App for tethering the Fuji GFX on Capture One...

[Doug Peterson]

I don’t deny the future, though I do disagree with your “sky is falling” prediction of it. My prediction is that P1 will have it’s best-yet 5-year period the next five years. Time, and only time, will prove one of us right .

If you would like to make a friendly wager please PM me or email me. Betting against various “doomsday scenarios” has made me a lot of money over the years.

[Martin Kristiansen]

I am going to chip in on C1 here. I have been a LR user since the first beta. Always really liked it primarily for its intergration with PS. For tethered Capture I used Leaf Capture as most of m6 studio work was MF. Ditched my backs and now shoot Sony exclusively and was forced into a clunky cumbersome workaround to tether using LR. Loads of peo0le rabbiting on about C1 so 8 gave it a go. Cheap if you get the version that runs only Sony files.

I was immediately annoyed and irritated with C1. Took a few days to work through various YouTube videos and Phase videos and just bacame more and more annoyed. C1 is a fantastic tethering tool. Offers so much over LR. Why is LR tethering so awful anyway. Then there is the C1 workflow. Catalogue or sessions. It’s wonderful. Then the colour. Sony cameras are different things using C1. So much better. Color correcting/grading with C1 is also much better in my opinion.  Get the colour I want for my personal work so much easier, a fantastic tool set. I can’t believe it took me so many years to try it out. I’m really irritated with myself over it.

[JaapD]

I don’t deny the future, though I do disagree with your “sky is falling” prediction of it. My prediction is that P1 will have it’s best-yet 5-year period the next five years. Time, and only time, will prove one of us right .

Doug, I never stated that the sky was falling and it’s by no means a doomsday scenario, on the contrary. From time to time restructuring business is a necessity to survive while not restructuring, keeping everything as always has been, could on the other hand result in a by you mentioned doomsday scenario.

It’s about the dynamics between competitive markets and changing future. I see for PhaseOne a very bright future ahead. As mentioned not with their camera department but all the more with CaptureOne as best-in-class product, being able to generate lots of revenue after giving up on their protectionism, i.e. supporting Hasselblad and Fuji MF.

[Bo_Dez]

If Phase One really think they can hold off they are crazy and stupid.

It's just software. Fuji, Hasselblad, Adobe or some other payer will catch up, it's just a matter of time.

The last version of Phocus is significantly better than previous.

[Doug Peterson]

It's just software. Fuji, Hasselblad, Adobe or some other payer will catch up, it's just a matter of time.

I can't predict the future, but the phrase "It's just software" belies the cost and difficulty of creating, maintaining, and improving industry-leading software. It also underplays how specific and niche the target market is for Capture One vs broader prosumer-majority software like LightRoom. The target market strongly influences the features, resource allocation, and prioritization decisions of your software team.

Just look at Apple; they have fantastic developers and practically unlimited resources, and as they pivoted to a more consumer-oriented rather than professional-oriented company their Aperture software languished and then was discontinued altogether.

Phase One is laser-focused on performance-oriented high-end users and consider tethering a core function rather than a feature. The current state of Capture One is a result of that market-focus combined with significant and consistent funding, accumulated over a decade-plus of work.

Can someone else compete with them in this area? Absolutely. The future is an unknown country and many things that come to be were hard to see in advance, and Phase One does not have exclusive access to talented programmers or money to invest. But as of now, no one is bothering to try, and it would be a steep uphill if they did. However you weight the relative probabilities, in the very least it's definitely not just "a matter of time."

[Bo_Dez]

I can't predict the future, but the phrase "It's just software" belies the cost and difficulty of creating, maintaining, and improving industry-leading software. It also underplays how specific and niche the target market is for Capture One vs broader prosumer-majority software like LightRoom. The target market strongly influences the features, resource allocation, and prioritization decisions of your software team.

Just look at Apple; they have fantastic developers and practically unlimited resources, and as they pivoted to a more consumer-oriented rather than professional-oriented company their Aperture software languished and then was discontinued altogether.

Phase One is laser-focused on performance-oriented high-end users and consider tethering a core function rather than a feature. The current state of Capture One is a result of that market-focus combined with significant and consistent funding, accumulated over a decade-plus of work.

Can someone else compete with them in this area? Absolutely. The future is an unknown country and many things that come to be were hard to see in advance, and Phase One does not have exclusive access to talented programmers or money to invest. But as of now, no one is bothering to try, and it would be a steep uphill if they did. However you weight the relative probabilities, in the very least it's definitely not just "a matter of time."

zzzz

So until such time someone else has caught up we shall continue using apps like "Capture Fix for Hasselblad" and "Capture Fix for Pentax" which work very well.

[narikin]

Completely in favor of people hacking GFX files across to C1, and/or someone developing a program that automates this.

Couldn't care less about tethering personally, just want to process. I own the software, I own the camera, therefore should be permitted to use it how I wish. Period.

Watch out for C1 'upgrades' that seek to block this in future, (by reading metadata or whatever) - anyone doing this should be cautious about upgrading C1 from here-on.

[Don Libby]

Completely in favor of people hacking GFX files across to C1, and/or someone developing a program that automates this.

Couldn't care less about tethering personally, just want to process. I own the software, I own the camera, therefore should be permitted to use it how I wish. Period.

Watch out for C1 'upgrades' that seek to block this in future, (by reading metadata or whatever) - anyone doing this should be cautious about upgrading C1 from here-on.

I tried tethering just to make certain I could make it work. It does however for what I shoot I simply don’t have a huge need.

I’ve had my GFX since last March and for the first couple months went nuts doing the hack in order to open the files in C1. What I found was that while I could open and process in C1 I was still going over to PSCC (much the same as I had when I shot with my IQ100) to finish the processing. I stopped using C1 over a year ago going solely with Adobe ACR and PSCC and found I haven’t missed using C1. I’ve since sold all my Phase One gear and now shoot just with the GFX as it works for me.

I haven’t open C1 in many months and am now thinking about deleting it as I just don’t need it.  C1 was great and much needed for Phase One however it isn’t with the GFX.

[E.J. Peiker]

 I own the software...

Actually you do not. You own a revocable license to use the software which is very different as you are subject to a licensing agreement.  Unless you wrote it yourself, there isn't a single piece of software that you own.  It's always a license and by using it you are agreeing to their terms of usage agreement.

That said, I wish C1P would support other MF cameras just like everybody else except P1.

[Doug Peterson]

I’ve had my GFX since last March and for the first couple months went nuts doing the hack in order to open the files in C1. What I found was that while I could open and process in C1 I was still going over to PSCC (much the same as I had when I shot with my IQ100) to finish the processing. I stopped using C1 over a year ago going solely with Adobe ACR and PSCC and found I haven’t missed using C1. I’ve since sold all my Phase One gear and now shoot just with the GFX as it works for me.

I haven’t open C1 in many months and am now thinking about deleting it as I just don’t need it.  C1 was great and much needed for Phase One however it isn’t with the GFX.

That makes sense. Some of the "secret sauce" of C1 is the great algorithms, but a big part is the amount of time the dev team puts into catered/specific support for every camera supported. Hundreds of hours are spent on an ongoing basis, doing both lab and real-world testing of new cameras to create lens profiles, sensor profiles (to tweak the demosaic and noise reduction algorithms), color profiles, and file handling. This especially true of their own cameras - for obvious reasons they spend inordinate amounts of time tweaking performance for their own cameras. You can hack the raw file of a Fuji to force C1 to mistakingly open them, and you can even create and use color profiles using 3rd party, but these are, in my opinion, a poor substitute for the secret sauce of native support, and I'm unsurprised if you found the results lackluster.

[Don Libby]

Not so much lackluster rather than the time expended on getting there is better spent opening in Adobe and achieving the same results with less effort.

[Doug Peterson]

Not so much lackluster rather than the time expended on getting there is better spent opening in Adobe and achieving the same results with less effort.

That would meet my definition of lackluster (ease and effort, not just end result). But either way, you've found a camera and software that work well for you, and that's a great thing.

[pschefz]

just sold my GFX but shooting tethered with LR for more then a year has been such a great experience that I was honestly surprised how clunky and slow the latest version of C1 feels....will be shooting mostly sony for now and havent really done much tethering with the RIII but i cant really see myself going back to C1....and in total i have much, much more experience with C1 then with LR over the years....
i am in no way an adobe fan but at this point, anyone who wants to use PS is in the subscription trap...forever...so LR comes with it....as does mobile LR, which is great....the LR CC cloud thing is a while new level of great...not cheap but amazing...
I honestly dont think i can get better files out of C1.....the new profile workflow in LR is great, some 3rd party profiles are heaven the same profiles in (and for) C1 are funny enough not on the same level....
i was also really surprised to see that the "free" sony version is really 80?$....upgrades from former pro versions are...70$....to upgrade my old full C1 version is 200? 300? all the versions i got with my backs dont work for other cameras and after talking to a friend who uses only C1, he said he is still on the last version because he got tired of paying 100 for every upgrade....
the worst though was how slow image preview is (with the latest version) for sony files....on the same mbp LR is noticeably  faster....
i wish C1 all the best and i dont doubt that C1 and the latest phase backs provide the absolute best that is out there....but i dont have a phase back and all the amazing things C1 used to do for me LR does now...better....
not getting as many systems as possible on board is a strange business move.....

[douglevy]

@pschefz, this is the exact opposite of my experience. And the crying over CC has gotten a bit old, the price is identical to previous if you upgraded every cycle.

[pschefz]

@pschefz, this is the exact opposite of my experience. And the crying over CC has gotten a bit old, the price is identical to previous if you upgraded every cycle.

not sure i understand...the crying over LR CC being too expensive? or C1 being too expensive? everybody complains about adobe and the "forced" PS and LR subscription, i was surprised to see C1 asking twice as much as adobe for one app?

the exact opposite of? speed? or workflow? i have worked with aperture, LR, C1 on and off for over 20 years on mac only and i always felt adobe might be slightly slower on mac, and LR definitely used to be slower then everything else...that has changed drastically....

like i said, i hope that C1 not only stays around but actually pushes ahead, things are moving fast, i dont take the other apps coming on to the market too serious...yet...but they are being used and bought....

most people i know and really the way C1 became THE tethering software was not because of phase backs but because DSLR shooters needed solid tethering solutions.....what is the license ratio? for every one C1 with phase back, there have to be 100?1000? for DSLR? getting sony on board was incredibly important to keep people in the system....

i am planning to do a serious tether test with the sony, every digital tech rolls their eyes when asked to tether with LR (although most of them use it as DAM once way or another and we all use PS) and i am not sure how the watched folder solution will work out in reality....

[arashm]

@pschefz,
So are you tethering your sony A7R3 with LR at the moment?
Thank you

[pschefz]

@pschefz,
So are you tethering your sony A7R3 with LR at the moment?
Thank you

like i said, i just sold my GFX which i tethered with LR exclusively (no other options really) and that combo has been the best, most solid tethering experience i have ever had...(incl anything with C1)....
i never tethered the sony but since C1 seems to be the way to go with the A7RIII, i was simply going to go back to C1....
but now after actually looking into it, i might give the sony app/LR with watched folder solution a try.....
I will report back on this once i can make a better assessment....
I am very comfortable and used to C1, having used it for years, same with LR, on first glance it just seemed a step back....
i wont go into features, both have features the other does not, so unless i run into something missing from my workflow (which i doubt) I am really just looking for tethering performance, how fast files come in, how easy it is to make quick adjustments to be reflected in all incoming shots and how fast it is to flip though images.....which is one area where (judging by using the same files in the same location) LR was noticeably faster....something i would not have said 18 months ago (when i probably last really used C1 because of switching to the GFX).....
I also have to add that i will really only use LR or C1 for tethering.....since i use LR CC these days (yes, there ware glaring shortcomings but also mind numbing speed, interface and connectivity advantages) i will probably have to re-import the files regardless of what it shoot into.....so LR will not necessarily have a workflow advantage over C1.....
and i am not buying the obvious C1 quality advantage....over the years i have preferred some files from one developer and some from another.....i have a friend who prefers his sony colors in LR, nikon colors in C1 but  nikon BW in LR....he, like so many people is simply using C1 because that is what he is used to....as would i be if i would not have been forced into LR tethering by the GFX or C1 however you look at it......

[douglevy]

Crying over the Adobe subscription plan. You're not the only one. Most photographers I know have adapted, as if it do the math, it's not really any different than previously if you upgraded every cycle.

And the exact opposite re:speed, workflow. Capture One just runs faster as a piece of software on my machines, and tethering in Lightroom is a joke. It's SUPER unstable, while C1 works all day, every shoot, flawlessly.

And re: "quality" that's pretty subjective, and camera dependent. But I find the color profile options so much more expansive in C1, and the color tools much easier to make micro adjustments that add up to noticeable differences in how skin tones are rendered.

[Doug Peterson]

Crying over the Adobe subscription plan. You're not the only one. Most photographers I know have adapted, as if it do the math, it's not really any different than previously if you upgraded every cycle.

And the exact opposite re:speed, workflow. Capture One just runs faster as a piece of software on my machines, and tethering in Lightroom is a joke. It's SUPER unstable, while C1 works all day, every shoot, flawlessly.

And re: "quality" that's pretty subjective, and camera dependent. But I find the color profile options so much more expansive in C1, and the color tools much easier to make micro adjustments that add up to noticeable differences in how skin tones are rendered.

The issue with subscription plans is not really that they cost more on an ongoing basis. Usually the price is set to roughly the same either way.

The issue with subscription plans is that the create a mandated ongoing cost. The user must pay to continue using it. That's problematic in the case that either the user has a temporary down turn in business or cashflow issue, or that the vendor does not improve their software in a way that warrants ongoing recurring expense. In contrast with subscriptions, with perpetual licenses if the software is not improved in a way that is relevant to you there is no ongoing obligation to pay. It's also one more bill to keep track of and one more monthly charge on the credit card you have to switch over in the (not so infrequent) case that your credit card number is compromised or otherwise must be changed. It's one more thing you can forget about after you've stopped using it and forget to disable the subscription.

I guess you could say I'm biased in this area (I always try to disclose relevant biases) in that P1 offers subscription and perpetual licenses for C1. But the above opinion is as much derived from my own personal life as it is from my professional life. As a nerd, photographer, and tinkerer, I have have lots of software I buy or subscribe to apart from my work.

I like the choice of a subscription. Corporate clients often prefer it since a small fixed monthly charge is easier to account/plan for then sporadic larger charges. New users often prefer it because they can "limp in" by paying the subscription for a few months to decide if they want to buy it. Some people just straight prefer it because their minds/workflows/preferences are different than mine. But regardless, I sure as heck don't like being forced to a subscription, whether for an Adobe product, Parallels Pro, or any other software that I've been forced to rent. Forcing a subscription, and not offering a perpetual license purchase, is a trend that is 100% about the company and not the customer, and is, IMO, not a good trend.

[douglevy]

I agree, ideally there'd be both options. But it's a small fixed cost, and the company's would tell you it helps with their cash flow, allowing them to iterate faster/better products. I think you can certainly argue that Adobe has done this with PS.

Also, it's $10/mo, if that's the difference in your business staying afloat, you've got way larger problems!