Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Colorado David on December 28, 2014, 11:40:13 pm
-
What raw converter are you using?
-
I would not process D810 raws without PhaseOne CaptureOne (Ver. 8). For me, there is just no contest with the other converters.....tried Adobe and was disappointed with the color rendition.
Mike Coffey, Prescott
-
Hello,
For me its Adobe Camera Raw all the way.
Cheers
Simon
-
C1 Pro 8 and sometimes DxO 10.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
C1 Pro 8 and ACR. I like the colors in C1 Pro 8 better. Highlight and shadow recovery better in ACR. I'm no pro, so take with a grain of salt.
-
Thanks everyone. I used to get emails with C1 discounted offers all the time. I haven't gotten one in a while.
-
What raw converter are you using?
I use Lightroom 5 which works really well imho.
-
ACR and C1 8 Pro
-
ACR and C1 8 Pro
+1 Mainly ACR though.
-
What raw converter are you using?
ACR most of the time. Iridient when the image is really important.
Jim
-
Always the latest version of Lightroom.
Absolutely superb programme that acts as the hub for all my photo-processing.
Can't compare it to any of the others mentioned above as I have never felt any need to try any of them.
Main selling point (maybe that should be "retaining point") for me is that LR is lightning-fast processing the 45Mb Raw files from my D810 (and the D800 and D800E), even with a relatively modest i7 PC with only 16Gb RAM.
-
What raw converter are you using?
[/quote
I use Lightroom 5 which works really well imho.
+1
-
Lightroom 5.7 ( which uses the current version of Adobe Camera Raw). I have CaptureOne Pro 8 just been too busy to learn it.
-
Thanks everyone. I really like ACR. I will have to update my OS on a couple of computers before I get LR5. I have Final Cut Pro 7 on a couple of machines and use it a lot. I hate FCP X. I've tried to like it. Anyway, I don't want to screw up my ability to use FCP 7. I may have to buy a different computer for LR5. In the mean time I may just shoot TIFFs until I can update everything. Thanks again.
-
Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop CC 2014
-
Not a fan of ACR.
For me, using the camera maker's RAW converter works much better as with Nikon's Capture NX-2 since it also reads the camera menu settings and controls that the 3rd party RAW converters do not. Stuff like ADR for example, noise, and even moire are better handled since they know the processing going on where others take a "Punt approach" or "Looks good enough."
SG
-
Not a fan of ACR.
For me, using the camera maker's RAW converter works much better as with Nikon's Capture NX-2 since it also reads the camera menu settings and controls that the 3rd party RAW converters do not. Stuff like ADR for example, noise, and even moire are better handled since they know the processing going on where others take a "Punt approach" or "Looks good enough."
SG
I find colour very similar from NX-D to ACR ( if you compare the camera profiles) NX-2 is not working on d810's RAW alas
NX-D has a horrible workflow and the detail sharpness is lacking -( also with C1)
so for me it is ACR
-
I do also own for some reason a LR 5.7 license, but I really can't find anything besides DAM that it does better than C1 Pro 8.
I get more pleasing colors, a more "natural"/more detailed demoisaicing (especially on the files of AA filter less bodies such as the D810), more natural/pin pointed highlight recovery/shadow brightening,... You don't get any of the fake/cheap HDR look often seen in landscape shots.
GPU acceleration for image output is still buggy as of C1 Pro 8.1, but the level of performance with a Mac Pro 2013 with D700 GPU is also impressive.
It really feels like the Phase One team did pay special attentiom to the D810.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7488/16190815621_59758846c9_o.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7546/16190814341_e4ed627284_o.jpg)
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8626/15572874853_45d3d57fd2_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
ACR with latest upgrade. Works just fine. I've tried several different versions of C1, but never worked for me - probably the way my brain is wired after years and years of Adobe.
-
I do also own for some reason a LR 5.7 license, but I really can't find anything besides DAM that it does better than C1 Pro 8.
I get more pleasing colors, a more "natural"/more detailed demoisaicing (especially on the files of AA filter less bodies such as the D810), more natural/pin pointed highlight recovery/shadow brightening,... You don't get any of the fake/cheap HDR look often seen in landscape shots.
GPU acceleration for image output is still buggy as of C1 Pro 8.1, but the level of performance with a Mac Pro 2013 with D700 GPU is also impressive.
It really feels like the Phase One team did pay special attentiom to the D810.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hello Bernard,
Maybe you ( or anybody else...) could post some perfect OTUS-D810-f5.6 Raw file for everybody to convert with their favourite way so this discussion gets some bones...?
(and make this forum even more interesting)
cheers,
Pieter Kers
-
Hello Bernard,
Maybe you ( or anybody else...) could post some perfect OTUS-D810-f5.6 Raw file for everybody to convert with their favourite way so this discussion gets some bones...?
(and make this forum even more interesting)
Yes, definitely, here is one. It is shot at f4 and handheld, but it seems reasonably sharp and not too poorly exposed.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/k5kkl893bs4cz27/AAA6bIQn3OxYIkB7PvbyAFBla?dl=0
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I get more pleasing colors, a more "natural"/more detailed demoisaicing (especially on the files of AA filter less bodies such as the D810), more natural/pin pointed highlight recovery/shadow brightening,... You don't get any of the fake/cheap HDR look often seen in landscape shots.
Could you give us some examples of what you call fake/cheap HDR look from Lightroom?
-
Could you give us some examples of what you call fake/cheap HDR look from Lightroom?
I'd rather not, I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings, there is often a photographer behind the keyboard. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd rather not, I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings, there is often a photographer behind the keyboard. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
You could make an edit of one of your own pictures in C1-8 and one in Lightroom with the same look and then show us how the LR has a cheap/fake HDR look where the C1-8 has not. I'd be interested in seeing that.
-
You could make an edit of one of your own pictures in C1-8 and one in Lightroom with the same look and then show us how the LR has a cheap/fake HDR look where the C1-8 has not. I'd be interested in seeing that.
Yep, if I find the time. There is an extremely long list of other things with actual value I need to do before embarking on such niceties.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yep, if I find the time. There is an extremely long list of other things with actual value I need to do before embarking on such niceties.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'd say that the statement you made begged for a proof. I'll bet you can't make it ;) If it looks like you say it is not the fault of Lightroom but rather the guy behind the keyboard.
-
I'd say that the statement you made begged for a proof. I'll bet you can't make it ;) If it looks like you say it is not the fault of Lightroom but rather the guy behind the keyboard.
It may very well be both. ;)
Sorry Hans, prooving this point to you is low in my list of priorities. End of story.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It may very well be both. ;)
Sorry Hans, prooving this point to you is low in my list of priorities. End of story.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's fine. I have had a license for C1 up and til version 7. I have downloaded a trial version of version 8 and I use Lightroom daily. I have not seen what you claim, so I was interested in seeing what I might have missed.
-
OK :) after throwing the first stone here is the second one:
Bernards image ( thanks you!) at my basic way in ACR
sharpness 70 0,5 70 0
camera profile neutral
everything else set to zero ( colour 5200 K as shot)
(- i would usually lighten the shadows a bit in ACR and sharpen it a bit more in photoshop but that is now besides the point of interest)
download
http://www.beeld.nu/LL/ACR-base.zip
PS i have included the XMP file - but changed its name ( so you have to change the name back to use it on the original NEF)
-
It's only your view that this is a mine against yours discussion. I own both licenses and only care about the best possible image quality.
Feel free not to believe me, your loss. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ok Bernard never mind...
Enough people with C1 ( and other Raw converters) that can make the conversion...
I am just wondering how different they will be...
Thanks for dropping the NEF in the group...
PK
-
Then please show us, by way of a comparison.
What we have here is two guys arguing the toss and presenting no evidence to back up their claims. What are we meant to think?
My opinion is pretty clear cut, how about trying it out yourself? ;)
Both software have free trial options as far as I know.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My opinion is pretty clear cut, how about trying it out yourself? ;)
Both software have free trial options as far as I know.
Cheers,
Bernard
You say you "don't have the time," but it seems you spend half your life on this forum arguing almost exclusively, "mine's bigger and better."
Perhaps if you'd cut back on your posting volume, you could devote more time to backing up what you say with examples/proof?
Jack
-
You say you "don't have the time," but it seems you spend half your life on this forum arguing almost exclusively, "mine's bigger and better."
Perhaps if you'd cut back on your posting volume, you could devote more time to backing up what you say with examples/proof?
Jack
He expressed an opinion that he gets better images using the software he has chosen. It's not a blanket indictment of other software. I think the real point is that it doesn't matter if Bernard can make a better image with Capture One or ACR or anything else. He won't be the guy doing it. Everyone has to do it for themselves. And the fact is that some people are so good with Software X that even if Software Y is better at this or that, they have learned to manipulate Software X to overcome those limitations.
Personally, I would argue that for the D810, Nikon's raw conversion is the best. But when I first tried to use it, I learned that Nikon couldn't write software to save their lives. I was better with ACR in Photoshop. I never adopted Lightroom, because I am way too invested in ACR and Photoshop to spend the time and effort, even understanding that Lightroom is probably the better platform for me.
-
As i was amused yet also intrigued by this discussion and a more recent one about LR standard settings apparently not doing real justice to raws (i.e. zero contrast not really being 'zero' in all cases etc.) and at the same time I did not know what "DAM" meant as used by Bernard I googled that term and the words raw + converter.....
And then came across this:
http://www.nomadlens.com/raw-converters-comparison
Certainly not specifically aimed at D810 files, I am aware, but a very fine article imo which looks at most converters out there and gives to me very clear info about which ones to use what for.
Other than that there's not much I may add to this discussion, a D810 costs about as much as all of my favourite gear (Pentax K5 IIs, FA31Ltd, DA 50-135, DA 12-24 and a set of Lee filters) all together.... :D
Regards, Sander
-
...
And then came across this:
http://www.nomadlens.com/raw-converters-comparison ...
Regards, Sander
Sander Thanks for the link to this detailed RAW comparison...
Although there is a lot of universal information in it, it also shows how difficult it is to compare RAW converters...
One example... the detail section starts of with a - in my opinion- bad example looking through a few hunderd meters of air... dry air he claims , but still i see heavy clouds..
In this case no pixel level details are to be uncovered.
Also it is so difficult to compare the details - some are clearly more processed than others... - it is not his fault, but the different programs have different sharpening and cannot be easily compared.
Then for instance ACR works on the base of a camera profile - choosing a different one gives very different results in colour- contrast- sharpening etc...
Also i think that if you like a specific RAW converter- you know better than others how to get to the best possible outcome.
So i think it is better to start with one perfect RAW image from one camera - like the clear and sharp one Bernard provided- and let the person being best at their RAW converter do the conversion...
(although for sure one example will only cover some aspects of the story - it is a start...:) )
so now we wait...
-
You say you "don't have the time," but it seems you spend half your life on this forum arguing almost exclusively, "mine's bigger and better."
Perhaps if you'd cut back on your posting volume, you could devote more time to backing up what you say with examples/proof?
All I said is that I found C1 Pro 8 to deliver superior results on my D810 images. How is this opinion more "mine is better than yours" than the opinion of those feeling that Lightroom is better/just as good/...? Especially those who don't own/haven't tried both?
As a demonstration of your above average brain power, care to explain why on earth I would want not to use the better of 2 tools I own? Because I do use Lightroom to covert the DNG files from my Betterlight back.
Either you respect my opinion and you take this in as a reason to try out C1 Pro 8 on your own D810 files or you don't respect my opinion (which must be your case) and then happily stick to Lightroom.
I will happily share the C1 Pro 8 settings I am using to help you extract the best out of your D810.
But yes... I forgot... you don't own a D810... What the heck are you doing in this thead??? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
All I said is that I found C1 Pro 8 to deliver superior results on my D810 images. How is this opinion more "mine is better than yours" than the opinion of those feeling that Lightroom is better/just as good/...?
As a demonstration of your above average brain power, care to explain why on earth I would want not to use the better of 2 tools I own? I do use Lightroom to covert the DNG files from my Betterlight back.
Either you respect my opinion and you take this in as a reason to try out C1 Pro 8 or you don't respect my opinion (which must be your case) and then happily stick to Lightroom.
Finally, I am not sure to understand how can you contribute usefully to a thread about the conversion of raw files of a camera you'll never own?
Cheers,
Bernard
No, you wrote "...more natural/pin pointed highlight recovery/shadow brightening,... You don't get any of the fake/cheap HDR look often seen in landscape shots." in reply #17 and that's what some of us thought had a deeper meaning that you might share with us. But I think it is clear that it was stray comment that should not be taken seriously. So as you say... end of story ;)
-
I'm with Bernard on this one.
C1 is by far the best raw software I ever used for D810, and I must say for every Nikon gear supported by C1 ( View NX is very good at it too, seriously). Proving it by posting pictures here and here are just time consuming. Nikon files just have, suddenly, more "soul" in C1. This kind of soul wasn't/isn't present in ACR, at all. It is maybe just matter of interpretation. Anyway, for serious work, I do not use mainstream LR decipher sorcery. I use ACR only with native DNG pictures and they are not legion.
I was a fervent user of LR since the start till October, when darn Fuji forced me to look in other directions. By hazard I felt on C1 and it was a kind of revelation so to say.
The Highlight and Shadows recovery tools in C1 are just superior to ACR. As Bernard said, just download and try the damn thing and stop attacking the guy on the facts he is pointing. For fighting, DPR is a far better suited place.
EDIT: By far, Bernard's comment can be taken very seriously. Most of you do not even own the gear he is speaking about...
-
I'm with Bernard on this one.
C1 is by far the best raw software I ever used for D810, and I must say for every Nikon gear supported by C1. Proving it by posting pictures here and here are just time consuming. Nikon files just have, suddenly, more "soul" in C1. This kind of soul wasn't/isn't present in ACR, at all. It is maybe just matter of interpretation. Anyway, for serious work, I do not use mainstream LR decipher sorcery. I use ACR only with native DNG pictures and they are not legion.
The Highlight and Shadows recovery tools in C1 are just superior to ACR. As Bernard said, just download and try the damn thing and stop attacking the guy on the facts he is pointing. For fighting, DPR is a far better suited place.
Oh, now it is soul :) Wow, can you show us?
-
No, you wrote "...more natural/pin pointed highlight recovery/shadow brightening,... You don't get any of the fake/cheap HDR look often seen in landscape shots." in reply #17 and that's what some of us thought had a deeper meaning that you might share with us. But I think it is clear that it was stray comment that should not be taken seriously. So as you say... end of story ;)
Exactly, please consider the "cheap HDR look"part as hyperbole. I should not have written it, that isn't the important part.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Oh, now it is soul :) Wow, can you show us?
More technically I would say more vibrancy/warm/contrast, but very well adjusted by default. By default ACR is all but not optimal. I think it is very possible to obtain the same results in ACR but you will need more time and manipulations.
As professionals we want to spend less and less time in PP, I think it is the goal of a good software and, accessory, the goal of most photographers.
As I said, download the darn thing and try it, it is free. Over and out.
(forum bickering is also time consuming, and weird).
-
Exactly, please consider the "cheap HDR look"part as hyperbole. I should not have written it, that isn't the important part.
Cheers,
Bernard
Ok, end of story ;)
-
More technically I would say more vibrancy/warm/contrast, but very well adjusted by default. By default ACR is all but not optimal. I think it is very possible to obtain the same results in ACR but you will need more time and manipulations.
As professionals we want to spend less and less time in PP, I think it is the goal of a good software and, accessory, the goal of most photographers.
As I said, download the darn thing and try it, it is free. Over and out.
(forum bickering is also time consuming, and weird).
I have a license for C1 version 7 and have tried version 8 as well. I agree that the default normally looks better in C1, but being used to Lightroom it is no problem to edit to my style and it is quick to do.
I will not defend that I found your post a bit funny as it would be better if you had something to contribute on the matter rather than opinions with no substance. I have tried many times to compare C1 and LR when some people claim that this and that is better in C1 and In always found that there was no advantage in switching. And as you know switching is a pain. The only real way to switch (in my opinion) would be to to do a clean switch and then only keep old edits in the old software. I have thousands of edits in Lightroom that I would like to keep, so a switch would be a serious matter.
I'm using LR for my D810 and I'm happy with it in that I can do what I need to do. I'm sure you can be happy with C1 as I once was long time ago.
-
I have a license for C1 version 7 and have tried version 8 as well. I agree that the default normally looks better in C1, but being used to Lightroom it is no problem to edit to my style and it is quick to do.
I will not defend that I found your post a bit funny as it would be better if you had something to contribute on the matter rather than opinions with no substance. I have tried many times to compare C1 and LR when some people claim that this and that is better in C1 and In always found that there was no advantage in switching. And as you know switching is a pain. The only real way to switch (in my opinion) would be to to do a clean switch and then only keep old edits in the old software. I have thousands of edits in Lightroom that I would like to keep, so a switch would be a serious matter.
I'm using LR for my D810 and I'm happy with it in that I can do what I need to do. I'm sure you can be happy with C1 as I once was long time ago.
Well, my way of using Lr or C1 are absolutely not conventional. First, I do not like to rely on a software catalogue. For that I have my own methodology. So, for Lr, I just used the editing side and trashed the catalogue after work. I do the same with C1 sessions. I did a full switch and even got a little "webinar" from Lr to C1 and, deeply, C1 give me results I didn't get on Lr. The code used by C1 isn't the same as adobe, the difference is visible without any manipulations.
I do not keep my edits; only the raw and the tiff under different color profiles.
But for the D810 (I'm renting it almost every week actually) C1 is better. My wife still use Lr ;)
-
I'm using LR for my D810 and I'm happy with it in that I can do what I need to do. I'm sure you can be happy with C1 as I once was long time ago.
Yes, exactly, I used to work with LR as my main converter and thought it was the best. ;)
Considering the workshops you are teaching also, LR makes a lot of sense as it must be used by a majority of your clients.
In you are on Mac, I would also consider Iridient Developper. I could share an email discussion with Brian about his recommendation to achieve the highest possible level of detail/punch with the Beta 4 of Iridient Developper 3.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I could share an email discussion with Brian about his recommendation to achieve the highest possible level of detail/punch with the Beta 4 of Iridient Developper 3.
Please do.
-
Please do.
Will do by PM tonight as it was a private cconversation in a specific context.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Will do by PM tonight as it was a private cconversation in a specific context.
Many thanks, Bernard, much appreciated.
Best,
M
-
... I did a full switch and even got a little "webinar" from Lr to C1 and, deeply, C1 give me results I didn't get on Lr. The code used by C1 isn't the same as adobe, the difference is visible without any manipulations.
....
so then why don't you spend 5 minutes and developbbernards image in c1... ?
( instead of proving a picture is more than a 1000.000.000.... words ;))
-
so then why don't you spend 5 minutes and developbbernards image in c1... ?
( instead of proving a picture is more than a 1000.000.000.... words ;))
Because in margin of photography (my enterprise), and because of my knowledge of landscape and geology (my former studies), I'm working all day long at crafting photo-realist terrains for MMORPG. So when I come on a forum, to chill out, to give me some oxygen, I want all but not opening any other software, especially when those software can be tested fully for free by any one of you. So I invite you to spend 5 minutes to download C1 and making your own opinion. Yes, you can.
This is my last creation (untextured yet because in morphing). This map is a bit more the size of half Corsica in real time. It is composed of hundreds terrains that I need to stitch meter by meters perfectly ... Ho ! I'm a bit off topic.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t35.0-12/10906676_10203482471970560_998292887_o.jpg?oh=c6025c92a59f9a7129a06f376a1b21cd&oe=54B1137E&__gda__=1420820911_c526eb2f523307f310adb64d0c0c71d0)
-
And i have expired my trail of C1 before entering this thread...alas..
btw i am a physical geographer- but photographer now.
OK i give up.
-
Yes, exactly, I used to work with LR as my main converter and thought it was the best. ;)
Considering the workshops you are teaching also, LR makes a lot of sense as it must be used by a majority of your clients.
In you are on Mac, I would also consider Iridient Developper. I could share an email discussion with Brian about his recommendation to achieve the highest possible level of detail/punch with the Beta 4 of Iridient Developper 3.
The criteria for choice of tools is about what works best for me overall. There are maybe some aspects in another converter like e.g. C1 that is marginally or even considerably better than LR (not that I have found any). The way I use LR is that it is where I keep all my photos and the DAM part is very valuable. I also maintain galleries on my two main sites plus Flickr entirely LR. I also like to avoid TIFF's for a number of reasons when not needed. It would certainly be possible to use a "3rd party" RAW converter and manage the result within LR. Even do further adjustments in LR if needed. However it does break my normal workflow just like using pano stitching software, plugins like NIK software and others. I prefer to do all within LR without ever creating a TIFF file if possible. So with this philosophy there need to be a significant advantage before going for another RAW converter. E.g. NIK software where I have found that I can do very similar b&w conversions in LR but with some more work, so I use LR. I do sometimes go to NIK Silver Efex Pro just to see how different presets will look and get inspiration for a conversion which I then do in LR. Although LR does have some weaknesses (like halos on backlit black objects) it generally does a very good job. I did find checking C1 v8 that the range of the HDR sliders are considerably wider than highlights and shadows in LR which is very useful in some high DR scenes. I use the local adjustment tools in LR to compensate for this.
I have looked previously at Irridient Developper as many other RAW converters, but I see no reason to look further into this. But thanks for the offer.
Lightroom is not the main topic for my workshops, but I do show my edits in Lightroom and how I achieve the look of my images. Much of that is applicable also to C1, I would say, although the sliders are different but there are equivalent ones to LR. The main parts of my workshops are the shoots and locations that I have found over the years, technical and compositorial advice and image critiques. I usually also do a LR tutorial on the optional extra days and I show how I edit in LR. Almost everybody today uses LR when they come on my workshops. Some use ACR and Photoshop and very few C1 and almost nobody anything else. A few still use Aperture and most consider moving to LR.
-
Well, my way of using Lr or C1 are absolutely not conventional. First, I do not like to rely on a software catalogue. For that I have my own methodology. So, for Lr, I just used the editing side and trashed the catalogue after work. I do the same with C1 sessions. I did a full switch and even got a little "webinar" from Lr to C1 and, deeply, C1 give me results I didn't get on Lr. The code used by C1 isn't the same as adobe, the difference is visible without any manipulations.
I do not keep my edits; only the raw and the tiff under different color profiles.
But for the D810 (I'm renting it almost every week actually) C1 is better. My wife still use Lr ;)
I agree this is unconventional and I do not quite understand why you choose to do it this way. But it certainly means you have a free choice every time you start a new shoot and edit.
You should really buy the D810 :)
-
I do not need the D810 for my personal use; my D700 feel all my needs. I'd rather wait for the new Dfs in 2016 (or buying a used D4).
-
I'm sure you can be happy with C1 as I once was long time ago.
C1 and Lr are both premium RAW converters. Lr has a more extensive feature set than C1, both in pp (the plug-in architecture), DAM and printing – to name but a few. Arguably, C1 is the tool of choice for pros if for no other reason than its tethering capabilities, qualitative output and is the 'only' converter for PhaseOne backs.
Comparing the two, as RAW converters, should be dependent primarily on IQ and camera. Comparisons based on workflow are an entirely different subject.
Lr5 was released in June 2012. C1 has since gone through 2 product cycles, 7 & 8. If you want a reasonable comparison , best to wait for the soon-to-be-released Lr6. Only then will you be able to make a 'fair' comparison as to what improvements have been made in regard to demosaic-ing since the last 'major' release.
Iridient Developer is an excellent converter. Until C1 v8, the only converter for x-trans, the Merrills and a few others. It has an extensive 'supported cameras' list, including support for the Pentax 645 (both models), Leica S, Hasselblad and Phase. Integrates very well with C1 , a bit less so with Lr. Well worth the modest outlay (if for no other reason than its sharpening options).
C1 is a massively improved converter. If you aren't experienced or at the very least haven't used it, in its latest incarnation, you're not in a position to voice any kind of informed opinion on its capabilities. Incidentally, if you are indeed a PODAS instructor, what do you use on their workshops ?
-
C1 and Lr are both premium RAW converters. Lr has a more extensive feature set than C1, both in pp (the plug-in architecture), DAM and printing – to name but a few. Arguably, C1 is the tool of choice for pros if for no other reason than its tethering capabilities, qualitative output and is the 'only' converter for PhaseOne backs.
Comparing the two, as RAW converters, should be dependent primarily on IQ and camera. Comparisons based on workflow are an entirely different subject.
Lr5 was released in June 2012. C1 has since gone through 2 product cycles, 7 & 8. If you want a reasonable comparison , best to wait for the soon-to-be-released Lr6. Only then will you be able to make a 'fair' comparison as to what improvements have been made in regard to demosaic-ing since the last 'major' release.
Iridient Developer is an excellent converter. Until C1 v8, the only converter for x-trans, the Merrills and a few others. It has an extensive 'supported cameras' list, including support for the Pentax 645 (both models), Leica S, Hasselblad and Phase. Integrates very well with C1 , a bit less so with Lr. Well worth the modest outlay (if for no other reason than its sharpening options).
C1 is a massively improved converter. If you aren't experienced or at the very least haven't used it, in its latest incarnation, you're not in a position to voice any kind of informed opinion on its capabilities. Incidentally, if you are indeed a PODAS instructor, what do you use on their workshops ?
Thanks for you response, but I think I explained reasonably well how I see Lightroom for my use. I'm not looking for a different RAW converter if that is what you think. Regarding Phase One camera backs I used Lightroom as the main converter while I had a Phase Camera for one year. I did, of course, on a number of occasions use C1 as well. I'm only shooting Canon and Nikon cameras at the moment and LR is working well for me. I totally disagree that the other features in LR is irrelevant. They are highly relevant and as I mentioned I would only use a different RAW converter with Lightroom (than the built-in ACR engine) in case there was a significant advantage. I have not seen that or got that demonstrated in case I had missed something. I'm not saying that LR is perfect. In my view Lightroom is a very good photographers workbench and it happens to have an excellent RAW converter and editing engine. So I'm not looking anywhere else, sorry ;)
-
As I said before, I use ACR mostly and sometimes Capture One.
I use ACR not because I know it to be the best or even better, but because of a long history of use. I know how to make it do what I want. With Capture One, I can make it function, but I am not proficient.
If I was starting fresh, I would first explore Nikon Capture...again. It should have the highest performance with the least effort considering it knows the NEF format and cameras the best. Then others including ACR, eventuating the strengths and weaknesses of each.
This again is an area where knowing the tool can outweigh the tool itself. One tool might be better, at least at some things, but unless you understand it and know how to manipulate it, the advantage is wasted. I just don't have the time or inclination to try and learn multiple tools, especially when their operations paradigms so different.
-
So I'm not looking anywhere else, sorry.
No need to apologise, Hans, I'm not selling ! The post was also partly related to the OP's question ..
I totally disagree that the other features in LR is irrelevant.
I don't recall using the word 'irrelevant' anywhere in my post.
It so happens that we use Lr in similar fashion. The only difference, from what you say, is that I also integrate C1 and Iridient into my workflow on an 'as-needed' basis !
Best,
M
-
No need to apologise, Hans, I'm not selling ! The post was also partly related to the OP's question ..
I don't recall using the word 'irrelevant' anywhere in my post.
It so happens that we use Lr in similar fashion. The only difference, from what you say, is that I also integrate C1 and Iridient into my workflow on an 'as-needed' basis !
Best,
M
The word 'irrelevant' actually came from your comment on workflow. To me workflow is a very important part for me. I agree that you can do as you suggest what is similar to what I commented on as well. But is gets messy and if not needed I would avoid it. So in essence the way I judge using other tools is that the difference they need to make is significant before I would brake the workflow. The reason for that is that my style changes over time, maybe not drastically, but still enough that I go back and reedit some of my best pictures and then it is an advantage that I can see all the edits I have done and if I have done the edits in another tool I can start from scratch (which I do sometimes anyway), however I like to see what I have done and modify from there. But that is the way I work and I'm not trying to convince others to work that way :)
-
Maybe fora are made for chatting... This thread served that goal very well…
But since it is about raw conversion i would have liked it if we added some value to try and make the best of some raws images with our own best methods and share the results…
Somehow it did not happen and it is a pity for it would have made this discussion more factual and interesting.
-
The word 'irrelevant' actually came from your comment on workflow. To me workflow is a very important part for me. I agree that you can do as you suggest what is similar to what I commented on as well. But is gets messy and if not needed I would avoid it. So in essence the way I judge using other tools is that the difference they need to make is significant before I would brake the workflow. The reason for that is that my style changes over time, maybe not drastically, but still enough that I go back and reedit some of my best pictures and then it is an advantage that I can see all the edits I have done and if I have done the edits in another tool I can start from scratch (which I do sometimes anyway), however I like to see what I have done and modify from there. But that is the way I work and I'm not trying to convince others to work that way :)
In term of workflow, I personally find C1 more relevant than Lr simply because of the auto generated, clever file organisation when simply pressed "New session". This simple feature just blown me away.
(http://i.imgur.com/Bfhp8rV.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/8VwbX5d.jpg)
Maybe fora are made for chatting... This thread served that goal very well…
But since it is about raw conversion i would have liked it if we added some value to try and make the best of some raws images with our own best methods and share the results…
Somehow it did not happen and it is a pity for it would have made this discussion more factual and interesting.
This, Sir, is pointless. We are some here pointing the superior rendering of C1 pro 8 because we just use it constantly, even in conjunction with Lr. The thing is that ppl should draw their own conclusions about it by "testing" the app. Using a raw developer is not easy as every body do have his own cooking technique, his own way to use it to obtain "a personal" rendering.
Some (I'm in it) will never share any development technique with ppl on forum. Maybe when I will be retired, if I'm retired one day. Some just do not want to start on this subject (I'm in it too) because they foresee that it will degenerate in a Lr vs C1 war and we have no damn time nor energy for that, sorry. In +, a professional forum like Lula should not be a bickering place like DP review or whatever. Its a good place made by epicureans for epicureans.
Anyway, we are some here using the D810 on a regular basis for professional/commissioned works, with C1, and some with Lr too. If the OP test both for 30 days he will make his own decision. A "raw converter war" will just confuse him and, directly, his final choice (always doubting).
-
....
This, Sir, is pointless. We are some here pointing the superior rendering of C1 pro 8 because we just use it constantly, even in conjunction with Lr. The thing is that ppl should draw their own conclusions about it by "testing" the app. Using a raw developer is not easy as every body do have his own cooking technique, his own way to use it to obtain "a personal" rendering.
Some (I'm in it) will never share any development technique with ppl on forum. Maybe when I will be retired, if I'm retired one day. Some just do not want to start on this subject (I'm in it too) because they foresee that it will degenerate in a Lr vs C1 war and we have no damn time nor energy for that, sorry. In +, a professional forum like Lula should not be a bickering place like DP review or whatever. Its a good place made by epicureans for epicureans.
...
Hulyss, thank you for your clear answer ...although i do not agree on both statemens. I am out on this one.
-
If the OP test both for 30 days he will make his own decision. A "raw converter war" will just confuse him and, directly, his final choice (always doubting).
Good sense.
I am not interested in "wars" but, generally, I find some opinion from experienced users a decent starting point from which to launch my own tests of alternatives (or, sometimes, to suggest options that I might have completely missed).
But, yes, sometimes, as in this instance, it begins to look like some enthusiasts are merely attempting to justify (perhaps to themselves) the choices that they have already made.
-
This is precisely why I prefer ACR versus C1. ACR does it my way while C1 and Lightroom both want to me to do it their way! I don't want to have to IMPORT to anything. My files are where they are and I want them to stay that way.
In term of workflow, I personally find C1 more relevant than Lr simply because of the auto generated, clever file organisation when simply pressed "New session". This simple feature just blown me away.
(http://i.imgur.com/Bfhp8rV.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/8VwbX5d.jpg)
-
This is precisely why I prefer ACR versus C1. ACR does it my way while C1 and Lightroom both want to me to do it their way!
C1 is flexible in the way it creates a structured environment, or not. Your image files can stay where they are.
And where ACR creates sidecar files if one want to preserve the Raw conversion settings, Capture One suggests to put them in a subdirectory (of you choosing) to reduce clutter and facilitate efficient backups.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I glanced at this thread and got a laugh.
You d800 boys have been chewing on peeps that own cameras other than a d800 Nikon for like . . . ever.
Now that you've run everybody off with dr, dxo, charts and mine is bigger than yours stuff, you've turned on each other.
Like those guys stranded in the mountains and run out of food.
You start looking at your buddy's ankle and sees a BBQ sandwich.
But yes... I forgot... you don't own a D810... What the heck are you doing in this thead??? ;)
Bernard
Bernard,
You really say this with a straight face?
You've posted on every section, almost every thread about cameras you don't own, use, or plan to own and if you couldn't mention that nikon you bought you'd only have 300 posts instead of 8,000.
You guys are funny.
Please go back to vivisecting each other. This has become interesting.
IMO
BC
-
I just asked a simple question, and I do own a D810, but this is page 4 and anything can happen.
-
I just asked a simple question, and I do own a D810, but this is page 4 and anything can happen.
Your right, but you gotta see the humor in this.
I mean it's gone to one guy who charges for seminars slapping around another guy for not processing out the same file in two convertors to "prove" his assertion.
And he wants him to do it for free.
It's funny and makes me believe there just isn't that much difference between these electronic boxes . . . not in the real world.
I believed for a long time that c-1 processed out dslr files better than lightroom, even went so far as to buy our retouchers c-1 liscense.
They never used them as most professional retouchers process out everything in photoshop, then get to work.
They don't care if it's a Canon or Nikon or a Leica.
They chuckle at photographers that are obsessed with "ultimate image quality", cause they know with digital serious post production is done in photoshop.
IMO
BC
-
Why so serious BC ? ;D
(http://payload113.cargocollective.com/1/9/313125/4578694/Jerry_650.jpg)
-
You really say this with a straight face?
You've posted on every section, almost every thread about cameras you don't own, use, or plan to own and if you couldn't mention that nikon you bought you'd only have 300 posts instead of 8,000.
James,
I guess that you are not familiar yet with the smiley concept. To your defense it has only been around for less than 10 years. ;)
On your second point, I know this is how you feel as you seem almost obsessed by my ownership of Nikon cameras judging by how often you write about it, but go back and check my actual posting history and show me those posts where I spoke about Nikon cameras in a non relevant context.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Edited.
Very non serious.
I mean don't care, I just think it really is humorous.
Be real. Since that Nikon came out, it's infested every thread, medium format, 35mm doesn't matter.
If not Nikon, it's dr or dxo. In my career I don't think I've heard the "dr" thing mentioned ever in professional conversation.
But Bernhard, also be real. Not just about your posts but about every thread that gets teched to death.
Doesn't anybody notice the amount of good photographers that use to write interesting anecdotes that don't post on this site anymore.
Especially in the medium format area where most of the pros used to go, regardless of the cameras they used?
As somebody said, the tech guys will always finish off every thread.
But everyone's right, it's not worth the effort to talk about it.
I should get back to my pre production.
whew.
insert that silly smiley face thing here.
IMO
BC
-
Be real. Since that Nikon came out, it's infested every thread, medium format, 35mm doesn't matter. If not Nikon, it's dr or dxo. In my career I don't think I've heard the "dr" thing mentioned ever in professional conversation.
Doesn't anybody notice the amount of good photographers that use to write interesting anecdotes that don't post on this site anymore. Especially in the medium format area where most of the pros used to go, regardless of the cameras they used?
As somebody said, the tech guys will always finish off every thread.
First, this is the Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear area of the forum which pretty much makes it a tech discussion area. And photography is part science and part art; both impacted by technology.
As to the Nikon issue, the reason is that like many others before it by many different makers, the Nikon D8x0 cameras broke new ground for DSLRs. If you doubt that a simple comparison should illustrate. Canon has been the long time market leader in DSLRs. The most comparable Canon camera to the D810 is the $3100 5DmkIII which is about 5 year behind in sensor subsystem performance. My $1000 24MP APS-C D7100 outperforms from a resolution and DR standpoint every Canon Camera. The fact that the $6000 1Dx is rated just below the $500 D3300 in all sensor areas other than ISO performance is somewhat shocking, especially when you realize that it's poor high ISO performance is a function of the D3300 being 24MP APS-C versus 18MP FF and cheap electronics that $500 buys.
-
James,
This is a thread about D810 raw conversion seeking opinions from D810 shooters, what's the problem with a D810 shooter sharing his opinion about the best raw conversion for the D810?
Really.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
DxO Optic Pro 10 does a particularly good job with less than optimum lenses, if the lens / camera combo is supported. My preferred converter is ACR for all cameras it supports, including the D810 (same basic converter as used in Lightroom of course), but I use DxO occasionally.
-
But Bernhard, also be real.
:o This much ? :D
-
Come on kids....keep it civil.
This is a worthwhile thread and I'd hate to have to shut it down.
Personal jabs must drop to zero, please.
Michael
-
This is precisely why I prefer ACR versus C1. ACR does it my way while C1 and Lightroom both want to me to do it their way! I don't want to have to IMPORT to anything. My files are where they are and I want them to stay that way.
If you learn LR then you will realize that this is not true. The database approach of LR is the reason for the need to import the pictures or more correctly the information about the pictures. The pictures themselves stay where you like them to be either during import and when you might copy manually from where they were (either on a HD or on a cf card). The database approach of LR has many advantages and this approach has also been adopted by Capture One from version 7. In C1 they still have the session approach which does not use a catalog AFAIK.
-
I mean it's gone to one guy who charges for seminars slapping around another guy for not processing out the same file in two convertors to "prove" his assertion.
And he wants him to do it for free.
It's funny and makes me believe there just isn't that much difference between these electronic boxes . . . not in the real world.
It's just such a good example of how things gets twisted on forums. :-\
Seriously I was interested in differences that I had not seen between LR and C1. I have over the years come across many such claims and I have often checked them. In some cases I have seen a better conversion from another converter than ACR/LR, however judging this against the need to use multiple conversions and have always found that the difference which often was quite small (or could be achieved by more work in LR) was not worth the complexity. Since I use LR on a daily basis and know it very well there may well be parts of another converter that I have used from time to time like C1, that I did not know of or did not realize what else you could achieve. Therefore I felt this was a useful discussion. It turned out that Bernard was not quite serious about this comments which fine with me as long as it is said in the thread.
-
If you learn LR then you will realize that this is not true. The database approach of LR is the reason for the need to import the pictures or more correctly the information about the pictures. The pictures themselves stay where you like them to be either during import and when you might copy manually from where they were (either on a HD or on a cf card). The database approach of LR has many advantages and this approach has also been adopted by Capture One from version 7. In C1 they still have the session approach which does not use a catalog AFAIK.
Thanks Hans. I have the trial of latest Lightroom version downloaded and installed, but have not used it yet. I intend to try using Lightroom again as it is probably a better tool for my use than Photoshop. I still struggle with the whole "OK, am I impacting the real file or just the database entry Lightroom is keeping" thing. It's the same struggle I have with helping my kid's with their iPhones. Compared to selecting 10GB of music on my server and dragging to my Android phone, having to import to a iTunes library, then using special software to move it to the phone, then having it want to back it all up again.
-
Is there a review/comparison of RAW converters based on conversions from the D8x0 cameras?
I would love to see a listing of the demonstrated strengths and weaknesses of each converter. Of course, some tangible evidence would need to be shown. It would be helpful for each of us to then look at our most likely conversion scenarios and match the needs to the converter that has strengths that benefit that type of scenario.
Unless you are willing to become proficient (not just know how to use it) with 2 or 3 converters, I think most people would be best served by becoming proficient with a single converter. Of course, in that case, you certainly want to to pick the one with strengths (and not weaknesses) that play to your type of photography.
-
Thanks Hans. I have the trial of latest Lightroom version downloaded and installed, but have not used it yet. I intend to try using Lightroom again as it is probably a better tool for my use than Photoshop. I still struggle with the whole "OK, am I impacting the real file or just the database entry Lightroom is keeping" thing. It's the same struggle I have with helping my kid's with their iPhones. Compared to selecting 10GB of music on my server and dragging to my Android phone, having to import to a iTunes library, then using special software to move it to the phone, then having it want to back it all up again.
Understand :) But this is just until it is natural for you. All the pictures you have edited using ACR will be included into the LR database when you import folders with raw and xmp files. You can also get xmp files built from the edits you do in LR by turning on xmp write in the catalog settings.
-
Hi,
LR and ACR share the raw engine. I don't know if ACR gives access to all functions in Lightroom, but it is the same converter at should give similar results.
Personally, I feel the demosaic part is lacking a bit. This is mostly a non issue, but it generates more and worse artefacts on my P45+ than say Capture One. Far less problems on the Sony. Hope they work over the demosaic part in the next version.
Here is a page showing demosaic errors in a few raw converters:
| Raw Therape | Capture One 7.2 |
| LR 5.6 | Accu Raw |
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/RawConverters/Mosaic/Aliasing_NS_200_percent.jpg
This one is an example of colour reproduction of greens and violets
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/
The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/OLS_OnColor/SimpleCase/Data/
This was from a P45+, so it is very different from the Nikon D810. Just to say, there are differences.
Personally I stay with LR 5, as it offers a very good workflow and excellent integration with Photoshop. The main problem area I have seen is haloing around sharp contours on the P45+ and demosaic errors. So, if I have a problem image I will resort to one of the other converters, Accuraw or RawTherapee in my case.
Best regards
Erik
Is there a review/comparison of RAW converters based on conversions from the D8x0 cameras?
I would love to see a listing of the demonstrated strengths and weaknesses of each converter. Of course, some tangible evidence would need to be shown. It would be helpful for each of us to then look at our most likely conversion scenarios and match the needs to the converter that has strengths that benefit that type of scenario.
Unless you are willing to become proficient (not just know how to use it) with 2 or 3 converters, I think most people would be best served by becoming proficient with a single converter. Of course, in that case, you certainly want to to pick the one with strengths (and not weaknesses) that play to your type of photography.