Just got my D-Lux 4; can't believe Capture-1

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean--

That's probably our trouble. I made myself learn Photoshop because it was "the standard." I paid for three Photoshop classes and have attended several of the Kelby seminars. It's far from an easy program, but we've used it often enough that it begins to feel 'right.'

 

And now when we're confronted with another program--Capture One in this case--its interface is different, its terminology is different, functions like "save" are missing, it feels strange.

 

I don't doubt that learning it is worth the effort, because there are a lot of people like you whom I respect who say so.

 

But I still wonder if I'll take the time since I'm comfortable with Photoshop, since Photoshop already has tons of features I've never understood, and since Photoshop keeps adding new features and modifying old ones to keep me on my toes.

[Advertisement]

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

[macgarvin]

I've been using C1 since about 2001 (?) and am still very happy with the output. Once one gets the hang of it, the program is not hard to work with. I do find that 4.0 crashes far too often but I stick with it anyway because I like the conversion quality and am able to work quickly/easily with the various controls.

 

Learning program takes a bit of study but not nearly as much as PS.

 

Hi Sean - I found C1 pretty fast to learn (I am a habitual manual reader) and the interface ok - thought the unupdated version off the Leica DVD gave pixelated previews at 'fit entire image' - corrected in the online update. A specific weakness compared to Aperture (which I'd rate best at this) and Lightroom 2 (only just behind) is the handling of detail when sharpening. But this may be specific to my circumstances. I tend to work on lots of images of vegetation, lichens, rock textures, etc and I'll often be working with a sharpening radius as low as possible, with moderate / moderate-high sharpening and detail enhancement. I generally also work with noise reduction and chroma reduction set very low. With those combinations it was much harder work, and the results less good, than what I can get with the other programmes. There are then also more artefacts (exaggeration of noise, short chains of vertical and horizontal lines)

 

However, if most of one's photography was of people, (skin tones, etc), and usually involoved moving over to photoshop in any case, one would probably be working with less sharpening overall, a wider sharpening radius? In which case I could imagine being content with C1.

 

Also working with a familiar package is great. On familiarity a general comment. I have found that the habitual levels of luminescence and chroma noise I was applying to earlier generations of cameras is unnecessarily high for newer ones, including D-Lux 4 where I now set these quite a bit lower - I'd say it is definitely worth experimenting! Incidentally, correction for chroma noise is often(?) regarded as having little impact on image quality. This may be generally true, but keeping it low has a positive effect for me of eg rendering subtle differences in detailed tone ranging from vegetation to the intricate and subtly varied stained glass windows!

 

Incidentally, colour tone in C1 is different from lightroom and aperture at the same colour temperature (both settings). I work in a fully colour managed environment, so it isn't, so far as I am aware anything to do with that. Sometimes I rather liked the coloration of C1, but I was still surprised to see the variation.

[macgarvin]

. . . although if I was relying on what came in the D-lux 4 box I would feel pretty disgruntled.

 

Because Capture One, in the version provided, does not allow adjustments for chromatic aberration with a significant impact on image quality, but - I believe - SilkyPix with the Panasonic LX3 does, the best possible image quality, from RAW, from the D-Lux 4 cannot match that of the LX3. Not the outcome that people paying the price differential would expect. JPGs may be a different story (I don't use them so can't comment). Some action behind the scenes by leica would seem to be in their interest?

[ho_co]

I agree. If all we got for double the money was Capture One, I think we've got a right to be disappointed.

 

I want to do more experimenting with Capture One, not the least of reasons for which being that it produces uncorrected DNGs from the D-Lux 4. There are some cases where the barrel distortion looks better.

 

(Of course, since that's a lens 'defect,' I'm sure Phase One will soon add the software correction to the DNG and I'll lose the advantage. )

 

You can get an idea of what I mean by comparing the ACR RWL or DNG with the Capture One TIFF. The TIFF seems fine alone, but when you compare the two, the TIFF seems just a bit stretched at the corners.

[johnalex141r]

C1 is *&^%(.

 

Glad to hear it; my "Leica Demo" M8 came with a C1 disc, serial number, but it was already registered to someone else. The Capture One people gave me the finger, so to speak, and told me to purchase another copy.

 

So, I purchased Aperture instead, and have been happy as a clam.

 

Whether Apple/OSX/Aperture natively supports the D-Lux 4 is unknown though.

 

JohnS.

[macgarvin]

Whether Apple/OSX/Aperture natively supports the D-Lux 4 is unknown though.

 

Not yet John - only via C1 dng conversions