645z Capture One color vs ACR

[MichaelEzra]

I am curious if anyone has done recently color rendering comparison of Capture One with latest ACR/Lighroom rendering for 645z.
Recent 645z ACR camera-matching profiles are closely matching camera, and now there are numerous LUTs available in xmp format to control the look of the files.
I never used Capture One but a few online examples seem to indicate a very delicate subtle color rendering that may not be given with ACR out of the box.
Is that really so?

[Doug Peterson]

Capture One supports a variety of small-format cameras but only their own medium-format cameras.

Therefore the 645z is not supported.

That said, for supported cameras, Phase One spends considerable time creatinbbespoke Color profiles. This is a time and expertise intensive process, including real-world testing in both the studio and in the field. I’m obviously biased, but I find C1’s color to be vastly superior to LRs (either the native or user-created calibrations).

[eronald]

I am curious if anyone has done recently color rendering comparison of Capture One with latest ACR/Lighroom rendering for 645z.
Recent 645z ACR camera-matching profiles are closely matching camera, and now there are numerous LUTs available in xmp format to control the look of the files.
I never used Capture One but a few online examples seem to indicate a very delicate subtle color rendering that may not be given with ACR out of the box.
Is that really so?

Michael,

Usually it is Lightroom that is much worse than the camera. It cuts every camera down to bad quality.
Lightroom has nice workflow but not very good file rendering.
Capture One one the other hand is superb software, but the profiles for third party cameras are not necessarily as carefully tuned as those for Phase One products - which is quite natural. And using a Phase One body is not to everyones taste, nor the pricing or a Phase one back within everyones ability.

I wonder if you have tried Iridient?
It's a boutique converter, useful for single files rather than for batches, but usually very good file rendering.
https://www.iridientdigital.com/products/iridientdeveloper.html

Edmund

Edmund

[MichaelEzra]

My workflow is now based on Bridge & Camera Raw. I am on PC, so no Irrident for me.
From what I read, 645z files can be opened in Capture One although without official support...

The example shown here is based on older versions. There is color subtlety in C1 processing that I really like.
http://www.neilsnape.com/adobe-lightroom-vs-phase-one-capture-one-review
https://fstoppers.com/originals/lightroom-or-capture-one-pro-which-raw-processor-best-24769

[Doug Peterson]

From what I read, 645z files can be opened in Capture One although without official support...

This is not the case in Capture One 11. The blogs you link to used the legacy Capture One 7 and Capture One 8 versions from several years ago.

[eronald]

This is not the case in Capture One 11. The blogs you link to used the legacy Capture One 7 and Capture One 8 versions from several years ago.

Doug, can one regress to an old version with a C1 serial?

Edmund

[Doug Peterson]

Doug, can one regress to an old version with a C1 serial?

Every C1 license will activate (as one of its seats) any* previous version. However, as with any software, previous versions of C1 may have issues with current OS versions and new Mac hardware is often incompatible with older OS versions. So there are some strong practical obstacles (unrelated to C1 or P1) to running something more than 2-3 versions old.

Not directly related, but worth mentioning, C1 can use previous processing engines. So, for example, if you're doing a project in v9 and want to upgrade to v11 mid-project you can continue using the v9 math such that the color, tone, noise, sharpness, and other algorithms all remain consistent.

*I suspect this is not true for version 3 and earlier since they used an entirely different activation scheme. But if someone *really* wanted to do some time travel I suspect we could find a way to accommodate them.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Michael,

I think that a major difference between C1 and LR is the tone curve. I am using Lightroom with profiles generated by Lumariver Profile Designer and that lets me specify the tone curve used.

Here is a a link to a layered TIF I made for demo: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/TMP/LR_to_cc_color_diff.tif

All layers except the top one were processed similarly:

• White balance was set on third neutral patch from top
• Exposure was adjusted to match reference value for the fourth neutral patch of the ColorChecker (L channel = 51). With C1 I used the Adobe RGB reference value 121.

Exposure in LR was essentially on the spot, while C1 needed -1.15 EV exposure correction. That is probably an effect of the default tone curve.

The layers are:

• C1, WB set, no exposure correction
• C1, WB set, exposure corrected
• LR, WB set, C1 type tone curve, -0.1 EV exposure correction.
• LR, WB set, Adobe type tone curve, no exposure correction.

I guess this is a decent illustration of the differences.

The camera used here was Hasselblad P45+ with a P45+ back. Lighting was studio flash, Elinchrome Dlite 400.

Best regards
Erik

[MichaelEzra]

Thanks Erik!
Layer "C1, WB on color checker, mid level gray adjusted to CC reference" is what I am talking about!

How could I get this in XMP format?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Michael,

I don't really understand your question about XMP format. If you explain what you want, I may try to help.

Would like to add an observation and that is that I find facial colors better when WB is set to "flash" than using the grey patches on the ColorChecker for WB. That applies to both C1 processing and LR/LumaRiver.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks Erik!
Layer "C1, WB on color checker, mid level gray adjusted to CC reference" is what I am talking about!

How could I get this in XMP format?

[eronald]

Michael, I might be able to solve your problem
Send me an email edmundronald at gmail dot com.

Edmund