Capture One versus Lightroom

[David Eichler]

From the perspective of RAW processing only, for those who are familiar with the latest versions of Lightroom and Capture One and continue to use Capture One, why do you prefer Capture One as a RAW processor?

[Bob Rockefeller]

FujiFilm x-trans shooters swear CO handles details much better than LR.

[budjames]

I can vouch for the better image quality (sharpness and color fidelity) that I get with C1P8, now C1P9, with my Fuji-x cameras as compared to Lightroom 6 cc. After you get the hang of C1P9's interface and workflow, which reminds me Aperture, then you can get better results with less fussing with sliders.

I've been a user of Lightroom since the pre-public beta and a Photoshop user since version 2. I got tired of the disappointing results that LR was producing since I dumped my Canon DSLRs and lenses and switched to Fuji-X cameras and Fuji XF lenses 2 years ago.

Apparently, Adobe can't seem to get de-mosaicing of the Fuji-X files right. They should buy the one man operation of Iridient Developer to get better results.

You can try C1P9 free for 30 days by downloading it from the CaptureOne website.

You can check out my China and Dog show portfolios on my web site, www.budjames.photography, to see examples. I used C1P8 for all of the images.

Cheers.
Bud

[David Eichler]

Okay, I have seen the comparisons for Fuji and Capture One is superior to Lightroom with fine detail here. So, let's leave Fuji out. I would also assume that CO is superior with Phase One backs as well. So, any opinions about other brands of camera, especially Nikon, Canon and Sony?

[ario]

Okay, I have seen the comparisons for Fuji and Capture One is superior to Lightroom with fine detail here. So, let's leave Fuji out. I would also assume that CO is superior with Phase One backs as well. So, any opinions about other brands of camera, especially Nikon, Canon and Sony?

I prefer CO for developing  files from any camera without an AA filter.

[Manoli]

So, any opinions about other brands of camera, especially Nikon, Canon and Sony?

C1 is now the default converter for Sony ARW files so It'll only get better in the years ahead plus there's a CaptureOne Pro for SONY (only) version at fraction of the price of the 'full' version - if price is a consideration.

No opinion on the CaNikon output, 'cos I don't use them, but I've yet to hear a complaint in regard to either of them. The strong points of C1, by all accounts, are the rendering engine, colour controls and tethering. What C1 gains in IQ, Lightroom compensates for in workflow. Both are excellent for B&W.

Personally, I've given up on the battle, and have settled on using all three - Lightroom, CaptureOne, and Iridient Developer. Lr is the main 'core' and I drop out ( replace the Develop module) with one of the other two, as the mood or need takes me. Iridient is not only an excellent IQ converter with advanced sharpening routines but also has the advantage of accepting, like Lr, .dcp profiles, if you need/use them which of course, C1 doesn't.

If you settle on one against the other - there'll be times when you'll curse and long for the one you don't have. Sod's law.

[Jimmy D Uptain]

Nikon shooter here.
What I have found is that neither one does a great job on every photograph.
Lightroom's weakness is color manipulation and UI. In my opinion its too simple, with not enough control.
Lightroom's strength is its catalog. On my system, its quick and conducts searches effortlessly.
C1's weakness is its immature catalog, however this can be overcome by using sessions. Its UI is confusing at first, but way more customizable.
But the catalog is just terrible. They should have spent more time on Media Pro and allowed users to use it and sessions.
C1 just seems faster in image manipulation. Just hovering the mouse over a slider, one can adjust using the scroll wheel. To me, this is just quicker and more natural.
As a matter of fact, if Adobe would add that little convenience, I would use LR a whole lot more.
Now "out of the box"  color rendition with Nikon is better in LR, but fixing color issues is easier in C1. Ironic, isn't i?
In the end, I use both and will continue to do so as both companies seem to be improving all the time. Plus the CC model allows me to do this without too much cash outlay.

[Bob Rockefeller]

But the catalog is just terrible. They should have spent more time on Media Pro and allowed users to use it and sessions.

Very true. I'm just amazed that a company who already owns a mature DAM product can't integrate its features into CO or make the two work seamlessly together.

Just hovering the mouse over a slider, one can adjust using the scroll wheel.

!!! Great tip! I never knew that.

[AlterEgo]

Plus the CC model allows me to do this without too much cash outlay.

C1 also has subscription model.

[Paul2660]

As for Fuji conversions, I have to disagree.  LR, can produce a more detailed image, with less bloat than C1.  I have been a C1 user since the days of 3.7.x, and am pretty familiar with it.  I just don't see the details on images with a lot of finer details to resolve.  LR, can get painterly, but that can be controlled.  But you can't remove the bloated look to the C1 conversions.  It's a personal issue but I have spent tons of time on Fuji raw as the camera has so much capabilities.

I think a lot of folks are fooled by Retina displays, I have been.  But when you view the images on a NEC 30 or 27 inch monitor at full resolution on the screen the differences become more apparent.

Here a comparison study I did:

http://photosofarkansas.com/2015/10/27/fuji-x-trans-raw-conversions-which-is-best-lightroom-or-capture-one/

However on color C1 is spot on, no doubt about that, so depending on the file and the details depends where I go.

More thoughts on C1, vs LR

LR to me now has an excellent auto mask, by far superior to C1's
C1 has the best color editor really upgraded in C1 9 to an excellent toolset
C1 allows multiple layers that can be treated independent of each other, in LR the adjustment brush is all or none, you can't just turn off 1 adjustment brush to see it's effects  ( still believe they do this to keep CC photoshop around)
C1 has no history, LR has by far the best history I have ever used.  If you work on multiple images at once having an independent history is very important.  I know I am a voice in the wilderness on this, as most don't see it as important.
LR offers no session mode, I prefer that over a catalog.
LR has an excellent well designed print engine, C1 is not there yet. 
LR will work on all MFD back images, C1 only Phase files.
C1 to me has a much better implementation of the GPU and open CL,  LR, well they have a ways to go there quite a ways sadly
C1 has support through their web support and Phase One dealers, albeit most Phase One dealers are windows illiterate by choice.   It's always been that way. 
Edit: I forgot to mention LR's pano merge and HDR merge, both create a dng file which is a basically a new raw file, the photographer has a tremendous amount of power to work on the output in LR with LR's toolset.  This should be at the top of my list.

I use both programs daily enough, I would never just move to one. 

Paul C
 

[David Eichler]

Please, let's stick to RAW processing only, per my original post.

[Paul2660]

Please, let's stick to RAW processing only, per my original post.

I guess you lost me?  Everything I listed was in regards to "raw" processing.  There is a lot more to LR or C1 both than just a simple raw conversion, with the tools each software provides.  But I understand everyone has their own definition of raw processing and methods. 

Paul C

[David Eichler]

I guess you lost me?  Everything I listed was in regards to "raw" processing.  There is a lot more to LR or C1 both than just a simple raw conversion, with the tools each software provides.  But I understand everyone has their own definition of raw processing and methods. 

Paul C

My comment did not really relate to you, but to some comments previous to yours.

[Paul2660]

Hi David.

Sorry for the misread. I was watching Carolina and got too stressed.

Paul C

[Denis de Gannes]

My comment did not really relate to you, but to some comments previous to yours.

Just a observation, maybe the subject header could have been a bit more specific.

For my workflow as a retired amateur who is not time constrained, I seek the best I can achieve with the workflow of the particular application.
a. My first and primary concern is the quality of the raw file rendering and output. + 1 for Capture One. (here i speak only for my camera models Olympus and Panasonic)
b. Sharing my work with friends and family. + 1 for Lightroom with the "Publish" and "Mobile" options.
c. File management, not a priority, I use an import file structure based on capture date and actual content, travel, golf, family events etc. No client stresses. No real issue but +1 for Lightroom.
d. I use and like the publishing features of Lightroom. +1 for Lightroom.
e. Slideshow, non issue.
f. Printing, no comment, I use an alternative option. However I believe Lightroom has a solid alternative to what I use.
g. Web, no comment.

To wit at the moment I consider Capture One to have the better rendering of raw files, but the overall features of Lightroom would probably appeal to the time constraints of the professional photographer.

[mediumcool]

Apparently, Adobe can't seem to get de-mosaicing of the Fuji-X files right. They should buy the one man operation of Iridient Developer to get better results.

Iridient Developer has had a reputation as the best ‘capturer’ of detail in Fuji files, but because the developer uses Apple technology to achieve his results (ID is an OSX-only app), Adobe would have no interest in acquiring it.

[johnnycash]

I have been using Capture One and Lightroom simultaneously for processing raw files from Canon 5D3 and 5DSR.

Lightroom's 2015.3 output is 90%-95%
Capture One 9 output is 100%

I believe C1 9 engine is superior to the latest LR.

My workflow is somewhat faster in LR, however I tend to use more C1 v9 lately.

I have been processing some Hasselblad files as well but they are not compatible with C1 so I was left LR and Phocus, of those the former is the king.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I feel that C1 handles non OLP filtered sensors better than Lightroom/ACR.

Other than that, C1 gives punchier colours and sharpening at defaults. I think both can deliver quite accurate colour, when used with a near linear tone curve.

It is easy to use colour calibration with Lightroom/ACR using DNG-profiles and those DNG-profiles are usable with most other raw converters but not with C1. C1 uses ICC profiles and making those requires a lot of knowledge. Adobe has DNG Profile Editor which is useful to generate/tweak colour profiles.

It is quite possible that Capture One is carefully tuned to give excellent rendition of skin tones.

Personally, I am quite happy with Lightroom except the demosaic issue. On the other hand those issues needs to be put in perspective:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104708.msg860933#msg860933

Best regards
Erik

From the perspective of RAW processing only, for those who are familiar with the latest versions of Lightroom and Capture One and continue to use Capture One, why do you prefer Capture One as a RAW processor?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It is easy to use colour calibration with Lightroom/ACR using DNG-profiles and those DNG-profiles are usable with most other raw converters but not with C1. C1 uses ICC profiles and making those requires a lot of knowledge. Adobe has DNG Profile Editor which is useful to generate/tweak colour profiles.

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

[Cem]

...
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. .

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.