RAW conversion LR3, CS5, Capture One

[gib_robinson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just ran some recent images through LR3 and Capture One and found the output from raw conversion of the M9 uncompressed DNGs to be virtually identical. For those who have been using both programs, is that your experience?

 

If I am correct, it seems Adobe is now doing a satisfactory job with raw conversion of M9 files and since, as I understand it, ACR (in CR5) and LR3 use the same conversion engine and the same camera profiles, that should mean that a current version of ACR and LR3 should both be competent converters. Does that square with the experience of others on this forum?

 

I am asking for corroboration since I am red-green color blind and have to evaluate by the numbers or using other people's color sense :-).

 

--Gib

[01af]

I just ran some recent images through LR3 and Capture One and found the output from raw conversion of the M9 uncompressed DNGs to be virtually identical. For those who have been using both programs, is that your experience?

No, I am not using both programs—but I am interested in the same question.

 

Back when Lightroom was version 2, Camera Raw was version 5, and Capture One was version 4 then Capture One clearly was the better raw processor with regard to image quality in terms of colour rendition, colour fringe suppression, and detail preservation. Lightroom's and Camera Raw's big point was (and still is) the smooth integration with Photoshop, hence providing a quick and convenient workflow.

 

Today, all three raw converters have their versions incremented by one, and according to hearsay, Lightroom/Camera Raw is supposed to have caught up on Capture One's former advance. At least that's what I keep hearing, so your impression seems to be in accordance with what others have found.

 

 

... as I understand it, ACR (in CR5) and LR3 use the same conversion engine ...

No, they don't. Instead, Camera Raw 5 uses the same raw conversion engine as Lightroom 2, and Lightroom 3 uses the same as Camera Raw 6.

 

 

... a current version of ACR [6] and LR 3 should both be competent converters.

They most definitely are. The question is, is Capture One 5 slightly better still? However, to me the answer mostly is (interesting but) academic because Camera Raw 6 (that's what I am using) is really very good ... and I am picky.

[microview]

Lightroom is supposed to have caught up on Capture One's former advance.The question is, is Capture One 5 slightly better still?

 

1. It certainly has

2. No. I paid for the upgrade but now have dragged its icon out of my Mac dock. LR3 would be hard to better, even if you may still require Photoshop for certain manouevres. Printing and developing from the LR3 library is a doddle!

[jaapv]

Olaf's answer has sown doubts. As far as I know, CS5 uses ACR6. Is that correct?

[stunsworth]

Jaap, you are correct. The OP wrote CR5. I assumed be meant CS5 instead.

[AlanJW]

The question really has three parts. (1) Is CS5/LR3/ACR6 "good enough" ? (2) Is it better than Capture One or is Capture One better? (3) Should one switch raw converters? My answer is (1) "Yes", (2) I don't know and at this point the question is irrelevant -- to me; and (3) Not unless there is a compelling reason.

 

I use CS5 (ACR6) and the results and very good. I tried Capture One some time ago, and my problem was that I have become so used to the workflow in Bridge/Photoshop (and have an idea of how to get where I want to go) that anything else seems strange and gives results that drive me back to Photoshop/Bridge. By the way, this extends to Lightroom, which I have tried and just can't seem to get used to re file organization. I find Bridge simpler.

 

As for the quality of the conversion engines, my subjective take is that ACR6 is better than ACR5 and that I am happy with what it does and the tools it has. The investment in my time in figuring out a new converter and new workflow is just not one I would make. I am sure there are Capture One devotees who feel the same way.

 

As far as I am concerned, the technology is moving forward across the board and we are lucky to have a lot of good tools out there.

[gib_robinson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Steve,

 

You're right. I meant CS5 (ACR6) in my original post.

 

Thanks,

 

--Gib

[ho_co]

FWIW, Erwin Puts' latest column puts some numbers to this question.

 

colorimetryM9

[Tom Johnston]

I too am interested in the differences in raw conversion programs and have followed the discussions of the past few years, and have experimented with them.

 

I recently upgraded my computer and purchased the current version of photoshop, CS5, and am using trial versions of C1-5 and LR3.

 

Perhaps I've fallen into the category of teaching old dogs new tricks, but I'm finding CS5 very familiar, and improved. I have yet to determine if C1-5 will provide me with noticeable differences as a raw processor.

 

Regarding LR3, I don't have enough direct experience with it yet, but I'm curious what it has to offer. Anyone have any obvious observations that I should look for?

 

Thanks

 

Processing DNG files from M8.

[HaraldL]

C1 and LR3 do raw processing very well. In my opinion the main advantage of C 1 is it's softproofing and of LR3 is it's library.

 

Harald

[aymoon]

I've just run my first comparison between Lightroom 3.2 and Capture One 5.2.

 

I'm finding quite different results despite making sure that all the settings are zeroed. I've made sure that LR is using the embedded color profile, and C1 is using the M9 Generic profile.

 

Both colour and contrast seem to be handled differently and very noticably, even though all the settings seem to be the same.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Example - From a picture I took on my recent trip to Cairo: Flickr

[ho_co]

ay, your Flickr link takes me to a page that says:

 

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!

 

 

 

 

[archi4]

This thread should be interesting:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-post-processing-forum/145061-lightroom-3-m9-profile.html

maurice

[hoppyman]

To compare defaults it might be better to use the LR3/CS5 AdobeStandard profille vs. the C1 generic M9. Or Embedded vs. Embedded

But a profile is not exactly the same thing in the two different progs.

[aymoon]

ay, your Flickr link takes me to a page that says:

 

[ATTACH]224999[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

 

 

Hi, sorry about that. I've re-uploaded now - Profile tests - LR3 vs C1 - a set on Flickr

 

I've included outputs from each program using both the embedded/M9 profiles and the Adobe Standard. I've meticulously checked that all other settings are equal. The only thing that differs is the reading of white balance 'as shot' in each program, but I've left them as they are, as if I try to match them the results look really weird.

[aymoon]

To compare defaults it might be better to use the LR3/CS5 AdobeStandard profille vs. the C1 generic M9. Or Embedded vs. Embedded

But a profile is not exactly the same thing in the two different progs.

 

I've done that as you'll see on the Flickr set... interesting that the images are still rendered quite differently.

 

After posting my original question, I've since calibrated my moniter and set up a custom profile for use in LR3 using an X-Rite Spyder 3 Elite and Colour Checker Passport. This gave me better results in LR3, but even so, and despite my preferring the interface and control in LR3, C1 seems to be giving me results more to my liking overall.

[chris_tribble]

My experience with LR3 is that it's a huge improvement over LR2 and well up (if not better in luminance noise management) than C1. LR3 now means that 2500 ISO is fully usable on the M9.

 

Apart from the RAW engine, for me, the killer difference between LR3 and C1 is the Library module (a fully functioning Digital Assets Management system at last) + the Print module. I use the Epson 2880 and am getting the best prints I've ever achieved in combination with LR3 (LR2 I could never get printing to work properly). Seriously considering never buying an upgrade for PS again. I have CS5 and am very rarely using it.