modules for starters.
CO's web page creation is more limited than LR. The DAM features are also less sophisticated. The camera colour calibration profile system is different, using icc profiles, rather than dcp, so you may need new tools for that. Similarly I've not read of a way to create custom lens correction profiles. No visualise spots option to help spot dust marks. no dehaze option. There are less third party plug-ins or presets available too.
The interface and GUI is different, so it may take some effort in learning how to work quickly. I still find LR's GUI more intuitive myself.
It's not all loss though. Besides no subscription and supporting newer cameras than LR6, there are some different ways of working with adjustment layers and tonal corrections that you may find more powerful than LR's local adjustment options.
Overall you can still deliver great files from CO. If HDR and panoramas are important to you, there are stand alone packages that will deliver better results than LR's built in options, it's just a more involved workflow.
Try the trial, work through some tutorials and see if you like it.
-
Slightly off-topic but ...
I read elsewhere that "the latest version of ACR processed the Z7's files but didn't yet have support for the camera colour profiles". I don't actually know what those words mean. Can someone knowledgeable comment?
-
I'd assume that simply means it will convert the images with a Nikon default camera profile because they haven't had time to build proper profiles for that model yet. If so, the colours might just need slightly more of a tweak into what you want than you'd expect if you had a dedicated profile for the body.
-
I'd assume that simply means it will convert the images with a Nikon default camera profile because they haven't had time to build proper profiles for that model yet. If so, the colours might just need slightly more of a tweak into what you want than you'd expect if you had a dedicated profile for the body.
The current LR release has full support for the Nikon Z7, including all camera color profiles.
-
The current LR release has full support for the Nikon Z7, including all camera color profiles.
Except that is only available to people who subscribe to Adobe's new business model. I am happy that works for people but it does not for all and the OP clearly indicated that he is in that group (me too).
So, you can look at C1 which does not currently have support for the Z7 but will for both stand alone licensees and subscription licensees or you can subscribe to Adobe now but you will *never* get it from Adobe for your stand alone LR license.
-
I'd like to drop LR, as they do not update the desktop version with the support for Z7, and start using CaptureOne.
Before buying I'd like to asses, which features I am not going to find in CaptureOne.
As I understand it CaptureOne does not have HDR and Panorama support, what else?
I think others have covered it pretty well so I'll just add what I did about the "missing things":book - that will be felt but every time I created a book I also thought about switching to Blurb's native book editor. Now I just will.
map - i used the map to geotag my photos from my GPS tracks. I never used it to find photos but now I use Geosetter (https://www.geosetter.de/en/main-en/) to do that work. C1 still has a link in the metadata panel that you can click on and it will take you to google maps and show you where the picture was taken. Works for me.
slideshow modules - used it once. Next time I'll have to find something else. Not worried about it.
web page creation - no interest there at all. I use a Word Press website so at first I thought I would miss my LR plug-in integration but honestly those bloody things were so flaky having to go back to producing files, ftping them to the server and then creating galleries was so refreshing and so easy. I'm actually happy about it.
DAM - C1 has some issues - performance being the big one but also some strange handling of variants this is definitely a step down from LR but I am finding it handles my 62 000 files well enough. Searching through all of them is painful but searching smaller sets is fine.
What you gain:
Layers - I have really enjoyed having layers again - being able to name adjustments and turn things up or down or on and off is such a nice way to work
Colour control - yeah wow I'm still getting my head around this but clearly C1 exposes a lot of power to adjust colours
-
One thing you'll lose - and it's the single thing that stops me changing to C1, which otherwise I liked when I tried it - is the history palette in LR's develop module.
Jeremy
-
The biggest thing you will lose is the time you will spend learning a new software program.
-
One thing you'll lose - and it's the single thing that stops me changing to C1, which otherwise I liked when I tried it - is the history palette in LR's develop module.
Jeremy
I personally don't miss it. There is still undo so small mistakes can still be reversed. What I used the history for in LR is experimenting with a new look. Now I just do that in a layer - don't like it delete the layer.
I suppose if you liked the recording of the state of the edits on export there is no equivalent in C1 but that never was something I really used.
-
The biggest thing you will lose is the time you will spend learning a new software program.
Sure there is a learning curve. Personally I felt pretty abandoned by Adobe when the stopped offering stand alone licensing. My feeling was I had wasted all that time learning a program I was no longer happy with.
Truth be told the learning curve for editing in C1 is not steep and you can get going just by reading the UI - the basics are not that different. I recommend that people look at using layers as soon in the process as you can because that is where the bang for the buck comes from. Of course that applies to anyone actually wanting to use C1 - which is what this sub forum is for - right? None of this advice applies for those that are happy with LR :)
-
Except that is only available to people who subscribe to Adobe's new business model.
You can still create your own (for free) in older versions assuming you own a ColorChecker. You can edit them for free too, using the DNG profile editor.
Yeah, if the older version (say V5) doesn't natively support the newer camera, you'll have to convert to DNG but what's nice is, those profiles get embedded into that container.
-
You can edit them for free too, using the DNG profile editor.
in C1 you can edit camera profiles right in the converter itself
-
in C1 you can edit camera profiles right in the converter itself
And it creates them too?
-
The DAM in LR is a little easier to use and has more features, that said I can see C! giving me everything that I need. I miss the Panorama and HDR merges mostly.
I use the stacking' feature in LR frequently... but in honesty this is often stacks of a group of similar images with the best one at the top of the stack... in C1 I am more likely to cull these extras... which is no bad thing.
It's useful for stacking Pano and HDR groups though... not found a convenient way to do this in C1 to date.
-
The DAM in LR is a little easier to use and has more features, that said I can see C! giving me everything that I need. I miss the Panorama and HDR merges mostly.
Hi,
Personally, I prefer using dedicated tools for such specialist processing. C1 will allow creating superior input quality TIFFs for such applications. Pano's, besides allowing CA correction, Diffraction correction, etc., per tile, e.g. can have different White Balance settings for the image tiles, before they get blended seamlessly. FocusStacks can have Dust removed with LCCs before causing trouble when the slices get resized into registration. HDRs also need CA removal per image.
I use the stacking' feature in LR frequently... but in honesty this is often stacks of a group of similar images with the best one at the top of the stack... in C1 I am more likely to cull these extras... which is no bad thing.
I agree, although at times grouping images could be useful. Who knows what the future has in store, now that the PhaseOne cameras start using multiple frames.
It's useful for stacking Pano and HDR groups though... not found a convenient way to do this in C1 to date.
Just use keywording, add 'Pano', or 'HDR', or 'FocusStack', and perhaps another discriminator (like image number range) if multiple stacks are created in sequence. And such stacks themselves are usually sequential as well, so adding a common keyword after selecting them all is simple and fast.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And it creates them too?
And did I comment the part your text about creating ?
-
And did I comment the part your text about creating?
You didn't. Your comment wasn't pertinent in any way IMHO and you didn't answer my question after commenting about my comment to UnfamiliarLight. My comment about a free means to both CREATE and EDIT .dcp (camera) profiles was directed specifically at UnfamiliarLight who implied that unless you subscribe to Adobe, profiles are only available to people who subscribe (not true), examine the actual text below:
Except that is only available to people who subscribe to Adobe's new business model.
The current LR release has full support for the Nikon Z7, including all camera color profiles.
So great, C1 edits profiles. Adobe does too. Now can you answer the question about C1's ability to freely create camera profiles like Adobe can? IF it cannot, that's something of a loss that the OP is asking about.
-
So great, C1 edits profiles. Adobe does too. Now can you answer the question about C1's ability to freely create camera profiles like Adobe can? IF it cannot, that's something of a loss that the OP is asking about.
First, we do not know if the OP makes his own profiles, so we cannot know whether it would be a loss to him.
Second, C1 doesn't create profiles like Adobe can, and some might say "Thank Goodness" ;) .
Creating camera profiles is a process fraught with risks that can produce quality issues. Therefore, besides creating (ICC-)profiles from scratch, with Lumariver Profile Designer, http://www.lumariver.com/#LumariverPD, I like the process that C1 Professional uses, which allows the user to base a profile off of any camera profile (preferably one that's close to the intended CFA characteristics). Once a Camera model is fully supported with one or more quality profiles, the user still has the possibility to tweak its response (and create a new ICC profile) without screwing up in a major way. This is definitely a GAIN instead of a loss, in my book anyway.
Cheers,
Bart
-
First, we do not know if the OP makes his own profiles, so we cannot know whether it would be a loss to him.
Second, C1 doesn't create profiles like Adobe can, and some might say "Thank Goodness" ;) .
Creating camera profiles is a process fraught with risks that can produce quality issues. Therefore, besides creating (ICC-)profiles from scratch, with Lumariver Profile Designer, http://www.lumariver.com/#LumariverPD, I like the process that C1 Professional uses, which allows the user to base a profile off of any camera profile (preferably one that's close to the intended CFA characteristics). Once a Camera model is fully supported with one or more quality profiles, the user still has the possibility to tweak its response (and create a new ICC profile) without screwing up in a major way. This is definitely a GAIN instead of a loss, in my book anyway.
Cheers,
Bart
So seem no, C1 provide no way to make free camera profiles as Adobe does. Some of us with many years making profiles (cameras and otherwise), would find this a loss and not say “thank goodness” but at least we know what C1 cannot provide that Adobe can; the question I asked that for some reason DP didn’t wish to answer.
-
Once a Camera model is fully supported with one or more quality profiles, the user still has the possibility to tweak its response (and create a new ICC profile) without screwing up in a major way. This is definitely a GAIN instead of a loss, in my book anyway.
That process really isn't 'profiling' as such though. It's not much different from just saving a set of colour adjustments to use as a preset. You'd have to go through a very long winded process of many adjustments on a wide gamut image to build anything as generically useful as a proper profile.
The options to build profiles for ACR/LR are simpler and, I think, overall more versatile.
-
That process really isn't 'profiling' as such though. It's not much different from just saving a set of colour adjustments to use as a preset. You'd have to go through a very long winded process of many adjustments on a wide gamut image to build anything as generically useful as a proper profile.
The options to build profiles for ACR/LR are simpler and, I think, overall more versatile.
I agree, and there are many other differences between the two profiles and yes, that isn't really profiling.
Some here have a long track record working with ICC camera profiles. I've got a hand made MacBeth ColorChecker DC (circa 2003 prior to the SG) and two paid trips to Regensdorf under my belt doing alpha consultation to prove the point should anyone care to know the history of such development. ICC camera profiles as Bart did state are fraught with issues in creation. That simply isn't close to the same case creating .dcp camera profiles.
As to whether this is important to the OP or not, now he knows the differences and can comment. But the differences are for some a loss (some perhaps a gain).
I wonder why it's so often damn difficult to get the C1 proponents to answer a simple question. :o
-
I wonder why it's so often damn difficult to get the C1 proponents to answer a simple question. :o
How useful is a DCP 'profile' outside of the Adobe realm?
Cheers,
Bart
-
How useful is a DCP 'profile' outside of the Adobe realm?
Cheers,
Bart
Very! I have several raw converters (Iridient Developer is one) that supports .dcp profiles.
Can you use your edited C1 ICC profiles outside C1 Bart?
-
Can you use your edited C1 ICC profiles outside C1
CO generates a standard icm profile, so I would expect the answer is yes.
(Although v10 doesn't save it to the system directory for colour profiles on W7, so you have to search for it and install it manually.)
-
CO generates a standard icm profile, so I would expect the answer is yes.
(Although v10 doesn't save it to the system directory for colour profiles on W7, so you have to search for it and install it manually.)
I didn’t phrase the question well and yes, if it is a standard.ICC Profile, indeed any product that support the profiles can use them. How well and useful after this edit would be the question we may or may not see answered. >:(
-
How well and useful after this edit would be the question we may or may not see answered.
Not sure that's a question worth asking or important really.
CO isn't designed as profile creation software, but editing the supplied profiles might be a feature some people would find useful for their work in CO.
Not sure I see it as any sort of useful feature though.
-
Why is it relevant that LR or C1 can create profiles as long as they allow to use custom profiles?
Isn't it better to use a profiling software like basICColor or Lumariver to create profiles? It's not free though.
But if we do not take this into account, wouldn't it be the better way (in terms of quality and versatility)?
-
Not sure that's a question worth asking or important really.
CO isn't designed as profile creation software, but editing the supplied profiles might be a feature some people would find useful for their work in CO.
Not sure I see it as any sort of useful feature though.
Agreed on all counts. More a “proof of concept” question; will it get an answer as I provided to Bart about non-Adobe apps using.DCP camera profiles.
-
my comment to UnfamiliarLight. My comment about a free means to both CREATE and EDIT .dcp (camera) profiles was directed specifically at UnfamiliarLight who implied that unless you subscribe to Adobe, profiles are only available to people who subscribe (not true)
It is somewhat interesting that you can finagle a way to get support for new cameras into the abandoned stand alone license of LR. I have two problems with this - another major learning curve to create profiles that I personally would not be interested in spending time on and two DNG - I view that as a bad idea that I also don't want anything to do with (not just for the additional steps but also because it causes more lock in to Adobe).
So, the steps you outline and the need for more proprietary Adobe technology means that while you are technically correct that I was wrong, I'll say it this way then: For all practical purposes support for new cameras is only available to people who subscribe to Adobe's new business model.
The conclusion is that moving to C1 you loose a way to handle unsupported cameras that you can do in LR. Some might find that compelling. I certainly do not.
-
It is somewhat interesting that you can finagle a way to get support for new cameras into the abandoned stand alone license of LR. I have two problems with this - another major learning curve to create profiles that I personally would not be interested in spending time on and two DNG - I view that as a bad idea that I also don't want anything to do with (not just for the additional steps but also because it causes more lock in to Adobe).
So, the steps you outline and the need for more proprietary Adobe technology means that while you are technically correct that I was wrong, I'll say it this way then: For all practical purposes support for new cameras is only available to people who subscribe to Adobe's new business model.
The conclusion is that moving to C1 you loose a way to handle unsupported cameras that you can do in LR. Some might find that compelling. I certainly do not.
There is nothing proprietary about DNG; openly documented format, like TIFF (you use TIFF?).
Again, you are technically incorrect.
-
I'll say it this way then: For all practical purposes support for new cameras is only available to people who subscribe to Adobe's new business model.
No, you can still go through DNG conversion to load newer cameras files into LR6. No need to subscribe.
Not ideal as it adds a little more to the importing workflow, but Adobe need some credit for making this freely available.
-
No, you can still go through DNG conversion to load newer cameras files into LR6. No need to subscribe.
Not ideal as it adds a little more to the importing workflow, but Adobe need some credit for making this freely available.
Yes, Adobe doesn't force users to update/upgrade for newer cameras. Begging the question, what is PhaseOne's policy? I have say C1 version 9, I get a new camera. They update older versions freely or I have to upgrade (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Online-Store/Upgrade-Products.aspx)?
Keep in mind folks, the topic is clearly: : Moving from LR to CaptureOne: what am I loosing?
You stick with an old version of LR (say version 5) and you get a new camera that version doesn’t support natively. Adobe doesn't force an upgrade; you CAN convert (on import) to DNG and use the older product. Converting to DNG has advantages beyond that (and to be honest, some disadvantages too) but stating DNG is proprietary is FUD.
-
I don't understand the misconceptions and FUD around DNG.
-
I don't understand the misconceptions and FUD around DNG.
People get fooled about it all the time unfortunately.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
-
Begging the question, what is PhaseOne's policy? I have say C1 version 9, I get a new camera. They update older versions freely or I have to upgrade (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Online-Store/Upgrade-Products.aspx)?
Phase one does not add support for newer cameras to old versions. Same as Adobe. So, given that Adobe has the above described workaround technically you would loose that moving to C1. I personally don't see that as an advantage that I would take but it is there.
I am not against upgrading software I just don't want to subscribe to it. Plenty of other people are fine with that and that is great.
-
Phase one does not add support for newer cameras to old versions. Same as Adobe. So, given that Adobe has the above described workaround technically you would loose that moving to C1. I personally don't see that as an advantage that I would take but it is there.
I am not against upgrading software I just don't want to subscribe to it. Plenty of other people are fine with that and that is great.
Got zero to do with subscribing. One company forces owners of newer camera to upgrade*. The other doesn't; it provides a free path to keep your older software which IS NOT a subscription.
*Now how about C1 users who decide to convert to DNG and keep their older versions? Assuming the product properly supports that format (thanks Adobe ;) )
-
The issue of providing forward support of older raw software via DNG is an interesting one.
Fantastic idea whilst Adobe keep updating their DNG converter for new camera formats and providing it freely, but if Adobe stop that product or make it part of the subscription, the idea rather falls apart.
-
Got zero to do with subscribing.
It has *everything* to do with subscribing. The OP stated they were investigating C1 because Adobe is no longer offering upgrades to their LR product with stand alone licensing. I personally made the switch away from LR for that very same reason. You don't have to agree. You don't even have to respect our discussion. But it is the why. And personally it is also why I have zero interest in working with other Adobe products if I don't need to.
*I* am sure the OP can make a choice based on what is best for them. I certainly did. You seem happy to stay with LR, which is also great.
-
The issue of providing forward support of older raw software via DNG is an interesting one.
Fantastic idea whilst Adobe keep updating their DNG converter for new camera formats and providing it freely, but if Adobe stop that product or make it part of the subscription, the idea rather falls apart.
Anything could happen in the future with respect to DNG and Adobe. More evidence WE need an openly documented and free to use raw format, like TIFF that Adobe at present owns and controls, that some posting here may be using (rather than PSD), but don’t wish to admit using perhaps because of who owns that openly documented format :D .
-
The issue of providing forward support of older raw software via DNG is an interesting one.
Fantastic idea whilst Adobe keep updating their DNG converter for new camera formats and providing it freely, but if Adobe stop that product or make it part of the subscription, the idea rather falls apart.
In which case you could elect to stay with Adobe or change to another product, which may of may not be updated in the future. Life involves uncertainty and choices.
-
It has *everything* to do with subscribing. The OP stated they were investigating C1 because Adobe is no longer offering upgrades to their LR product with stand alone licensing.
He stated that exactly where? Seems it was you who brought up subscription no, after getting the bit about profiles and support technically wrong? Here's the OP's question copy and paste:
Hi,
I'd like to drop LR, as they do not update the desktop version with the support for Z7, and start using CaptureOne.
Before buying I'd like to asses, which features I am not going to find in CaptureOne.
As I understand it CaptureOne does not have HDR and Panorama support, what else?
Thank you.
IF I missed where HE asked about subscription, apologies. Did he? Or was it you and your agenda? :P
-
He stated that exactly where? Seems it was you who brought up subscription no? Here's the OP's question copy and paste:
IF I missed where HE asked about subscription, apologies. Did he? Or was it you?
He was referring to non-subscription LR6 as the "desktop" version. He correctly said that Adobe was not updating it to handle the Z7. People were confused by his use of the term "desktop" and pointed out that the subscription version was updated to handle the Z7. Which inevitably lead to the tired debate about subscription vs. standalone. My feeling is that if you don't like the subscription model use something else. Or use Adobe DNG converter and an older standalone version. Plenty of choices.
-
He was referring to non-subscription LR6 as the "desktop" version. He correctly said that Adobe was not updating it.
But where did he say his beef was with a subscription? Not that it matters as correctly pointed out, one can use LR6 with that newer camera.
Are people posting to aid the OP or propose an agenda? The OP can use LR6 with the newer camera as explained below (or above depending on your preference). Problem solved.
-
Are people posting to aid the OP or propose an agenda?
LOL I have no agenda. Hopefully the OP found the information helpful.
-
Anything could happen in the future with respect to DNG and Adobe. More evidence WE need an openly documented and free to use raw format,
I'd thought DNG was supposed to be an 'open format' ? If so, someone could presumably make their own version of Adobe's DNG converter. Right now there's no incentive, but maybe if Adobe changed their policy it could happen.
-
LOL I have no agenda. Hopefully the OP found the information helpful.
Considering I didn’t specifically name anyone.... ;)
Hopefully *some* learned some facts about camera profiles and DNG, camera support, my FUD busting is done. For the time being. :D
-
Id' thought DNG was supposed to be an 'open format' ?
It is. But due to being associated with Adobe, (unlike TIFF?) getting anything like universal support from camera manufacturers makes it a political hit potatoe. This is not a technology issue, it’s a political issue and the longer users don’t demand a solution and side with camera makers instead of their own best interests, the longer we will wait. Some would rather continue the anti Adobe and DNG rant, than join the demand for a open raw format. :o
Photograhers are often their own worst enemy.
-
I'd thought DNG was supposed to be an 'open format' ? If so, someone could presumably make their own version of Adobe's DNG converter. Right now there's no incentive, but maybe if Adobe changed their policy it could happen.
People have been building RAW->DNG converters for quite some time...
Open source example: https://github.com/Fimagena/raw2dng
Commercial example: Iridient Developer/Transfomer.
-
People have been building RAW->DNG converters for quite some time...
Open source example: https://github.com/Fimagena/raw2dng
Commercial example: Iridient Developer/Transfomer.
C1 is also raw to DNG converter, was for a while ...
-
This is not a technology issue
it is a technology issue, as any innovation will be delayed if it has to be done through DNG standard ... example: when Panasonic introduced optics corrections parameters written in raw files... DNG standard at the moment did not support anything like this... it took Adobe almost a year to get it done.... all the while RW2 to DNG with optics correction had to be huge demosaicked linear DNG files ;D
buy not using DNG Panasonic was free to implement it as it saw fit, did it on its own schedule and was not forced to disclose to competition... Adobe had to follow what Panasonic did (and only managed with huge delay)
but Andrew has no clue and never had
-
C1 is also raw to DNG converter,
Which misses the point about needing an up to date converter to provide support for cameras newer than the software you're using.
-
Which misses the point about needing an up to date converter to provide support for cameras newer than the software you're using.
which brings you the need to (A) ask camera manufacturers to share the information about the changes (if any) publicly (there is no really need for DNG to achieve that) or at least have easy(easier) to enroll NDA program for more vendors of raw converters - Adobe seems to have by now established such relation with most camera manufacturers and their beta version of ACR is almost always available for DPReview stuff even before some camera is going on sale and (B) ask software vendors to be not much slower than LibRaw for example (but they naturally have to do testing, camera profiles making and follow their established code-test-build-release cycles)
-
Which misses the point about needing an up to date converter to provide support for cameras newer than the software you're using.
Indeed, you have corrected a clueless posting (corrected again) to someone who isn’t an Adobe beta like others here, but jumps to assumptions (DPReview :P)