Moving from LR to CaptureOne: what am I loosing?

[MostlyPhotos]

The DAM in LR is a little easier to use and has more features, that said I can see C! giving me everything that I need. I miss the Panorama and HDR merges mostly.

I use the stacking' feature in LR frequently... but in honesty this is often stacks of a group of similar images with the best one at the top of the stack... in C1 I am more likely to cull these extras... which is no bad thing.

It's useful for stacking Pano and HDR groups though... not found a convenient way to do this in C1 to date.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The DAM in LR is a little easier to use and has more features, that said I can see C! giving me everything that I need. I miss the Panorama and HDR merges mostly.

Hi,

Personally, I prefer using dedicated tools for such specialist processing. C1 will allow creating superior input quality TIFFs for such applications. Pano's, besides allowing CA correction, Diffraction correction, etc., per tile, e.g. can have different White Balance settings for the image tiles, before they get blended seamlessly. FocusStacks can have Dust removed with LCCs before causing trouble when the slices get resized into registration. HDRs also need CA removal per image.

I use the stacking' feature in LR frequently... but in honesty this is often stacks of a group of similar images with the best one at the top of the stack... in C1 I am more likely to cull these extras... which is no bad thing.

I agree, although at times grouping images could be useful. Who knows what the future has in store, now that the PhaseOne cameras start using multiple frames.

It's useful for stacking Pano and HDR groups though... not found a convenient way to do this in C1 to date.

Just use keywording, add 'Pano', or 'HDR', or 'FocusStack', and perhaps another discriminator (like image number range) if multiple stacks are created in sequence. And such stacks themselves are usually sequential as well, so adding a common keyword after selecting them all is simple and fast.

Cheers,
Bart

[DP]

And it creates them too?

And did I comment the part your text about creating ?

[digitaldog]

And did I comment the part your text about creating?

You didn't. Your comment wasn't pertinent in any way IMHO and you didn't answer my question after commenting about my comment to UnfamiliarLight. My comment about a free means to both CREATE and EDIT .dcp (camera) profiles was directed specifically at UnfamiliarLight who implied that unless you subscribe to Adobe, profiles are only available to people who subscribe (not true), examine the actual text below:

Except that is only available to people who subscribe to Adobe's new business model.

The current LR release has full support for the Nikon Z7, including all camera color profiles.

So great, C1 edits profiles. Adobe does too. Now can you answer the question about C1's ability to freely create camera profiles like Adobe can? IF it cannot, that's something of a loss that the OP is asking about.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So great, C1 edits profiles. Adobe does too. Now can you answer the question about C1's ability to freely create camera profiles like Adobe can? IF it cannot, that's something of a loss that the OP is asking about.

First, we do not know if the OP makes his own profiles, so we cannot know whether it would be a loss to him.

Second, C1 doesn't create profiles like Adobe can, and some might say "Thank Goodness" .

Creating camera profiles is a process fraught with risks that can produce quality issues. Therefore, besides creating (ICC-)profiles from scratch, with Lumariver Profile Designer, http://www.lumariver.com/#LumariverPD, I like the process that C1 Professional uses, which allows the user to base a profile off of any camera profile (preferably one that's close to the intended CFA characteristics). Once a Camera model is fully supported with one or more quality profiles, the user still has the possibility to tweak its response (and create a new ICC profile) without screwing up in a major way. This is definitely a GAIN instead of a loss, in my book anyway.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

First, we do not know if the OP makes his own profiles, so we cannot know whether it would be a loss to him.

Second, C1 doesn't create profiles like Adobe can, and some might say "Thank Goodness" .

Creating camera profiles is a process fraught with risks that can produce quality issues. Therefore, besides creating (ICC-)profiles from scratch, with Lumariver Profile Designer, http://www.lumariver.com/#LumariverPD, I like the process that C1 Professional uses, which allows the user to base a profile off of any camera profile (preferably one that's close to the intended CFA characteristics). Once a Camera model is fully supported with one or more quality profiles, the user still has the possibility to tweak its response (and create a new ICC profile) without screwing up in a major way. This is definitely a GAIN instead of a loss, in my book anyway.

Cheers,
Bart

So seem no, C1 provide no way to make free camera profiles as Adobe does. Some of us with many years making profiles (cameras and otherwise), would find this a loss and not say “thank goodness” but at least we know what C1 cannot provide that Adobe can; the question I asked that for some reason DP didn’t wish to answer.

[Rhossydd]

Once a Camera model is fully supported with one or more quality profiles, the user still has the possibility to tweak its response (and create a new ICC profile) without screwing up in a major way. This is definitely a GAIN instead of a loss, in my book anyway.

That process really isn't 'profiling' as such though. It's not much different from just saving a set of colour adjustments to use as a preset. You'd have to go through a very long winded process of many adjustments on a wide gamut image to build anything as generically useful as a proper profile.

The options to build profiles for ACR/LR are simpler and, I think, overall more versatile.

[digitaldog]

That process really isn't 'profiling' as such though. It's not much different from just saving a set of colour adjustments to use as a preset. You'd have to go through a very long winded process of many adjustments on a wide gamut image to build anything as generically useful as a proper profile.

The options to build profiles for ACR/LR are simpler and, I think, overall more versatile.

I agree, and there are many other differences between the two profiles and yes, that isn't really profiling.

Some here have a long track record working with ICC camera profiles. I've got a hand made MacBeth ColorChecker DC (circa 2003 prior to the SG) and two paid trips to Regensdorf under my belt doing alpha consultation to prove the point should anyone care to know the history of such development. ICC camera profiles as Bart did state are fraught with issues in creation. That simply isn't close to the same case creating .dcp camera profiles.

As to whether this is important to the OP or not, now he knows the differences and can comment. But the differences are for some a loss (some perhaps a gain).

I wonder why it's so often damn difficult to get the C1 proponents to answer a simple question. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I wonder why it's so often damn difficult to get the C1 proponents to answer a simple question. 

How useful is a DCP 'profile' outside of the Adobe realm?

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

How useful is a DCP 'profile' outside of the Adobe realm?

Cheers,
Bart

Very! I have several raw converters (Iridient Developer is one) that supports .dcp profiles.
Can you use your edited C1 ICC profiles outside C1 Bart?

[Rhossydd]

Can you use your edited C1 ICC profiles outside C1

CO generates a standard icm profile, so I would expect the answer is yes.
(Although v10 doesn't save it to the system directory for colour profiles on W7, so you have to search for it and install it manually.)

[digitaldog]

CO generates a standard icm profile, so I would expect the answer is yes.
(Although v10 doesn't save it to the system directory for colour profiles on W7, so you have to search for it and install it manually.)

I didn’t phrase the question well and yes, if it is a standard.ICC Profile, indeed any product that support the profiles can use them. How well and useful after this edit would be the question we may or may not see answered. 

[Rhossydd]

How well and useful after this edit would be the question we may or may not see answered.

Not sure that's a question worth asking or important really.
CO isn't designed as profile creation software, but editing the supplied profiles might be a feature some people would find useful for their work in CO.

Not sure I see it as any sort of useful feature though.

[sebbe]

Why is it relevant that LR or C1 can create profiles as long as they allow to use custom profiles?
Isn't it better to use a profiling software like basICColor or Lumariver to create profiles? It's not free though.
But if we do not take this into account, wouldn't it be the better way (in terms of quality and versatility)?

[digitaldog]

Not sure that's a question worth asking or important really.
CO isn't designed as profile creation software, but editing the supplied profiles might be a feature some people would find useful for their work in CO.

Not sure I see it as any sort of useful feature though.

Agreed on all counts. More a “proof of concept” question; will it get an answer as I provided to Bart about non-Adobe apps using.DCP camera profiles.

[UnfamiliarLight]

my comment to UnfamiliarLight. My comment about a free means to both CREATE and EDIT .dcp (camera) profiles was directed specifically at UnfamiliarLight who implied that unless you subscribe to Adobe, profiles are only available to people who subscribe (not true)

It is somewhat interesting that you can finagle a way to get support for new cameras into the abandoned stand alone license of LR. I have two problems with this - another major learning curve to create profiles that I personally would not be interested in spending time on and two DNG - I view that as a bad idea that I also don't want anything to do with (not just for the additional steps but also because it causes more lock in to Adobe).
So, the steps you outline and the need for more proprietary Adobe technology means that while you are technically correct that I was wrong, I'll say it this way then: For all practical purposes support for new cameras is only available to people who subscribe to Adobe's new business model.
The conclusion is that moving to C1 you loose a way to handle unsupported cameras that you can do in LR. Some might find that compelling. I certainly do not.

[digitaldog]

It is somewhat interesting that you can finagle a way to get support for new cameras into the abandoned stand alone license of LR. I have two problems with this - another major learning curve to create profiles that I personally would not be interested in spending time on and two DNG - I view that as a bad idea that I also don't want anything to do with (not just for the additional steps but also because it causes more lock in to Adobe).
So, the steps you outline and the need for more proprietary Adobe technology means that while you are technically correct that I was wrong, I'll say it this way then: For all practical purposes support for new cameras is only available to people who subscribe to Adobe's new business model.
The conclusion is that moving to C1 you loose a way to handle unsupported cameras that you can do in LR. Some might find that compelling. I certainly do not.

There is nothing proprietary about DNG; openly documented format, like TIFF (you use TIFF?).
Again, you are technically incorrect.

[Rhossydd]

I'll say it this way then: For all practical purposes support for new cameras is only available to people who subscribe to Adobe's new business model.

No, you can still go through DNG conversion to load newer cameras files into LR6. No need to subscribe.

Not ideal as it adds a little more to the importing workflow, but Adobe need some credit for making this freely available.

[digitaldog]

No, you can still go through DNG conversion to load newer cameras files into LR6. No need to subscribe.

Not ideal as it adds a little more to the importing workflow, but Adobe need some credit for making this freely available.

Yes, Adobe doesn't force users to update/upgrade for newer cameras. 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?
Keep in mind folks, the topic is clearly: : Moving from LR to CaptureOne: what am I loosing?
You stick with an old version of LR (say version 5) and you get a new camera that version doesn’t support natively. Adobe doesn't force an upgrade; you CAN convert (on import) to DNG and use the older product. Converting to DNG has advantages beyond that (and to be honest, some disadvantages too) but stating DNG is proprietary is FUD.

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

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