C1 6.4

[robgo2]

After working with C1 6.4 and Lightroom with my D800 NEF files, I am REALLY liking the LR4 files. Didn't think I would ever say that as I have been a C1 fanboy for years.

Damn......

Are you suggesting that LR4's rendering has improved?  If so, that may make it more attractive to those of us who have never liked the results from ACR.  OTOH, Capture One 7 is probably not too far off, and it may raise the bar further.  Personally, I will wait for C1-7 and run head to head comparisons after it arrives, as I don't want to switch horses in midstream and then have to switch right back.

Rob

[Keith Reeder]

Lr's rendering has been better than Cap One's since Lr 3.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Don't you think subject matter comes into play with the way files are renderred in each app?

Skin/Ports maybe different, or better from say a saxophone, or a watch,  in each app...no?

Some files benefit from crunch, while other benifit from dithering...Do any of you think?

I say this with the way I have learned how to work the files in each app. It is easier for me to get a crisp and clean looking file from a PhaseOne back in C1 than it is for same file in LR3(still new to LR4)...this is regarding product images. Would love some instight if this is something on my end, or perhaps a measurable difference....So hard with all the variable adjustments and how they are used to be a clear and measurable "better" processing ...Arrgghhh!!

[SpiritShooter]

You are absolutely correct.

My examination of NEF files from my D800 in C1 6.4 and LR4 has be superficial at best as I have been traveling for the past 10 days. However, my initial impressions were quite favorable with the LR4 processing. I really have not processed enough files to inteligently offer an absolute conclusion.

But as I mentioned, I am really liking LR4 from the files I did get to process.

And, since I am typing this, I think the D800 is an extraordinary camera.

[robgo2]

Lr's rendering has been better than Cap One's since Lr 3.

I totally disagree.  With the exception of files with very high levels of noise, I get much more pleasing results from Capture One.  And might I ask why you keep hanging around Capture One forums, since you obviously think it is an inferior program?  Do you derive some weird pleasure from bashing it?  No one can stop you, but one would think that after a while, you would just move on, and enjoy using whatever you like.

Rob

[Phil Indeblanc]

Lr's rendering has been better than Cap One's since Lr 3.

Maybe LR has say "straight forward" interface and easy to understand options(HSL/Color/BW I find easier in LR) than C1 to manipulate images. As mentioned with noisy files, or ones you want to do special FX on, like HDR, or ??
I like the LR interface and use with outdoor and "forgiving " work, while I use C1 mostly on studio work that needs one shot or 2 at the end of the day.
If I'm doing a lot of images in a batch like an event with people...It's LR.

[deejjjaaaa]

Are you suggesting that LR4's rendering has improved?

I guess Eric Chan made a better .dcp camera profile for D800 to start with...

[robgo2]

I guess Eric Chan made a better .dcp camera profile for D800 to start with...

No one knows.  SpiritShooter said that he likes the results that LR4 produces with D800 files, but he has not performed careful comparisons with C1-6.  So, the jury is still out on this case.  What is quite likely is that the D800 is an awesome camera that can produce great images with any raw convertor.

Rob

[deejjjaaaa]

What is quite likely is that the D800 is an awesome camera that can produce great images with any raw convertor.

even with the one coded in its firmware...

[Keith Reeder]

I'm not talking about colours, Phil - I'm as big a fan of Cap One's colour handling as anyone - but the demosaicing.

Lr 3/4s demosaicing algorithm renders a fine, aesthetically pleasing, smooth grain, whereas Cap One's algorithm creates an unpleasant "checkerboard" rendering that couldn't be further away from Lr's smooth grain.

If you're shooting at low ISOs you probably won't see it - but as soon as your files start creeping up there, this Cap One "blocky" artifact can become evident.

Just recently I was looking at a tutorial on Doug Peterson's site (can't remember which article it was) where he used a couple of (admittedly 300% view) crops from a Cap One conversion of - I think - a 5D Mk II file (and not a particularly high ISO either, IIRC) and the checkerboarding was glaringly obvious.

For the avoidance of any doubt, the impact of this rendering can be apparent at much less than "pixel peeping" views, and it can and does have an impact on fine detail.

Yes, it depends on what you're shooting, how the files are presented and what your personal needs and expectations are: but there's no question that for me Cap One's demosiaicing algorithm is a weak spot, especially if - like most "enthusiast" bird/wildlife photographers, including me - focal length limitations and/or a lack of control over the subject require cropping into images...

[Doug Peterson]

That's funny. As the author of that test (hosted on my previous employer's website here), having worked extensively to compare the results from a variety of files from my personal archive of high ISO Canon 5D2 shots my conclusion was that C1 was the clear winner. Guess that goes to show that opinions of others that you respect are worth something, but your own testing for your own needs/priorities/aesthetics is the only test with much meaning.

I'm not saying at all that you are wrong. Quite the contrary I'm highlighting that we are both right, in so far as you're saying you like the pixel-level results from LR (your emphasis tending to be on selecting the grain structure you find more pleasing) and I like them from C1 (my emphasis being on how tonal gradations are rendered). At least we both agree that we like the color from C1 best!

I posted the raw files, as well as the JPG, and conversion style I used so that readers would be able to do their own tweaks and draw their own conclusions. Better yet, use your own files, do your own tweaks, and draw your own conclusions.

FYI the test posted was for a 5DII raw file shot at ISO6400 in mixed lighting and was selected from these series:
http://www.doug-peterson.com/elize-tomas-with-julia-kreibich-styling/
http://www.doug-peterson.com/nadine-bodypaint/

[Phil Indeblanc]

I love Doug!

[SpiritShooter]

Since my last post on this topic, I have a boat load of images on the D800 using a 24/1.4, 50/1.4, and 24 TC-E. I have done extensive testing in C1 6.4 as well as LR4.

My results are mixed at best. That is, I am finding that to my eye, the C1 results are more pleasing. I find that using LCC corrections make a huge difference over LR4. Colors look better and my images look less harsh ("harsh" is a subjective description, I know).

However, I like the smoother noise rendering of the LR algorithm better.

Now, I have not seen any more' in my D800 files, but a friend send me a D800E file. C1 6.4  handled the more' which was on the edge of a fabric covered book in a studio shot. LR4 removed the color pattern but left an unpleasant monochrome pattern. Perhaps I don't understand how to work with the LR4 color noise sliders?

All in all, and I am really quite surprised that my initial observations were perhaps too quick on the trigger, but the D800 files that are being produced by C1 6.4 are superb. The LR4 files are very nice as well, but in my view, the edge goes to C1 6.4.

One area that LR4 makes life easy, is with very hot areas such as clouds. I am finding that LR4 handles over exposure much more efficiently than C1 6.4.

Hey, just my completely biased opinion.  

[Doug Peterson]

Since my last post on this topic, I have a boat load of images on the D800 using a 24/1.4, 50/1.4, and 24 TC-E. I have done extensive testing in C1 6.4 as well as LR4.

My results are mixed at best. That is, I am finding that to my eye, the C1 results are more pleasing. I find that using LCC corrections make a huge difference over LR4. Colors look better and my images look less harsh ("harsh" is a subjective description, I know).

However, I like the smoother noise rendering of the LR algorithm better.

Now, I have not seen any more' in my D800 files, but a friend send me a D800E file. C1 6.4  handled the more' which was on the edge of a fabric covered book in a studio shot. LR4 removed the color pattern but left an unpleasant monochrome pattern. Perhaps I don't understand how to work with the LR4 color noise sliders?

All in all, and I am really quite surprised that my initial observations were perhaps too quick on the trigger, but the D800 files that are being produced by C1 6.4 are superb. The LR4 files are very nice as well, but in my view, the edge goes to C1 6.4.

One area that LR4 makes life easy, is with very hot areas such as clouds. I am finding that LR4 handles over exposure much more efficiently than C1 6.4.

Hey, just my completely biased opinion.  

Glad to hear your updated reactions.

I agree LR4 does better with extreme over exposure compared to C1 6.4. I think the shadow tonality, especially color consistency, is handled better in C1 6.4.

Now of course the real question is how Capture One 7 will compare whenever that is released.

[MrSmith]

C1 does a very good job with 5dIII files, a college sent me a few raws to look at and i couldn't resist doing the huge shadow lifting that is the zeitgeist of sensor comparison right now 
really impressed with the new sensor and how c1 is interpreting them, and no sign of the pattern noise of the mkII or the kind of noise shown in popular photography website tests.