Why Capture One?

[Jon Maxim]

I have been fortunate enough to acquire Lightroom 3, Capture NX2 and Capture One 5. Now I have a dilemma. I have seen a clear difference when rendering an image through LR versus NX2. NX2 is just "better" (i.e. closer to what I had visualized when taking the shot). However, I would prefer to use Lightroom's workflow and speed and NX2's rendering (RAW conversion?) and u-point controls.

I understand that people frequently use LR to manage their photos but C-1 to make the raw conversion. I don't understand the workflow nor the advantages of doing so. I would appreciate any comments on why I would want to use a LR with C-1 and any other thoughts on combined workflows.

TIA
Jon

[bjanes]

I have been fortunate enough to acquire Lightroom 3, Capture NX2 and Capture One 5. Now I have a dilemma. I have seen a clear difference when rendering an image through LR versus NX2. NX2 is just "better" (i.e. closer to what I had visualized when taking the shot). However, I would prefer to use Lightroom's workflow and speed and LR2's rendering (RAW conversion?) and u-point controls.

A "just better appearance" is difficult to evaluate without seeing the image. I presume that you realize that NX2 will use the camera Picture Control settings whereas LR and ACR ignore them. What camera profile are you using with LR and what Picture control are you using with the Camera and NX2? U-point controls are used with NX2, not LR2. Perhaps that was a typo. Perhaps you need to learn how to use all these programs before making judgments.

Regards,

Bill

[tho_mas]

I understand that people frequently use LR to manage their photos but C-1 to make the raw conversion. I don't understand the workflow nor the advantages of doing so. I would appreciate any comments on why I would want to use a LR with C-1 and any other thoughts on combined workflows.

I guess Michael's article will give you more info.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial..._workflow.shtml
Basically a lot of folks obvioulsy prefer the color rendering, tonal appearance and detail extraction from C1. Too, the lens tools (correction of CAs & purple fringing) are really good. I'd say that's still true with regard to LR3, though it's a good improvement over LR2 (IQ wise... generally speaking).
Finally C1's color management is full blown whilst LR's color management is somewhat ridiculous (I guess that's not an issue for many users though).

[Jon Maxim]

A "just better appearance" is difficult to evaluate without seeing the image. I presume that you realize that NX2 will use the camera Picture Control settings whereas LR and ACR ignore them. What camera profile are you using with LR and what Picture control are you using with the Camera and NX2? U-point controls are used with NX2, not LR2. Perhaps that was a typo. Perhaps you need to learn how to use all these programs before making judgments.

Good catch Bill. I did mean NX2 for the u-point controls. Yes, I do know that LR and ACR ignore the Nikon settings. I also realize that I can buy Viveza to give me the u-point controls but the cost of the Nik products is high and I am waiting to be able to afford the full bundle.

In NX2 I use Unchanged. Since I switch the settings inside my camera, in LR I use either "Camera Standard" or "Camera Vivid". If you have any suggestions that can show me how I can get NX-like rendering from Lightroom that would be great!

Thanks,
Jon

[Jon Maxim]

I guess Michael's article will give you more info.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial..._workflow.shtml
Basically a lot of folks obvioulsy prefer the color rendering, tonal appearance and detail extraction from C1. Too, the lens tools (correction of CAs & purple fringing) are really good. I'd say that's still true with regard to LR3, though it's a good improvement over LR2 (IQ wise... generally speaking).
Finally C1's color management is full blown whilst LR's color management is somewhat ridiculous (I guess that's not an issue for many users though).

Thank you so much tho_mas! I don't know how I missed the article since I am an avid reader of LL. I was agonizing over how LR would interpret C-1s demosaicing, rendering, etc. I realize the answer is it doesn't. Michael's workflow passes a TIFF file over to LR. It's an extra step and my gut tells me that it should stay RAW throughout the workflow. However, Michael says he has tested it extensively and I have a lot of respect for his judgement.
I guess this means that I will have to double all my storage again... sigh... at least storage is "cheap"  

[robgo2]

I have been fortunate enough to acquire Lightroom 3, Capture NX2 and Capture One 5. Now I have a dilemma. I have seen a clear difference when rendering an image through LR versus NX2. NX2 is just "better" (i.e. closer to what I had visualized when taking the shot). However, I would prefer to use Lightroom's workflow and speed and LR2's rendering (RAW conversion?) and u-point controls.

I understand that people frequently use LR to manage their photos but C-1 to make the raw conversion. I don't understand the workflow nor the advantages of doing so. I would appreciate any comments on why I would want to use a LR with C-1 and any other thoughts on combined workflows.

TIA
Jon

After a fairly extensive period of comparing LR3 Beta 2 with Capture One 5 Pro, I decided to go with C1, simply because I prefer the way that it renders images.  Unlike some people, I am not obsessed with editing in raw.  So, my workflow is based around getting the best raw conversion that I can from C1 and then opening the processed TIFF in CS5, where I use various Nik tools to get the effects that I want.  I truly believe that Photoshop is a much more powerful editing program than any raw converter and that to produce the absolute best images, it is an essential piece of software.  If you are not concerned with "absolute best," then a full-featured raw converter, such as LR3 may be a good choice.  LR3 does have many attractive features, and its raw conversions are quite good.  I don't think that you can go wrong with either C1 or LR3, but only you can decide which gives the best results and has a workflow that you like.

Rob

[Jon Maxim]

After a fairly extensive period of comparing LR3 Beta 2 with Capture One 5 Pro, I decided to go with C1, simply because I prefer the way that it renders images.  Unlike some people, I am not obsessed with editing in raw.  So, my workflow is based around getting the best raw conversion that I can from C1 and then opening the processed TIFF in CS5, where I use various Nik tools to get the effects that I want.  I truly believe that Photoshop is a much more powerful editing program than any raw converter and that to produce the absolute best images, it is an essential piece of software.  If you are not concerned with "absolute best," then a full-featured raw converter, such as LR3 may be a good choice.  LR3 does have many attractive features, and its raw conversions are quite good.  I don't think that you can go wrong with either C1 or LR3, but only you can decide which gives the best results and has a workflow that you like.

Rob

Thank you, Rob. I agree with your comments on PS. However, I find myself short of time and only use it when I absolutely need it. I am in the process of trying out the LR3 and C1 combo. I am finding that converting to TIFF is adding more time but it is probably due to my unfamiliariy with the whole process.

Jon

[Nill Toulme]

I still find that I can get through processing a large shoot (100-200 images culled from many more) converting in C1 than in LR3.  Part of this might be due to the relative speed of the two on my system, but a great deal of the difference is the way I use keyboard shortcuts in C1 — shortcuts that I find inexplicably unavailable in LR3.

Mind you, I don't use either for the initial culling; I use full screen sharpened views in BreezeBrowser Pro for that.

I also find it easier to get the basic image qualities I want from C1, but I suspect that's due more to familiarity than differences in the programs' processing.  I do think the NR in LR3 is miles and miles ahead of C1; LR3's sharpening is also superior.

Nill

[robgo2]

Thank you, Rob. I agree with your comments on PS. However, I find myself short of time and only use it when I absolutely need it. I am in the process of trying out the LR3 and C1 combo. I am finding that converting to TIFF is adding more time but it is probably due to my unfamiliariy with the whole process.

Jon

It is hard for me to see any advantage to this workflow, other than to use Lightroom's file management capabilities.  One can get beautiful images straight from C1 with very little effort.  LR3 offers some local editing tools, but for that kind of work, I much prefer using PS.  I find that working in CS5 with the Nik plug-ins is actually very fast and efficient and can achieve results far beyond what can be gotten in LR.  Of course, this requires an investment in the Nik Suite, which some may consider expensive, but which I consider a bargain given all of the wonderful tools you get with it.  I realize that there are those who shun plug-ins and prefer working from first principles in PS, but I am obviously not one of them.

Rob

[deejjjaaaa]

It is hard for me to see any advantage to this workflow, other than to use Lightroom's file management capabilities.  One can get beautiful images straight from C1 with very little effort.  LR3 offers some local editing tools, but for that kind of work, I much prefer using PS.  I find that working in CS5 with the Nik plug-ins is actually very fast and efficient and can achieve results far beyond what can be gotten in LR.  Of course, this requires an investment in the Nik Suite, which some may consider expensive, but which I consider a bargain given all of the wonderful tools you get with it.  I realize that there are those who shun plug-ins and prefer working from first principles in PS, but I am obviously not one of them.

Rob

meanwhile Adobe included Pentax 645D MF lenses correction support in ACR6.2/LR3.2

[Phil Indeblanc]

It is hard for me to see any advantage to this workflow, other than to use Lightroom's file management capabilities.  One can get beautiful images straight from C1 with very little effort.  LR3 offers some local editing tools, but for that kind of work, I much prefer using PS.  I find that working in CS5 with the Nik plug-ins is actually very fast and efficient and can achieve results far beyond what can be gotten in LR.  Of course, this requires an investment in the Nik Suite, which some may consider expensive, but which I consider a bargain given all of the wonderful tools you get with it.  I realize that there are those who shun plug-ins and prefer working from first principles in PS, but I am obviously not one of them.

Rob

What ever the processor makes the best file great, thats it.  Even C1 does this "SESSIONS" business...what?  shoot process, save file as 16bit TIF, edit in photoshop save another for jpeg client view, and when all is done one in PDF, or 8bit file for client final...DONE!    Non distructive?  your Raw is the raw...your processed file is edited...Done...go back to the raw with latest adjustments and rework if need be.  This way you are guaranteed the original file will not be overwritten and its always safe(as long as you have it backed up).

So, I agree with Robgo2's approach ... I have purchased and upgraded LR3, and I find the entire idea of a "WORKFLOW" to process a file odd, and may fit some users but not for me in a commercial photography use.

I use ACDSee for browsing and metadata, etc.  C1 to process, CS5 to edit, InDesign for the layout if need be, Acrobat to proof and send to RIP...Done.  LR3 whats to teach you a new way of using a computer...maybe it has advantages...?Even Sessions in C1 I get tangled in sometimes and bypass at all costs. 

Just do your job software...don't get ambitious....but do the job you were designed to do exceptionally well!....I use C1 5x for processing...But still use C1 3.79..its just not bloated and full of stuff all over.  files viewer focus window...DONE.  LR3...still waiting on sidelines.  IF you are gonna use a plug or what ever and make drastic changes It belongs in editing...CS5...not processing....for me....as I can see landscapes (hence the title of Michaels realm :-) work well for LR3....not commercial use.

[robgo2]

meanwhile Adobe included Pentax 645D MF lenses correction support in ACR6.2/LR3.2

Interesting, but not highly relevant to this discussion.  FWIW, I routinely use PTLens to correct lens imperfections on all images going into PS.

Rob

[jean1974]

C1 has worked best for me when I have similar lighting conditions for a batch.  I don't have as many adjustments to make per slide.