Considering moving from LR to C1

[JaapD]

I was happy with ACR only until I started using C1 on my X-Trans files. For me the difference between the latest ACR release and C1-8 is like day and night. C1 is sooooo much better, image quality wise. There is more depth in the image, more color variations in my landscape images, better noise handling, more neutral colors. I’ve read that C1 profile all the cameras the support so there is no need to color balance your images with X-Rite or something, only grey balancing. They also seem to do noise profiling so the default values are pretty much on par.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I was happy with ACR only until I started using C1 on my X-Trans files. For me the difference between the latest ACR release and C1-8 is like day and night. C1 is sooooo much better, image quality wise. There is more depth in the image, more color variations in my landscape images, better noise handling, more neutral colors.

Hi Jaap,

Capture One is reported by many as in general providing superior Raw conversions, and also better than most for the Fuji X-trans sensors. There may be a few smaller converters that sometimes equal or even improve on the results for specific cases, but those may then then less full featured on other aspects, or only available for specific OS platforms.

I’ve read that C1 profile all the cameras the support so there is no need to color balance your images with X-Rite or something, only grey balancing.

Well, all converters need some sort of profiling, because reconstruction of color from a Bayer CFA mosaiced set of data is part art and part science, with many trade-offs. The X-trans sensors uses yet another type of mosaic, so many Raw converters struggle to get good conversions from that. Apparently the C1 conversion has been very well received by users of cameras with that sensor type.

Capture One uses a different type of profiling (more Scene referred ICC profiles, than output referred like Adobe uses). Both can produce reasonably good/pleasing results, although again it's not an exact science because a lot of subjective/aesthetic choices are involved, like more pleasing skin colors or more pleasing landscape colors. Phase One usually creates quite pleasing general profiles, sometimes even several tuned ones for each camera model. Capture One Pro then additionally allows to modify such a profile with its Color Editor, and save that as a new ICC profile for later use. This allows to tweak the color response for specific shooting scenarios where accuracy of some colors is more important than for others which might get less accurate. It's allway about trade-offs, so nobody has a perfect solution.

They also seem to do noise profiling so the default values are pretty much on par.

I think also others do that, but I rarely (if ever) use the defaults anyway. I typically start without noise reduction (saved as a camera default), and I  then handle issues, if any, as they may present themselves. For certain uses of images it may even be better to not use noise reduction at all, because it tends to reduce resolution, and when you e.g. downsample if becomes much less visible anyway and helps to prevent posterization. There are some extremely good dedicated noise reduction alternatives that may be a better choice in general, although Capture One also offers e.g. single pixel noise suppression that may come in handy when alternative solutions do not have such capability.

Cheers,
Bart

[Paul2660]

I was happy with ACR only until I started using C1 on my X-Trans files. For me the difference between the latest ACR release and C1-8 is like day and night. C1 is sooooo much better, image quality wise. There is more depth in the image, more color variations in my landscape images, better noise handling, more neutral colors. I’ve read that C1 profile all the cameras the support so there is no need to color balance your images with X-Rite or something, only grey balancing. They also seem to do noise profiling so the default values are pretty much on par.

I had just the opposite experience with LR 6 and x-trans.  The issue of green leaves and haloing against a blue sky has finally been corrected with the latest version.  Adobe has also issues a statement of direction that they are working with Fuji to improve the details.  However for me, I find that LR's deconvolution (detail slider) can do a very good job on the X-trans files, leaves, trees, but still tends to give find details on rocks a strange look.  Where as C1 can't seem to pull the finer details on trees, but does a great job on rocks. 

Why I am really in the LR camp with X-trans is the new pano feature.  I do a ton of hand held panos with my XT1 and now with LR6, you can so easily combine these in LR (creates a dng) and still use all the tools that LR has as the pano is still basically a raw file.  To me a huge advantage. 

Paul

[HansKoot]

I am considering the same and used the trial version of C1. As I plan to buy sony I did not buy it yet, but even with that I strongly consider to buy it already. I posted some differences that i think must be differences in the engine in my post of yesterday: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102371.0
I sincerely feel relief looking at my landscapes through C1 instead of Lightroom, in the topic I mention the blues, but I also noted some magenta differences that appear more natural to me in C1. The default clarity/sharpening looks better too to me, but i imagine you can work out most differences between them (didn't test that).

Then, as stated, I am experienced but no expert and there may be solutions in Lightroom, just my limited experience with C1. I was just surprised..