Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Doug Peterson on June 27, 2013, 02:43:17 pm
-
Capture One version 7.1.3 has added an interesting feature (which is currently labeled beta): you can import a Lightroom catalog into a Capture One catalog in just two clicks (and a few hours of waiting for the import/preview-generation).
We have extensive details here: Capture One's New Lightroom Catalog Import Tool (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/import-lightroom-catalog-into-c1-beta)
Of note exposure, contrast, saturation, crop, orientation, rating, color tag, and copyright are all imported.
It seems a very clear shot across the bow of Lightroom geared towards users who would like to use C1 for it's raw processing quality and pro features (overlay, color editor, focus mask, tethering with live view etc) but are locked into using LR because they have an extensive catalog.
I'd say the feature works pretty well as-is, but it is very clearly marked as a beta, so we recommend strongly against using it on any production machines, and only on copies of your catalog (not the master copies).
-
Hi Doug,
Thanks for posting this. I had noticed this - and your caution about not using it yet - and was going to ask if anyone had tried it yet. Call me chicken, I guess...
Along the same lines, sort of - have been wondering about C1 (& Media Pro too, IiR) using .xmp "sidecar" files. I have been using Lightroom catalogs to manage raw files & more, but occasionally access those same raws to process with C1. If I enable that checkbox in C1 to write .xmps, will it over-write the ones Lightroom has already generated? You can tell I don't want to find out the hard way.
John
-
Mac only :-(
Hopefully a Windows version will arrive one day.
-
Mac only :-(
Hopefully a Windows version will arrive one day.
+1.
-
+1
Adobe has recently made quite an effort to get rid of their customers starting with the cloud.
Shorter lifecycle for LR sounded good in the beginning, even though that didn't reflect in the price. That was fine.
But the lack of producing quickfixes for serious issues and the complete lack to give an estimate for the fixes is beyond me.
See yourself the Lightroom forum, no official support but users trying to find fixes by themselves by using third party applications:
http://forums.adobe.com/community/labs/lightroom5
http://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom
-
Adobe has recently made quite an effort to get rid of their customers starting with the cloud.
LR still has perpetual license, what its users have to complain about ? unlike ACR users.
-
LR still has perpetual license, what its users have to complain about ? unlike ACR users.
Well, it's perpetual for now ...
Unfortunately the only enhancements and improvements of any consequence that have been added to Lr is in the Develop module (aka ACR) the other modules exist in relative obscurity by comparison when it comes to any further capabilities ... or the improvements added ... seem to be taking those modules in the wrong direction (i.e. the Book module) ...
While I don't mind the improvements in Develop ... I will not support or reward Adobe for their efforts when they are selling me an upgrade to the entire application ... unless and until they bring all the modules up to speed and the same level of worthiness as the Develop module, I will continue use other solutions ... I'll not throw good money after bad ...
-
LR still has perpetual license, what its users have to complain about ?
Photoshop had a perpetual licence at the start of the year too.
If CC is perceived as a success for Adobe do you seriously think they won't apply the rental model to all their products ?
Given their track record of saying one thing then changing policy a few months later, I wouldn't trust them too much now.
What have we to complain about ? the under whelming upgrade that is LR5 for a start.
-
What have we to complain about ? the under whelming upgrade that is LR5 for a start.
Ya know, at some point, you might want to quit flogging the dead horse...I mean, the horse is dead...it's starting to decompose...the skin is coming off the corpse.
This thread ain't about all the Adobe Hatred...this thread is about Phase One offering a migration from Lightroom to Capture one. What part of that don't you get? Do you use Capture One? I do...I find the migration interesting (although maybe just a bit optimistic because what LR does for processing ain't the same as C1).
So, do you want to talk about the topic of the thread or keep flogging the dead horse...the horse is dead ya know. It's really starting to stink.
-
Ya know, at some point, you might want to quit flogging the dead horse...I mean, the horse is dead...it's starting to decompose...the skin is coming off the corpse.
Yes and I'm as bored with it as you. Why pick on me ? I've been a vocal fan of LR since the first public beta, I'm not one of the anti-Adobe crowd shouting you down all the time. I've pointed out several times it's futile arguing about it and highlighting the few good aspects of CC.
But that doesn't stop the latest LR upgrade being so underwhelming or convince me that it will remain on perpetual licence. I'm looking around and having an upgradable licence for C1 makes me look closely at that particular escape route from LR.
this thread is about Phase One offering a migration from Lightroom to Capture one. What part of that don't you get? Do you use Capture One?
Yes, and it's nice to see a migration solution being worked on so soon after it was requested. All to Phase One's credit for listening to it's customers and potential customers.
-
Yes and I'm as bored with it as you. Why pick on me ?
Actually, I'm sorry I quoted you instead of Butch...although your post didn't do anything to stay on topic either. But it was Butch's post that was the most egregious...in any event, it does nobody any good to keep sprinkling the anti-Adobe message hither and yon...
-
although your post didn't do anything to stay on topic either.
See reply #2
it does nobody any good to keep sprinkling the anti-Adobe message hither and yon...
I'm sure the Adobe evangelists don't like to see people praising other companies for offering some competition, but raising awareness of alternatives can be helpful to others.
Your one man campaign of abuse against anyone daring to say anything that might be taken as against Adobe is getting mighty tedious of late. If you want the fire to die down, stopped feeding it.
-
But it was Butch's post that was the most egregious...
That's just priceless .... :D :D :D
-
See reply #2I'm sure the Adobe evangelists don't like to see people praising other companies for offering some competition, but raising awareness of alternatives can be helpful to others.
Guess you missed the part where I said: "I do...I find the migration interesting (although maybe just a bit optimistic because what LR does for processing ain't the same as C1)."
I own a Phase One IQ180 back and use C1 for tethering to my P1 645 camera...so I have a vested interest in seeing C1 advance (although I tend to prefer LR's processing).
-
I'm sure the Adobe evangelists don't like to see people praising other companies for offering some competition, but raising awareness of alternatives can be helpful to others.
I doubt anyone cares!
It's a sensible move by C1, but one thing that's always been good about Adobe if they don't go out of their way to make such an exercise difficult. Here C1 are directly accessing the SQL, which is a bit of a surprise, but all IPTC and most adjustment data has always been readable in other apps via XMP. And why shouldn't Lightroom do the same and directly import other databases?
John
-
Doug thanks for posting this, I had been asking for a way to import catalogs, but I guess I have to wait for the windows version to try it out, something to look forward to.
Alan
-
And why shouldn't Lightroom do the same and directly import other databases?
Agreed.
-h
-
And why shouldn't Lightroom do the same and directly import other databases?
No reason at all, it could be sensible for them.
Can I see them doing it ? not at all. I doubt they'd consider the effort(=cost) worthwhile. Plus whilst I think a lot of people will give a smaller player like Phase One some slack if they don't get it right for the first few times, if Adobe release a poor offering it would be heavily criticised.
Lightroom's cataloguing is the key feature for them to develop and improve on as it keeps users locked into the product and less likely to migrate elsewhere.
I find it remarkable that they aren't putting more effort into improving this part of the program for that reason alone.
-
No reason at all, it could be sensible for them.
Can I see them doing it ? not at all. I doubt they'd consider the effort(=cost) worthwhile. Plus whilst I think a lot of people will give a smaller player like Phase One some slack if they don't get it right for the first few times, if Adobe release a poor offering it would be heavily criticised.
Lightroom's cataloguing is the key feature for them to develop and improve on as it keeps users locked into the product and less likely to migrate elsewhere.
I find it remarkable that they aren't putting more effort into improving this part of the program for that reason alone.
If you had your eyes peeled when Lr4 was released a year ago, you might have noticed brief hints of an import feature, not with P1 but another well-known app.
Though I share the frustration at the slow progress in Library, it's the app as a whole and not just Library that deters people from moving. Adobe know they can afford to improve it at a leisurely pace.
-
Adobe know they can afford to improve it at a leisurely pace.
Whilst that seems to reflect the latest upgrade, it's a complacent attitude to take.
Read through Lula and there are many people who see benefits in using other RAW converters like Capture One, DXO etc
Whilst at the moment I use and like LR4, I've tried others and could imagine using them instead of LR. An awful lot of the learning investment in RAW conversion is program agnostic and transferable. A change of licensing model or a failure to develop the product sufficiently will see me move elsewhere.
-
No reason at all, it could be sensible for them.
Can I see them doing it ? not at all. I doubt they'd consider the effort(=cost) worthwhile. Plus whilst I think a lot of people will give a smaller player like Phase One some slack if they don't get it right for the first few times, if Adobe release a poor offering it would be heavily criticised.
Lightroom's cataloguing is the key feature for them to develop and improve on as it keeps users locked into the product and less likely to migrate elsewhere.
I find it remarkable that they aren't putting more effort into improving this part of the program for that reason alone.
One might hope that open-source people (rawtherapee? dcraw?) or standards-oriented companies (Adobe) started an initiative to define an open raw processing/cataloging format. What do you need in order to get the basics right? dcraw as a standardized file-reader, xml data describing picture edits and tags, some database format allowing you to easily store and access those xml data? (I am into neither databases nor xml).
I don't expect raw images rendered in Lightroom to ever match raw images rendered in some other developer unless I do some manual labour. But having the basics right (like +2 EC or cropping 50%) would sure bring most of my images a lot closer without my intervention.
-h
-
define an open raw processing/cataloging format.
Rather wishful thinking.
At least most are sticking to variations of SQL, so at least some of the data entries can be decoded.
having the basics right (like +2 EC or cropping 50%) would sure bring most of my images a lot closer without my intervention.
This will be the really clever thing to get right.
As you say, there'll never be an exact match (especially for those that choose to use radical presets), but with some effort I would have thought you could get pretty close with a degree of research. Then just tag them as auto imported to separate them from properly optimised, natively imported images and we're well on the way.
-
I don't expect raw images rendered in Lightroom to ever match raw images rendered in some other developer unless I do some manual labour. But having the basics right (like +2 EC or cropping 50%) would sure bring most of my images a lot closer without my intervention.
Hi,
And therein lies the problem. A +2EV in Exposure, means something completely different (mostly mid-tones are adjusted, others are compressed or expanded,probably while observing edge transitions) in Lightroom, than in most other converters that use it as a straightforward linear gamma multiplier for Raw data values.
Having the parameter values is only a (small) part of the full story.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Along the same lines, sort of - have been wondering about C1 (& Media Pro too, IiR) using .xmp "sidecar" files. I have been using Lightroom catalogs to manage raw files & more, but occasionally access those same raws to process with C1. If I enable that checkbox in C1 to write .xmps, will it over-write the ones Lightroom has already generated? You can tell I don't want to find out the hard way.
John
John: By default, LR doesn't write information out to sidecar files, but keeps everything in its catalogue. One can enable autowrite to .xmp in the LR preferences or save the metadata out manually. If another program overwrites the .xmp and the file is subsequently read by LR it pops up a box telling you that the metadata has been changed and asks you whether you want to keep it as is or overwrite it with LR settings.
Mike.
-
Hi,
I have just tested on all my P45+ files, conversion works fine but the results are absolutely junk. I am aware that this is a beta.
I have something like seven years of experience with Lightroom, and yes I have been using Capture One before that. The problem I have with C1 os that the more I use it the more I dislike it. I have tested almost all raw converters, except Apple Aperture, and I actually bought several of them, including C1 Pro.
I would convert to C1 one if I found it advantageous to LR, but it is not my experience. The only advantage I see is less moiré and aliasing artifacts with P45+.
On the other hand, I like my P45+ and may be I also will like C1 one day, but as of now, that day is very far away!
Sorry, just my opinion!
Best regards
Erik
-
I have something like seven years of experience with Lightroom, and yes I have been using Capture One before that. The problem I have with C1 os that the more I use it the more I dislike it.
Hi Erik,
What do you dislike? Image quality, different workflow, ... .
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
What I dislike with C1?
1) User interface
2) Color rendition
3) Controls
The way I work with LR I mostly begin with a gradient on sky, mostly using highlights control to get better sky and very little under exposure, increasing saturation and clarity. That makes a fine sky and clouds without affecting tree tops so much. C1 has gradient on layers but has only "HDR" controls on "background" layers. Also, "HDR" controls simply don't work as well as in Lightroom.
Next thing I do in Lightroom is to adjust exposure (using the now reduced sky), setting black point, so I get some dark clipping (if it is a normal image) and use shadow control. This effects can be done in C1 but I feel they are less subtle than in LR. Only after these basic adjustment do I touch contrast. The "feel" I have is that LR controls are much more subtle.
I have bought C1 Pro something like November last year when I worked with some Phase One images. So I have had it for some time. My expectation was in part that I would learn to use it with time, but as said the derivative is negative for me.
As I said, I have used Lightroom since 2006, and it has developed generally in the direction I liked especially since Eric Chan got involved. It is difficult to make old dogs sit, they used to say here in Sweden.
I tested the "import LR catalog", and got the result below. Image on left is POne interpretation and the right one is a tiff imported from the Lightroom catalog. I now that the import catalog function is a beta and the import itself works fine. The raw file is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples/20130630-CF043307.iiq
I am not a people shooter, so I know little about skin tones.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
What I dislike with C1?
1) User interface
2) Color rendition
3) Controls
The way I work with LR I mostly begin with a gradient on sky, mostly using highlights control to get better sky and very little under exposure, increasing saturation and clarity. That makes a fine sky and clouds without affecting tree tops so much. C1 has gradient on layers but has only "HDR" controls on "background" layers. Also, "HDR" controls simply don't work as well as in Lightroom.
Hi Erik,
The first thing I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you are trying to use the same workflow in C1 as you grew accustomed to in LR. That would be a mistake. The reason you begin in LR with a gradient, and especially with highlight control, is due to the highlight compression you get in LR, in particular for ETTR shots. Capture One doesn't do such extreme compression, as long as you use a "Linear Response curve", instead of a "Film Curve".
Check the attached Raw digger histogram and default Clipping in"basic" conversions of an image tile for a pano stitch. The image was exposed 'optimally', only approx. 3K highlight pixels in a single channel were clipped, and almost 1K pixels in the shadows. Only exposure bracketing by + 2/3rd and -1/3rd of a stop would have captured the entire dynamic range of the scene with this camera.
Now look at the basic conversions animation, all exposure corrections at zero, only White Balancing was applied based on the default camera profiles. It's obvious that the Lightroom result needs serious highlight work, and that Capture One requires shadow work. Two entirely different roads need to be taken for a better quality output. There it helps to be familiar with the controls.
Where Lightroom requires a minus Highlights correction to bring back some definition in the clouds, Capture One does not because the cloud definition is fine (I'd brighten up the upper part of the blue sky a bit though). Capture One requires lifting of the non-sky brightness, not by a gradient but by either the High Dynamic Range Shadow slider or, much better, an adjustment layer of the land area and an exposure increase, combined with some Saturation and Clarity.
Next thing I do in Lightroom is to adjust exposure (using the now reduced sky), setting black point, so I get some dark clipping (if it is a normal image) and use shadow control. This effects can be done in C1 but I feel they are less subtle than in LR. Only after these basic adjustment do I touch contrast. The "feel" I have is that LR controls are much more subtle.
Again, a different approach is required, and I prefer the quality that C1 offers (but I admit that I'm more accustomed to Capture One's predictable response versus Lightroom's under-the-hood automatic adjustments). I also prefer to do most post-processing in Photoshop, because it gives more accurate control, and better plug-in adjustment capability than either Raw processor offers in general. But that's where the overall workflow preferences also apply.
Cheers,
Bart
-
John: By default, LR doesn't write information out to sidecar files, but keeps everything in its catalogue. One can enable autowrite to .xmp in the LR preferences or save the metadata out manually. If another program overwrites the .xmp and the file is subsequently read by LR it pops up a box telling you that the metadata has been changed and asks you whether you want to keep it as is or overwrite it with LR settings.
Thanks for the response, Mike.
Yes, I'm aware of how LR handles writing .xmp sidecar files (or not), and about the warning of changed metadata. But I was asking if anyone had tried allowing Capture One to access the same raw files as those in a LR catalog. It seems like allowing each program to write .xmp's is a recipe for disaster - LR would get tripped up by C1-generated .xmp's (if you "import from disk" the changed metadata), and C1 would lose the metadata (edits) it recorded if you have LR overwrite those .xmp's.
I suppose you could "restrain" LR to keep all metadata in the catalog & let C1 do all the .xmp-writing, but that just seems highly precarious. I have never trusted setting LR to keep all metadata in the catalog file only.
John
-
Does C1 reference the original files or does it move them?
And an observation:
Right now I'm testing it. And though it doesn't crash while building the catalog, it is taking a long time.
(Well it just crashed at 13000 files) Oh well :'(
Also, the previews are huge in size. So far the catalog is 14.55 gb and its not even halfway through.
The LR catalog is 537mb. I'm not fussing, just curious as to why it is so big.