Capture One versus Lightroom

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

This is a bit complicated by the experience we have using each program. I sort of have found my way of processing images in Lightroom's 2012 pipe line, but finding my ways in C1 would take a lot of time and effort.

From a workflow point of view I feel definitively prefer Lightroom. With demosaic, I feel that Adobe has undone homework. So for really critical work I would use RawTherapee for conversion but still do processing in Lightroom.

Capture One is in all probability a very good product, but is is hard to learn old dogs how to sit and I am "grown up" with Lightroom.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Bart,

That is something I'd like to have but the upgrade price of C1 from version 8.3 to 9 (within 1 year) is way too much for me. They should do something about the pricing imo.

To stay on topic though, I prefer the raw conversions of C1 8.3 to LR6 but LR is better in certain areas. Such as the upright correction, noise reduction and sharpening.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Bart,

I am not really in tweaking colour rendition. Part of that is that I don't have a very obvious preference of colours. I feel quite comfortable with making my colour profiles using Adobe DNG Profile Editor or Color Checker Passport, but both of those support DNG-only.  Of the two, I prefer DNG Profile Editor as I feel it offers more flexibility.

Worth to mention is DCamProf that Anders Torger has developed, but that tools is not really easy to use for GUI-dependent users. DCamProf can generate ICC profiles for C1 from a ColorChecker chart.

Once upon the time I have examined colour reproduction accuracy on both C1 (v7) and LR5 and found that both were quite close in accuracy: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition?start=3

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,

It is also quite easy to tweak profiles with C1. The Color Editor tool allows to change color response and save that as an adjusted ICC profile, which can then be used as a new default, or picked when needed (e.g. a landscape/portrait/product color/reproduction profile).

The new C1 version 9 has an even further improved Color Editor, which can now additionally be used to generate a mask for the adjustment layers, based on a color selection. This allows to even further tweak images on an image-by-image basis with a mask based on color, and not only to tweak color, but e.g. also sharpness, and/or exposure, and/or curves, and/ or noise reduction, etc. .

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Bart,

That is something I'd like to have but the upgrade price of C1 from version 8.3 to 9 (within 1 year) is way too much for me. They should do something about the pricing imo.

Hi Cem,

I agree, these (frequent) upgrade costs do cumulate (although often a better deal than subscriptions) and especially now that C1 has added a 3rd activation and raised the upgrade price by almost a 3rd as well, one might hesitate a bit before biting the bullet.

To stay on topic though, I prefer the raw conversions of C1 8.3 to LR6 but LR is better in certain areas. Such as the upright correction, noise reduction and sharpening.

Yes, that's the problem, there is no single perfect solution, they all have something going for them. Although I have to say that Capture One is getting better all the time (and it already wasn't bad to start with), and Lightroom, as a relatively mature product, seems to be stagnating a bit (and occasionally get worse, stability wise and user interface, before it gets fixed again). Lightroom tries to be a SwissArmy knife, but we all know that those get to be a bit too bulky to carry along all the time.

Personally, I tend to prefer solid/innovative specialized solutions (like a dedicated panostitcher, or dedicated HDR tonemapper) over an integrated solution that is just not quite as good at all those specialized tasks. It has to do with focus from the software engineers. Integration of workflows between applications is of course welcome, but that can sometimes be solved with using hot-folders and exporting to (edit in) image editors or other utilities.

Capture One does still have some improvement potential though, like sharpening also after (already improved) rescaling, and even more solid/easy keywording functionality (although improved with V9), and multi-exposure support (both shifted and non-shifted, for resolution enhancement and e.g. noise reduction), and ...
But most of that is quality improvement rather than adding of feature bloat. If new features are added, they should be well implemented and a real alternative to existing specialized alternatives, not just a me-too proposition.

But we can dream, can't we?

Cheers,
Bart

[sebbe]

I don't know if you get good answers inside the capture one forum.

I had some time yesterday to work with the new features of C1v9. And my last holiday shots were still not processed, so I had a perfect object to work with. I'm really impressed of the results with selecting a color in the color editor, adjust the selection, create a layer and work on the luma curve of this layer.

[AlterEgo]

Worth to mention is DCamProf that Anders Torger has developed, but that tools is not really easy to use for GUI-dependent users. DCamProf can generate ICC profiles for C1 from a ColorChecker chart.

if you like more GUI then you can use rawdigger + makeinputicc (which is a gui frontend for argyll utilities) to create icc/icm profiles for CaptureOne... with CC24/passport (18 color patches) the school of thought exists that it is certainly makes sense only to create matrix + TRC(gamma/table function) because 18 reference points are not really going to allow code to predict colortransform beyond gamut of those patches, it will be just software code reasonable guessing and trying to make LUT feasible in terms of smoothness...


so you make for example matrix+TRC (gamma initially) profile for C1 there and then you replace gamma with table = "transfer function" that DCamProf can extract (that's just one command in DCamProf and simple operation in GUI of "ICC Profile Inspector" for example) or you can make gamma around ~1.8 for C1 and leave it as is...


now the next issue is that matrix + trc profiles do not allow C1 color editor to work as it expects AToB0 tag with LUT... for that I wrote a simple matlab code, few lines, that transfers TRC to input 1D luts used before 3D lut "as is" and converts "RGB to cieXYZ PCS" matrix into that 3D LUT (lut simply replicates what matrix 'd do... PCS stays cieXYZ) - then modified profile allows C1 color editor to work

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'm really impressed of the results with selecting a color in the color editor, adjust the selection, create a layer and work on the luma curve of this layer.

Yes, I agree. The Luma adjustments, and the Color Editor selection with masked local adjustment layer creation, are two of the many V9 improvements, and their practical benefit is huge. And given the up to 16 (maskable) Local Adjustment Layers, this creates an enormous level of control and, since it's parametric, it is reversible and re-adjustable.

The improved new rescaling quality should also help to achieve better quality with lens distortion and keystoning corrections and rotation.

Cheers,
Bart

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

So you think this information is helpful for a guy who just wants to make a simple profile for Capture One?

Personally, I have no issue with DCamProf or command line tools, but I happen to have something like 30 years of UNIX/Linux experience. Most folks don't have that.

Best regards
Erik

if you like more GUI then you can use rawdigger + makeinputicc (which is a gui frontend for argyll utilities) to create icc/icm profiles for CaptureOne... with CC24/passport (18 color patches) the school of thought exists that it is certainly makes sense only to create matrix + TRC(gamma/table function) because 18 reference points are not really going to allow code to predict colortransform beyond gamut of those patches, it will be just software code reasonable guessing and trying to make LUT feasible in terms of smoothness...


so you make for example matrix+TRC (gamma initially) profile for C1 there and then you replace gamma with table = "transfer function" that DCamProf can extract (that's just one command in DCamProf and simple operation in GUI of "ICC Profile Inspector" for example) or you can make gamma around ~1.8 for C1 and leave it as is...


now the next issue is that matrix + trc profiles do not allow C1 color editor to work as it expects AToB0 tag with LUT... for that I wrote a simple matlab code, few lines, that transfers TRC to input 1D luts used before 3D lut "as is" and converts "RGB to cieXYZ PCS" matrix into that 3D LUT (lut simply replicates what matrix 'd do... PCS stays cieXYZ) - then modified profile allows C1 color editor to work

[AlterEgo]

So you think this information is helpful for a guy who just wants to make a simple profile for Capture One?

may be for some it will be useful...

Personally, I have no issue with DCamProf or command line tools, but I happen to have something like 30 years of UNIX/Linux experience. Most folks don't have that.

well, better late than never... documentation available

[Bob Rockefeller]

As others have mentioned, many think that CO does a better job with AA-less cameras than does LR. I'm shooting an OM-D E-M1 most often, these days, and find that CO looks better on its defaults.

But after enough tweaking on both, I can get pretty much the same results in the end with LR or CO.

My primary gripe with LR is its interface, not its RAW processing.

[Denis de Gannes]

As others have mentioned, many think that CO does a better job with AA-less cameras than does LR. I'm shooting an OM-D E-M1 most often, these days, and find that CO looks better on its defaults.

But after enough tweaking on both, I can get pretty much the same results in the end with LR or CO.

My primary gripe with LR is its interface, not its RAW processing.

I also use an E-M1 and agree with the first part but I will have to work at the CO interface. I am a lot more familiar with LR than CO.

[orc73]

I just checked LR again and the results are better now for my 5dsr with cproper camera profile.
So that might be marginal to choose on quality.

Other factors are tether and mobile integration.

c1 tethers better. faster and more reliable, to me.
then there is the c1 pilot. very cool if you work with customers, images appear right on their mobile device. the bad thing about c1 pilot, once you shut you computer, your c1 pilot is useless.(can be an advantage with customer environment though).

LR is the opposite. the mobile version is near to ueseless during shoots. however it allows to carry on your work for basics like ratings on the go. I did end up not using as much as expected, as it's a hassl to get your images on the ipad. you can only sync from one library, and you have to send them around the world and back, and you need to create collections.

Other then that I dont like LR because I have to switch between modules to get access to certain functions, comparison of pictures can be painfull. especially to check at 100%.

[Bob Rockefeller]

It might be time for interested folks to open a separate topic here to tackle some of the broader difference beyond RAW image conversion. Although, for many, that's the beginning and ending point of the discussion - all other topics (importing, DAM, exporting, printing, etc.) can be done with other tools, if need be.

[Dinarius]

While I love C1 and won't be going back to LR, I have never liked the graduated filter tool in C1. I have always preferred the lines of the LR version - much more informative, in my view.

If I need to correct a cast in a corner or side of an image, I will still return to LR with the (C1 exported) TIFF to do so. I also like the way you can drag and see the angle of the filter in LR. It's just easier.

Finally, I like the way the lines stay in view until you're done with them.

D.

[James R]

My 2 cents:  LR - I can post process an image in under 1 minute. I can take a mundane image and create a surprisingly interesting image in a few seconds.  I also like the new Radial Filter, which, to me, is one of the best new tool Adobe has added to Lr.  Also, Lr offers more options for several tools, such as vignetting or sharpening.  I learned a few Lr tips from Art Wolf during a seminar that made processing time even quicker.  Lr's History and Snapshot are great. Finally, Lr plays nice with many 3rd party apps.

Cap1 - So, why Capture One?   I can match anything done in Lr, but it does take more time.  The UI is more flexible, but the font is a bit too small.  User defined Workspaces is nice.  Lr doesn't have anything to match CO's levels and curve tools.  I prefer how CO handles colors.  Adjustment layers sets CO way above Lr and they just increase the number layers and added more tools.

I would like to see CO incorporate a true DAM.  Final thought, I would love to see Phase One work closely with a company, such as FocalBlade (German company), to incorporate their sharpening tools into CO.

[Bob Rockefeller]

My 2 cents:  LR - I can post process an image in under 1 minute. I can take a mundane image and create a surprisingly interesting image in a few seconds.  I also like the new Radial Filter, which, to me, is one of the best new tool Adobe has added to Lr.  Also, Lr offers more options for several tools, such as vignetting or sharpening.  I learned a few Lr tips from Art Wolf during a seminar that made processing time even quicker.  Lr's History and Snapshot are great. Finally, Lr plays nice with many 3rd party apps.

Cap1 - So, why Capture One?   I can match anything done in Lr, but it does take more time.  The UI is more flexible, but the font is a bit too small.  User defined Workspaces is nice.  Lr doesn't have anything to match CO's levels and curve tools.  I prefer how CO handles colors.  Adjustment layers sets CO way above Lr and they just increase the number layers and added more tools.

I would like to see CO incorporate a true DAM.  Final thought, I would love to see Phase One work closely with a company, such as FocalBlade (German company), to incorporate their sharpening tools into CO.

Exactly! I can't say it any better ( except for the font size, I'm fine with it as it is).

[Mike Guilbault]

I've been using C1 steadily now for just over a month on my professional work and can now say, I can get a better processed image with it than LR. I started with LR with the first Beta so am quite comfortable with it.  I find that images brought into C1 are better right off the bat and require less tweaking. LR controls seem more like a sledge hammer compared toC1. The C1 controls make more subtle changes and seem easier to control. Mind you, it took me almost that whole month to get used to it, but now that I have, I prefer it.  HOWEVER, I still prefer the DAM options in LR and the Print Module.  My workflow now goes like this:
1. Import into C1 (with my pro work I usually use Sessions), Sort, Select, Tag.
2. Process in C1 for just about everything except extensive retouching.
3. Export to PS CC for retouching and saved as 16-bit Tif in ProPhoto RGB to create my 'master neg'.
4. Delete any unwanted images, rejects or not selected by client.
5a. If it's just digital delivery (commercial work) then export in whatever variations are needed through process recipes.
5b. If it's Prints being delivered, open LR and import the folder. Select 'masters' and print.
6. Done!

[Bob Rockefeller]

I've been using C1 steadily now for just over a month on my professional work and can now say, I can get a better processed image with it than LR. I started with LR with the first Beta so am quite comfortable with it.  I find that images brought into C1 are better right off the bat and require less tweaking. LR controls seem more like a sledge hammer compared toC1. The C1 controls make more subtle changes and seem easier to control. Mind you, it took me almost that whole month to get used to it, but now that I have, I prefer it.  HOWEVER, I still prefer the DAM options in LR and the Print Module.  My workflow now goes like this:
1. Import into C1 (with my pro work I usually use Sessions), Sort, Select, Tag.
2. Process in C1 for just about everything except extensive retouching.
3. Export to PS CC for retouching and saved as 16-bit Tif in ProPhoto RGB to create my 'master neg'.
4. Delete any unwanted images, rejects or not selected by client.
5a. If it's just digital delivery (commercial work) then export in whatever variations are needed through process recipes.
5b. If it's Prints being delivered, open LR and import the folder. Select 'masters' and print.
6. Done!

I find myself in much the same boat, but started with Aperture at v1 and moved to Lightroom upon its death, however.

CO image quality is a clear win, to me, too. CO9 is a small step forward in DAM with its keywording (or will be after they fix the bugs brought along). But every step is welcome and I hope they get most of Media Pro into v10.

What drives you back to Lr for printing? I'm frustrated by CO's lack of printer/paper/profile presets. But I'm suffering through hoping for improvements in the 9.X series of updates.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I've been using C1 steadily now for just over a month on my professional work and can now say, I can get a better processed image with it than LR. I started with LR with the first Beta so am quite comfortable with it.  I find that images brought into C1 are better right off the bat and require less tweaking. LR controls seem more like a sledge hammer compared toC1. The C1 controls make more subtle changes and seem easier to control. Mind you, it took me almost that whole month to get used to it, but now that I have, I prefer it.

Hi Mike,

The hardest part is not trying to mimic the behavior of the old/familiar tool. The fresh, and I agree improved, Raw conversion look does deliver higher quality conversions. And the controls are somewhat different, and that takes adjusting one's habits. However, the recent improvements of several tools make adjustments less risky (for unintended color/saturation changes) to use and more thus powerful.

HOWEVER, I still prefer the DAM options in LR and the Print Module.

I agree that these functionalities in C1 need more work to become (more than) competitive. But with the resources that Phase One has, I see a well thought out path of gradual improvement.

They first changed the internal software development process, which allowed faster roll-outs of improvements. They added Adjustment Layers. Then they started tackling specific tool quality, one-by-one. Now they changed more tool enhancements and some under the hood fundamentals, like Luminance curves and rescaling. Not all as obvious for the casual user, but there is a pattern.

I would not be surprised if sharpening, and further improvements in the DAM functionality, are to follow. Print module improvements are then not too difficult to improve, given a solid foundation.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bob Rockefeller]

I would not be surprised if sharpening, and further improvements in the DAM functionality, are to follow. Print module improvements are then not too difficult to improve, given a solid foundation.

From your history with the program, would you see these improvements as part of the v9.X series, or as part of a future v10?

[Mike Guilbault]

I find myself in much the same boat, but started with Aperture at v1 and moved to Lightroom upon its death, however.

CO image quality is a clear win, to me, too. CO9 is a small step forward in DAM with its keywording (or will be after they fix the bugs brought along). But every step is welcome and I hope they get most of Media Pro into v10.

What drives you back to Lr for printing? I'm frustrated by CO's lack of printer/paper/profile presets. But I'm suffering through hoping for improvements in the 9.X series of updates.

It's likely that I'm just more familiar with the interface and understand how it works. I also print images from .psd files which CO has difficulty with, especially layered, so again, LR just works. When I have more time in the new year I'll be looking at it more. I'm currently having a problem printing sheets at the moment and getting a "Filter Failed" error, but this is coming through on CO as well as LR (of PS for that matter).

In addition, LR has more options for watermarks, printing a border (I like a 1 or 2 pixel black line around the images when I print an image to be matted with a reveal showing base paper), etc. There's a few more features and options I would like to have in LR, and LR is ahead of CO, so I find CO limiting in that respect.