Some advice about default starting points?

[Bob Rockefeller]

I've been trying out Capture One Pro 9 and attempting to compare it more critically with Lightroom CC. Not so much about all the "other" features, but specifically about RAW image conversions and the resulting adjusted image.

Perhaps not surprisingly to others here, the bone stock default starting points for the two programs are radically different - or at least very different. The attached JPG is a screenshot of the same image (shot by a Nikon D300 at 640 ISO, f.4 and 1/160s with on-camera flash) opened in CO9 (on the left) and LR (on the right). The screen is an Apple 30" Cinema display using a ColorMunki generated ICC profile. If you're looking at the screenshot it in a color managed system, I hope you can see the differences I do.

I know the philosophies behind the RAW engines are different. But they are really different in their default state!

As a self-taught user of both programs, my eye is not well tuned to the nuances of color and tone. So I need some advice.

If I'd like to get the LR version close to the CO version, what do you folks see as the specific color-related differences between them?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Reduce exposure 0.3, add medium tone curve, reduce sharpening amount and increase sharpening radius and adjust white balance to make it warmer. Possibly kick up vibrance.

Best regards
Erik

I've been trying out Capture One Pro 9 and attempting to compare it more critically with Lightroom CC. Not so much about all the "other" features, but specifically about RAW image conversions and the resulting adjusted image.

Perhaps not surprisingly to others here, the bone stock default starting points for the two programs are radically different - or at least very different. The attached JPG is a screenshot of the same image (shot by a Nikon D300 at 640 ISO, f.4 and 1/160s with on-camera flash) opened in CO9 (on the left) and LR (on the right). The screen is an Apple 30" Cinema display using a ColorMunki generated ICC profile. If you're looking the screenshot it in a color managed system, I hope you can see the differences I do.

I know the philosophies behind the RAW engines are different. But they are really different in their default state!

As a self-taught user of both programs, my eye is not well tuned to the nuances of color and tone. So I need some advice.

If I'd like to get the LR version close to the CO version, what do you folks see as the specific color-related differences between them?

[Bob Rockefeller]

Reduce exposure 0.3, add medium tone curve, reduce sharpening amount and increase sharpening radius and adjust white balance to make it warmer. Possibly kick up vibrance.

Thanks for taking the time to look and make some adjustments yourself.

That does close the differences up noticeably.

I'd say more than close enough on the image as a whole. The CO default manages more sparkle and sharpness in the eye makeup above the eyes. Maybe I'll hit that area with a localized vibrance and clarity/sharpness increase.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Using the targeted adjustment tool on the light parts of the skin can add some sparkle. I also used some luminance noise reduction on the image as it seem it was a bit oversharpened to me.

I am mostly a landscape shooter, so I almost never work on portraits and that kind of stuff.

Thanks for feedback and good luck with your explorations!

Best regards
Erik

Thanks for taking the time to look and make some adjustments yourself.

That does close the differences up noticeably.

I'd say more than close enough on the image as a whole. The CO default manages more sparkle and sharpness in the eye makeup above the eyes. Maybe I'll hit that area with a localized vibrance and clarity/sharpness increase.

[TonyW]

Have only played with COne so do not know much about it.  Some seem to like the default skin tones in particular.  For me I found them overall pleasing but tending towards orange.  Of course that can be changed easily enough in any raw app.

One other thing you may want to check is the starting point in LR.  I know you said you wanted to start at the stock default setting but really this depends on what the developer decided was a good starting point.
 
I think I am correct in saying that Adobe Standard is default and as such was designed to give a pleasing neutral starting point as decided by the 'Adobe Boys'. 

How does the starting point image look when you apply the Nikon camera presets designed by Adobe to mimic the Nikon camera presets?

Similarly in COne what happens with the camera presets?

You should be able to get close match by adjusting HSL, Lum and Sat.  Once you have found the preferred rendering then there is no reason why you cannot save as another preset

[AlterEgo]

I think I am correct in saying that Adobe Standard is default and as such was designed to give a pleasing neutral starting point as decided by the 'Adobe Boys'. 

Adobe standard is anything by neutral... for starters it does not have true linear curve inside it + hue shifts + possible hidden exposure corrections for many cameras.

[Bob Rockefeller]

Have only played with COne so do not know much about it.  Some seem to like the default skin tones in particular.  For me I found them overall pleasing but tending towards orange.  Of course that can be changed easily enough in any raw app.

One other thing you may want to check is the starting point in LR.  I know you said you wanted to start at the stock default setting but really this depends on what the developer decided was a good starting point.
 
I think I am correct in saying that Adobe Standard is default and as such was designed to give a pleasing neutral starting point as decided by the 'Adobe Boys'. 

How does the starting point image look when you apply the Nikon camera presets designed by Adobe to mimic the Nikon camera presets?

Similarly in COne what happens with the camera presets?

You should be able to get close match by adjusting HSL, Lum and Sat.  Once you have found the preferred rendering then there is no reason why you cannot save as another preset

I do like the CO skin tones better. And LR's "camera default" camera calibration setting is a somewhat nicer interpretation than "adobe standard," to my eye.

In the end, I think I can get the LR version to about the same place. The CO version is just nicer at the default.

[john beardsworth]

I do like the CO skin tones better. And LR's "camera default" camera calibration setting is a somewhat nicer interpretation than "adobe standard," to my eye.
In the end, I think I can get the LR version to about the same place. The CO version is just nicer at the default.

Then you just hold down the Option key and the Reset button in the bottom right changes to Set Default.

Generally I agree about "camera default".

John

[AlterEgo]

only profiles & WB are different, other UI controls are zeroed (not that they are equal inside the code though)

http://s3.postimg.org/mgewln3xt/both.jpg

[AlterEgo]

I do like the CO skin tones better.

you mean forced ~golden tint for the range of caucasian skintones ...

[Bob Rockefeller]

only profiles & WB are different, other UI controls are zeroed (not that they are equal inside the code though)

It seems odd to me that the same color temperature in both apps is rendered differently. Why would that be?

Different camera profiles is almost expected.

[AlterEgo]

It seems odd to me that the same color temperature in both apps is rendered differently. Why would that be?

because for example Adobe uses certain matrices inside .dcp profile to calculate WB and based on how the profile is created you can have variations even with other .dcp profiles for the same camera model (but software like DCamProf can at least ensure that there wil be match between OEM profiles, from Adobe, and your profiles... I do not remember how I created this profile, I took just some intermediate profiles that I am still working on, as my A7R2 is eternal work in progress, and I am too lazy to check what I did and compare matrices, as it is not the final profile anyways)

Different camera profiles is almost expected.

no, no... what is expected is the identical profiles in DCamProf sense  ... and those 2 are different... C1 profile was a simple matrix + TRC created with rawdigger and makeinputicc/argyll and with TRC replaced by C1 "transfer function" and converted to LUT (AtoB0) with cieXYZ PCS to enable C1 color editor (not that I am using it - but just as an experiment)... Adobe profile as noted above was some old intermediate step and made with DCamProf... so they are different different, but in the end I hope to get to the the single profile for both, then the  differences will be almost zero... here you see different hair and skin - that is because they (profiles) were created differently (with different software building the core)... with DCamProf was the native 3D LUT with PCS = cieLAB, etc

[TonyW]

Adobe standard is anything by neutral... for starters it does not have true linear curve inside it + hue shifts + possible hidden exposure corrections for many cameras.

Yes perhaps neutral not the best word choice.  I agree that there are exposure corrections, at least from what I have seen with Nikon D800 about +1/3rd stop

[TonyW]

I do like the CO skin tones better. And LR's "camera default" camera calibration setting is a somewhat nicer interpretation than "adobe standard," to my eye.

In the end, I think I can get the LR version to about the same place. The CO version is just nicer at the default.

I prefer and have set my starting/default to be Camera Neutral.  I see no reason that you cannot change the default and also make new defaults maybe for Portrait, Landscape etc if needed

[Simon Garrett]

IMHO starting points for processing tend to be rather individual (although I find it helpful to read what others do). 

Not only does it vary with each model of camera and each raw processor, but every one has their own preferences for the look of the finished image.  And people have their own styles of shooting.  For example, some people tend to expose more or less than others.  One reads on forums people saying that they shoot auto exposure but always dial in -2/3EV compensation, and others generally shoot as-metered.  Some are very conservative about avoiding blown highlights etc. 

In LR, I often click "auto" in the tone panel in Develop to see the effect.  It's rather mechanistic and it's rarely right without further major tweaking (or undo and start again manually).  One thing "auto"  does is to set black and white points to use the entire range, and I find it useful to see what that looks like - even if it's not the desired effect. 

[r010159]

The image on the left in the OPs post is very unnatural to me. I guess what "looks good" is not the same thing as what is "natural", particularly when it comes to the defaults of CO. FWIW

Bob

[Bob Rockefeller]

The image on the left in the OPs post is very unnatural to me. I guess what "looks good" is not the same thing as what is "natural", particularly when it comes to the defaults of CO. FWIW

I'm curious. What about the left hand image is unnatural? Is the right hand one natural, or more natural? Why?

[James R]

I'm curious. What about the left hand image is unnatural? Is the right hand one natural, or more natural? Why?

Hi Bob,

What's natural is in the eye of the beholder, and therein lies the problem.  I have used both programs for a few years, probably due to the bugginess of CO 6 through 8.  Version 9 is pretty stable and I finally have jettisoned Lr. The Local Adjustment and Color tools alone are hard to beat. 

As to your Lr/CO comparison:  I would prefer to start post processing on the CO image over the Lr image.