Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: sperera on January 19, 2009, 03:58:54 pm

Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: sperera on January 19, 2009, 03:58:54 pm
.....we all mostly agree its second to none in handling and batching large numbers of photographs....and we all use it in our workflows to some extent....but will it ever be allowed to be THE raw convertor....as it deserves to be....if manufacturers like Nikon just don't allow them to open up their files as perfectly as they do in their own software....Capture NX2 in this case....I dont care what anyone says....NO WAY DOES A NIKON NEF look as good in Lightroom as it does in Capture NX2....in my opinion of course.....

so....I think we're all doomed into extra laborious workflows cos camera makers will always have their own programmes to peddle and sell....ok...hasselblad has Phocus and its free...same thing....iHasselblad fots dont open as great in Lightroom as they do in Phocus.....

Fact: Hasselblad UK told me they had given Adobe the profiles etc needed to open up files in Lightroom but they claim Adobe drag  their feet and hence they brought out Phocus as they cant depend on Adobe etc to do what has to be done to open up files as they should be open.....

Is this true or sales bull??? it sucks for us sitting in front of these damn screens either way....
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: James R on January 19, 2009, 05:58:48 pm
Quote from: John Schweikert
The camera companies aren't giving Adobe the proprietary file formats so that LR and ACR can process the files, Adobe is reverse engineering the formats to allow LR/ACR the ability to process as many camera file formats as possible. That can all be verified with the LR/ACR developers. That's why the pixel level look of the files won't match the camera companies' software. Sure LR now has the calibration profiles to mimic DPP and NX, etc. but there is still a difference, just as there is a difference in image quality from Raw Developer to LR to Capture One and so on.

I would bet you a 1,000,000 to 1 that Hasselblad is full of it. Phase, Leaf, and the newest Sinar files now all open in Adobe products. So whose fault do you think is now. Hassey raws have not been cracked to work in LR. I'm sure LR would process Hassey raws, but I imagine Hassey is the culprit here.

I've found Capture One v 4.6 pulls as much, if not more, detail from a D3 file than NX2.  The CO files look just as good as NX2's.  So, if Phase One can get the Nikon's raw right, why can't Adobe?
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: James R on January 19, 2009, 06:03:08 pm
I'm toying with ingesting with PhotoMechanic, work the files with CO, batch from CO to another file as tif's, and then ingest with LR2.  God, I hate the idea, but no single program does it all.  NX2 and CO are very slow ingesting.  I will try it a time or two and then decide.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: James R on January 19, 2009, 08:58:19 pm
Quote from: John Schweikert
Ingesting is a funny thing, if applying metadata and such to a file while saving it from a CF card can be useful but some apps do it very slowly. Slower than just copying files to your hard drive and batch applying metadata when viewing the files in your chosen raw converter.

I find copying files from CF cards manually very fast using Sandisk Extreme IV cards and dedicated card reader. If the files are Canon, I view them to do super fast culling in PhotoMechanic then pull the images I actually want to present to the client will run through LR for adjustments where the metadata gets applied. For my Leaf files the process slows down quite a bit and I just cull and edit in LR.

PhotoMechanic is the fastest viewing app I have ever seen to mark keepers and dump the rest. I see full screen images in PM as fast as clicking the right arrow key and hitting the '.' key for keepers.

I agree, PM is the fastest way to cull through hundreds or thousands of images.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: Panopeeper on January 19, 2009, 11:54:23 pm
There is a whole bunch of myths around this issue, some repeated often in these forums as well. Let's keep some things straight, even though it has no practical relevance.

1. The native raw files contain lots (I mean tens of kilobytes) of proprietory information: some of that may be relevant for the proper interpretation of the raw data.

2. It is a myth, that Adobe do not know how to interpret that data. I don't know exactly how much Adobe know, but for example regarding the interpretation of Canon raw data there is no "unknown" information to my knowledge. Nikon and Sony are different.

In order to understand this subject, one needs to know, that much of the information actually used by LR/CR and the DNG converter is among that "secret" information and is not supposed to be known by Adobe. Examples: white balance, Highlight Tone Priority, even the ISO in some cases.

3. The most important aspect is, that the scope of the raw data interpretation by LR/ACR is limited not by the camera manufacturers' reluctancy to disclose the "secret" data but by the DNG specification.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 20, 2009, 02:21:59 am
As far as Nikon files is concerned:

- I think that the ACR engine is doing a good job with Nikon files, but it is not doing a great job. One aspect to point out though is that colors got a lot better recently with profiles,
- I don't agree that NX2 is doing the best job on D3x files for instance. To my eyes this goes to Capture One overall, and to Raw Developper as far as detailed is concerned. Both of these software appear to do a better job with demoisaicing and capture sharpening than NX2 and ACR.

Therefore, I don't agree that the current inferiority of ACR for Nikon file is the direct concequence of Nikon not providing enough information to them.

Raw conversion is a very competitve game with a reasonnably low entry bareer and the Adode team working on these matters is simply not on top of their games. They are doing a very good job as opposed to a few other companies doing an outstanding job.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: sperera on January 20, 2009, 03:34:54 am
Quote from: Panopeeper
There is a whole bunch of myths around this issue, some repeated often in these forums as well. Let's keep some things straight, even though it has no practical relevance.

1. The native raw files contain lots (I mean tens of kilobytes) of proprietory information: some of that may be relevant for the proper interpretation of the raw data.

2. It is a myth, that Adobe do not know how to interpret that data. I don't know exactly how much Adobe know, but for example regarding the interpretation of Canon raw data there is no "unknown" information to my knowledge. Nikon and Sony are different.

In order to understand this subject, one needs to know, that much of the information actually used by LR/CR and the DNG converter is among that "secret" information and is not supposed to be known by Adobe. Examples: white balance, Highlight Tone Priority, even the ISO in some cases.

3. The most important aspect is, that the scope of the raw data interpretation by LR/ACR is limited not by the camera manufacturers' reluctancy to disclose the "secret" data but by the DNG specification.
regardless, the bottom line is that we have a ridiculous workflow....perfect for me would be Photoshop/Lightroom opening all files at 100% quality not the 80% (in my opinion) they give us now....its just not good enough....that 'thing' you get when you buy better cameras is lost and muddied by Adobe's inferior RAW development....thats my opinion....
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 20, 2009, 03:39:26 am
Hi,

Phocus does some 'non standard' image manipulation in that it corrects CA (Lateral Chromatic Aberration), distortion and vignetting. It could be argued that LR should do this, too, but at this time it doesn't do any of these automatically. The ability to handle distortion is simply lacking.

IMHO we have a situation where we have a couple of paramatric "raw-processor", both LR and Aperture doing a decent but not perfect work and specialized raw converters which often do a better job but require a 16-bit TIFF based workflow. Neither approach is optimal in my view.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: sperera
.....we all mostly agree its second to none in handling and batching large numbers of photographs....and we all use it in our workflows to some extent....but will it ever be allowed to be THE raw convertor....as it deserves to be....if manufacturers like Nikon just don't allow them to open up their files as perfectly as they do in their own software....Capture NX2 in this case....I dont care what anyone says....NO WAY DOES A NIKON NEF look as good in Lightroom as it does in Capture NX2....in my opinion of course.....

so....I think we're all doomed into extra laborious workflows cos camera makers will always have their own programmes to peddle and sell....ok...hasselblad has Phocus and its free...same thing....iHasselblad fots dont open as great in Lightroom as they do in Phocus.....

Fact: Hasselblad UK told me they had given Adobe the profiles etc needed to open up files in Lightroom but they claim Adobe drag  their feet and hence they brought out Phocus as they cant depend on Adobe etc to do what has to be done to open up files as they should be open.....

Is this true or sales bull??? it sucks for us sitting in front of these damn screens either way....
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: mrcmrc on January 28, 2009, 03:14:49 am
Quote from: BernardLanguillier
As far as Nikon files is concerned:

- I think that the ACR engine is doing a good job with Nikon files, but it is not doing a great job. One aspect to point out though is that colors got a lot better recently with profiles,
- I don't agree that NX2 is doing the best job on D3x files for instance. To my eyes this goes to Capture One overall, and to Raw Developper as far as detailed is concerned. Both of these software appear to do a better job with demoisaicing and capture sharpening than NX2 and ACR.

Therefore, I don't agree that the current inferiority of ACR for Nikon file is the direct concequence of Nikon not providing enough information to them.

Raw conversion is a very competitve game with a reasonnably low entry bareer and the Adode team working on these matters is simply not on top of their games. They are doing a very good job as opposed to a few other companies doing an outstanding job.

Cheers,
Bernard


100% agree.

I'm stunned from the details C1 render by defaults to my D700's NEFs. Much more than DX2. However PhaseOne have to work a bit more on the stability of the application. With 4.6 I got a lot of crashes (on a Mac).
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: barryfitzgerald on January 29, 2009, 03:58:33 pm
I tried C1 4.5 a short while back..

Not bad..but

Hmm, I just cannot get into the work flow with it. Much as I want to like it, not sure I can. I have some issues with LR2, though workflow and GUI is not one of them. I would not be shocked if C1 beats it for details etc..not a bit.
But the package overall is what bothers me. I am def willing to look at LR alternatives..but so far have not found anything that suits me. Maybe bibble 5 will be interesting, certainly looks so from the brief videos on their site.

Other than that, it's raw therapee..not exactly polished interface wise, but pretty good on details, must be said
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: msbc on January 31, 2009, 01:52:14 am
Quote from: James R
I'm toying with ingesting with PhotoMechanic, work the files with CO, batch from CO to another file as tif's, and then ingest with LR2.  God, I hate the idea, but no single program does it all.  NX2 and CO are very slow ingesting.  I will try it a time or two and then decide.

James, I hadn't realised this about CO until today but it can output directly to DNG. So wouldn't this be the ideal workflow, using CO as RAW converter to DNG then continuing in LR?

Any other converters output directly to DNG?
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: jjj on January 31, 2009, 11:05:23 am
Quote from: James R
I agree, PM is the fastest way to cull through hundreds or thousands of images.
The reason for that is that it uses the embedded JPEG inside the RAW shot for previews. But both Aperture and Bridge CS4 also do the same now, so you can cull whilst rendering happens behind the scenes.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: James R on January 31, 2009, 12:58:45 pm
Quote from: msbc
James, I hadn't realised this about CO until today but it can output directly to DNG. So wouldn't this be the ideal workflow, using CO as RAW converter to DNG then continuing in LR?

Any other converters output directly to DNG?

That would great if these programs could interpret the adjustments made to a DNG file by another programs.  DNG is basically an alternative to RAW.  LR2 produces a DNG that CO can't read, other than as a pure RAW file.  Same with CO1's DNG files, LR2 can't read the adjustments.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: msbc on January 31, 2009, 08:01:37 pm
Quote from: James R
That would great if these programs could interpret the adjustments made to a DNG file by another programs.  DNG is basically an alternative to RAW.  LR2 produces a DNG that CO can't read, other than as a pure RAW file.  Same with CO1's DNG files, LR2 can't read the adjustments.


I don't think that is such an issue in this case. Using C1 to 'develop' the RAW and LR2 for adjustments - mainly localised. If C1 truly does provide a better RAW conversion then use it for this purpose. Leave local adjustments to the tools that can do them i.e LR2. C1's ability to output directly to DNG makes the integration of C1 and LR2 in a workflow easier than a tool with only TIFF based output options.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: James R on January 31, 2009, 11:28:08 pm
Quote from: msbc
I don't think that is such an issue in this case. Using C1 to 'develop' the RAW and LR2 for adjustments - mainly localised. If C1 truly does provide a better RAW conversion then use it for this purpose. Leave local adjustments to the tools that can do them i.e LR2. C1's ability to output directly to DNG makes the integration of C1 and LR2 in a workflow easier than a tool with only TIFF based output options.


C1 does output directly to DNG, but, when LR2 ingests the DNG, it only bring in the RAW file.  I have tried it several times.  I have also exported an LR2 file as a  DNG and CO1 only sees the RAW file.  Unless somebody can directly me to a different why of exporting the CO1 DNG that will work, I'm stuck with a tiff workflow.  

BTW, CO1 is much better than LR2 as a raw converter; so, I do pretty much everything in CO1 and then go to LR2 to add ITPC, keywording, tweak files, and organizing.  Also, LR2 will adjust an image that has been processed by CS4, CO1 will not--it is strictly a raw converted program.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: Panopeeper on January 31, 2009, 11:40:29 pm
Quote from: James R
Unless somebody can directly me to a different why of exporting the CO1 DNG that will work, I'm stuck with a tiff workflow.
Do you mind uploading a DNG created by C1 after some adjustments? Use yousendit.com if you don't have web space.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: msbc on January 31, 2009, 11:50:32 pm
Quote from: James R
C1 does output directly to DNG, but, when LR2 ingests the DNG, it only bring in the RAW file.  I have tried it several times.  I have also exported an LR2 file as a  DNG and CO1 only sees the RAW file.  Unless somebody can directly me to a different why of exporting the CO1 DNG that will work, I'm stuck with a tiff workflow.  

BTW, CO1 is much better than LR2 as a raw converter; so, I do pretty much everything in CO1 and then go to LR2 to add ITPC, keywording, tweak files, and organizing.  Also, LR2 will adjust an image that has been processed by CS4, CO1 will not--it is strictly a raw converted program.

James, I don't quite understand what you mean about LR2 'only bring in the RAW file'?? I output a DNG from C1 and then import the DNG into LR2.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: James R on February 01, 2009, 02:59:49 am
Quote from: msbc
James, I don't quite understand what you mean about LR2 'only bring in the RAW file'?? I output a DNG from C1 and then import the DNG into LR2.

Let me explain it a little better.  

1. Ingested with PhotoMechanic to a folder
2. Brought images into CO1 and made all adjustments
3. Process images and exported them as DNGs
4. Ingested the DNG images in LR2
5. The ingested files did not contain the CO1 edits.  Each image appeared as the original raw file did when ingested into CO1.

Then...
I ingested a file in LR2, made adjustments, exported it as a DNG, brought into CO1 and DNG did not contain the LR adjustment.  Again it looked like the original raw file.

Each program treats the files as raw.  

Can you actually export a CO1 file as a DNG and have LR2 read the edits?  I don't think it is possible.

Just tried CS4 to see if it could see the CO1 edits in a DNG file--it can't.  It opens in ACR when brought into CS4, the same as a raw file.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: James R on February 01, 2009, 03:07:13 am
Quote from: Panopeeper
Do you mind uploading a DNG created by C1 after some adjustments? Use yousendit.com if you don't have web space.

I don't see the need of making a DNG available.  Nobody I know has had any luck bringing edits to another program using DNG format.  See my response above for my process.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: msbc on February 01, 2009, 04:42:06 am
Quote from: James R
Let me explain it a little better.  

1. Ingested with PhotoMechanic to a folder
2. Brought images into CO1 and made all adjustments
3. Process images and exported them as DNGs
4. Ingested the DNG images in LR2
5. The ingested files did not contain the CO1 edits.  Each image appeared as the original raw file did when ingested into CO1.

James, you are absolutely right. I didn't realize this, having only found the feature yesterday. I assumed when you Process to DNG it would be the same as Processing to TIFF/JPEG. How wrong I was. I just went through the COne User Guide and shure enough it states:
"Outputting to DNG format in Capture One 4 in essence creates a new RAW file. There are no options for size or compression with this format. All changes made to the image will be discarded when creating the DNG file."

Thats just plain idiotic - what purpose does it serve?

Oh well. So back to the option of using COne but having a TIFF based workflow - the pros and cons ....
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: john beardsworth on February 01, 2009, 08:57:40 am
What's idiotic about it? The point is leaving the raw data in a documented format that other apps can read, not interchange of processing instructions between different apps which often have different parameters and mechanisms. If you want to get at the Capture One results in another program, just output the embedded JPEG that C1 updates. Unfortunately, you can't do that in LR, though you do see it immediately after you import a file. Other apps like Expression Media or Photo Mechanic or even Aperture will show it (in the last case though, only while you're in preview mode).
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: b2martin on February 01, 2009, 10:57:52 am
If ToneUp S3 can read the in camera settings for a Nikon NEF file, why can Adobe do the same?
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: john beardsworth on February 01, 2009, 10:59:34 am
Because they're a bigger target for lawyers
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: JDClements on February 01, 2009, 11:21:46 am
Quote from: msbc
Any other converters output directly to DNG?

DxO outputs directly to DNG and passes results to LR. The resulting DNG file is three times the size of the DNG file that LR would have produced, though. (I asked why in this thread  (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31677&hl=).)

I did an experiment and altered the white balance and tint. Upon arrival in LR, the image looked just as I had it in DxO, BUT the white balance and tint numbers in LR were NOT what they were set at in DxO.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: msbc on February 01, 2009, 04:57:27 pm
Quote from: johnbeardy
What's idiotic about it? The point is leaving the raw data in a documented format that other apps can read, not interchange of processing instructions between different apps which often have different parameters and mechanisms. If you want to get at the Capture One results in another program, just output the embedded JPEG that C1 updates. Unfortunately, you can't do that in LR, though you do see it immediately after you import a file. Other apps like Expression Media or Photo Mechanic or even Aperture will show it (in the last case though, only while you're in preview mode).

John,

COne has a very 'intuitive' tab driven workflow process. You move left to right through the different tabs to process an image. The last tab is 'Process' which takes all your parametric adjustments, applies them to the RAW and creates an output file in JPEG, TIFF or DNG format. So, it's completely non-intuitive to put DNG creation on the Process tab if all it's doing is a straight DNG convert from the original RAW.

I'm not expecting the adjustments to be readable by other programs. What I would expect is the DNG contains a RAW file with my adjustments applied.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: Panopeeper on February 01, 2009, 05:16:34 pm
Quote from: msbc
What I would expect is the DNG contains a RAW file with my adjustments applied
One can debate about where to draw the line between raw and "past raw"; for example it is a stretch to call the Canon sRaw data "raw". However, the image data after the application of user adjustments is not "raw" any more.

If the adjustments are not applied but recorded in metadata, then it is the question of the form of that recording if and how much other programs understand of it.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: john beardsworth on February 01, 2009, 06:42:27 pm
Quote from: msbc
I'm not expecting the adjustments to be readable by other programs. What I would expect is the DNG contains a RAW file with my adjustments applied.
Maybe your intuition is being misled by a misunderstanding. You're essentially talking about creating a new mass of (adjusted) raw data from your existing raw file, and that's not what DNG is supposed to do. It's supposed to preserve in the DNG file the original raw image data, adjusted previews and thumbnails, and one or more authoring programs' rendering instructions. I believe that's exactly what C1's doing.

John
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: eleanorbrown on February 08, 2009, 03:36:41 pm
I started out several years ago using Capture One (then C1) as my only RAW workflow.  Then along came Lightroom and I now know that program for RAW processing like the back of my hand and have been using it for all my RAW files, both Phase and Canon.)  This past weekend I decided to give Capture One 4.6.0 a try and familiarize myself with their workflow and also customizing the program for my use, making it user friendly to me personally.  I'm impressed with what I'm finding in Capture One Pro.  Without going into a lot of details, I getting extraordinary  results most particularly with the files I found difficult to process in Lightroom.  The amount of detail Capture One is pulling out is beyond equal also.  Tonalities are smoother with less color cast problems in especially smooth areas such as sky, snow, white sand, etc.  Capture One just does a better job. with this.  Lightroom is no slouch but I think Capture One is under rated by many.  Just my two cents, Eleanor
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: Panopeeper on February 08, 2009, 05:02:44 pm
Quote from: eleanorbrown
Without going into a lot of details, I getting extraordinary  results most particularly with the files I found difficult to process in Lightroom
Have you seen this (http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b78a42)?
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 08, 2009, 09:56:56 pm
Quote from: eleanorbrown
This past weekend I decided to give Capture One 4.6.0 a try and familiarize myself with their workflow and also customizing the program for my use, making it user friendly to me personally.  I'm impressed with what I'm finding in Capture One Pro.  Without going into a lot of details, I getting extraordinary  results most particularly with the files I found difficult to process in Lightroom.  The amount of detail Capture One is pulling out is beyond equal also.  Tonalities are smoother with less color cast problems in especially smooth areas such as sky, snow, white sand, etc.  Capture One just does a better job. with this.

I am seeing the same thing with my Nikon files (both D3 and D3x) and use C1 Pro 4.6 most of the time with some bits of Raw Developper in some cases where super fine detail needs to be extracted/sharpened even better.

LR is a very convenient DAM, too bad you cannot select what Raw conversion engine you want to use for the actual conversion...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: neil snape on February 09, 2009, 09:41:39 am
Bernard,
you are very right. An even bigger problem with all this is learning each and every application. They change things so fast even keeping up with any one application is biting into shooting time.
I just tested my new Canon 5DII in LR2 against a 39MKII in Phocus. Both shot at around the same aperture, both on macro lenses.
I will  process the same Canon in DPP just to see. I don't have C 1 or any other.
It is very true that Phocus has some very important lens correction that if outside Hasselblad soft you would do worse.

According to Hassy France, they have not given an SDK to Adobe. Yet they feel as probably most people with Hasselblad they really should.
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: barryfitzgerald on February 09, 2009, 10:25:12 am
I have raised this many times before, and will point it out again. Adobe is applying a base level noise reduction of sorts, this cannot be disabled. The reason you are seeing other raw software pull out more fine details, is because they don't do this.

Until Adobe sit up and  recognise the issue, nothing is going to happen about it. This has gone on for a long time now..

It is a problem, esp notable at high ISO. C1 4 and other programs like Raw therapee, run rings around ACR for this type of work. All that is needed, is a simple on/off for the NR going on by default.

Thomas Knoll would do well to visit the C1 site, and RT..download the software...and then he would see how ill informed the base level NR is.

I don't think there is much wrong with the algorithm adobe use, it's that NR that is the problem. As it is, LR would be a far more potent tool, if it kicked out raws like C1 4 can..
Title: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...
Post by: gullevek on February 23, 2009, 03:02:36 am
Quote from: eleanorbrown
I started out several years ago using Capture One (then C1) as my only RAW workflow.  Then along came Lightroom and I now know that program for RAW processing like the back of my hand and have been using it for all my RAW files, both Phase and Canon.)  This past weekend I decided to give Capture One 4.6.0 a try and familiarize myself with their workflow and also customizing the program for my use, making it user friendly to me personally.  I'm impressed with what I'm finding in Capture One Pro.  Without going into a lot of details, I getting extraordinary  results most particularly with the files I found difficult to process in Lightroom.  The amount of detail Capture One is pulling out is beyond equal also.  Tonalities are smoother with less color cast problems in especially smooth areas such as sky, snow, white sand, etc.  Capture One just does a better job. with this.  Lightroom is no slouch but I think Capture One is under rated by many.  Just my two cents, Eleanor

I agree with you. CO1 feels like the underdog right now. They had a very hard start with v4, a lot of features were missing (some still are) and it was horrible slow. But since 4.6 the whole thing really starts to work. And the results are just stunning.