Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: jeremyrh on February 24, 2009, 05:11:02 am
-
I have been using Aperture to convert and adjust my Nikon RAW files, but then I tried NX2 and was struck by how much better the results look "out of the box". Then I read here that some people whose opinions I have learned to generally respect prefer Capture One. So I downloaded a trial and I am shocked, or amazed, at the differences I see. Maybe it's possible to emulate the results by judicious choice of parameters in other software, but just using the defaults, or small variations on them, I don't see how.
So now I'm more or less reconciled to buying ANOTHER RAW conversion program, but I'm not happy to unbelt 300 EUR in these economic times, if the 99EUR version will suffice, so I'm wondering what PRO features people find make the difference to them? Just looking through the user guide, I don't see anything that I couldn't live without, but maybe I overlooked something. Your advice would be valued!!
-
I used to use Capture One several years ago, but then came Lightroom and I know that workflow like the back of my hand for RAW processing and that's all I've used ever since it came out (lightroom). However, recently I decided to reacquaint myself with Capture One Pro 4.6.0 (4.6.1 has crash issues on a quad mac). I took the time to get to know the program and most importantly, to customize it for my workflow similar to what it was in Lightroom (you can do this on a Mac I know). This alone is worth getting the pro version. I learned keyboard shortcuts and learning to make my "own" keyboard shortcuts" for systematic RAW processing. I placed all the tools I use in Capture One under one column on the left so I'm not switching back and fourth to different columns and I places the tools in the proper order that works best for RAW processing.) You can do all this in the Pro version (don't know about the regular version).....
My findings are that I believe Capture One has been under rated....it does a superb job with my Phase One and Canon RAW files and the way it pulls out detail is nothing short of amazing. I can only speak from my experience, but I'm finding that the initial preview of the file is more accurate, cleaner, with better color, than in Lightroom. With that said, I still have files that work better in Lightroom than Capture One Pro so I use both programs. Eleanor
I have been using Aperture to convert and adjust my Nikon RAW files, but then I tried NX2 and was struck by how much better the results look "out of the box". Then I read here that some people whose opinions I have learned to generally respect prefer Capture One. So I downloaded a trial and I am shocked, or amazed, at the differences I see. Maybe it's possible to emulate the results by judicious choice of parameters in other software, but just using the defaults, or small variations on them, I don't see how.
So now I'm more or less reconciled to buying ANOTHER RAW conversion program, but I'm not happy to unbelt 300 EUR in these economic times, if the 99EUR version will suffice, so I'm wondering what PRO features people find make the difference to them? Just looking through the user guide, I don't see anything that I couldn't live without, but maybe I overlooked something. Your advice would be valued!!
-
I have been using Aperture to convert and adjust my Nikon RAW files, but then I tried NX2 and was struck by how much better the results look "out of the box". Then I read here that some people whose opinions I have learned to generally respect prefer Capture One. So I downloaded a trial and I am shocked, or amazed, at the differences I see. Maybe it's possible to emulate the results by judicious choice of parameters in other software, but just using the defaults, or small variations on them, I don't see how.
So now I'm more or less reconciled to buying ANOTHER RAW conversion program, but I'm not happy to unbelt 300 EUR in these economic times, if the 99EUR version will suffice, so I'm wondering what PRO features people find make the difference to them? Just looking through the user guide, I don't see anything that I couldn't live without, but maybe I overlooked something. Your advice would be valued!!
I use Capture One Pro ver 4.6 and find it pulls out more shadow detail than LR, NX2, or Aperture. The Pro version has many enhancements that fit my needs. The program still has bugs and Phase One continues to improve the product. The program will present a learning curve for you, if you are not experienced with earlier versions. But, is it worth the money? I don't know how to answer that question. How do you value the perceived improvement in your captures? On the flip side, it has made my work flow slower. Import with PhotoMechanic, work in CO, process out as TIF files, import into LR2 and fine tune and color proof in CS4. I still use LR2 to keep the files organized, tweaks, and for printing. LR3 is suppose to support color proofing, which will be a welcomed upgrade.
In these economic hard times, it is a difficult decision. The cost might be reason enough to continue using your current raw processor.
-
James R,
I have recently switched over from Capture One DB to Capture One Pro 4.6.1 and I am have very regular crashes have you experienced this? I am running it on Mac Pro, OS 10.5.6, Processor 2 x 2.66 Dual-Core Intel Xeon with 16gb ram.
Thanks,
Greg
-
double post
-
I have only the basic version of C1 4.6 and the customisable workflow is not available as described above by Eleanor. I too have been wondering if it is worth the upgrade and already have Nx2, DxO Optics, LR2 and Aperture! Each has relative strengths and I'd dearly love to use just one.
That said, if colour is the pre-eminent consideration, then C1 is program of choice. I love the way it renders the files (I am a film lover and still shoot LF). Certainly the best I've used for Leica M8 and great for NEF files too. LR2 is my least preferable RAW converter, but file management and non-destructive localised adjustment are useful tools.
So I too would like to monitor the contents of this thread to see what are the other benefits of the Pro version to encourage me to upgrade.
-
If you are on a Mac, consider Raw Developer. Has a similar interface feel to the older Capture One v3, and the files are great.
-
James R,
I have recently switched over from Capture One DB to Capture One Pro 4.6.1 and I am have very regular crashes have you experienced this? I am running it on Mac Pro, OS 10.5.6, Processor 2 x 2.66 Dual-Core Intel Xeon with 16gb ram.
Thanks,
Greg
I had to move back to ver. 4.6 since 4.6.1 is only stable for P backs (might only be for P65+, not sure though). So, moving back to 4.6 will reduce your crash problems, unless you need that latest update. I'm using a Mac Pro and MacBook Pro, both new versions running OS 10.5.6. The older versions of CO1 are located on their archive page.
-
You should also be aware that Capture One is a program that uses ICC camera profiles, and the better those profiles are, the better your results. Although they provide an Adobe "DNG File Neutral" for those using Adobe's DNG editor, I find results far superior when using well-made ICC camera profiles. Making these profiles costs more time & money.
-
Just to add something to my own question - I see that the advanced colour editing is only available in the PRO version. It seems like that would be useful - but is it, in practice, something you use a lot? (I know this is a personal thing - I'm just trying to get a sense of how people use this tool)
-
I didn't think I would use this, but found that I'm using to saturate/desaturate colors individually. Eleanor
Just to add something to my own question - I see that the advanced colour editing is only available in the PRO version. It seems like that would be useful - but is it, in practice, something you use a lot? (I know this is a personal thing - I'm just trying to get a sense of how people use this tool)
-
I've been using C1 Pro with the A900, because, as much as I like the Lightroom workflow, I got to the end of my rope with how badly it treats Sony RAW files. I'm very impressed with the output of C1, and I've phased out my Lightroom use all together...no pun intended.
-
As I mentioned above, I have re evaluated Capture One after making extensive use of Lightroom, and have been so impressed with Capture One that I've started using it again. I also mentioned that certain files still do better in Lightroom depending on the characteristics of the file. In the meantime I've been trying a modified approach and that is to RAW process almost all Phase and Canon files in Capture One FIRST and process as Pro Photo 16 bit tifs, then those processed files that can benefit further from what Lightroom has to offer are imported into Lightroom as 16 bit tifs and I can make use of what Lightroom has to offer that Capture One does not such as local adjustments and so on. Best of both worlds. Eleanor
-
@douglasf13 - I have an a900 too and sometimes I cringe at the results using LR. Love the workflow options of LR2, but finding the right combination of Noise Reduction and Sharpening on my a900 files is driving me nuts. How is C1 in this regard for Sony RAW?
-
@douglasf13 - I have an a900 too and sometimes I cringe at the results using LR. Love the workflow options of LR2, but finding the right combination of Noise Reduction and Sharpening on my a900 files is driving me nuts. How is C1 in this regard for Sony RAW?
As someone who's leaning heavily towards the A900 as my DSLR of choice I'd be interested in hearing more about this too. I've been trying out LR and really like the workflow but if the results are that much of an issue with the A900 then I'd be interested in hearing how people setup a good workflow with another RAW converter feeding into LR.
-
If Michael Reichman is using both the a900 and LR2, which he is, then good results are possible. I just haven't figured out how yet. I don't think it's just the a900, I have an a700 too and even at ISO 200 the noise is too much. I think that ACR and Sony are not the best fit, but Michael has figured it out obviously. I just don't know how yet.
-
If Michael Reichman is using both the a900 and LR2, which he is, then good results are possible. I just haven't figured out how yet. I don't think it's just the a900, I have an a700 too and even at ISO 200 the noise is too much. I think that ACR and Sony are not the best fit, but Michael has figured it out obviously. I just don't know how yet.
I know in one of the A900 articles he did discuss using C1 and then exporting a DNG from that to LR, I'm not sure if that's his regular workflow with the A900 or just an example from that one test. I also agree that his results are great but the general consensus seems to be that ACR doesn't do a great job with the files so if he's found some trick, or uses some other converter in his workflow, I'd love to hear about it.
-
I agree that Michael seems to be getting outstanding results from his A900 and Lightroom at low ISO, so the differences I'm seeing between Lightroom and C1 on screen at low ISO using A900 files must be of the pixel peeper ilk. However, as the ISO raises, C1 drastically starts separating itself. For me, local image adjustments is the only real advantage to Lightroom, but I often have to use PS anyway, so it isn't a huge issue. I'm keeping my eye on Bibble 5, as that may end up being the best of both worlds for how I work.
Either way, whether using Lightroom or C1, there are some immediate adjustments to be made when converting A900 files. Both programs benefit from using a linear tone curve, rather than the default contrast of "film" curve. Brightness, especially in the case of Lightroom, also should be lowered upon import. With C1, I find myself lowering the brightness and darkening the midtones in levels frequently. I've been hearing the term "expose for your RAW converter" thrown around a bit, and I'm starting to catch on. For me, I start by getting jpeg settings in the camera that give me the most "RAW-accurate" histogram on the camera's LCD, and I use uniWB frequently to really make sure that I'm getting a proper exposure. UniWB has gone a long way in showing me that I've been underexposing my Sony cameras more than I realized. Loading uniWB into the camera, and using jpeg settings like the following gives a pretty accurate RAW exposure simulation:
Neutral creative style
Saturation -1
Brightness -3
ZONE -1
-
I forgot to mention that Adobe takes it upon themselves to "to accommodate a consistent zero point of exposure compensation across different camera models and different camera vendors." They also do this with noise and sharpness, too. On the A700, +.75 exposure compensation is automatically added upon import, and it is similar with the A900, so changing your import settings is a must. If you use uniWB, set camera jpeg settings to illustrate a proper histogram, set Lightroom curve to linear, lower RAW brightness and exposure import settings, and turn NR and sharpening OFF in Lightroom, it should help out your A700/A900 conversions.
-
Quick question about the JPEG settings, is that for if you're shooting RAW+JPEG or even if you're shooting just RAW? I would have thought that if you were using uniWB and shooting just RAW that the histogram should be pretty accurate, or is it still applying whatever your JPEG settings are even if you're not shooting a JPEG?
Not having an A900 yet (but hopefully very soon) I haven't had a chance to test any of this but it seems like uniWB is a big key to getting good RAW exposures and that should really help with taming the noise since you can ensure that you're not underexposing the red and blue channels.
-
Quick question about the JPEG settings, is that for if you're shooting RAW+JPEG or even if you're shooting just RAW? I would have thought that if you were using uniWB and shooting just RAW that the histogram should be pretty accurate, or is it still applying whatever your JPEG settings are even if you're not shooting a JPEG?
Not having an A900 yet (but hopefully very soon) I haven't had a chance to test any of this but it seems like uniWB is a big key to getting good RAW exposures and that should really help with taming the noise since you can ensure that you're not underexposing the red and blue channels.
Yeah, like most cameras, the A900's histogram on the rear LCD reflects whatever the jpeg settings are. The jpeg settings that I listed above are about as close as you can get to the actual RAW histogram**. I've been pretty amazed at how conservative the A900's metering is in regards to ETTR, and I find myself frequently dialing in +1 EV comp in the camera. I used these jpeg settings and the C1 set with a linear tone curve for the first time in a studio shoot the other day, and I was amazed how spot on my exposures were.
**also, I forgot to mention, use AdobeRGB
-
Now I'm feeling like an idiot - I'd never heard of uniWB until now. So I looked it up and while I have a general idea, the specifics of use elude me. I see that a download is available - what happens after that? Thanks.
-
Now I'm feeling like an idiot - I'd never heard of uniWB until now. So I looked it up and while I have a general idea, the specifics of use elude me. I see that a download is available - what happens after that? Thanks.
I'm not sure about other cameras, but here is a link on how to get uniWB for A700/900.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5531 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5531)
Keep in mind that everything will look green, but it'll give you a much better idea as to how your sensor is exposing.
-
I find results far superior when using well-made ICC camera profiles. Making these profiles costs more time & money.
Chris,
What are you using to make your ICC profiles?
I used to have my Canon 1DsII calibrated, which I found essential to pull in the reds correctly (from orangish, in things like a red plaid dress for fashion.)
I am just getting back to work, will buy a Canon 5DII and calibrate that. Thinking of going to C1 also.
I have an i1 with the ColorCheckerSG. Any other decent options for profiling in C1? The profiel editor really sucks in i1 Match, the windows are so small as to be useless. Thanks!
Michael
-
I am a many years user of C1 LE (non pro). One of the main reasons I stayed with it is that after testing more than once, with more than one camera, other RAW processors (ACR, LightRoom, RawShoorter), I never found one as accurate in color rendition than C1 (and also the already mentioned quality in shadow detail and textures). I bought specific camera/software profiles developed by http://www.etcetera.cc/pub/ (http://www.etcetera.cc/pub/) but unfortunately they seem to have stopped. So my current camera, the Canon 5DII, I use the generic profiles in the software that give a very acceptable result. (I am not at the level of developing my own profiles)
Specifically talking about the original question, I think that if what you want is only RAW processing the LE edition will suffice, as I understand that the engine is the same. The Pro version will add only management and workflow enhancements.
-
I never found one as accurate in color rendition than C1 (and also the already mentioned quality in shadow detail and textures). I bought specific camera/software profiles developed by http://www.etcetera.cc/pub/ (http://www.etcetera.cc/pub/) but unfortunately they seem to have stopped. So my current camera, the Canon 5DII, I use the generic profiles in the software that give a very acceptable result. (I am not at the level of developing my own profiles)
Thank you Juan, I appreciate the feedback!
Best,
Michael
-
Specifically talking about the original question, I think that if what you want is only RAW processing the LE edition will suffice, as I understand that the engine is the same. The Pro version will add only management and workflow enhancements.
yes, same engine. As to the enhanced workflow options particularily the Color Editor comes into mind which is a very powerful tool (actually by far the best Color Editor in any RAW processor I've seen by now... FWIW).
What might be an agrument to go Pro for you (jtrujillo) is that you can create camera profiles by yourself. Just take the generic of the 5D2 and adjust (carefully) with the Color Editor to create different looks (as many as you like) and store them either as presets or as icc profiles. Works awesomely consistent.
-
Just take the generic of the 5D2 and adjust (carefully) with the Color Editor to create different looks (as many as you like) and store them either as presets or as icc profiles. Works awesomely consistent.
Thanks! That sounds like a good oportunity to do what Adobe has done with their custom profiles for Lightroom for the Canon cameras.
They have profiles to "match" or approximate the Canon presets - landscape, portrait, etc. Nice, very subtle set of options to fine tune color, saturation, contrast, etc.
I have to say that I always shoot RAW, and so wasn't too familiar with the Canon preset options, despite having used Canon digital since 2002.
The profile editor in the i1 Match software sucks. The windows are too small to really see the effects of any adjustments made in the editor. Maybe if I change my screen to 400x640?
-
We have an article on the differences between C1 and C1 Pro at our website's blog (http://www.captureintegration.com/2009/05/18/capture-one-vs-capture-one-pro/).
My vote for most important Pro feature is Color Editor, with honorable mentions to workspace customization and Overlay (niche use, but amazing in that niche).
As a shameless plug, you can purchase C1 Pro from Capture Integration instead of online - it's the same price but you'll be welcome to email me with questions/concerns and we can give you a discount on the online classes (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/11/24/capture-one-web-seminar/) we have.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
I have recently switched over from Capture One DB to Capture One Pro 4.6.1 and I am have very regular crashes have you experienced this? I am running it on Mac Pro, OS 10.5.6, Processor 2 x 2.66 Dual-Core Intel Xeon with 16gb ram.
Just a quick update for anyone reading this who doesn't follow C1 closely: the current version as of this post is C1 4.8.1 and is rock solid. If you are experiencing any crashes than fully uninstall per our instructions (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/11/20/uninstalling-capture-one-4-on-mac/) and reinstall 4.8.1.
I used to have my Canon 1DsII calibrated, which I found essential to pull in the reds correctly (from orangish, in things like a red plaid dress for fashion.)
I am just getting back to work, will buy a Canon 5DII and calibrate that. Thinking of going to C1 also.
Definitely worth trying C1 before spending the time/money for a custom profile. You may well find that the out-of-box color does most of what you're looking for (compared to LR/ACR). If you need a slight tweak from there the Color Editor is easy to use (especially if someone walks you through it) and can quickly take the generic profile, add a few tweaks and save out a new custom profile that you can easily switch back and forth with the generic for any given image.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
We have an article on the differences between C1 and C1 Pro at our website's blog (http://www.captureintegration.com/2009/05/18/capture-one-vs-capture-one-pro/).
custom made keyboard shortcuts are a feature of the non pro version as well?
Just a quick update for anyone reading this who doesn't follow C1 closely: the current version as of this post is C1 4.8.1 and is rock solid. If you are experiencing any crashes than fully uninstall per our instructions (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/11/20/uninstalling-capture-one-4-on-mac/) and reinstall 4.8.1.
maybe you'd like to ad the locations of workspaces and keyboards so that one can restore them after re-install of C1. Or is your advice to trash ALL settings (incl. workspaces, keyboard, curves, sharpening, NR etc.)?
Appreciate the informations on your webpage!
-
custom made keyboard shortcuts are a feature of the non pro version as well?
maybe you'd like to ad the locations of workspaces and keyboards so that one can restore them after re-install of C1. Or is your advice to trash ALL settings (incl. workspaces, keyboard, curves, sharpening, NR etc.)?
Appreciate the informations on your webpage!
Check out the [User Folder > Library > Application Support] folder. All of these user-saved types of settings are here (program-saved settings are in the plist in preferences). The phrasing is a bit Danglish (Danish English).
I recommend upgrading as infrequently as you can tolerate (sometimes the new features/improvements can be hard to ignore!) and allowing time after the upgrade to thoroughly test. As long as you have a bootable backup of your setup and you allow testing time afterwards then by all means drop your critical Application Support settings back in afterwards to see if you can keep your settings during the upgrade.
A big pain I admit. *MOST* of the time you can simply install the upgrade overtop the previous version and all will be well. However, some of the time this will result in instability.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
on the LE version (latest 4.8.1) is their any shortcut to show and hide the grid / guides when in the crop tool...I know there is on the PRO version but before I upgrade thought I'd ask.
Currently the only way i can find to show it is to set crop tool and keep pen / mouse / trackpad clicked...which is a pain.
Also anyone know if any of the older nikon dslrs such as D2X specifically are to be supported for direct tethered shooting?
Thanks.
Marc
-
Don't know if you said you have a Mac or PC, but if you have a Mac the pro version I highly recommend because you can streamline and optimize your workflow for what is intuitive for you personally. I have done this and to me it makes all the difference in the world. Totally customized to my needs and uses. Eleanor
-
Anyone know if any of the older nikon dslrs such as D2X specifically are to be supported for direct tethered shooting?
Currently Tether-Able Nikons: D3X, D3, D700, D300, D200, D90, D80, D60, D40x, D40
What happens is every generation or two of cameras Canon/Nikon/Phase improve the "language" used to speak with the camera. So no, I think it is very unlikely Phase will take the time to add support for older generations of Nikon cameras, but will instead focus on adding support for new/future cameras.
You can still use C1 for the older cameras; you just need to make the tethered connection in Nikon's proprietary software and then set Capture One to Hot Folder mode.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (http://mailto:doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
Thanks guys.
I'm on Mac so yes the PRO upgrade will be on the way in a month or so.
Thanks for the info Doug.
Marc
-
Definitely worth trying C1 before spending the time/money for a custom profile. You may well find that the out-of-box color does most of what you're looking for (compared to LR/ACR). If you need a slight tweak from there the Color Editor is easy to use (especially if someone walks you through it) and can quickly take the generic profile, add a few tweaks and save out a new custom profile that you can easily switch back and forth with the generic for any given image.
Thank you Doug, I appreciate it!
I'll have to download the demo version and take a look. I am going to buy soon, I just have a couple of things I need to take care of first.
I have the i1, so I can make my own profiles. I am not at all happy though with the profile editing in the iMatch software. The windows are way too small to accurately see the 5 image variations for profile editing. Really useless, unless there is something I just don't get?
I was thinking I would buy Profilemaker, but the Color Editor in C1 may prove to be a good solution. I assume I can import and edit the profiles I make with my i1 and the iMatch software? Standard ICC profiles.
I also understand from another thread that there is a C1 module that integrates the Xrite Profilemaker software?
I am a big believer in custom profiles for the Canon, in particular to tame the reds. I don't know if you remember the Canon D30 reds, they were pretty funky.
The reds on my Canon 1DsII were much better, but I still had to do a custom profile for some fashion images where I was shooting a red plaid skirt. Quite a noticable difference there. I'll have to go back and test with the C1 profiles without the calibration. I know the delta differences between Epson printers are supposed to be pretty small, not sure how close the Canon's are in tolerance?
(I just spent the winter before last testing 7+ ink sets and 50+ papers on 3 different Epson wide format printers. I did a deep soak in profiling. Off work (from photography) for medical for 2+ years, so lots of time to mess around.)
I am going to buy a 5DII, will pick up C1 at the same time.
Thanks agian!~
Cheers,
Michael