Capture One vs Lightroom

[epand56]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've begun using Capture One to develop some of my RAW images but in spite of being a great application when it comes to work on the pictures, I'm not at all satisfied with the output files coming from there. Maybe the colours are better, but they look less sharp and overall attractive than those coming from Lightroom.

Is there something I don't know? Any suggestion?

[Jamie Roberts]

Enrico, C1 produces a very low-contrast unsharpened file by default (perfect for print optimization in Photoshop).

 

If you want to add more "zing" to the C1 files, do these things:

 

• get familiar with the curves palette and create more contrast.
  
• aggressively set the black point (and white point) to mimic LR and ACR's "black" control
  
• aggressively sharpen the output. It will still be less sharp than other RAW converters, and perhaps not enough for print, but details emerge that other RAW developers mostly can't even resolve
  

Let us know how you get on. Personally, C1 is my "developer and fix" stage and Photoshop is everything downstream to print

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jeff S]

Enrico, you may have already seen this article on combining use of LR and C1, at least by one person's methods...A Workflow Combining Capture One and Lightroom

 

This doesn't answer your question, but may provide some ideas on how to live in both worlds if desired. However, I haven't yet heard from others here if this combined technique has proven useful for them.

 

Jeff

[epand56]

Jamie and Jeff, thank you very much for your reply.

 

Jeff, I found your link very usefull and interesting. The WB in Capture One is in fact superior to any other application, but working on Lightroom on the rest of PP is very easy.

So, working an image on both applications could be the winning kind of workflow.

[Shootist]

Enrico, C1 produces a very low-contrast unsharpened file by default (perfect for print optimization in Photoshop).

 

If you want to add more "zing" to the C1 files, do these things:

 

• get familiar with the curves palette and create more contrast.
  
• aggressively set the black point (and white point) to mimic LR and ACR's "black" control
  
• aggressively sharpen the output. It will still be less sharp than other RAW converters, and perhaps not enough for print, but details emerge that other RAW developers mostly can't even resolve
  

Let us know how you get on. Personally, C1 is my "developer and fix" stage and Photoshop is everything downstream to print

 

Jamie thanks for the tips on C1 I will give them a try and compare to PS ACR 5.4/LR.

I have been trying to use C1 lately because of all the insistence that C1 is the best for M8 files. But I don't see it. What I do see is the output, and the view/display inside C1, is slightly different from ACR/LR. ACR/LR seems to be brighter then C1. Trying to adjust either C1 or ACR/LR to match the other RAW developer has been not so good, can't get there from here.

 

Enrico

Like you I just don't see C1 being better then ACR/LR. Different yes but better no.

Like you I've come to the conclusion that C1 just isn't for me. I am mostly happy with the output from ACR/LR to PS and print.

As stated above the ACR/LR output is brighter to the point that I normally shoot at -2/3EV. This past weekend I had set the camera to 0EV, I did that some days before the weekend and had forgotten to change it back, and in ACR the images I shot are slightly overexposed. So I figured I open them in C1 since all images look darker displayed in C1. Well they were still overexposed.

Here is the same shot converted in C1 and ACR.

ACR is first.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Also the C1 file, when reduced to post here, is smaller. Like it holds less information to start with. Although that may be just because it is darker and the dark areas compress better.

[epand56]

Shootist,

I perfectly agree with what you say and I love LR.

And I've noticed as well that the C1 output is worst than LR's one.

The only plus i have noticed in C1 is the superior ability with WB that is quite better than the one in Lightroom. I'm shooting in Auto WB because I would always forget to change it in different environments, so that's quite usefull to me. WB in Capture One is breathtaking.

Yesterday I worked on both and got great results. I opened the RAW on C1 adjusted the WB and exported to LR where i did all the usual adjusting and i really loved the results. If you want to try, than i would be very curious to read your opinion on that.

Edited July 30, 2009 by epand56

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shootist,

I perfectly agree with what you say and I love LR.

And I've noticed as well that the C1 output is worst than LR's one.

The only plus i have noticed in C1 is the superior ability with WB that is quite better than the one in Lightroom. I'm shooting in Auto WB because I would always forget to change it in different environments, so that's quite usefull to me. WB in Capture One is breathtaking.

Yesterday I worked on both and got great results. I opened the RAW on C1 adjusted the WB and exported to LR where i did all the usual adjusting and i really loved the results. If you want to try, than i would be very curious to read your opinion on that.

 

Actually I very rarely fool with, adjust, WB. I am mostly happy with the auto WB that the M8 gives. That's not to say all shots have good WB especially those taken in mixed lighting. Next time I get a shot that looks to need some WB adjustment I'll first go to C1 and check it out.

[Jamie Roberts]

Shootist,

{snipped}

And I've noticed as well that the C1 output is worst than LR's one.

The only plus i have noticed in C1 is the superior ability with WB that is quite better than the one in Lightroom. I'm shooting in Auto WB because I would always forget to change it in different environments, so that's quite usefull to me. WB in Capture One is breathtaking.

Yesterday I worked on both and got great results. I opened the RAW on C1 adjusted the WB and exported to LR where i did all the usual adjusting and i really loved the results. If you want to try, than i would be very curious to read your opinion on that.

 

Just to be clear here, IMO:

 

The JPEG output in LR (as JPEGs go) is superior to C1's; Adobe has probably the best JPEG rendering engine in the world (Photoshop's)

 

TIFFs from C1 printed straight are still better, IMO, than LR's due to colour and dithering. What you're doing using both is essentially what I do using C1 and PS

 

I'm glad you're getting the results you like, though! Unlike Ed, I find I adjust white balance for almost every single shot, from whatever camera I have.

[chris_tribble]

Interesting and useful discussion - I'm also a LR user, needing it for its image archiving / keywording functions as much as for RAW processing. I've never had major problems with WB in LR (finding the dropper tool hugely helpful for tricky images). I suppose it's one of those things where you can get the most out of the software you've learned to use best. I just never got C1 - had my first go at using it 6 or 7 years ago when I was shooting Canon... Pro friends swore by it, but the workflow never did it for me...

 

I certainly don't reject Jamie's expertise here (that would be a dumb move ) but I'm with Enrico in finding it overall easier to work with and also being happy with the results. I'll have a go at combining, but also feel that when I come back from a major shoot with several hundred images to process, LR will be the first port of call...

[cmatter]

Forget Lightroom. I have it.. and use it; but... honestly ACR and Bridge is more powerful. Just doesn't have the cool snappy interface. I'll manage and archive with my own methods... thank you :-)

Capture 1 is a solid, powerful processor; but.. honestly I never saw the need to go outside the Adobe 'umbrella'. They both do exactly the same thing.. just a matter of work-flow comfort, and what you're used to.

 

I look at Lightroom as a sort of wizard based lazy workflow with too many bells and whistles. IMHO

[Guest WPalank]

Chris and Enrico,

 

I couldn't agree more with your discussion. I tried C1 in the past and found it very clunky. LR has more of a fluidity in my incapable hands.

 

As one that likes to experiment with new techniques and workflows, I accepted an invitation from an imaging group down in Palo Alto, Ca called Bear Images that was one of the first groups to sell Capture One in it's early iteration somewhere around 1995. It was basically a gentleman with projector connected to his Macintosh Powerbook speaking and displaying the newest version of Capture One. Most of the people in the audience were digital back users (not myself mind you). As he progressed through the new features in C1, I couldn't help but say to myself, "that's been around in LR since the beta version" over and over again.

 

The gentleman did touch on something that I have been trying to say in these Forums for a while. He brought up the name of one of the Macintosh geniuses, among other things, Bill Atkinson who is now a renown Nature Photographer. He and Charlie Cramer have been putting on high-end printing workshops for years and years. Anyway, he said Bill imports his images into LR, uses it as his DAM program and then exports his selects to C1. Exactly! (Evidently he feels that RAW Developer does a better job with pictures of tree bark). You see, in the type of work I do, I go out and shoot about 150 images at most, being happy with about 7 images which will then move on to output (web, print, etc.)

 

The recent article in Luminous Landscape, Import to C1 and then into LR, made no sense to me. I'll be taking a workshop given by C1 at Calumet Photographic the first weekend in October mainly because C1 will be offering a substantial price reduction on C1 Pro if you attend.

 

That being said, is anyone going from LR into C1?

[Jamie Roberts]

William--some people go C1--> LR to use LR like Photshop light, with selections and layers from C1's TIFFs.

 

For me, I just use PS.

 

I also get the other way: LR--> C1 (to PS probably) to use LR's DAM stuff and C1's TIFF output.

 

Let us know what you think of the seminar

[Gismoto]

I agree that this is a very interesting and useful discussion. I think it is really a question of personal taste and a quesiton experience with the programs. I actaully use a quite similar workflow as described in the LL article (ie, C1 raw conversion and minor tweaks and filing in LR2). However, this is not a perfect solution as many have pointed out.

 

I find it interesting to note that the S2 supposingly ships with LR2 and not, as I expected, with C1. Maybe we see an improvment of the small weak sides of LR. In C1, however, there are alreay "film curves" for the M9 (no S2 so far). Whatever that means....

 

I will keep on experimenting with these softwares and hope to find a good solution that works for me.

 

Tobias

[Englander]

C1 or LR?-- for bulk processing or boutique development?

 

The strong argument for doing as much as possible with RAW files instead of pushing pixels in PS is the non-destructive workflow but I have not seen any evidence in prints of increased file corruption in 16-bit TIFFs processed in PS when using primarily Smart Objects and Adjustment layers. I do, however, find the ability to save complete files at significant junctures more comfortable than having several virtual files at different stages of development. So I am inclined to separate file processing firstly into RAW development which is the equivalent of film development and secondly into Image development which is the same as enlargement. Even though a RAW file, as opposed to film, can be re-developed any number of times, I prefer to do it once as best I can and then move on.

 

Admittedly, this is biased toward giving individual images my complete attention as opposed to mass processing a slew of images. This separation of operations allows me to choose the best developer for the RAW file without regard to its whistles and bells, DAM, or multiple display support. I always wanted my film processed for color fidelity and sharpness and that is pretty much my standard for RAW developing. In my fairly extensive and carefully conducted evaluation, I have found that C1 betters ACR, LR2, and Aperture on those combined criteria. It is easier to reach a consensus on which file is sharper than on color fidelity. But Sandy's blog ChromaSoft: Lightroom, Aperture and Capture One Mini-Review Part 4 describes my experience as well:

 

Turning to Capture One, the most significant feature of the charts is the absence of “negative spikes” – while both Lightroom and Aperture have at least some color patches where at least one color is significantly less than the theoretical value, Capture One is relativley better controlled in this respect – only in the yellow patch is there a significant negative deviation. In addition, this control of negative peaks isn’t at the expense of spikes in the positive direct; no spike exceeds 12 units. It’s also interesting to note that in the three primary patches, the red component is within three units of the theoretical value in the red patch, and the green in the green patch and the blue in the blue patch are similarly well controlled. Thus, while Aperture is overall closer to the theoretical values, Capture One is perhaps “closer where it counts”

 

However, a developer that is infrequently mentioned---probably because it lacks the kind of auto-everything of the more popular developers--is Iridient Digital's RAW DEVELOPER. In my opinion it produces the best color fidelity with the highest sharpness, even before applying any of its unique sharpening algorithms. When supplemented with ExpoDisc or similar for correct white-balance at exposure, it is phenomenal; its white-balance eyedropper works very well, too. Any adjustments before exporting the TIFF can be saved in case you want to readjust the RAW file. The Richardson-Lucy Deconvolution sharpening algorithm (similar to what was used with the Hubble Space Telescope) will astound you when you see how much more detail you can get out of your files than you were getting from Adobe.

 

I abandoned iView Media for DAM after it languished at Microsoft and moved to using LR2 for DAM. So even if I import every single exposure I have made, I export a single original file to RAW DEVELOPER to convert to 16-bit TIFF and then reimport it back into LR2 for DAM. When the time comes for print development, I export a copy to PS but still keep track of files in LR. With C1, the operation is more ponderous since C1 wants to grab all the files in a folder to make unnecessary thumbnails of everything.

 

So, my workflow, using LR2 as DAM is LR2>RAW DEVELOPER>LR2>PS CS4>LR2. I know this sounds more disjointed than staying in LR2, but for me, it is just as fast and definitely more satisfying.

 

See what develops,

Joe

Joe Englander Photography

[Gismoto]

So, my workflow, using LR2 as DAM is LR2>RAW DEVELOPER>LR2>PS CS4>LR2. I know this sounds more disjointed than staying in LR2, but for me, it is just as fast and definitely more satisfying.

 

See what develops,

Joe

Joe Englander Photography

 

Joe, is Raw Developer only working in Mac?

 

Thank you!

 

Tobias

Edited September 4, 2009 by Gismoto

[Englander]

Until you asked, I hadn't noticed. But, yes, it is only for Mac. I guess if I were restricted to PC, I would use C1 with no sharpening and do a search to see if the Richardson-Lucy Deconvolution sharpening algorithm can be found on any plug-in for PS. It is different than most sharpening methods and I like it a lot.

 

Joe

Joe Englander Photography

[Gismoto]

Until you asked, I hadn't noticed. But, yes, it is only for Mac. I guess if I were restricted to PC, I would use C1 with no sharpening and do a search to see if the Richardson-Lucy Deconvolution sharpening algorithm can be found on any plug-in for PS. It is different than most sharpening methods and I like it a lot.

 

Joe

Joe Englander Photography

 

For PC, the RawTherapee software seems to use the Richardson-Lucy deconvolution algorithm but I have no experience with that software (RawTherapee V2.4.1 released). But it is free to use so I may try.

 

Tobias

Edited September 4, 2009 by Gismoto

[archi4]

Consensus has been that Capture One is the best developer for the M8 's DNG files, both for color rendition and the resolved detail. Comparisons I have made have confirmed this for me.

Especially the excess magenta in reds and skin, which are much better in LR using the Camera Raw profile or making one using the DNG profile editor.

Which brings me to the question of why Leica will now be shipping their new cameras with LR???

Commercial/economic reasons, the new sensors, or improved LR profiles or a combination of these?

 

Anybody have any ideas

[Gismoto]

Consensus has been that Capture One is the best developer for the M8 's DNG files, both for color rendition and the resolved detail. Comparisons I have made have confirmed this for me.

Especially the excess magenta in reds and skin, which are much better in LR using the Camera Raw profile or making one using the DNG profile editor.

Which brings me to the question of why Leica will now be shipping their new cameras with LR???

Commercial/economic reasons, the new sensors, or improved LR profiles or a combination of these?

 

Anybody have any ideas

 

Leica and Phase One have stopped their collaboration (likel because of the S2 project) so I guess it is not a surprise that the M9 (and S2) will ship wityh LR. I am considering trying again to work in LR only. We'll see if I like the results... it definitely makes sense in terms of saving storage space... think of the 36 Mb files produced in C1 and stored as TIFF before then upload in LR.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Rolo]

Which brings me to the question of why Leica will now be shipping their new cameras with LR???

Commercial/economic reasons, the new sensors, or improved LR profiles or a combination of these?

Anybody have any ideas

 

Yep.

 

My experience comes from having run workshops for Leica M users in the UK and finding that owners use whatever they feel comfortable with and few maintained any use of the Capture One software provided with the M8. Those most capable had moved on to C1 Pro, or Photoshop ..... etc.

 

What is clear is that Leica doesn't have the resources to handle software training and processing queries with the variation that the market demands, which prompted us to set up the Workshop Days training courses for street shooting and image post processing.

 

Leica wants to manufacture and sell cameras and after making sure that the digital files produced are to a high standard, they appear to want to take their involvement with image software no further than providing a suitable direction for newbies, hence Lightroom. That opportunity is best left with the software companies, perhaps.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Rolo