RAW Software. Aperture vs Capture One

[Annibale G.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone tried both the software Aperture and Capture One ( Leica Software)? Know about the differences?

Is it one better than the other?

[Advertisement]

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

[cwf]

I found Aperture so congenial to use (it feels like a Mac app) that my use of C1 has declined to less than occasional. But my needs are straight forward and particularly well met by Aperture since upgrade to v. 2.x. I can, however, see where others would reach different conclusions.

[Annibale G.]

yeah surely should be cool as Mac aaplication, but what about detail and tone reproduction ?and what about converting raw file in tiff for Photoshop?

[fingerprinz]

C1 used to be the kid on the block, when it came to post processing RAW images. But both, Apple's Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom are as good as C1 today, if not better. Aperture's advantage is definitely easy-of-use (as of Version 2.0), and Lightrooms advantage is the stront integration with Photoshop (even use the same keyboard short cuts). I have all three programs, but I finally settled for Lightroom - and just love it. So maybe a good idea is, to download the trail versions of all three and play around with them. That way you will quickly discover your prefered app. Good luck!

[Annibale G.]

I was talking about raw software to use with M8 , digital module R

[erl]

Coming outof left field, I will say, comparing RAW processors may be like comparing a Leica M witha P&S camera. One will easier to use, but which produces the best result? You need to decide which is more important to you. Ease, or result!

[Nitnaros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Annibale,

I use both and they are quite different; you are saying you use M8 and DMR, so do I.

 

* Camera Support:

C1 is the only to support both raw formats; Aperture can load DMR dng's, but it displays highlight areas with a strong purple color, which makes it unusable. There are posts here on the forum about it. So if you want one-and-only for both cameras, it has to be C1.

 

* Raw conversion quality:

In terms of color and details, Aperture has nearly caught up with C1; insignificant difference, imo. But, AP still does not allow you to load third-party ICC profiles, that is a more significant disadvantage.

 

* Highlight recovery:

Is for me an important feature; AP works very well for that, C1 4.1 has an ability like that now, but I find AP's more effective and you can control strength and tonal reach of the effect. I also like AP's micro-contrast feature, vignetting (sometimes). AP has a "plug-in" concept, e.g. used by Noise Ninja, which is useful to extend the editing "platform". There is more to come there for sure (Apple's current implementation of a local adjustment dodge/burn/sharpen is still too lacking, but they'll refine it I am sure [for commercial reasons]).

 

* Black-and-white conversion:

A clear plus for AP; works very well incl. the typical "channel mixer" type of controls, plus tinting features. I can't see how to do bw's in C1, except of applying a 100% desaturation.

 

* Other workflow features:

All of these live in AP, and don't exist in C1:

- Web-galleries

- Upload into smugmug, flickr etc.

- Lighttable (arranging images like on a lighttable; useful for rapid proto-typing of e.g. coffee book page design)

- Extensive metatagging capabilities of images

- Automatic backup of AP data (and if you store images physically in the AP library, also of images)

- Printing, although I don't like that I cannot bypass Apple's print driver, e.g. with Colorbyte's (=Imageprint) print-through-application driver.

 

... Summary: AP is the much more extensive platform, but it lacks DMR support. I use AP when(ever) I can. I go to C1 (rarely) for M8 files, when they are very problematic to get a second opinion from C1. I have to go to C1 for my R9/DMR.

 

All the Best,

Peter

[Annibale G.]

Well actually I'm using only film camera: M7 and some reflex. I'm just taking information about digital stuff. So finally maybe for recovery highlights and shadows and converting and importing file in photoshop C1 should be better. Am I right?

[Nitnaros]

That's not what I said;

Highlight-recovery is better in AP.

 

Importing into Photoshop can be done from both outputs; AP allows you to establish a link between the raw-file view in AP and an external Photoshop file, which is helpful.

 

Peter

[Overgaard]

For DMR files I would suggest FlexColor from Hasselblad/Imacon, but my own workflow is currently doing both Lightroom 2.0 and FlexColor - and then decide on each files which is the best suited (mostly FlexColor, but sometines Lightoom has a different result that is better in the specific case).

 

I'm adding C1 in the following week as I hope that will be better than Lightroom. Time will tell.

 

Unfortunately, I can't use Aperture for the DMR.

[R10dreamer]

I use Lightroom and C1 and see no differences in processing quality between the two. But I like Lightroom and it's interface with Photoshop better so Lightroom is what I am now using to the extent I have removed C1 from my computer.

[ndjambrose]

I tried Capture One for about 2 days. Compared to what I'd expect from a RAW processor, I found it pretty poor. In my opinion it does nothing that Aperture and Lightroom don't already do far better, and it misses a great many features that otherwise are standard in the other tools.

 

I've tried everything (have used Aperture since it first came out, and Flexcolor and Phase One for my Hasselblad digital back) but am coming round to the opinion that the current version of Lightroom is the best processor available. I've used it for the last few jobs I've done and am heartily impressed -- so much so that I'm thinking of switching permanently from Aperture.

[guidowi]

I mainly use Lightroom 1.4 because easy and fast.

I am very very happy with DMR DNG process quality (except sometime some strange reds to correct).

With M8 DNG I found some problem in certain shooting situation like in the attached examples.

In the picture you can see the Christmas lighting in the Milan Arcade last December.

Please note the difference in the blue lights on the roof between Lightroom ( the first and the second) and C1 process (third and fourth).

 

Guido Wilhelm

[guidowi]

Too big picture refused. now smaller

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!

[Guest V64]

I have been a long time enthusiast for C1 - but their continued inability to deliver C1Pro V4 caused me to evaluate LR2. I have an M8. I have now ditched C1

 

I find LR2 much better and easier to use - I find that with an EV bias of -1/3 it gets me to 'first base' almost immediately, just adjust Exposure and WB, and maybe Blacks and Fill Light and I have what I want.

 

I find LR seems to have a bigger dynamic range and deals with 'blow outs' much better than C1, and shadows do not posterise as easily.

 

This ChromaSoft site contains a detailed investigation done earlier this year ( comparing the RAW processing in:

* Lightroom 1.3.1 Camera Raw 4.3.1

* Aperture 1.5.4 and 2.0

* Capture One 4.0.14154.14152 and 4.0.1.14900.14887)

Part 6 makes interesting reading about C1's interaction between exposure, brightness and contrast controls.

 

I find it faster (G5 1.8 Mac), with better on-screen display and printing is fine (with good match to my (calibrated display) both on a basic Epson (Durabrite) and on an HP8450 )

 

Not having to store developed images (unless I need to go to PS or use Noise tools), and Virtual Copies saves a great deal of hassle - the Library does everything I want.

 

It all just hangs together in a simple to use package.

[Overgaard]

I think you might see C1Pro V4 in few weeks (Photokina) but no one is promising anything. But hoping...

[Overgaard]

Just converted some 400 ISO DMR shots where the difference between Lightroom and FlexColor is obvious. But in a series of 20 or so picture, some I prefer from Lightroom, some I prefer from FlexColor.

 

FlexColor first and then Lightroom:

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!

[erl]

Thorsten, I have not been following this thread closely, so I may have missed something of import, but looking at your two images above my first reaction is to consider the stage lighting - did it change during shooting? Also the importance of icc profiles - are you using the best available and are both pics processed using the same or different profiles?

 

Hope I'm not way off the point in hand.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[archi4]

The relevant part of my post in another thread about this type of rendition:

Hi Kirk,

For what it's worth, my experience:

I find both the 4.4 and the new profile both having too much magenta for caucasian skin, the the new beta profile being the worst. Normally caucasian skin should have at least equal yellow and magenta in cmyk, and preferably a little higher level of yellow.

I have created profiles from a macbeth card and these are closest to the 4.4 profile no matter what lights the chart is photographed with. I have created profiles with the color tables in the profile editor to get what I think is the right skin color.

In C1-4 I use the profiles by Jamie Roberts.

Aperture gives me the most natural skin tones straight away.

My monitor is calbrated with i1 photo which is essential.

 

Maurice

[jaapv]

Just converted some 400 ISO DMR shots where the difference between Lightroom and FlexColor is obvious. But in a series of 20 or so picture, some I prefer from Lightroom, some I prefer from FlexColor.

 

FlexColor first and then Lightroom:

 

I tend to use the Bridge --> ACR --> CS3 workflow for both the M8 and the DMR.

I never noticed any of the reddish cast you show in Lightroom (which is basically the same RAW converter). Can the difference be in the presets? ( and yes, I do use a calibrated monitor )