Moving from LR to CaptureOne: what am I loosing?

[digitaldog]

I don't understand the misconceptions and FUD around DNG.

People get fooled about it all the time unfortunately.

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

[UnfamiliarLight]

Begging the question, what is PhaseOne's policy? I have say C1 version 9, I get a new camera. They update older versions freely or I have to upgrade?

Phase one does not add support for newer cameras to old versions. Same as Adobe. So, given that Adobe has the above described workaround technically you would loose that moving to C1. I personally don't see that as an advantage that I would take but it is there.

I am not against upgrading software I just don't want to subscribe to it. Plenty of other people are fine with that and that is great.

[digitaldog]

Phase one does not add support for newer cameras to old versions. Same as Adobe. So, given that Adobe has the above described workaround technically you would loose that moving to C1. I personally don't see that as an advantage that I would take but it is there.

I am not against upgrading software I just don't want to subscribe to it. Plenty of other people are fine with that and that is great.

Got zero to do with subscribing. One company forces owners of newer camera to upgrade*. The other doesn't; it provides a free path to keep your older software which IS NOT a subscription.
*Now how about C1 users who decide to convert to DNG and keep their older versions? Assuming the product properly supports that format (thanks Adobe  )

[Rhossydd]

The issue of providing forward support of older raw software via DNG is an interesting one.
Fantastic idea whilst Adobe keep updating their DNG converter for new camera formats and providing it freely, but if Adobe stop that product or make it part of the subscription, the idea rather falls apart.

[UnfamiliarLight]

Got zero to do with subscribing.

It has *everything* to do with subscribing. The OP stated they were investigating C1 because Adobe is no longer offering upgrades to their LR product with stand alone licensing. I personally made the switch away from LR for that very same reason. You don't have to agree. You don't even have to respect our discussion. But it is the why. And personally it is also why I have zero interest in working with other Adobe products if I don't need to.
*I* am sure the OP can make a choice based on what is best for them. I certainly did. You seem happy to stay with LR, which is also great.

[digitaldog]

The issue of providing forward support of older raw software via DNG is an interesting one.
Fantastic idea whilst Adobe keep updating their DNG converter for new camera formats and providing it freely, but if Adobe stop that product or make it part of the subscription, the idea rather falls apart.

Anything could happen in the future with respect to DNG and Adobe. More evidence WE need an openly documented and free to use raw format, like TIFF that Adobe at present owns and controls, that some posting here may be using (rather than PSD), but don’t wish to admit using perhaps because of who owns that openly documented format  .

[faberryman]

The issue of providing forward support of older raw software via DNG is an interesting one.
Fantastic idea whilst Adobe keep updating their DNG converter for new camera formats and providing it freely, but if Adobe stop that product or make it part of the subscription, the idea rather falls apart.

In which case you could elect to stay with Adobe or change to another product, which may of may not be updated in the future. Life involves uncertainty and choices.

[digitaldog]

It has *everything* to do with subscribing. The OP stated they were investigating C1 because Adobe is no longer offering upgrades to their LR product with stand alone licensing.

He stated that exactly where? Seems it was you who brought up subscription no, after getting the bit about profiles and support technically wrong? Here's the OP's question copy and paste:

Hi,


I'd like to drop LR, as they do not update the desktop version with the support for Z7, and start using CaptureOne.
Before buying I'd like to asses, which features I am not going to find in CaptureOne.
As I understand it CaptureOne does not have HDR and Panorama support, what else?


Thank you.

IF I missed where HE asked about subscription, apologies. Did he? Or was it you and your agenda? 

[faberryman]

He stated that exactly where? Seems it was you who brought up subscription no? Here's the OP's question copy and paste:
IF I missed where HE asked about subscription, apologies. Did he? Or was it you?

He was referring to non-subscription LR6 as the "desktop" version. He correctly said that Adobe was not updating it to handle the Z7. People were confused by his use of the term "desktop" and pointed out that the subscription version was updated to handle the Z7. Which inevitably lead to the tired debate about subscription vs. standalone. My feeling is that if you don't like the subscription model use something else. Or use Adobe DNG converter and an older standalone version. Plenty of choices.

[digitaldog]

He was referring to non-subscription LR6 as the "desktop" version. He correctly said that Adobe was not updating it.

But where did he say his beef was with a subscription? Not that it matters as correctly pointed out, one can use LR6 with that newer camera.
Are people posting to aid the OP or propose an agenda? The OP can use LR6 with the newer camera as explained below (or above depending on your preference). Problem solved.

[UnfamiliarLight]

Are people posting to aid the OP or propose an agenda?

LOL I have no agenda. Hopefully the OP found the information helpful.

[Rhossydd]

Anything could happen in the future with respect to DNG and Adobe. More evidence WE need an openly documented and free to use raw format,

I'd thought DNG was supposed to be an 'open format' ? If so, someone could presumably make their own version of Adobe's DNG converter. Right now there's no incentive, but maybe if Adobe changed their policy it could happen.

[digitaldog]

LOL I have no agenda. Hopefully the OP found the information helpful.

Considering I didn’t specifically name anyone....
Hopefully *some* learned some facts about camera profiles and DNG, camera support, my FUD busting is done. For the time being. 

[digitaldog]

Id' thought DNG was supposed to be an 'open format' ?

It is. But due to being associated with Adobe, (unlike TIFF?) getting anything like universal support from camera manufacturers makes it a political hit potatoe. This is not a technology issue, it’s a political issue and the longer users don’t demand a solution and side with camera makers instead of their own best interests, the longer we will wait. Some would rather continue the anti Adobe and DNG rant, than join the demand for a open raw format. 
Photograhers are often their own worst enemy.

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

I'd thought DNG was supposed to be an 'open format' ? If so, someone could presumably make their own version of Adobe's DNG converter. Right now there's no incentive, but maybe if Adobe changed their policy it could happen.

People have been building RAW->DNG converters for quite some time...

Open source example: https://github.com/Fimagena/raw2dng

Commercial example: Iridient Developer/Transfomer.

[DP]

People have been building RAW->DNG converters for quite some time...

Open source example: https://github.com/Fimagena/raw2dng

Commercial example: Iridient Developer/Transfomer.

C1 is also raw to DNG converter, was for a while ...

[DP]

This is not a technology issue

it is a technology issue, as any innovation will be delayed if it has to be done through DNG standard ... example: when Panasonic introduced optics corrections parameters written in raw files... DNG standard at the moment did not support anything like this... it took Adobe almost a year to get it done.... all the while RW2 to DNG with optics correction had to be huge demosaicked linear DNG files 

buy not using DNG Panasonic was free to implement it as it saw fit, did it on its own schedule and was not forced to disclose to competition... Adobe had to follow what Panasonic did (and only managed with huge delay)

but Andrew has no clue and never had

[Rhossydd]

C1 is also raw to DNG converter,

Which misses the point about needing an up to date converter to provide support for cameras newer than the software you're using.

[DP]

Which misses the point about needing an up to date converter to provide support for cameras newer than the software you're using.

which brings you the need to (A) ask camera manufacturers to share the information about the changes (if any) publicly (there is no really need for DNG to achieve that) or at least have easy(easier) to enroll NDA program for more vendors of raw converters - Adobe seems to have by now established such relation with most camera manufacturers and their beta version of ACR is almost always available for DPReview stuff even before some camera is going on sale and (B) ask software vendors to be not much slower than LibRaw for example (but they naturally have to do testing, camera profiles making and follow their established code-test-build-release cycles)

[digitaldog]

Which misses the point about needing an up to date converter to provide support for cameras newer than the software you're using.

Indeed, you have corrected a clueless posting (corrected again) to someone who isn’t an Adobe beta like others here, but jumps to assumptions (DPReview )