Would like to know strong reason to switch to Capture One from Lr/PS

[mtakeda]

If you will please tell me the advantage of Capture One over Adobe only from the point of processing capacities excluding the cost aspect. How about black and white aspect?

[Isleofgough]

Much better color fidelity, esp with skin tones from Nikon cameras.

[mtakeda]

Thank you. Anything I would like to know is if it works with Helicon stacking or it does the same thing within ?

[Jeremy Roussak]

I have been very tempted by C1 since Kevin demonstrated it to me, and I played with it quite a bit, in Antarctica. It's fast, which is nice, its conversions appeared excellent and its use of layers is an interesting concept. The single thing which prevented me from changing to it from LR is that it lacks a history palette. I don't know why, and I gather it's not impossible that it will in due course acquire one, but for me at least that's a killer.

Jeremy

[Rhossydd]

This is worth a read;
http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/Lightroom%20vs%20Capture%20One%20Pro.pdf

I've got both. LR 6 is my main 'go to' program, but either can deliver great results without too many difficulties.
I find LR's DAM functions easier to use and, as Jeremy says, the lack of a good history option frequently annoys.

[Martin Kristiansen]

If you ever tether then it’s a no brainer. C1 is a very good tethering tool. LR is simply awful. You can use watched folders and so on but actually to be honest you have to say LR has no usable tethering functionality worthy of the name.

Sony cameras simply give much better colour with C1 in my opinion. A missing piece of the puzzle as it were. I also prefer the workflow and tools.

[tcphoto1]

I had a longtime client that insisted on Adobe products and I humored them for a short period of time. We had a lifestyle shoot and the images came up in 8-10 seconds which drove everyone crazy. I launched CaptureOne and the images came up in 2-3 seconds, they said use whatever you're comfortable with. I find it to be faster all around, better color control and the output is beautiful to name a few. I still use CC2018 for Photoshop but have no use for Lightroom.

[Alto]

Hi

Well its fast, tethers well ,colours are spot on and  it can be a non subscription model which means its cheaper overall than Adobe products and did I mention its fast.

Regards

Jon

[mtakeda]

Thank you all for the input. It took me sometime to be able to use the layer in PS and make me nervous if I can use the layer in CP 1 but I assume I can do it in the end but so far I do not know if I can use the Helicon or some other way to do focus staving with CP 1.

[mtakeda]

This is worth a read;
http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/Lightroom%20vs%20Capture%20One%20Pro.pdf

I've got both. LR 6 is my main 'go to' program, but either can deliver great results without too many difficulties.
I find LR's DAM functions easier to use and, as Jeremy says, the lack of a good history option frequently annoys.

Very very informative. It is eye opening. Thank you.

[DougDolde]

So you don't have to use Lightroom's maddening cataloging system

[Kiwi Paul]

I have LR CC and Capture 1 Pro for Sony and use either or, in some instances I prefer LR and in others C1.
I always use LR to download my photos from the memory card as it it a simple process, I prefer the LR print module.
If I had to only have one over the other I'd pick LR, overall I find it easier to use all things considered.

[digitaldog]

So you don't have to use Lightroom's maddening cataloging system

Maddening for you perhaps, the reason so many others use it, need it, want it. Or there's ACR.
I'm with Kiwi Paul; the print module alone is worth the price of admission. I find nothing maddening about the DAM capabilities but that's me. Perfect no. But anyone who suggests any software product is, probably shouldn't be listened to.... 

[mtakeda]

Maddening for you perhaps, the reason so many others use it, need it, want it. Or there's ACR.
I'm with Kiwi Paul; the print module alone is worth the price of admission. I find nothing maddening about the DAM capabilities but that's me. Perfect no. But anyone who suggests any software product is, probably shouldn't be listened to.... 

Thank you very much. I feel this assessment along the one by Kiwi Paul is very reasonable and convincing to let me stay with LR besides I do not enjoy another learning curve. Thank for all again.

[digitaldog]

Thank you very much. I feel this assessment along the one by Kiwi Paul is very reasonable and convincing to let me stay with LR besides I do not enjoy another learning curve. Thank for all again.

I will add that if you have a DNG workflow, C1 is a deal breaker. At least when I looked it over.

[jimh]

I made the switch to C1 years ago and have never looked back.  There are many advantages I could cite, but one of the biggest is C1's layer model - and being able to give the layers descriptive names.  Layers let me keep track of my edits, see their individual masks, turn them on or off individually, and I can go back anytime later and easily retrace my steps and make improvements.   It's huge.

[faberryman]

I made the switch to C1 years ago and have never looked back.  There are many advantages I could cite, but one of the biggest is C1's layer model - and being able to give the layers descriptive names.  Layers let me keep track of my edits, see their individual masks, turn them on or off individually, and I can go back anytime later and easily retrace my steps and make improvements. It's huge.

How do they differ from layers in Photoshop?

[IanSeward]

I have been very tempted by C1 since Kevin demonstrated it to me, and I played with it quite a bit, in Antarctica. It's fast, which is nice, its conversions appeared excellent and its use of layers is an interesting concept. The single thing which prevented me from changing to it from LR is that it lacks a history palette. I don't know why, and I gather it's not impossible that it will in due course acquire one, but for me at least that's a killer.

Jeremy

I used LR since V1 but never found the history function of any interest for three reasons:

1)  LR's history recorded every tiny irrelevant detail.  Increased brush size, decreased brush size, increased feather etc, etc.
2)  In a pixel editor (PS) history makes sense.  With a parametric editor, for me, it does not.  If you decide an area is too bright you can step back in history until you find the brightening step but then you lose all other edits.  With a parametric editor you simply darken the bright area, no need for history.
3)  Layers allow you to organise your workflow into discreet steps which "contain" your edits for that area / type of edit, which combined with 2, further limits the usefulness of a history function.

Ian

[IanSeward]

I will add that if you have a DNG workflow, C1 is a deal breaker. At least when I looked it over.

What DNG issues?  C1 works fine with DNG.

Ian

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I made the switch to C1 years ago and have never looked back.  There are many advantages I could cite, but one of the biggest is C1's layer model - and being able to give the layers descriptive names.  Layers let me keep track of my edits, see their individual masks, turn them on or off individually, and I can go back anytime later and easily retrace my steps and make improvements.   It's huge.

I agree, besides the top-notch Raw conversion quality, the adjustment layers for all tools is a significant feature.
Hopefully, the next version of C1 will expand on it with some kind of intelligent Luminosity Masking.

Cheers,
Bart