Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: FredDelgado on December 28, 2014, 08:06:09 pm
-
I am a big fan of Capture One.
It seems that the Pentax 645Z images cannot be processed with Capture One.
Is this correct? If so, is there a workaround?
Thanks,
Fred
-
The best workaround I can think of at the moment is throwing eggs at the cars of Phase employees until they add support for it.
I used C1 happily since v4.x with my Canon gear and being forced to use Lightroom just for the 645Z is painful. Phase is already potentially losing customers who don't need the leaf shutter or detachable back capability (like me; I was close to buying a Phase once), but they could at least keep the people who like the software. Even though you can't do shifts on the 645Z, I still need LCC for my work and LR's implementation is "usable" at best.
-
Similar problem: I am a big fan of C1, I am using Leica S which is "not supported" by C1 (although I can work on the images when I import from LR DNGs).
C1 is a tool to protect PhaseOne in the MF market, therefore no other MF camera is supported. I think this is stupid, as C1 seems to have an edge on LR now, and increased interest after C1 8.1
As most developers of C1 live in Copenhagen, trowing eggs on them is a challenge (although I will fly via CPH on Monday), so maybe more voices in forums is more effective.
-
as C1 seems to have an edge on LR now, and increased interest after C1 8.1
edge as in marketshare of paying users or edge as in "I think that C1 in my hands produces better results for me" ?
those are 2 very different edges, are they not ?
-
As far as I remember, torger wrote a tool to convert H5D-50c fiels (same sensor) to the P1 IIQ format?
-
You should be able use DNG for your RAW capture format on the 645Z and then use C1 although it won't be a camera specific interpretation of the DNG files nor will any of the lenses have profiles.
-
Similar problem: I am a big fan of C1, I am using Leica S which is "not supported" by C1 (although I can work on the images when I import from LR DNGs).
C1 is a tool to protect PhaseOne in the MF market, therefore no other MF camera is supported. I think this is stupid, as C1 seems to have an edge on LR now, and increased interest after C1 8.1
As most developers of C1 live in Copenhagen, trowing eggs on them is a challenge (although I will fly via CPH on Monday), so maybe more voices in forums is more effective.
I feel very similar. Until recently I used C1 for Phase One digital backs only.
With v8 I started using it for Sony A7s and Fuji X as well. Version 8 is really a big step forward.
Unfortunately Leica S2 files are still not supported...
Being a raw converter supposedly focusing on high end cameras it is hard to understand why Pentax 645Z and Leica S are not supported...
-
edge as in marketshare of paying users or edge as in "I think that C1 in my hands produces better results for me" ?
those are 2 very different edges, are they not ?
Of course, and C1 is not anywhere near LR in market share. I personally like it more and more, and I sense an increased interest in C1 after 8.1, and C1 excluding other MF cameras does not help (and I am not sure it helps PhaseOne cameras in the competition either)
-
Being a raw converter supposedly focusing on high end cameras it is hard to understand why Pentax 645Z and Leica S are not supported...
C1 for non P1 cameras (non DB version) is a source of additional income for P1 and not "a raw converter supposedly focusing on high end cameras"... non supporting Pentax MF dSLRs & similar apparently does not yield enough loss to overcome a certain attitude towards competition.
-
But I sense an increased interest in C1 after 8.1, and C1 excluding other MF cameras does not help (and I am not sure it helps PhaseOne cameras in the competition either)
the point is that it is not hurting enough for P1 people to force an attitude change... just like with "DNG" (for camera manufacturers)
-
As far as I remember, torger wrote a tool to convert H5D-50c fiels (same sensor) to the P1 IIQ format?
and there is a software to convert files to .NEF
http://bagnonm.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/dng2nef-v30-more-cameras-supported-and.html
may be it is working for those DNGs to NEF for C1 purposes ? his newest tool was more geared towards Sony and 810 support = http://bagnonm.blogspot.com.es/
-
Yes I wrote a tool that can convert H4D-50c and 645Z files to an IQ250 IIQ file and that way open it in Capture One (I've tried, it works), but it's only for experimentation, I've not made it available. It would not be fair to Phase One, as much of their edge sits in Capture One.
You need a Phase One or Leaf back in order to get the Sony MF sensor processed in Capture One, which I imagine for some is actually the strongest reason why one would want to pay so much more than the competion.
-
C1 for non P1 cameras (non DB version) is a source of additional income for P1 and not "a raw converter supposedly focusing on high end cameras"... non supporting Pentax MF dSLRs & similar apparently does not yield enough loss to overcome a certain attitude towards competition.
Obviously it is a source of income (I never said the contrary) but also the term "high end cameras" is taken directly from their website.
If they are serious about that and about "open systems" (as they continuously pretend in their marketing) and about C1 as a standalone product then they should support Pentax and Leica MF.
If Iredient (as a much smaller company) can do it why wouldn't Phase One be able to do it?
-
CaptureOne is a really amazing tool, and I understand why they wouldn't support 3rd party stuff by default. The question is what are you willing to pay to add support for an additional platform to your license? $100? $200? $300? The additional work of adding a platform they don't have deep insider knowledge of would be frustrating to users whom have high expectations.
-
They are not unable to do it, they are unwilling.
Hasselblad, Leica and Pentax are competitors of Phase One cameras.
C1 supports P1 high end cameras, and pretty all other mid end cameras.
They have no trouble supporting the 35mm Pentax and Leica models.
You may not like it and neither do I, but it is their right to pursue their business targets.
It seems very clear their maths tells them that going for a software mostly business and letting the cameras fight on their own merits, is less profitable than using the synergy to their advantage.
-
Hi,
To begin they should fully support DNG.
Best regards
Eik
Obviously it is a source of income (I never said the contrary) but also the term "high end cameras" is taken directly from their website.
If they are serious about that and about "open systems" (as they continuously pretend in their marketing) and about C1 as a standalone product then they should support Pentax and Leica MF.
If Iredient (as a much smaller company) can do it why wouldn't Phase One be able to do it?
-
Phase One will not support other Medium Format Digital Backs/Cameras files in their Capture One Software. Could they? Of course. But they won't. Can you blame them? Not really. I mean, it's a business decision.
Pentax needs to invest in the software for the 645z (and much better camera/lens service and support) just like Hasselblad and PhaseOne have if they wish for the 645z system to prosper and have longevity.
-
I open and develop my Leica S files in C1, a profile is also available from Leica which can be loaded in to C1.
Mat
-
Hi,
To begin they should fully support DNG.
Best regards
Eik
I'm under the impression that Capture One doesn't work on a "does it support this format?" basis, as much as on a per-camera basis, with a lot of internal tweaking and profiling done to have each tested sensor and lens perform their best.
Even if you get the thing to open and with the right color profiling, where's the lens corrections? How are you sure that the shadow, highlight, noise and sharpening algorithms are aware of the sensor's capabilities at each ISO level?
More than the 645Z or Leica S, the current crop of small format cameras with 36MP sensors (and soon even more), with respectable glass, can attain very close results at common print sizes, and yet C1 supports those systems... another business decision? If you think it doesn't matter, well, I remember back when the D800E came out and all I ever saw on here and GetDPI were threads about it vs. digital backs all day long. Phase's biggest competitor is Sony's A7R with a 17 or 24mm TS-E attached, not a pair of camera systems that Phase doesn't even have a functional equivalent to (fast rugged one-piece SLR suitable for outdoors in inclement weather).
-
Hi,
I don't think so. They can just use DNG and rely on any raw converter supporting DNG, most of them actually do. It makes a lot more sense to work with Adobe and cooperating with Adobe to get good support than developing another crappy raw converter. I am not saying that Capture One or Phocus are bad, on the contrary. But, Capture on is now version 8, a long development.
Pentax has announced some kind of professional support arrangement at Photokina. Regarding longevity, the Pentax 645 was introduced 1984, so it has been around for thirty years.
Pentax doesn't need to dominate the playing field of Phase One and Hasselblad, they can dominate the playing field of their own. The main competitor may be Leica. Leica has also chosen the DNG path.
Best regards
Erik
Pentax needs to invest in the software for the 645z (and much better camera/lens service and support) just like Hasselblad and PhaseOne have if they wish for the 645z system to prosper and have longevity.
-
I agree with Kolor-Pikker. Supported cameras like the A7R and the D800/D810 are more of a competitor than the Pentax or the Leica...
And if you are already supporting DNG files from Leica with the upcoming S007 DNG files probably being very close to the current M240 DNG files how much effort can it be...?
Pretty shortsighted of Phase IMO, for christ's sake Sony is selling its sensors to all competitors, why should C1 not be able to handle Pentax, Leica, Hasselblad, etc files?
-
Based on this choice by Phase One, I doubt that I will ever ever use their software, it's just bad business in my view.
What happens if C1 supports my current camera but not my next one after that in 3 years time, do I change back to Adobe, no thanks.
I have a 645Z and would love to use C1, but as it does not support it I see no need to support them with anything.
I was going to buy an IQ back and body but found it to be the worst system I had ever used for the Price/Performance. Sure the image quality may be ok, but the usability was terrible, making for a poor experience in my view.
I believe as a software company, they must remove their "we sell hardware" cap and look to expand the business. They will make so much more out of software than they ever will out of hardware.
-
Hi,
I don't think so. They can just use DNG and rely on any raw converter supporting DNG, most of them actually do. It makes a lot more sense to work with Adobe and cooperating with Adobe to get good support than developing another crappy raw converter. I am not saying that Capture One or Phocus are bad, on the contrary. But, Capture on is now version 8, a long development.
Pentax has announced some kind of professional support arrangement at Photokina. Regarding longevity, the Pentax 645 was introduced 1984, so it has been around for thirty years.
Pentax doesn't need to dominate the playing field of Phase One and Hasselblad, they can dominate the playing field of their own. The main competitor may be Leica. Leica has also chosen the DNG path.
Best regards
Erik
DNG should work well for Pentax. And yes they could go that way completely.
Leica is in another market, part luxury item (for some) part professional tool. Their lenses are superb and the short flange focal length of the system allows lot's of lenses to be adapted (some with factory made adapters which is nice). I tried the Leica S and its a beaut., feels amazing in the hand and with the split prism focusing screen it is a joy to focus manually.
Regarding current Pentax (in the USA at least) service and support it is unacceptable. 8-10 weeks without a camera? That is just ridiculous but that is exactly how long 645D and 645Z owners are without their's if the camera needs to go in for repair no matter how simple or serious the repair is. Pentax did promise to take care of this but so far, nada. Might take a while.
Regarding longevity can't really compare film cameras to digital, apples to oranges.
-
Based on this choice by Phase One, I doubt that I will ever ever use their software, it's just bad business in my view.
What happens if C1 supports my current camera but not my next one after that in 3 years time, do I change back to Adobe, no thanks.
I have a 645Z and would love to use C1, but as it does not support it I see no need to support them with anything.
I was going to buy an IQ back and body but found it to be the worst system I had ever used for the Price/Performance. Sure the image quality may be ok, but the usability was terrible, making for a poor experience in my view.
I believe as a software company, they must remove their "we sell hardware" cap and look to expand the business. They will make so much more out of software than they ever will out of hardware.
Sorry, I don't agree, Scotty.
From your perspective, you wouldn't use an iPod, an iPhone, an iPad, etc, because Apple won't license the Mac OS to run your Windows computer? Because it is in Apple's best interest to do this for you? Because Apple makes way more on software than hardware? I don't think so. I fail to see a reason that benefits Phase One to offer Capture One for competitive medium format products.
I know this isn't the "correct" thing to say, in the spirit of this thread, but I approach these topics from a purely business standpoint. Does this make sense for X manufacturer? Should X end user have to go through xyz, etc? Sure, if I was a Pentax owner, I would LOVE full C1 support, the same that is offered for Phase One/Leaf (and certain DSLR camera) users. But the fact that I own a directly competitive product and would love to be able to use Capture One more fully doesn't mean Phase One is loopy or stupid to not provide that.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I believe as a software company, they must remove their "we sell hardware" cap and look to expand the business. They will make so much more out of software than they ever will out of hardware.
What makes you think Phase is a software company? I'm pretty sure they think they're a camera company.
-
Phase have a good integrated hardware/software solution. It's not legitimate to ask them to compete with themselves by optimizing their competition's files.
However, it would be time to ask Adobe to improve Lightroom. After all, it's not like they are starving for revenue to feed their R&D.
Edmund
-
Steve, I see your point, but please look at this from the standpoint of a consumer.
Have you logged onto the internet lately and seen the amount of marketing that phase are putting into C1, I see more of it than I do from Adobe. If I didn't know better and was an average user shooting say a Canon DSLR of medium spec, saw their advertising, took it onboard, I would think that they are a direct competing offering to Adobe (which clearly they are not if they choose to stiff the competition)
I would view their well promoted training videos, read Kevin Raber rave about it on this site, download the trial version, use it, like it, trial it and become excited to use it. I would then compare it to Adobe and purchase a one-off license and away I go. 3 years in I would become more enthused and cash rich and decide to take a look at the Pentax MF offering at my local camera store and go "wow" look at what it offers for the money. I can "NEVER" afford or justify one of those P1 systems, but this, this is nice!
After taking my $9000 camera home, taking some sample files and loading them into C1 I would find that it doesn't work. Then I would spend countless hours going through forums like this only to find that I have to change to adobe, change my workflow, re-learn, keep an existing application running on my pc for my old already edited files.
This is not the experience that the consumer wants to go through, not when the company that has plastered their advertising across camera sites and facebook, touting their product as a competing product to adobe, when in fact its not a competing product.
What it clearly is, its an image editing program that P1 design for their backs so that they had complete control over the file process from start to finish, only to have a company exec look at it and say "can we make more money from this and make it available to everybody and compete with Adobe?" yes they can but lets cripple every competitor in the MF space along the way, just to say "screw you" cos' we can.
And before anybody says, "well that consumer in question should do more due diligence before spending $9k", true. But every camera salesperson (except for the great ones like you Steve), actually knows less than the average person on these forums and will answer any question with a yes to get a sale, its the way of life.
Any to top off my point, Phase should be more scared about loosing sales to Sony FE and Nikon D8xx cameras and Zeiss lenses then they ever should be about Pentax. They offer support to these customers and they represent a massive market. Phase are dollar grabbing where they can and stiffing the apparent immediate competition along the way. Phase are more likely to get the future business of a Pentax 645Z user than they ever are out of a Nikon or Sony FE user.
The real world is so far detached from these forums and the consumer is far less educated than what we think. I think phase are a great company for doing what they do with their systems, its just frustrating to see something mis-represented.
Rant over. :)
NB: the above is not a tale of what happened to me, I was already aware of the above when getting into my 645D and now 645Z
-
For the longest time there hasn't been one RAW converter that supported all of my cameras… Leica DMR, ixpress 528, Phase and the Leaf backs… That was one of the killers for the Sigma DP2 for me… do I really need that pain of another RAW converter?
I don't know Phase's opinion on supporting other backs or not, but I can see a business case for making one software support every single camera out there - legacy ones included.
-
There is an excellent converter out there called Raw Developer, from Iridient (http://www.iridientdigital.com/), which IMHO spits out files that look better than C1 and Lightroom. It works very well with Sigma DPx files as well. The trial is free - I just checked and it open 645Z files.
It is remarkable how forum members flock to the same products eg. C1 or Lightroom, whose limitations or lack of ability are well known, and then magically expect the product to improve just because they are using it. Guys, if you want the C1 workflow and optimal quality, pay the $30K and buy a Phase back - I assure you C1 is superb with a Phase back - and if you want a really good converter for dSLRs or Pentax or a $400 Sigma DP3, just get Raw Developer for $70 or for Bayer files use Aperture or even the free Hasselblad Phocus which usually support any camera and get the job done.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Other alternatives are AccuRaw and RawTherapee.
But there is a significant difference. LR and possibly Capture One are workflow solutions. They are intended to make images that can be published directly. Say that Michael Reichmann or Jeff Schewe uses LR to more than 90% and it is just a few images <10% that needs to go to photoshop.
Using like Iridient RawDeveloper on my P45+ images gives me a 237 MB image instead a 42MB image, actually containing less information. So I need to do editing in Photoshop, to be able to do local adjustment, and save the result as another tiff. In this case 16 bit uncompressed TIFFs are assumed.
A DAM tool is still needed.
Getting back to Capture One, it is really their choice what camera systems they support. They have three licensing modes, AFAIK. Capture One DB works with some MFDs and comes free. The normal Capture One edition is reasonably priced and supports most camera models, with exception to those competing with Phase One. It seems that Leica S2 files are supported, though.
The third licensing mode is a special version for some Sony cameras.
Best regards
Erik
There is an excellent converter out there called Raw Developer, from Iridient (http://www.iridientdigital.com/), which IMHO spits out files that look better than C1 and Lightroom. It works very well with Sigma DPx files as well. The trial is free - I just checked and it open 645Z files.
It is remarkable how forum members flock to the same products eg. C1 or Lightroom, whose limitations or lack of ability are well known, and then magically expect the product to improve just because they are using it. Guys, if you want the C1 workflow and optimal quality, pay the $30K and buy a Phase back - I assure you C1 is superb with a Phase back - and if you want a really good converter for dSLRs or Pentax or a $400 Sigma DP3, just get Raw Developer for $70 or for Bayer files use Aperture or even the free Hasselblad Phocus which usually support any camera and get the job done.
Edmund
-
There is an excellent converter out there called Raw Developer, from Iridient (http://www.iridientdigital.com/), which IMHO spits out files that look better than C1 and Lightroom. It works very well with Sigma DPx files as well. The trial is free - I just checked and it open 645Z files.
It is remarkable how forum members flock to the same products eg. C1 or Lightroom, whose limitations or lack of ability are well known, and then magically expect the product to improve just because they are using it. Guys, if you want the C1 workflow and optimal quality, pay the $30K and buy a Phase back - I assure you C1 is superb with a Phase back - and if you want a really good converter for dSLRs or Pentax or a $400 Sigma DP3, just get Raw Developer for $70 or for Bayer files use Aperture or even the free Hasselblad Phocus which usually support any camera and get the job done.
Edmund
Since you have apparently already done a full comparison with incontrovertible conclusions, perhaps post a link for all to peruse?
-
Phase have a good integrated hardware/software solution. It's not legitimate to ask them to compete with themselves by optimizing their competition's files.
However, it would be time to ask Adobe to improve Lightroom. After all, it's not like they are starving for revenue to feed their R&D.
Problem is that it's a matter of taste. Probably Adobe and the Lightroom team thinks that their color is the best on the market and have no intention to change their receipe. They have quite a big bunch of credible supporters too.
-
Concerning DNG you can see it just as a dumb raw container and spray it with proprietary tags, which is what most non-Adobe programs do when you export to DNG (a Phocus-exported DNG is much different than an Adobe-exported DNG of the same raw), or you can embrace it completely which includes the DCP color model.
I think that's a huge obstacle. I've programmed applications with DNG and DCP support so I'm very familiar with the internals, and it becomes quite clear that DCP = Lightroom's way of looking at color. If you want DNG but have your own color model (like all other raw converters with a history) you can do it but it will be a bit clunky. If you think you have the best color model in the world, which I assume all raw converter makers do, you will not embrace DNG with enthusiasm.
If DNG is going to be a hit long-term there is only one way - that cameras store directly in that format, like Pentax, Sinar and Leica, so you have the same color model throughout the chain. It should also be noted that while DNG is openly documented, there are many tags in there with unclear descriptions which clearly only Adobe knows what they really mean. You can't have it that way if you expect your format to be adopted as a standard.
If it's true what many here say that Lightroom's color really isn't that good, and that is related to DCP, this means that the DNG format is inherently flawed, which of course would be a problem for wide adoption. But it's hard to gather evidence for or against that claim.
-
Hi,
Other alternatives are AccuRaw and RawTherapee.
But there is a significant difference. LR and possibly Capture One are workflow solutions. They are intended to make images that can be published directly. Say that Michael Reichmann or Jeff Schewe uses LR to more than 90% and it is just a few images <10% that needs to go to photoshop.
Using like Iridient RawDeveloper on my P45+ images gives me a 237 MB image instead a 42MB image, actually containing less information. So I need to do editing in Photoshop, to be able to do local adjustment, and save the result as another tiff. In this case 16 bit uncompressed TIFFs are assumed.
A DAM tool is still needed.
I agree with this, I've tried out RD on two occasions in the past, and it didn't really click with me; the interface wasn't terribly intuitive and it lacks any sort of browsing system, which at almost 2015 now I think is a must. Maybe it does produce better results, but I just feel like I have to spend way too much time twiddling with settings to get there.
What I like about C1 is being able to charge through a folder of images AND get nice results quickly by adjusting a few parameters, and while I'm still coming to grips with LR, it's clear that some things are just slower or less intuitive to do even with hotkeys, like copying adjustments between images takes an extra step. Little things that add up.
-
Being a contributor to RawTherapee and a long-time user I don't think it's suitable for most professionals. You need a special interest in raw conversion to move outside the Capture One / Lightroom box, and the open-source RT is at an extreme. It's a powerful tool that can produce great results and the project has made many important contributions in opening formats and thus securing them for the future, but it's not streamlined for user friendliness and lacks certain features most pro users need, like tethering, DAM and printing features. It's also more focused on progress using the minimal resources available (people that contribute on their spare time) than keeping backwards compatiblity which can be a problem for pro work. And finally, as a user you're expected to contribute with patience (bugs, report and test), it's more of a community experience.
For low volume artistic work I find RT to be great, I do most of my MF tech cam work there in combination with other tools, but I often switch to Lightroom when I have 2000 files to process from a sports shoot. Nowadays it happens I use RT for that too though, because I can, but it's not the best tool for that.
I obviously have a great interest in raw conversion, but I also find it valuable form an artistic perspective to have transparent software, ie software that really shows what's happening, and that you can find in RT and some other smaller software that's not too focused on user-friendliness. The big programs are a bit too automatic for my taste, and I find it more difficult to make a personal expression with them (perhaps because so many use them and they have a certain look), but that's me.
-
I agree with Kolor-Pikker. Supported cameras like the A7R and the D800/D810 are more of a competitor than the Pentax or the Leica...
well, there is a difference between "Sony" as competition and P&L... one is too big and it's sister company (Sony Semi) sells you your sensors... two others are not big (even P is part of R), compete more directly with their MF dSLRs (Sony does not yet, even getting closer) and not supporting them does not make a noticeable dent financially for P1 software business, while deal with Sony (free C1 for Sony cameras) might actually expand their paid user base by baiting some people to upgrade to paid C1 version - not so much numbers-wise with non supported users of MF dSLRs from P&L which totally make at best 1% of Sony users (remember, regular P dSLRs are still supported, at least PEFs)...
-
More than the 645Z or Leica S, the current crop of small format cameras with 36MP sensors (and soon even more), with respectable glass, can attain very close results at common print sizes, and yet C1 supports those systems...
because there are money on that table (Nikon & Sony) that can't be ignored... while MF dSLRs from P&L can be ignored w/o anybody but few people here complaining (and half or third of complainers still using C1 in some shape, with half or third of them users even getting paid version of C1 ;D... just like with DNG proponents here, who are screaming every month or so and then go & buy non DNG cameras year after year...)
-
Torger,
There would be a simple way to reconcile the quality requirements of the few with the desires of the many, and that would be to invoke another raw converter to create a Jpeg from within Lightroom. There is no reason to require a Raw converter to provide DAM features.
I fail to understand why I should use Lightroom if it turns my $10K system into the equivalent of a point and shoot. In fact Phase One have been very good at using this phenomenon as a marketing strategy - by invoking DAM features and tehering they are in fact making people use a Raw converter and getting high quality results at a high price, when in fact almost equivalent results could be got in the first place with dSLR equipment at 10% of the price if decent software were used in the place of Lightroom.
Edmund
Being a contributor to RawTherapee and a long-time user I don't think it's suitable for most professionals. You need a special interest in raw conversion to move outside the Capture One / Lightroom box, and the open-source RT is at an extreme. It's a powerful tool that can produce great results and the project has made many important contributions in opening formats and thus securing them for the future, but it's not streamlined for user friendliness and lacks certain features most pro users need, like tethering, DAM and printing features. It's also more focused on progress using the minimal resources available (people that contribute on their spare time) than keeping backwards compatiblity which can be a problem for pro work. And finally, as a user you're expected to contribute with patience (bugs, report and test), it's more of a community experience.
For low volume artistic work I find RT to be great, I do most of my MF tech cam work there in combination with other tools, but I often switch to Lightroom when I have 2000 files to process from a sports shoot. Nowadays it happens I use RT for that too though, because I can, but it's not the best tool for that.
I obviously have a great interest in raw conversion, but I also find it valuable form an artistic perspective to have transparent software, ie software that really shows what's happening, and that you can find in RT and some other smaller software that's not too focused on user-friendliness. The big programs are a bit too automatic for my taste, and I find it more difficult to make a personal expression with them (perhaps because so many use them and they have a certain look), but that's me.
-
Hi,
I don't feel I got superior results from Capture One compared to Lightroom, except that there are cases where Lightroom causes more demosaic artefacts. In those, not so rare, cases other raw converters like RawTherapee or AccuRaw may yield superior results. Lightroom used to have a large advantage in tone mapping, introduced in the 2012 processing pipeline. May be Capture One has catched up in that area in the latest version 8.x.
I hope that Adobe puts some more effort in demosaicing, now that we have more and more non OLP filtered sensors.
Best regards
Erik
Torger,
There would be a simple way to reconcile the quality requirements of the few with the desires of the many, and that would be to invoke another raw converter to create a Jpeg from within Lightroom. There is no reason to require a Raw converter to provide DAM features.
I fail to understand why I should use Lightroom if it turns my $10K system into the equivalent of a point and shoot. In fact Phase One have been very good at using this phenomenon as a marketing strategy - by invoking DAM features and tehering they are in fact making people use a Raw converter and getting high quality results at a high price, when in fact almost equivalent results could be got in the first place with dSLR equipment at 10% of the price if decent software were used in the place of Lightroom.
Edmund
-
There would be a simple way to reconcile the quality requirements of the few with the desires of the many, and that would be to invoke another raw converter to create a Jpeg from within Lightroom. There is no reason to require a Raw converter to provide DAM features.
I'm glad to hear that. I was just guessing a bit, since I don't use DAM software myself. I'm old-fashioned, amateur and shoot low volumes and saves even less so an ordered directory structure based on dates has been enough so far, but it doesn't scale well so I guess at some point I'll need a better solution for that.
-
Hi,
What I would really like would be to have more parametric options in Lightroom, like a parametric version of FocusMagic.
Best regards
Erik
I'm glad to hear that. I was just guessing a bit, since I don't use DAM software myself. I'm old-fashioned, amateur and shoot low volumes and saves even less so an ordered directory structure based on dates has been enough so far, but it doesn't scale well so I guess at some point I'll need a better solution for that.
-
Steve, I see your point, but please look at this from the standpoint of a consumer.
Have you logged onto the internet lately and seen the amount of marketing that phase are putting into C1, I see more of it than I do from Adobe. If I didn't know better and was an average user shooting say a Canon DSLR of medium spec, saw their advertising, took it onboard, I would think that they are a direct competing offering to Adobe (which clearly they are not if they choose to stiff the competition)
I would view their well promoted training videos, read Kevin Raber rave about it on this site, download the trial version, use it, like it, trial it and become excited to use it. I would then compare it to Adobe and purchase a one-off license and away I go. 3 years in I would become more enthused and cash rich and decide to take a look at the Pentax MF offering at my local camera store and go "wow" look at what it offers for the money. I can "NEVER" afford or justify one of those P1 systems, but this, this is nice!
After taking my $9000 camera home, taking some sample files and loading them into C1 I would find that it doesn't work. Then I would spend countless hours going through forums like this only to find that I have to change to adobe, change my workflow, re-learn, keep an existing application running on my pc for my old already edited files.
This is not the experience that the consumer wants to go through, not when the company that has plastered their advertising across camera sites and facebook, touting their product as a competing product to adobe, when in fact its not a competing product.
What it clearly is, its an image editing program that P1 design for their backs so that they had complete control over the file process from start to finish, only to have a company exec look at it and say "can we make more money from this and make it available to everybody and compete with Adobe?" yes they can but lets cripple every competitor in the MF space along the way, just to say "screw you" cos' we can.
And before anybody says, "well that consumer in question should do more due diligence before spending $9k", true. But every camera salesperson (except for the great ones like you Steve), actually knows less than the average person on these forums and will answer any question with a yes to get a sale, its the way of life.
Any to top off my point, Phase should be more scared about loosing sales to Sony FE and Nikon D8xx cameras and Zeiss lenses then they ever should be about Pentax. They offer support to these customers and they represent a massive market. Phase are dollar grabbing where they can and stiffing the apparent immediate competition along the way. Phase are more likely to get the future business of a Pentax 645Z user than they ever are out of a Nikon or Sony FE user.
The real world is so far detached from these forums and the consumer is far less educated than what we think. I think phase are a great company for doing what they do with their systems, its just frustrating to see something mis-represented.
Rant over. :)
NB: the above is not a tale of what happened to me, I was already aware of the above when getting into my 645D and now 645Z
Scotty, I do want to consider the consumer viewpoint. But Phase One is guilty of aggressively promoting their product. Good for them. They're competing against a much, much larger company with a substantial market share advantage. Are they misleading consumers because a consumer may presume that any camera in the world that they would buy is supported by Capture One? Or maybe just the more expensive ones, the assumption being , these are professional cameras and Capture One is clearly a professional program. I get what you’re saying, I just don’t think it’s enough.
If someone owns Capture One, they do have in their possession a Read Me file that shows the supported cameras for that version. Most are probably familiar with this. Are there some that may not be and may assume every camera is supported? I guess so. But it’s like someone buying an iPod when they were Mac only and connecting it to their Dell computer and wondering why they couldn’t use it. Now Apple did certainly change that, but their target was an 80% market share. That’s not Phase One’s target. What I’m saying is that at some point, a consumer needs to take at least some responsibility. As far as those camera salespeople go, if you bought a camera that cost $9,000 and they said Capture One would work with it, I think you have grounds to take it back.
Raw support for Nikon/Canon and smaller cameras, including tethered support had been a staple of Capture One for years before Lightroom. It provided an “in” for Canon/Nikon users who were struggling with their mediocre raw workflow options, and in doing so, introduced these clients to Phase One the company and the higher end capture options Phase One offered. This is still true today. Nikon and Canon may be competitors to Phase One, but over 90% of my medium format digital clients also shoot DSLR. That provides far, far more potential customers than Pentax will. Users are going to buy a Nikon/Canon (or a Sony/Fuji) anyway, whether they also buy a Phase One product or not.
I just can’t see any competitive reason for Phase One to offer Capture One support to Pentax. Why address one of the biggest weaknesses of that product? Why not also coordinate a service/support arrangement with Pentax also, and address that? Why don’t they also offer Capture One support to Hasselblad? Why doesn’t Apple offer iOS to Samsung?
I want the best experience for consumers in the photographic industry, but I also look at the question of does it truly serve the long term interests of the manufacturer? It’s often a tricky and fine line. From that standpoint, I’m not quick to point fingers, I have to ask the questions, including how does this serve their interest so they can continue to survive/thrive? Would this strategy provide a benefit or a detriment?
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Steve,
I think C1 not supporting Pentax is a very good thing. This provides a lucrative potential niche for young programmers wishing to enter the market with a Raw converter.
With no C1 on option, anyone who provides results equal or superior to Lightroom will find buyers with an eye to quality willing to listen. And, if I may be allowed to exercise first amendment rights to satire, surpassing Lightroom in Raw conversion quality is about as hard as getting out of bed for your average 19 year old with access to the Internet :)
C1 is actually a pretty decent piece of software, written by people who know what they are doing, and it would provide a somewhat harder challenge to match for your average beginning programmer. As a convertor, C1's only real weakness is or used to be that it *sometimes* doesn't play well with its competition's cameras - as you acknowledge.
As a workflow solution, C1 is of course outmatched by Lightroom's wonderful cataloging and print functions, and then Adobe throw Photoshop into their CC rental package, thereby providing "free" retouch tools that many consider considerably superior to the retouch functionality included in C1.
We will see if C1 competing with "free" all-you-can-eat Photoshop CC/Lightroom CC is possible in the long run. I watched Microsoft strangulate Lotus 123 and WordPerfect by bundling Word and Excel for "free" with every PC, so my guess is that Adobe probably has the winning hand, or rather the winning noose.
Which brings me back to the non-support of the Pentax 645Z by C1: I think it is both a tactically sound business move as you argue, and also a strategic error because it allows some more customers to leave for Lightroom, and they won't come back.
Edmund
Scotty, I do want to consider the consumer viewpoint. But Phase One is guilty of aggressively promoting their product. Good for them. They're competing against a much, much larger company with a substantial market share advantage. Are they misleading consumers because a consumer may presume that any camera in the world that they would buy is supported by Capture One? Or maybe just the more expensive ones, the assumption being , these are professional cameras and Capture One is clearly a professional program. I get what you’re saying, I just don’t think it’s enough.
If someone owns Capture One, they do have in their possession a Read Me file that shows the supported cameras for that version. Most are probably familiar with this. Are there some that may not be and may assume every camera is supported? I guess so. But it’s like someone buying an iPod when they were Mac only and connecting it to their Dell computer and wondering why they couldn’t use it. Now Apple did certainly change that, but their target was an 80% market share. That’s not Phase One’s target. What I’m saying is that at some point, a consumer needs to take at least some responsibility. As far as those camera salespeople go, if you bought a camera that cost $9,000 and they said Capture One would work with it, I think you have grounds to take it back.
Raw support for Nikon/Canon and smaller cameras, including tethered support had been a staple of Capture One for years before Lightroom. It provided an “in” for Canon/Nikon users who were struggling with their mediocre raw workflow options, and in doing so, introduced these clients to Phase One the company and the higher end capture options Phase One offered. This is still true today. Nikon and Canon may be competitors to Phase One, but over 90% of my medium format digital clients also shoot DSLR. That provides far, far more potential customers than Pentax will. Users are going to buy a Nikon/Canon (or a Sony/Fuji) anyway, whether they also buy a Phase One product or not.
I just can’t see any competitive reason for Phase One to offer Capture One support to Pentax. Why address one of the biggest weaknesses of that product? Why not also coordinate a service/support arrangement with Pentax also, and address that? Why don’t they also offer Capture One support to Hasselblad? Why doesn’t Apple offer iOS to Samsung?
I want the best experience for consumers in the photographic industry, but I also look at the question of does it truly serve the long term interests of the manufacturer? It’s often a tricky and fine line. From that standpoint, I’m not quick to point fingers, I have to ask the questions, including how does this serve their interest so they can continue to survive/thrive? Would this strategy provide a benefit or a detriment?
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I just can’t see any competitive reason for Phase One to offer Capture One support to Pentax. Why address one of the biggest weaknesses of that product? Why not also coordinate a service/support arrangement with Pentax also, and address that? Why don’t they also offer Capture One support to Hasselblad? Why doesn’t Apple offer iOS to Samsung?
Steve,
I believe you are slightly overestimating the power of Capture One here.
I have a Leica S2 in addition to 4 other camera systems. The Leica S2 is already perfectly well served by Iridient Developer (a much smaller company than Phase) and LightRoom.
If however Capture One also offered Leica S support I would consider using C1 as my only raw converter and lock myself entirely into C1. For me it is purely a convenience thing that would create a lot of customer goodwill.
Before v8 this didn't even cross my mind as for most systems it was my opinion that Iridient Developer did a better job anyway. C1 v8 is a significant improvement in that respect.
IMO not offering Pentax/Leica/Hasselblad support is shortsighted and in the long run contra productive.
If Pentax/Leica/Hasselblad users were already C1 users would that at the same time not also put them in a position to more easily switch to Phase One?
Joris.
-
Steve,
I believe you are slightly overestimating the power of Capture One here.
I have a Leica S2 in addition to 4 other camera systems. The Leica S2 is already perfectly well served by Iridient Developer (a much smaller company than Phase) and LightRoom.
If however Capture One also offered Leica S support I would consider using C1 as my only raw converter and lock myself entirely into C1. For me it is purely a convenience thing that would create a lot of customer goodwill.
Before v8 this didn't even cross my mind as for most systems it was my opinion that Iridient Developer did a better job anyway. C1 v8 is a significant improvement in that respect.
IMO not offering Pentax/Leica/Hasselblad support is shortsighted and in the long run contra productive.
If Pentax/Leica/Hasselblad users were already C1 users would that at the same time not also put them in a position to more easily switch to Phase One?
Joris.
Joris, I am familiar with Iridient. I know and have met Brian and very much respect him and his product.
Other than "goodwill", I don't see a benefit to Phase One that you've laid out by offering C1 support to Pentax/Leica/Hasselblad. I think the argument for an existing Capture One user (like a DSLR/Mirrorless user) to add a Phase One product rather than a competitive medium format user switching is a stronger argument. Think if Hasselblad for all these years had Capture One and Phase One had Flexcolor/Phocus. How their fortunes might have differed. The dividing lines are larger between files from a DSLR/Mirrorless than between Pentax/Leica/Hasselblad and Phase One. Resultingly, offering C1 support to Pentax/Leica/Hasselblad simply strengthens their position and probably reduces the desire to more easily switch to Phase One. IMO.
While I certainly respect the perspective of end users wanting Capture One for their capture device, I have to also respect and appreciate that Phase One probably knows just as much - or more - whether offering it would be wise for their future course or not. From that standpoint, they do have the benefit of knowing their future course, and if they feel it would be beneficial armed with that knowledge, one would think they would have already made the offering.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I think C1 not supporting Pentax is a very good thing. This provides a lucrative potential niche for young programmers wishing to enter the market with a Raw converter.
Anyone who provides results equal or superior to Lightroom will find buyers with an eye to quality willing to listen. And, if I may be allowed to exercise first amendment rights to satire, surpassing Lightroom in Raw conversion quality is about as hard as getting out of bed for your average 19 year old with access to the Internet :).....................
Edmund
I very much agree Edmund, except, based on my recollection, getting out of bed at the age 19 is not easy unless it's after 10.
-
I very much agree Edmund, except, based on my recollection, getting out of bed at the age 19 is not easy unless it's after 10.
Yes, those were the days - two major problems, getting them into bed in the evening, and getting oneself out for breakfast in the morning :)
Edmund
-
Of course it is entirely up to C1 do decide what cameras to support, an I am not saying this is an easy business decision. It has to be balanced between:
- Does the C1 software give them a real advantage in the camera market? (How many say, well I have to buy Phase One camera to really get full advantage of C1)?
- What is the cost of maintaining an advanced SW for a niche camera, compared to broadening the sale of the SW and get more revenue/a less vulnerable position?
- Would a broader user base for C1 actually increase the interest for their camera - provide a path from other platforms to Phase One?
I am sure they have analyzed this. My point is just that I like C1 and would like to fully utillize it for my Leica S system. And I am not in the market for a Phase One, with or without C1.
-
As bcooter said once, in the real market people vote with their wallets buying products.
In my case after some interest in the 645z, being a C1 user and some testing I've found that 645z+lightroom don't fit my workflow and I'm not buying... by now I'd be sticking with canon with some occasional P1 rent, and if I end up in MF it probably will be leaf or phase (o course at a lower price, but that's another story)
So with the actual 645z situation my vote is nope, if added support to c1 my vote would probably be a purchase that would benefit pentax and not phase, since I'd be buying the updates anyway and that would kill any chance of me getting a p1-leaf back.
I know that's only my 0.02 but there's one "vote"
-
As bcooter said once, in the real market people vote with their wallets buying products.
In my case after some interest in the 645z, being a C1 user and some testing I've found that 645z+lightroom don't fit my workflow and I'm not buying... by now I'd be sticking with canon with some occasional P1 rent, and if I end up in MF it probably will be leaf or phase (o course at a lower price, but that's another story)
So with the actual 645z situation my vote is nope, if added support to c1 my vote would probably be a purchase that would benefit pentax and not phase, since I'd be buying the updates anyway and that would kill any chance of me getting a p1-leaf back.
I know that's only my 0.02 but there's one "vote"
I actually had the 645D and liked it and the workfow was a non issue since I use Lightroom for all my library/catalog needs and processing DSLR files. I use C1 for all my work using the PhaseOne back. No with V8.1 I might move all my processing to C1p. My main issue with the 645D is that I wanted better and more lens selection and that the warranty (at least in the USA) was (still is) such that if anything went wrong with the camera (or lens) I would be without it 8-10 weeks. That is unacceptable. Canon has outstanding service (in the USA at least) with fast turnaround. Nikon I hear is a tad sketchy but good still.
-
I would love to know why and see examples proving that processing .orf (Olympus RAW files) with Capture One is superior to ACR. Not to burst anybody's bubble, but I've yet run into an Oly shooter whose raved about or even tried Capture One. If it is 20% better than ACR, I may be willing to consider a swap.
-
Personally I have bought and tried Capture One and used with my P45+ but we never made friends.
The advantage I see witch C1 V7 over LR5 is that it produces significantly less aliasing artefacts on the P45+.
So I am a quite happy user of LR5 (using my own DCP profiles) with the P45+, but hoping that Adobe comes up with a newer processing pipeline producing less artefacts with the P45+.
Best regards
Erik
I would love to know why and see examples proving that processing .orf (Olympus RAW files) with Capture One is superior to ACR. Not to burst anybody's bubble, but I've yet run into an Oly shooter whose raved about or even tried Capture One. If it is 20% better than ACR, I may be willing to consider a swap.
-
Personally I have bought and tried Capture One and used with my P45+ but we never made friends.
The advantage I see witch C1 V7 over LR5 is that it produces significantly less aliasing artefacts on the P45+.
So I am a quite happy user of LR5 (using my own DCP profiles) with the P45+, but hoping that Adobe comes up with a newer processing pipeline producing less artefacts with the P45+.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Any version of C1 can be switched into DB mode where it is free with P1 files, so you don't need to buy it.
You may profit from using an older version, they had a different look.
Edmund
-
BTW we're running a giveaway draw right now on Capture One Pro licences...sign up to our newsletter (http://www.anpdm.com/newsletter/2225517/424559477740425C4571) and be in a chance to win...
HNY all!!!!
BR
Yair
-
BTW we're running a giveaway draw right now on Capture One Pro licences...sign up to our newsletter (http://www.anpdm.com/newsletter/2225517/424559477740425C4571) and be in a chance to win...
HNY all!!!!
BR
Yair
Finally an on-topic post. What would we do without reps.
Happy New Year Yair -
Edmund