Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on January 14, 2014, 05:05:17 pm
-
Judging by posts here it's clear that many Phase users have succumbed to the siren calls of a Lightroom workflow. Don't get me wrong, I like C1's quality, but most here like Erik cannot *see* the difference, and others who can like James have zillions of cameras, hot and cold running assistants and cannot be bothered running boutique software under production pressure.
So, should Phase just turn C1 into a tethering module and invest in better sensors or a better body?
Edmund
PS. I should say once again that I do agree that the quality of C1 file conversions is very good, above all with Phase backs; I don't love the ergonomics but I certainly like the results.
-
Is this place a big enough sample group to judge the worldwide situation? There are thousands of pros and amateurs using C1 every day and there's enough anecdotal evidence to make this clear.
In my experience in particular, there are 3 guys, none of whom are shooting MF that I converted from LR to C1 after I showed them the conversion differences between LR and C1 for my NEF files.
Hell, when I was shooting in the studio last weekend, I gave my Credo to a friend who shot a few frames on his own CF. He later went home and processed them in LR. I cringed when I saw the finished images with that trademark adobe magenta all over. I can live without that, thank you.
Yeah, C1 is a difficult animal to tame, but once you get used to the UX, there's no going back. I only wish that they improved the DAM aspect of it.
-
Is this place a big enough sample group to judge the worldwide situation? There are thousands of pros and amateurs using C1 every day and there's enough anecdotal evidence to make this clear.
In my experience in particular, there are 3 guys, none of whom are shooting MF that I converted from LR to C1 after I showed them the conversion differences between LR and C1 for my NEF files.
Hell, when I was shooting in the studio last weekend, I gave my Credo to a friend who shot a few frames on his own CF. He later went home and processed them in LR. I cringed when I saw the finished images with that trademark adobe magenta all over. I can live without that, thank you.
Yeah, C1 is a difficult animal to tame, but once you get used to the UX, there's no going back. I only wish that they improved the DAM aspect of it.
+1… D800 (and all DSLRs) have a clear advantage with C1P1.
-
So, should Phase just turn C1 into a tethering module and invest in better sensors or a better body?
Edmund
Better sensors than Dalsa? …I very much doubt it! …Better body? …they refused to support HY6, remember? One can always buy a S/H Contax and get a P1 or Leaf back for it! Don't start all that Cmos again now... :'( ,or is it that you will? :P
-
Better sensors than Dalsa? …I very much doubt it! …Better body? …they refused to support HY6, remember? One can always buy a S/H Contax and get a P1 or Leaf back for it! Don't start all that Cmos again now... :'( ,or is it that you will? :P
If I were running Phase (Laughable thought, but bear with me here ;D ), I'd make a CMOS line with a more high tech body with EVF and all that at 4 figure price ranges for the "MF is too expensive! Canikon 1D800DXMark VIII FTW!" crowd and a CCD range with a more traditional OVF body for the more discerning clientele.
The Armani Exchange to the Giorgio Armani, if you will.
-
If I were running Phase (Laughable thought, but bear with me here ;D ), I'd make a CMOS line with a more high tech body with EVF and all that at 4 figure price ranges for the "MF is too expensive! Canikon 1D800DXMark VIII FTW!" crowd and a CCD range with a more traditional OVF body for the more discerning clientele.
The Armani Exchange to the Giorgio Armani, if you will.
Have a better idea… ::) Turn Leaf "Cmos" and keep P1 Ccd… :o they will avoid internal competition this way... ;) Why not the other way around? ….Leaf has larger screens!!!, they are also of the "touch" kind... :D
-
Very notably C1 is profitable for Phase One. They give it away for use with their own cameras, but charge $299 for Canon/Nikon/Leica/Sony/Fuji/etc users - who represent the majority of total users. So if they dropped development of C1 they'd be losing money, not freeing it up for investment elsewhere.
The income from C1 pays for a fairly significant software team. A situation which is not matched at other camera hardware manufacturers.
There is also a tone of the-sky-is-falling here that seems entirely disconnected from the reality I see in the market place. C1 is the most common tethering software (by a good margin) you'll find running on a capture station at any large rental studio in NYC and Miami whether the shoot is with a Phase One or Leaf back, or Canon or Nikon. I can't speak directly to other markets since I don't have the extensive personal experience I do in those two markets, but based on volumes of sales and trainings we do I strongly suspect it has a very good market share in large rental studios and major tech houses across the globe.
In my experience the market share for C1 has gone up in 2012 (largely owed to improvements made in c1v7 including faster speed, live view for Canon/Nikon, improvements in Capture Pilot, and better raw processing algorithms) - your question seems to imply it's going down. Don't get me wrong, C1 has always been a minority player, but it's share of the market seems solid, stable, and even growing.
-
I would be a very sad Panda if Leaf got turned into a CMOS brand. The only reason I went with Leaf for my purchase is because of the leaf colors and tonality.
Hell, bring back the Mamiya ZD brandname if they wanna do that! If we continue the Armani analogy,
P1 - > Giorgio Armani
Leaf - > Emporio Armani
ZD - > Armani Exchange
-
C1 difficult to tame?
It's such an easy piece of software to use and if you want to do something beyond tagging, sorting and processing look at the tutorial vids. I only looked once for something and the rest like the colour editor I worked out for myself.
-
C1 reminds me of Lotus 123 for some reason - customers loved it, but it couldn't survive the competition ...
Edmund
Very notably C1 is profitable for Phase One. They give it away for use with their own cameras, but charge $299 for Canon/Nikon/Leica/Sony/Fuji/etc users - who represent the majority of total users. So if they dropped development of C1 they'd be losing money, not freeing it up for investment elsewhere.
The income from C1 pays for a fairly significant software team. A situation which is not matched at other camera hardware manufacturers.
There is also a tone of the-sky-is-falling here that seems entirely disconnected from the reality I see in the market place. C1 is the most common tethering software (by a good margin) you'll find running on a capture station at any large rental studio in NYC and Miami whether the shoot is with a Phase One or Leaf back, or Canon or Nikon. I can't speak directly to other markets since I don't have the extensive personal experience I do in those two markets, but based on volumes of sales and trainings we do I strongly suspect it has a very good market share in large rental studios and major tech houses across the globe.
In my experience the market share for C1 has gone up in 2012 (largely owed to improvements made in c1v7 including faster speed, live view for Canon/Nikon, improvements in Capture Pilot, and better raw processing algorithms) - your question seems to imply it's going down. Don't get me wrong, C1 has always been a minority player, but it's share of the market seems solid, stable, and even growing.
-
"Can citizen C1 be saved? " ???
"C1 reminds me of Lotus 123 for some reason - customers loved it, but it couldn't survive the competition …" ???
Can you spell troll? ;D
-
C1 reminds me of Lotus 123 for some reason - customers loved it, but it couldn't survive the competition ...
Edmund
That reason being you having a drink too many perhaps, Edmund.
Time to stay away from the internet for a bit, perhaps?
-
Doug,
It's nice to hear that C1 is a profit center that pays for itself. The japanese camera manufacturers seem to have resigned themselves as the joke goes to be the ones making the hardware while Adobe makes the profit.
Quite possibly you are right, and I am misreading the tea leaves.
Edmund
Very notably C1 is profitable for Phase One. They give it away for use with their own cameras, but charge $299 for Canon/Nikon/Leica/Sony/Fuji/etc users - who represent the majority of total users. So if they dropped development of C1 they'd be losing money, not freeing it up for investment elsewhere.
The income from C1 pays for a fairly significant software team. A situation which is not matched at other camera hardware manufacturers.
There is also a tone of the-sky-is-falling here that seems entirely disconnected from the reality I see in the market place. C1 is the most common tethering software (by a good margin) you'll find running on a capture station at any large rental studio in NYC and Miami whether the shoot is with a Phase One or Leaf back, or Canon or Nikon. I can't speak directly to other markets since I don't have the extensive personal experience I do in those two markets, but based on volumes of sales and trainings we do I strongly suspect it has a very good market share in large rental studios and major tech houses across the globe.
In my experience the market share for C1 has gone up in 2012 (largely owed to improvements made in c1v7 including faster speed, live view for Canon/Nikon, improvements in Capture Pilot, and better raw processing algorithms) - your question seems to imply it's going down. Don't get me wrong, C1 has always been a minority player, but it's share of the market seems solid, stable, and even growing.
-
I use C1 for my Phase One back. I don't use it for other cameras i own.
For my Fuji X cameras I compared with Iridient Developer and SilkyPix (v5) and eventually settled for Iridient Developer.
Given that I have a license now for Iridient I am also trying to leverage that for a recently acquired Leica M9.
My points of criticism:
1) compared to other raw developers C1 is way to resource hungry. You need a powerful computer otherwise don't even contemplate running C1. Phase should really improve the performance of C1.
2) support of new cameras usually takes too long. Other raw developers tend to be much faster to offer support.
C1 is a good program but unless you are doing Phase/Leaf and/or tethering I don't feel it is essential. Just my opinion.
-
Whoa, this came out of left field. Ronald maybe you're trying to run C-1 on the mini tele.
Without a doubt c-1 does basic processing of Canon/Nikon files better easier than lightroom, though still misses some features and requires a little more work.
OK, DPP does Canon files better, but few batch process with it though I do use it for tethering with Canon because DPP is rock solid and C-1 won't accept the 1dx with ethernet.
Though when I'm in a tight deadline for multiple imagery, I usually turn to lightroom for speed and ease and well, right now C1 7 is kinda of bog slow on anything but the newer macs with faster graphics cards.
Actually I have few complaints with C-1 other than it seems every two or three version, they seem to hit it into the woods, instead of the fairway, usually by answering a question nobody is asking, but they eventually straighten it out.
I do wish they'd accept other medium format digital cameras, I know Phase has no desire to help their competition, but I think they'd actually gain share in medium format if they opened it up and let's face it adding Leica wouldn't cut into any Phase or Leaf sales.
Plus it's a bit disingenuous to scream that hasselblad closed their system when C-1 that is a pay to play software locks out other larger than 35mm cameras.
Still, I wouldn't go anywhere near saying it's not a growing profitable product, though once again if they opened up to other cameras, maybe worked a little more on some other things like the 1dx ethernet tethering they'd gain more customers.
Personally, I think I have three licensees (not sure, but I think it's 3) and usually run an older version, just because it's more stable to do so and I run a lot of different machines, from new to a few generations old.
But I'm the last person to ask about this because I think every camera in the world (well every digital camera in the world) should come with hard wired tethering, preferably usb 3, because thunderbold to fw 800 connection sucks.
Now in regards to medium format going cmos, I would bet that's going to happen. People have screamed forever for better live view and higher iso and it seems that ccd does do that well.
Personally I think ccds in general produce a much better file, with only two personal exceptions, the olympus omd em5 and em1 and the RED 1 cameras (I don't except Phase to support RED files).
That's why today I bought a Leica S2 from Steve Hendrix. I assume CCD will go away and the Leica will give my Contax Lenses more use and continue to work with my phase backs. It would be nice of C-1 could handle all of the tethering chores.
IMO
BC
P.S. I should add that nothing processes a raw file as well as Iridient Raw Developer, if you take the time to learn it, but it's not as user friendly as lightroom or C-1, but it's processes one great file.
-
J,
Congrats on your Leica purchase;
It's interesting that both C1 and Iridient render better than Lightroom, but have trouble with traction in the market - it does show that most consumers want something other than just image quality.
Edmund
That's why today I bought a Leica S2 from Steve Hendrix. I assume CCD will go away and the Leica will give my Contax Lenses more use and continue to work with my phase backs. It would be nice of C-1 could handle all of the tethering chores.
IMO
BC
P.S. I should add that nothing processes a raw file as well as Iridient Raw Developer, if you take the time to learn it, but it's not as user friendly as lightroom or C-1, but it's processes one great file.
-
I remain a C1 Pro fan. It works real well with D800 files.
DxO 9 is IMHO superior at high ISO and with lesser camerad though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
J,
Congrats on your Leica purchase;
It's interesting that both C1 and Iridient render better than Lightroom, but have trouble with traction in the market - it does show that most consumers want something other than just image quality.
Edmund
Nothing to do with what consumers want.
Everything to do with Adobe's considerable marketing muscle, distribution channel and lower cost of entry.
Also, most average Joe photographers read reviews etc. posted by blogxperts, who are often wedding and event photographers on the side. For their style of work, LR makes a lot more sense and that' what they endorse.
In all honesty, for the spray and pray type of shooters or anyone who does high volume shooting, LR is a much better tool due to its superior DAM capabilities.I use it to manage my travel photography collections, for instance. But when you do more carefully thought out projects, C1 brings the best out of the files.
-
AFAIK most consumers have collections, not jobs or projects ...
Lightroom supplies what Steve Jobs called a digital shoebox.
Edmund
In all honesty, for the spray and pray type of shooters or anyone who does high volume shooting, LR is a much better tool due to its superior DAM capabilities.I use it to manage my travel photography collections, for instance. But when you do more carefully thought out projects, C1 brings the best out of the files.
-
AFAIK most consumers have collections, not jobs or projects ...
Lightroom supplies what Steve Jobs called a digital shoebox.
Edmund
Exactly and that's why LR works for them and my wish for C1 to improve their DAM capabilities.
C1 now has collections, but they somehow don't seem to advertise it much.
In my previous line of work, I was working extensively with project-centric software such as Maya, After effects and Premiere Pro, so C1's default approach (Sessions) is nothing new to me, but I can see how it can confuse the heck out of the average consumer.
-
Yeah, C1 is a difficult animal to tame, but once you get used to the UX, there's no going back. I only wish that they improved the DAM aspect of it.
Agreed, I like it and its a powerful program too. Color editor, skin tone editor, apple script functions etc. Anyone that tethers will appreciate how much better C1 is than LR for that function. I do not mean any disrespect for LR because I do use it as well and like some features it has better - for example the LR print engine is simply great!
-
Agreed, I like it and its a powerful program too. Color editor, skin tone editor, apple script functions etc. Anyone that tethers will appreciate how much better C1 is than LR for that function. I do not mean any disrespect for LR because I do use it as well and like some features it has better - for example the LR print engine is simply great!
I have only tried tethering with the D800 on LR and it was a crapshoot.
I refused to pay Nikon-tax and get Nikon's own tethering tool, so I used an open source alternative. The UI was terrible, but it worked decently.
I have tried tethering with multiple brands on C1 and it worked flawlessly.
-
I do wish they'd accept other medium format digital cameras, I know Phase has no desire to help their competition, but I think they'd actually gain share in medium format if they opened it up and let's face it adding Leica wouldn't cut into any Phase or Leaf sales.
I think Hasselblad needs to give up on Phocus and work a deal for C1 support. I mean, C1 knows the Kodak sensor already, and actually won't support a Hasselblad 3FR converted to a DNG by design (it reads into the metadata and drops it). It would be nice to see C1 become the standard for tethered MF shooting.
-
Yeah I use Phocus too for my CF 528 and also Flexcolor as well for micro step. I don't think Phase or Leaf ever had a multishot back actually so not sure if they are 100% ready to take on the hasselblad files. I think I also used Flexcolor for my DMR files at one time but C1 does okay with those.
I would be nice to have one program work with all the files.
-
Hi!
I have seen a couple of areas where C1 has real benefit over LR5.
In the images below C1 is on left and LR5 on the right. Note that thin lines shift in colour on LR5 but not in C1. In the sample LR5 produces more moiré, and in my experience C1 is better at surpressing moiré.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Enjoy your S2!
Best regards
ERik
-
I like when there are alternatives, and I think it would be very sad if we'd see the same Adobe near-monopoly for raw conversion as there is for photo editing (ie Photoshop). It's not healthy for the industry or for users.
I don't know about the economy side, but it could be the case that Phase One is actually making money from C1, right. And then there's nothing to worry about. If they only make C1 to support their Phase One backs and actually lose money on the product itself I'd be a bit worried.
-
I like when there are alternatives, and I think it would be very sad if we'd see the same Adobe near-monopoly for raw conversion as there is for photo editing (ie Photoshop). It's not healthy for the industry or for users.
I don't know about the economy side, but it could be the case that Phase One is actually making money from C1, right. And then there's nothing to worry about. If they only make C1 to support their Phase One backs and actually lose money on the product itself I'd be a bit worried.
I see C1 is to P1 as OS X is to Apple. Just a means to complete the ecosystem. The core revenue comes from hardware.
Unlike Apple, they are actually making money from it and that's good.
-
I see C1 is to P1 as OS X is to Apple. Just a means to complete the ecosystem. The core revenue comes from hardware.
Unlike Apple, they are actually making money from it and that's good.
Does anyone actually know this, I mean are there public numbers out there?
If C1 was only to support their hardware I'd imagine that it would be more like Phocus, ie only working for their own cameras and not bothering with supporting lots and lots of DSLRs. There's quite some effort in supporting new DSLRs so I imagine they wouldn't do it if they weren't making money from DSLR users too.
-
Does anyone actually know this, I mean are there public numbers out there?
If C1 was only to support their hardware I'd imagine that it would be more like Phocus, ie only working for their own cameras and not bothering with supporting lots and lots of DSLRs. There's quite some effort in supporting new DSLRs so I imagine they wouldn't do it if they weren't making money from DSLR users too.
I don't think private companies ever share such info. Hell, even Canon and Nikon are cagey about a lot of their numbers.
As far as anecdotal evidence goes, almost everyone that I have seen shooting tethered does so via C1.