LR to C1...why?

[David Grover / Capture One]

I think it's horses for courses.

I started with C1 and recently picked up LR4 and now LR5 owing to a need for support for the Leica monochrom. I have also used Raw developer and Aperture in the early days.

I personally like the C1 interface and the way some of the tools work, but that may be because that is what I started with, largely because my M8 came packaged with it. I'd love to see proper side by side soft proofing in C1, as well as before and after switches for each of the tools. Lightroom has the edge here.

In the darkroom we often used more than one developer....

Hi Wattsies,

If you want to see a before and after of the tool, just hold down the 'Alt' key whilst clicking the reset icon in the relevant tool.  This will reset the values to zero temporarily.

David

[wattsies]

David

Thanks for the tip.  That works well enough.

Only soft proofing to go!

Jason

 

[David Grover / Capture One]

David

Thanks for the tip.  That works well enough.

Only soft proofing to go!

Jason

Do you mean applying a Printer Profile for example?

View>Proof Profile

[Gulag]

Which could equally be cast as "one of LR's advantages is that it discourages you from fragmenting control of your work"....
John

in essence, that says how little you are aware of different types of photographers out there and the roles that they play in a increasingly collaborative work environment.

[john beardsworth]

in essence, that says how little you are aware of different types of photographers out there and the roles that they play in a increasingly collaborative work environment.

Keep to yourself your presumptions about me. In essence, it says nothing of the sort.

[tho_mas]

Again and again I see this mention of "better" something. Yet, nobody posts any proof of that. Let's see some images that shows this "better" output (be it, skin tones or other things).

Since both softwares are available as a trial you can make your own comparision. I've processed one of Erik Kaffehr's images in LR (4) and C1 (7) to show some obvious differences between the 2 softwares (apart from the "look"). When Erik agrees, I can post these samples (Erik?).

In therms of workflow, LR has a better, one hands down (OK, maybe for me ). And don't get me started in how "intuitive" C1 is.

In terms of workflow a custumizable keyboard and a number of storable user-workspaces are on top of my priority list for any imaging software since the needs differ extremely from user to user and from application to application. Capture One is customizable in many, many ways. LR is what it is. I don't like the way LR is organized so for me personally - with regard to workflow - there is no competition to C1 since it's the most customizable RAW converter available.
Actually I don't like C1's defaults neither... but I can change them in almost any fashion I want to - and this makes the workflow very, very fast and convenient.

Another note: when a user watches the video tutorials from the company and still has a boat load of questions of how things needs to be done ... that's a big problem.

Agreed! However... sometimes I wonder if people are reading the manual at all. C1 is different (for a reason)... so you have to invest some time to learn the software. I've been using C1 since V3.6 (or 3.5 I believe)... so for me personally C1 is "intuitve" ... unlike LR that requires the use of the mouse too much (I prefer a combination of keyboard and mouse operations).

YMMV... of course.

[wattsies]

Do you mean applying a Printer Profile for example?

View>Proof Profile

Yes, but with side by side softproofing as in LR or which you can do in Photoshop to see the master image and correct it for output for specific media.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes please, do that!

Best regards
Erik

Since both softwares are available as a trial you can make your own comparision. I've processed one of Erik Kaffehr's images in LR (4) and C1 (7) to show some obvious differences between the 2 softwares (apart from the "look"). When Erik agrees, I can post these samples (Erik?).

[jeanvalentin]

Since both softwares are available as a trial you can make your own comparision.

I have both and I'm talking from experience with both software processing the same images (see my previous findings mentioned earlier). I started with C1 and then I moved to LR when they changed to the new interface and approach in v4.

In terms of workflow a custumizable keyboard and a number of storable user-workspaces are on top of my priority list for any imaging software since the needs differ extremely from user to user and from application to application. Capture One is customizable in many, many ways. LR is what it is.

True. That's one advantage of C1 (not sure if it's the same in Windows since many apps can be customized on Mac). With that said, the approach in LR is "logical" and you move down in order of the tools needed. You can have your panels closed and it opens when you click on it (and automatically closes the one you just left). The one thing missing from LR is customizable keyboard shortcuts.

On the other hand, there are many built in shortcuts that makes your work much easier: views (G, E ...), Previous button and so forth. In C1 you have to come up with different workspaces and keyboard shortcuts to achieve the same thing.

... sometimes I wonder if people are reading the manual at all. C1 is different (for a reason)... so you have to invest some time to learn the software. I've been using C1 since V3.6 (or 3.5 I believe)... so for me personally C1 is "intuitve" ... unlike LR that requires the use of the mouse too much (I prefer a combination of keyboard and mouse operations).

Well, that reason escapes me. I've watched ALL videos and asked questions. After many years of usage I still can't call C1 intuitive (I had C1 since version 1.7 I think; whatever version was when 10D was around and you had to wait months if you got a new camera).

Again, both are good. The reason I'm commenting is because I really don't see the reason for somebody spending hundreds of dollars just because some marketing hype. Best thing would be to try for himself: install it on a different computer to try it out (laptop ??). The problem is that the new version might have problems on your main machine if you decide to buy it (while OK on the other one). I had to uninstall v7 since it was not working (crashing all the time).

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Just a few comments:

1) Personally I seldom use keyboard commands. With the mouse I can sit much more relaxed than having one hand on mouse and the other one on the keyboard. But I do this for pleasure.

2) The major cost is the effort invested. It is a big change to move from one platform to another.

3) Once you have learned at tool, you find a lot of approaches that serve you well with that tool. For instance I use the graduated filter in LR 4 a lot. What is special is that I can use highlight compression in the graduated filter. I will darken sky and enhance clouds without affecting treetops and mountain sides. Did not find a way to do at in C1.

I bought C1 so the Dollars are already spent. I also have spent several days sorting C1 out, and to make it short, I don't like it. Yes I have seen some advantages with C1. I see less artifacts.

Would I find C1 far superior to LR I may consider to switch, no easy decision with 65000 raw files in my database. There have also been alternatives to the Adobe pipeline, Raw Developer from Iridient comes to mind but I find that workflow is important.

Just to mention, I have a lot of issues with LR 5.0, I am using it but bleeding. So LR 5.0 and me don't make friends right now either. Will try to post a problem report to Adobe in the weekend.

Best regards
Erik

 

Again, both are good. The reason I'm commenting is because I really don't see the reason for somebody spending hundreds of dollars just because some marketing hype.

[tho_mas]

Yes please, do that!

Thanks!

So here are 2 small crops…

I've ask Erik for a wide image with fine details far away / at infinity… so I've asked him to send me the original RAW file of this image:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Samples/Castle/20130616-_DSC2119.jpg

C1 (7.1.3) is processed with default settings but without sharpening (in addition I've set the input profile to "outdoor daylight", NR to zero and I've lowered "details" in "Advanced NR" to 35).

I've quickly adjusted the image in LR (4.4.1) to match the C1 look somewhat better. Of course, the images do not match.
I've also set NR to zero and processed without sharpening.

The crops show screenshots of 300% zoom size to make the differences more obvious.
There's a "soft" version (no sharpening applied) and a "sharp" version.
The "sharp" version shows the images sharpened with Focal Blade in Photoshop (same values for both images).


Clock: C1 differentiates the numerics of the clock much clearer.

Roof: LR produces softer / less differentiated edges on fine straight lines. LR also produces some kind of "halos" which get more pronounced when sharpened.

When you apply sharpening in LR (deconvulsion style with low radius and high amount of details - with or without "masking") the numerics of the clock differentiate as good as in C1 … but this also enhances aliasing artifacts, halos and color bleeding. So there's a trade-off I don't have to deal with in C1.


Now, since the crops show 300% zoom size we are of course talking about minute differences - and if you don't print large, the differences will be leveled out, certainly.
But when you print at native image size and particularly when you uprez your images, the differences will be pretty obvious.

Clock, LR, soft:


Clock, C1, soft:


Clock, LR, sharp:


Clock, C1, sharp:


Roof, LR, soft:


Roof, C1, soft:


Roof, LR, sharp:


Roof, C1, sharp:

[Phil Indeblanc]

It is a bit simple for me. If you are creating images that are competing at the highest level of quality in display for very controlled lighting, with high contrast subjects, I choose C1, as I also choose a Phase One camera. If you are shooting people in action or events and outdoors and less controlled light setting, I use Lightroom, which I tend to shoot those subjects with a DSLR. So if you are using filters and such on a image, I wouldn't use C1 for that. Keep in mind, a lot of times the differences are relative to your output type and viewing distance. So the difference in many mediums and subjects is negligible. On the controlled light contrasty subjects, C1 will poke its head out and tell you A-HA!....when you are the type that always strives to do better, you do better.

I personally use LR much more often than I do C1. but I couldn't get the results of SOME files C1 can, where LR cannot (or lack of desire to try hard enough?).

So if you are in the LOVE of or in the business of making images, you will use any tool necessary to get the results you are after. That is why I have both.

Can you fillet a fish with a bread knife? Can you slice a baguette with a fillet knife? You just might, but how you do it will greatly differ....so will the results/time.

What I did learn after some use is that LR being a manager is not as bad a thing. I was very opposed to it. Now I just deal with it, as I don't have a choice. It still slows down the way I work. But it is not a deal breaker.
Since I still use a folder structure it works with it, and managing is rather smooth. Navigating between Lib mode and Dev mode is the issue it creates.

Another thing I learned is that I don't think I will ever get used to the way C1 wants to handle file "engagement". This is why you read others feedback that they loved C1 up until version4. Which I agree with. This is coming from someone who used C1 much before LR(not to mention my C1Universty classes/testing). It is mentioned often that you don't have to use the catalog feature, but it makes little difference, you still have to deal with a Session feature that you can't disable, as it is part of the entire file "engagement" system. So you're really never browsing. You need to be in a Session, then browse. Of course this is not likely to change soon.

Another draw back for me is that it creates a set of folders in throughout the drives and folder that you pull up an image from. So if you like managing your folders in some hierarchical structure, you will have a bunch of C1 and subfolders throughout your file system.  What I have been forced to do is to shoot in a Temporary (MyPictures on C) location. Edit the files in this location, then move everything to the servers...and other variations of this from suggestions(which works sometimes).   Keep in mind, if you have a single drive for your images and your not dealing with many of them , this really might not be an issue. It was a major issue for me to use C1 as a "when in need" application.  One other thing C1 does is take time to populate the folder you are in. It will take a bit then start adding a bunch then slow down on the end(this will vary based on your image location and connection to that drive). This I would deal with if it was a non-Session browser way of working. The other thing is the way the tool buttons and all the GUI is laid out. It doesn't conform to Windows or iOS of standards, so if you are not using the software for 4-8 hours a day everyday, it is easy to forget how things work, and you can easily get frustrated with it when you have deadlines to meet. This maybe personal, but many have voiced this struggle. One other thing is that you can ONLY shoot PhaseOne backs/camera tethered only to C1. Only LR and C1 can process IIQ files.... so you will need it if you ever go that route. That is all the ugly for me. The rest is beauty....

Other than the above, which I know is a good chunk..... I have only good to great things to say about C1 and the files I get out of it.  I know what my eyes know and what my experience of 20 years can see, therefore I have C1 in my top drawer arsenal.

[The View]

I mostly use C1 7pro, except for high ISO shots, where ACR is better.

I like the image processing part of C1 very much - it is very intuitive and I like that I can customize a set of tools so they are together one next to the other.

The downside of C1 Pro is its horrible image management system. You cannot, for example, name folders individually at import (you can only pick a naming scheme, and you cannot rename a folder!). I have to import with Canon's software, and then import again into C1.

Hopefully, as digital technology evolves, we will leave all-in-one solutions behind, and get one central image management software, into which plug RAW processors, Photoshop, and other image processing software, and you can decide which software opens which file. And the preview would be generated with the respective software.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Sounds good The View :-)

Windows Explorer has come a long way. I was using ACDSee , which has the browser like WinExplorer on steroids, yet also can be a cataloger with lots of strong abilities (color managemnt is still tough to get a handle on).
With LR doing a lot more managing for me, I do tend to use it less. But when in a pinch to find a file, or non supported file, It is my go to tool. Maybe Windows will take ACDSee and mash it up with MediaPro...after C1 sells it back?...then we might have something :-)  But for now its the battle of the All-In-One...The Ferrari's with off-road tires!

[Doug Peterson]

The downside of C1 Pro is its horrible image management system.

You cannot, for example, name folders individually at import

Yes you can. Create subfolder "by name".

[...]you cannot rename a folder!)

Yes you can. Use the System Folders area and simply highlight then click the name (or right click and select rename).

Perhaps you could take some formal c1 classes?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I looked a lot at C1, and I think it has some advantages, but we still don't make friends.

This is a bit of ideological stuff. I have worked with LR since 2006, LR has been consistently developed since the Beta 3 I started with. I am accustomed to the LR ways of doing things.

Best regards
Erik

Me neither.

Maybe I'll give it another try sometime in the future; but for now I'll go back to LR4.

[G*]

just my 2 cents on the general topic:

Cent #1: A lot of people say something like "the file looks different in LR than in CO, but you can easily get them to match". You may change LR and CO to NX2 or RT or invert them or whatever. In my experience this is plain BS (in order to stay with abbreviations). There is no way to make an image close or even indistinguishable to the result of another raw developer.

Cent #2: I often read praises for the CO color editing tools. I cannot understand that. For me they are far too less precise and very limited in their possible modes of operation.

As for the OP’s question: It’s all up to your very subjective preferences.

[Doug Peterson]

Cent #2: I often read praises for the CO color editing tools. I cannot understand that. For me they are far too less precise and very limited in their possible modes of operation.

The operation of the Color Editor, and the ability to read/use/create/edit custom ICC profiles (true ICC profiles not DNG Color Profiles) including canned profiles, 3rd party software generated profiles, profiles shared to you by other photographers/techs/labs, and neutral profiles with no camera-specific modifications (very useful for very deep editing) is incredibly precise and has enormous flexibility and range of operation.

Especially when it comes to layer-specific or image-wide color uniformity (wedge compression, or color sinkholes, as I've heard the process called) offers options both corrective and creative which are, essentially, impossible to achieve without going into photoshop (and even there the tools are not as seamless as C1 for this particular color method).

However, I'd be the first to say their use is not very intuitive. At all. It reminds me a lot more of the sophisticated color-manipulation tools available in high-end video editing suites than PS or LR or Aperture. Without specific instruction it's unlikely you'll ever tap the full power of those tools (unlike most of the other tools in C1 which, with a generally savvy user, are fairly intuitive).

We spend over an hour on color-in-C1 in our Capture One Masters Class and even then I can't claim we cover it all.

[G*]

… sure, ICC-profiles are nice. They need a lot of external preparation work, though, and they are surely not a solution to everything. Then there’s the skin tone tool. Pretty handy for a task that some photographers have to deal with on a daily basis. Others, and maybe a lot more photographers, will never have the desire to perform that sinkhole manipulation. What else has CO in its color editor department? White-balance (but only with temperature/tint) and an only two-dimensional HSL tool, which is accompanied by HSV and RGB working space numbers. To me, that’s not obviously helpful. You can push around individual colors (picked ones, guessed ones or predefined ones), but it’s not even possible to correct CC24-values individually because there’s no way to pin colors and control movements well enough.
I don’t want to say, that some or even most people can get happy with this equipment. What it is able to do it does mostly well. And there are surely some things in CO that you don’t find in LR. But since I could not succeed to get the desired results with these tools, I don’t feel too overwhelmed.

[Vladimirovich]

… sure, ICC-profiles are nice. They need a lot of external preparation work, though

indeed, and what does not require a lot of work ? GIGO... or you mean tools like Adobe PE ? which is using a matrix part from a preexisting base profile allowing a sloppy handed users not to create a clear mess...