RAW Software. Aperture vs Capture One

[JHAG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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:

 

Dear Overgaard,

 

Phocus pose a problem of conflict with Aperture.

Is it the case with FlexColor ?

Thx

S.

[Overgaard]

Both pictures was just auto through FlexColor and Lightroom. I've never seen that reddish cast before so I was a bit amazed; not that it was there, but that FlexColor didn't have it.

 

But the point was actually just that different RAW converters give different results, often only in details, but in extreme lightning, a different result all over. Which is why I, so far, am using two RAW converters for the same pictures (I use Lightroom for selecting which files to finish, then export those to a folder as JPG with changes, as final pictures. And then I create a folder with the selected DNG's and run those through Flexcolor. And then I open the pairs in CS3 and decide which I want to go with).

 

As you can imagine, I haven't made a decision as to which converter to go with, and haven't made any profiles of my own. I still consider myself a novice in RAW and will be using Capture One shortly to test that as well.

[KevinA]

Comparing C1 to Aperture is missing the point. Aperture does so much more than make tiffs or jpg's from RAW files.

It is a complete library and client manager of which there is no equal. It also does very good conversions of RAW files, not being a Leica owner I can't say how it handles Leica files, I suspect very well.

If you don't need the Aperture DAM capabilities you might as well compare all the converters, Silkpics, Raw developer to name but two. Aperture does my Canon files as good as anything else I tried, even if it came third I would still use it for the DAM capabilities I find invaluable for my work.

I also think comparing two RAW converters is very difficult, you can usually get one to match the other somehow, even if at first look, one looks much better than the other. The workflow to get to a point is as important as getting there and that's where Aperture scores for me.

So many reviews just compare tiff/jpg output and miss 80% of what Aperture does and the ease it takes to do it. Maybe each processor has a slight bias to do this or that a tad better or differently than the next, none others can keep tabs on clients requests, orders, variations and searches like Aperture, plus the vault back-up.

I spent hours a few weeks ago processing some night shots in Photoshop and noise Ninja because I thought it would give the best results. I tried some later in Aperture and liked most of them as much as the "hand" processed ones and they took a fraction of the time to produce.

Kevin.

[Overgaard]

Dear Overgaard,

 

Phocus pose a problem of conflict with Aperture.

Is it the case with FlexColor ?

Thx

S.

 

I haven't noticed as I don't have Aperture (so far useless with he DMR).

[John Thawley]

Comparing C1 to Aperture is missing the point. Aperture does so much more than make tiffs or jpg's from RAW files.

It is a complete library and client manager of which there is no equal. It also does very good conversions of RAW files, not being a Leica owner I can't say how it handles Leica files, I suspect very well.

If you don't need the Aperture DAM capabilities you might as well compare all the converters, Silkpics, Raw developer to name but two. Aperture does my Canon files as good as anything else I tried, even if it came third I would still use it for the DAM capabilities I find invaluable for my work.

I also think comparing two RAW converters is very difficult, you can usually get one to match the other somehow, even if at first look, one looks much better than the other. The workflow to get to a point is as important as getting there and that's where Aperture scores for me.

So many reviews just compare tiff/jpg output and miss 80% of what Aperture does and the ease it takes to do it. Maybe each processor has a slight bias to do this or that a tad better or differently than the next, none others can keep tabs on clients requests, orders, variations and searches like Aperture, plus the vault back-up.

I spent hours a few weeks ago processing some night shots in Photoshop and noise Ninja because I thought it would give the best results. I tried some later in Aperture and liked most of them as much as the "hand" processed ones and they took a fraction of the time to produce.

Kevin.

 

I've been an Aperture user for 2 years... with Certification training. While I've put up with a few quirks here and there in the early stages, with version 2.X I'm more convinced with each passing day that this program is the future. As a sports shooter, I process a lot of images, or at least sort/edit/rank/archive - look at - a lot of images. Aperture has become second nature.

 

Also, I was never a big fan of RAW. And while I still don't really have a need for RAW with my work files, because of the ease of Aperture's handling of RAW files, my Leica is parked in RAW setting. I love how you import images into Aperture and it simply doesn't care whether it's RAW or JPEG. It's just another thumbnail in the browser window. Open the adjustment palette and the RAW files have a few more adjustment sliders... and carry on.

 

I think once people understand the logic of programs like Aperture or Lightroom, they'll end up with a big bruise on their forhead from the slap and DOH! that comes with "getting it."

 

Obviously, as a Mac user, Aperture fits perfectly into my work enviornment... I like how it thinks.

 

I have a blog entry that's a good primer for anyone trying to get a grasp on "workflow" software.

 

JT

[ptomsu]

I am almost exclusively working with RAW. And RAW of different camera vendors - Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Leica, ... list is not complete.

 

I have been using C1 Pro, LR1 and Aperture 1, now Aperture 2. I am so satisfied with Aperture, that I do not touch any other workflow SW anymore. I find the RAW converters in Aperture excellent, at least as good as the ones of other workflow programs.

 

What I would wish is that Apple included new RAW formats a bit quicker than they do today, especially if it comes to less well sold and accepted camera models than Canon and Nikon. And yes, useless with DMR, so I would wish they included the DMR converter, as I have many pictures shot with DMR.