Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Considering moving from LR to C1  (Read 13143 times)

Mike Guilbault

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1024
    • Mike Guilbault Photography
Considering moving from LR to C1
« on: July 18, 2015, 08:22:00 am »

I'm considering moving from LR to Capture One and with the release of the newest version recently, the old comparisons may no longer be valid.  I'm on an older Mac and the new 'speed upgrade' in LR isn't enabled on my Mac... it's even slower with it enabled, so therefore looking at C1. I'd be most interested in hearing from those that have made the switch and if it's been worthwhile.  However, what you usually don't read about is what CAN'T I do in C1 that I can in LR?

I also do all my printing from LR currently and there's very little information on printing from C1 so I'd like to hear opinions on that as well.
Logged
Mike Guilbault

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2015, 08:54:09 am »

The two programs are very different, they address different needs.

Best regards
Erik

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Mike Guilbault

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1024
    • Mike Guilbault Photography
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2015, 10:25:56 am »

That's why I asked the question Erik.  I'd like to know what the differences are.  From what I've read so far, most are saying the images are better out of C1, but I'm also concerned with the workflow and printing.
Logged
Mike Guilbault

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3961
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2015, 11:28:32 am »

Some thoughts:

LR, is catalog only, (which I do not prefer), C1 allows either and I always be a session user.  

C1, to me has a more sophisticated color selection tool, especially in version 8.x. C1 allows a local adjustment layer with color corrections, and you can pick the color very easily.  Where as LR has color adjustment in the adjustment brush I do not like the method as I find it harder to work with. You also can now have local layer white balance control in C1 vr 8.x.  Outstanding.

C1 to me is the best by far for any Phase One files, even the older Phase One backs, P25, P45+ etc.  In fact the latest version of C1 has allowed me to pull some excellent results from my older P45+ images.

C1 loads with less color profile options for non Phase One cameras, usually just one profile, LR will offer several and it's important to try many of them IMO.

LR has a history, C1 does not.  The LR history stays with the catalog, so as long as an image is in the catalog, you can see the steps you used on it.  If C1 would offer this, I would be in processing heaven, but they seem either to not understand the need or can't do it.  I do a huge amount of processing in LR or C1, very little in CC now and the history of work is just a huge advantage, at least to me.

C1 allows you to turn on and off a local adjustment layer (which is a huge advantage), LR, all adjustments either on or off, you can't just turn one off to see the effect (at least I can't do it)

LR with latest version has very powerful tool in the "auto mask" and it can really save processing time.  I can't figure out why such a great selection tool can't be incorporated into CC?  C1's auto mask IMO has a lot to be desired at this stage.

LR has a excellent print module, I use it exclusively as I don't want the extra cost of a RIP, C1, I have never printed from.  

LR allows plugins, from tools like Topaz or Nik, I don't believe C1 allows this.

LR has an excellent HDR merge function with latest version and the Photomerge feature is very good.  KEY is that you can merge the files while still in LR and they are seen as a large raw file.  Wonderful tool.  And the merge function is excellent from what I have seen.

C1 has the best LCC tool for a Phase One back, hands down, if you are using a tech camera, you are pretty forced there.  LR has a method, but I tried it and did not like it.

LR seems to still get bloated (i.e slow) when you are working a file with a lot of adjustment brush settings, might just be my computer?  32GB of ram, 1GB of video GX470 nvidia? win64 i7

C1 DOES not like to work from a raid device, at least a Drobo.  Loads images way slower and at times will lock up. LR does not seem to have this issue.

Many seem to not to use output sharpening from either tool, I do, works for me fine.  

I would give the fringing ability edge to LR, as it has a more robust tool set, where as C1 is pretty much a check box.

C1 loads Phase images with a very strong "film curve" that has a lot of contrast and saturation, which I tend to like, but there are times I will back off to the linear curve for starting, especially on images in low light.  LR on the other hand seems to load the images more neutral.

I feel both LR and C1 have excellent shadow and highlight recovery tool sets and these are allowed in the adjustment brush in LR and the local adjustment layer of C1.

These are the most obvious I can think of from using both tools side by side over the years.

Paul
« Last Edit: July 18, 2015, 12:07:07 pm by Paul2660 »
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

[email protected]

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
    • http://Benoit.LA
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2015, 11:45:38 am »

Thank you Paul, your post is very helpful.
I have been using CO for a week now and like the "non bloated" look and feel of it but I am experiencing some serious frustrations that make me wonder if this is the right move for me. Certainly some of it is due to my proficiency with LR but some seem inherent to CO. e.g. the latency when I click on a tif file...
In your opinion, is the quality of CO as a raw converter really much, much better than LR and worth letting go of the plugins, the print module, the HDR merge, the history, the Smart Objects etc?

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3961
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2015, 12:04:10 pm »

Thank you Paul, your post is very helpful.
I have been using CO for a week now and like the "non bloated" look and feel of it but I am experiencing some serious frustrations that make me wonder if this is the right move for me. Certainly some of it is due to my proficiency with LR but some seem inherent to CO. e.g. the latency when I click on a tif file...
In your opinion, is the quality of CO as a raw converter really much, much better than LR and worth letting go of the plugins, the print module, the HDR merge, the history, the Smart Objects etc?

I feel that Phase One (C1) has the best conversion for any Phase One back, LR however did surprise me with some old P45+ files I worked up.  But LR only has one camera profile for the Phase Backs and thus to me is a bit limited.  I do not like the Phase One conversion for Fuji X-trnas, but like their Nikon conversions and Love their Canon conversions.  I use C1 for most if not all of my 5D, 5d MKII, and 1ds MKII, 1ds , and 6D conversions.  C1 seems to give a bit better look to me and for sure less noise/banding in the older Canon files.  LR on the other hand made a huge forward step on Fuji in the most recent version of camera raw.  Hopefully they will still tweak the detail recovery. 

I personally can't say I would ever go to just one.  I have used C1 since the 3.7x days long before LR was around.  Why C1 can't add a history to me is strange as it's a huge asset.  One reason I also don't use ACR, no history.  Again I do almost all my work in these tools now, hardly going to CC unless I need something specific.  I realize that is just one opinion on use, but the toolsets each program offers are just excellent.

I would also love to see both tools offer a deconvolution style of sharpening as I feel that is the best overall.

Paul
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3359
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2015, 12:52:59 pm »


I would also love to see both tools offer a deconvolution style of sharpening as I feel that is the best overall.

Paul

I don't know about C1, but ACR/LR do offer a form of deconvolution as described here. However, it does not appear to use that many iterations as it is relatively fast as compared to Lucy-Richardson and other full blown deconvolution algorithms. I would imagine that the results would be inferior to LR.

Bill
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1750
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2015, 01:03:06 pm »

I'd second 90% of Paul's comments above.

Surprised at the difficulties in using a raid with C1. I use a simple 2-striped set and haven't noticed a speed penalty. Admittedly I'm on OS X 10.10 and perhaps there's a difference in the way the two OS's manage memory ?

The OP doesn't say what type of photography he focuses on. Many (most) here are landscapers, those of us that are more studio, fashion, portraiture focussed may have different workflow preferences. Certainly, a big advantage with C1 is the best-in-class robust tethering. Add to that the tie-in with Sony and the future does look to favour C1 with Sony so dominant in sensor development.

FWIW, I switched full time to C1 after the latest Lr6 release. I use Lr5 as a DAM and retain it as my preferred method of printing. C1 is a raw converter - Topaz plug-ins etc are, IMO, in the category of post-conversion output tools, not 'de rigeur' at the conversion stage. I have looked at C1's printing stage and though much improved doesn't match Lr ease of use plus I don't see the advantage of bringing the file back into C1 after post. I export to Lr and that's where they stay.

My only regret is that FocusMagic isn't available as an Lr plugin. If it were I might feel differently. Might.
Do I regret the move - not one bit, but then again I run 3 raw converters so I'm not exactly committed.

M

-
For the record, I'm a CC subscriber, and have access to Lr6 if I so wished.
@bjanes if sharpening is so important to your subject matter, then there's little to beat Iridient Developer.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2015, 01:25:54 pm by Manoli »
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1750
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2015, 01:13:58 pm »

However, what you usually don't read about is what CAN'T I do in C1 that I can in LR?

Use Ps/Lr style plug-ins.
B&W conversions - debatable, I prefer Lr but then again it's more post than raw conversion.
Prefer Lr's curve controls.
Prefer Lr's print module
Retain parametric and history data.
And, if you're into HDR, use the new HDR from RAW feature of Lr6 - but then again it's in Ps CC2015.
Plus web, map, etc ... modules.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2015, 03:34:43 pm »

Hi,

I am partial to LR for two reasons. One is that I am strong advocate of the database approach that LR uses, the other one is that I have been using it since 2006, when Beta 3 was released.

The way I see it, LR is a workflow solution. I think that we can do something like 90% of the work within Lightroom, without involving a pixel editor like Photoshop.

C1 is a different animal. I don't think that C1 is a workflow solution but more like a raw converter.

As I said, I have been using LR since it's inception. With C1 I don't have that experience. Actually, I am a bit lost with C1, but I don't feel like C1 is a complete workflow solution.

My experience is that C1 is good at suppressing aliasing artefacts wit MFD while LR may produce some of it's own.

So what I would say, if you have few images and want to process them in Photoshop than C1 is a good starting point. If you want a raw workflow where you don't want to go into Photoshop than Lightrooms is a quite natural choice.

If you have something like 70000 images, like me, switching workflow is not an easy decision. Keep also in mind that both tools are in development.

Best regards
Erik

That's why I asked the question Erik.  I'd like to know what the differences are.  From what I've read so far, most are saying the images are better out of C1, but I'm also concerned with the workflow and printing.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2015, 03:41:59 pm »

Hi,

Paul gives a good summary. Personally I am used to Lightroom and I may have different priorities.

Best regards
Erik

Some thoughts:

LR, is catalog only, (which I do not prefer), C1 allows either and I always be a session user.  

C1, to me has a more sophisticated color selection tool, especially in version 8.x. C1 allows a local adjustment layer with color corrections, and you can pick the color very easily.  Where as LR has color adjustment in the adjustment brush I do not like the method as I find it harder to work with. You also can now have local layer white balance control in C1 vr 8.x.  Outstanding.

C1 to me is the best by far for any Phase One files, even the older Phase One backs, P25, P45+ etc.  In fact the latest version of C1 has allowed me to pull some excellent results from my older P45+ images.

C1 loads with less color profile options for non Phase One cameras, usually just one profile, LR will offer several and it's important to try many of them IMO.

LR has a history, C1 does not.  The LR history stays with the catalog, so as long as an image is in the catalog, you can see the steps you used on it.  If C1 would offer this, I would be in processing heaven, but they seem either to not understand the need or can't do it.  I do a huge amount of processing in LR or C1, very little in CC now and the history of work is just a huge advantage, at least to me.

C1 allows you to turn on and off a local adjustment layer (which is a huge advantage), LR, all adjustments either on or off, you can't just turn one off to see the effect (at least I can't do it)

LR with latest version has very powerful tool in the "auto mask" and it can really save processing time.  I can't figure out why such a great selection tool can't be incorporated into CC?  C1's auto mask IMO has a lot to be desired at this stage.

LR has a excellent print module, I use it exclusively as I don't want the extra cost of a RIP, C1, I have never printed from.  

LR allows plugins, from tools like Topaz or Nik, I don't believe C1 allows this.

LR has an excellent HDR merge function with latest version and the Photomerge feature is very good.  KEY is that you can merge the files while still in LR and they are seen as a large raw file.  Wonderful tool.  And the merge function is excellent from what I have seen.

C1 has the best LCC tool for a Phase One back, hands down, if you are using a tech camera, you are pretty forced there.  LR has a method, but I tried it and did not like it.

LR seems to still get bloated (i.e slow) when you are working a file with a lot of adjustment brush settings, might just be my computer?  32GB of ram, 1GB of video GX470 nvidia? win64 i7

C1 DOES not like to work from a raid device, at least a Drobo.  Loads images way slower and at times will lock up. LR does not seem to have this issue.

Many seem to not to use output sharpening from either tool, I do, works for me fine.  

I would give the fringing ability edge to LR, as it has a more robust tool set, where as C1 is pretty much a check box.

C1 loads Phase images with a very strong "film curve" that has a lot of contrast and saturation, which I tend to like, but there are times I will back off to the linear curve for starting, especially on images in low light.  LR on the other hand seems to load the images more neutral.

I feel both LR and C1 have excellent shadow and highlight recovery tool sets and these are allowed in the adjustment brush in LR and the local adjustment layer of C1.

These are the most obvious I can think of from using both tools side by side over the years.

Paul
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

[email protected]

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
    • http://Benoit.LA
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2015, 04:15:29 pm »

Productive feedback, thanks. The workflow solution of LR is certainly weighing in as CO seems quite limited in this regard. It also has some frustrating quirks (like latency on click on some Tif files) that show up on Google without solutions. LR works flawlessly on my computer and no matter what I throw at it, it just doesn't break down.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2015, 04:20:11 pm »

Hi,

From the performance side C1 works well for me on my 2009 generation MacPro.

Best regards
Erik

Productive feedback, thanks. The workflow solution of LR is certainly weighing in as CO seems quite limited in this regard. It also has some frustrating quirks (like latency on click on some Tif files) that show up on Google without solutions. LR works flawlessly on my computer and no matter what I throw at it, it just doesn't break down.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

[email protected]

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
    • http://Benoit.LA
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2015, 04:26:33 pm »

Thanks Eric, then CO should work on my machine as well. Will look further into the way I configured it and/or at some possible corruptions coming from my playing around with the software.

Mike Guilbault

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1024
    • Mike Guilbault Photography
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2015, 10:26:46 pm »

To answer a questions above, I am a portrait, commercial and landscape photographer, so use different workflows for each, although I do keep most of it in a single LR catalog. I keep my file structure separated, but it's all in LR. I have an older Early 2008 MacPro which is part of my problem but was looking at C1 as a possible way to increase speed of processing which is very slow in LR at the moment. However, I also do my own printing so don't want to lose the LR printing capabilities.  It doesn't look like C1 is going to be any real advantage if I lose some of the great features of LR.  I use the new pano merge quite a bit, for example, and don't see that in C1.

Thanks for the insight.. especially your detailed response Paul. I think I'm going to have to break down and upgrade my MacPro.
Logged
Mike Guilbault

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2015, 12:45:45 am »

Hi Mike,

Two useful upgrades to the Mac Pro is adding more memory using an SSD for the system.

LuLa has a Video on Capture One V7 and you can try it for a limited period.

Best regards
Erik

To answer a questions above, I am a portrait, commercial and landscape photographer, so use different workflows for each, although I do keep most of it in a single LR catalog. I keep my file structure separated, but it's all in LR. I have an older Early 2008 MacPro which is part of my problem but was looking at C1 as a possible way to increase speed of processing which is very slow in LR at the moment. However, I also do my own printing so don't want to lose the LR printing capabilities.  It doesn't look like C1 is going to be any real advantage if I lose some of the great features of LR.  I use the new pano merge quite a bit, for example, and don't see that in C1.

Thanks for the insight.. especially your detailed response Paul. I think I'm going to have to break down and upgrade my MacPro.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Lightroom some general comments
« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2015, 03:18:40 am »

Hi,

Lightroom is about parametric workflow and has excellent integration with Photoshop. What this means is that within LR we can work to a large extent with raw files. LR does raw conversion, when needed. An example is that when opening a file in Photoshop from Lightroom, it is Photoshop doing the raw conversion. I also think that Lightroom can handle Photoshop smart objects.

Lightroom has a lot of facilities to export images to web sites, doing slide shows and so on. Not saying that all those tools are great, though.

Adobe developed DNG profiles for Lightroom. These are well documented and there are at least two tools to generate DCP profiles from ColorChecker targets. Personally, I prefer Adobe DNG Profile Editor, but Color Checker Passport can also do a good job. Anders Torger developed a tool called DcamProf that can use any target and is much more flexible than the commercial products albeit at the price of a much higher learning curve. Many raw converter can use DNG Colour Profiles, like Iridient RawDeveloper, RawTherapee and AccuRaw. ICC profiles can be used, but the way they are applied is underspecified. Much discussion about that on the DcamProf thread.

Lightroom does HDR internally (since LR6) and has good tools for tone mapping. The HDR is still in DNG format.

Lightroom can also do some simpler panoramas, still in DNG format (although I have some doubts about the "rawness" of those files).

Highlight and shadow sliders do tone mapping using local contrast adjustments. These are quite a bit more subtle than the ones in most HDR tools. These alos work with gradients and adjustment brush. Tone mapping features were introduced with Process Variant 2012. This is a mixed blessing, of course.

LR supports two stage sharpening. Capture sharpening and output sharpening. I would like to have another sharpening stage, to handle low frequency detail that dominates visual impression. As it is now we often sharpen at pixel peeping resolution but ignore the region that dominates sharpness in prints. LR has some kind of deconvolution sharpening.

The main weakness I see with LR is processing of non low pass filtered images. LR creates halos on my P45+ files and generates a lot of false colour. This is really a problem of the underlying technology, that is aliasing caused by an under-sampled image, but other tools are much better at suppressing these artefacts. Check this: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=94812.0

Best regards
Erik







« Last Edit: July 19, 2015, 03:22:10 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Mike Guilbault

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1024
    • Mike Guilbault Photography
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2015, 11:41:20 pm »

My tests so far with C1 as a raw processor have been very positive. As someone mentioned, it's easier to learn C1 on it's own rather than trying to compare it to LR and work the same way. Many of the adjustments seem more refined than LR, but it also lacks a few nice features that LR has, such as Blacks & Whites, not just Exposure and Brightness. The post-crop vignette is rather limited in C1, but actually does a beautiful job. The more I use it, the more I like it, however I'm concerned about the workflow since I am used to LR which I've been using since Beta 1. 

I don't understand why C1 doesn't support psd files in their catalog. That alone could be a deal breaker for me. Why even have an Output folder (when using Sessions) if you can't see the psd files in it?  Just don't get it.
Logged
Mike Guilbault

ddolde

  • Guest
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2015, 01:20:59 am »

The fact that you have to use a catalog with LR seals the deal for me.  I absolutely hate that. I use C1 exclusively but not just for that reason though it would be enough. I have an IQ140 back.
Logged

Nick Walker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
    • www.sportpicturelibrary.com
Re: Considering moving from LR to C1
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2015, 03:41:37 am »

From what I've read so far, most are saying the images are better out of C1,

This was the case when ACR V1 and earlier versions of Lightroom were released. I preferred C1 to earlier versions of Adobe products as they produced ugly RGB noise in the shadows - this is no longer the case.

If you turn sharpening off on both, the differences between C1 and Adobe products is splitting hairs. Personally ACR and Lightroom produce better files for me - I recently tried the very latest C1 Pro - some images C1 pro showed 'slightly' more noise than Lightroom, with other types of images it was the other way around. You would NEVER be able to detect these differences in print.

The biggest problem as far as I am concerned is with C1's dated unsharp mask tool, it is nowhere near as sophisticated as Adobe's sharpening which offers on the fly edge sharpening in luminosity and deconvolution sharpening. C1's clarity slider left halos the last time I used it and their cataloguing (originally iView Media Pro) system was very buggy.

I was a great advocate of iView media Pro until Microsoft purchased the company - it went pear-shaped. Hopefully Phase One will sort out some of the floors.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2015, 02:28:11 pm by N Walker »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up