JHAG Posted January 1, 2009 Share #41 Posted January 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Less DETAIL in LR compare to C1? I'll believe it when I see the exact same image converted in both programs, side by side, absolutley no retouching whatsoever, be it automatic or intended. Just plain straight conversion to jpg. Until then, allow me to doubt it It's true LR is less detailed than C1 - but very faintly so. Besides, color in C1 (without adjusment) are often artificial. Instead, it's much less detailed than RAW Dev. I've made extensive comparison on macro hair pictures for instance. Difference in fine details, resolution and tones are striking, really - and I'm not beeing fussily geeky here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 1, 2009 Posted January 1, 2009 Hi JHAG, Take a look here In favour of Capture One (again). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
BerndReini Posted January 1, 2009 Share #42 Posted January 1, 2009 I just looked at two images carefully in Capture One and LR. It is not the sharpening that is different in C1, it is the micro contrast. It is almost like the difference between some aspherical and pre-aspherical lenses. C1 brings accentuates subtle contrast differences within the images, almost like the Clarity function in LR, but without the "glowing" edges. As I said, it is very difficult to describe, just try it for yourself. Capture One is free with the M8. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted January 1, 2009 Share #43 Posted January 1, 2009 I probably haven't tried all of the Raw Converters out there, but at least five of the big ones, and my quest is over for now. I refuse to buy and learn another program until something revolutionary comes out. RAW Dev. is 85 euros, and worth every penny. The difference is really impressive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted January 1, 2009 Share #44 Posted January 1, 2009 Hel-Stampes what are you doing to me? Don't you know that I'm OCD about this stuff. I just told you that I don't want to buy any other software. You have successfully planted a seed of doubt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted January 1, 2009 Share #45 Posted January 1, 2009 Hel-Stampes what are you doing to me? Don't you know that I'm OCD about this stuff. I just told you that I don't want to buy any other software. You have successfully planted a seed of doubt. Bernd, I apologize for that. I hope I planted doubt, and I hope I won't disturb your new year. Really, RAW Dev. is stunning. I could send you by mail two pictures treated with Raw D. and LR2, but they're very high res and the mail might refuse it. It's a cat, in a very special light, with many shades of red and yellow. With RAW D., the details in the hair and the eyes, in the small stones it's seated, etc. are stunning. And I also made some comparison on long woman's hair pictures in macro. Sorry for nagging you that way. Happy 2009:cool: PS : I have C1 since 2 years. At first, I was interested by the result. Then, I noticed the colors were schmalzy (a bit like some Fujicolor or Kodak Gold films). Then, I noticed something really non-natural in skin tones. Then, I compared skin tones with Aperture : no contest. Then, I was disturbed by the GUI. Then, it crashed several times (which LR and Aperture 1 and 2 never do). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted January 1, 2009 Share #46 Posted January 1, 2009 Thank you for your recommendation. I usually take pictures in extremely colorful light and then actually exaggerate the colors the way slide film used to behave. It sounds though that Raw Dev. is really worth the money. I just looked at some files on Digital Outback Photo that were pretty convincing. I guess i will download the demo version and try it out within the next couple of days. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted January 1, 2009 Share #47 Posted January 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you for your recommendation. I usually take pictures in extremely colorful light and then actually exaggerate the colors the way slide film used to behave. It sounds though that Raw Dev. is really worth the money. I just looked at some files on Digital Outback Photo that were pretty convincing. I guess i will download the demo version and try it out within the next couple of days. The demo should satisfy you, if memory serves me, it only watermarks the pics, but is fully functional. Be careful though when you export your pictures from Raw Dev to Photoshop or any other soft : there is an option to tick in Preferences. If you don't the export will erase RAW Dev. profiles and you will lose your tweaks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted January 1, 2009 Share #48 Posted January 1, 2009 RAW Dev. is 85 euros, and worth every penny.The difference is really impressive. I am always a bit suspicious of a software developer that does not allow you to have a fully functional version of their software, albeit for a limited period. It is often difficult to judge on various of these programs/filters etc when either they watermark or disable printing. Phase one and Adobe both allow you 30 days of a full functional program to decide. I just downloaded CS4 today and I am already a bit tempted to upgrade from CS3 just for the extra tools and more non-destructive editing on 16 bit TIFF's. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHAG Posted January 1, 2009 Share #49 Posted January 1, 2009 I am always a bit suspicious of a software developer that does not allow you to have a fully functional version of their software, albeit for a limited period. It is often difficult to judge on various of these programs/filters etc when either they watermark or disable printing. Phase one and Adobe both allow you 30 days of a full functional program to decide. I just downloaded CS4 today and I am already a bit tempted to upgrade from CS3 just for the extra tools and more non-destructive editing on 16 bit TIFF's. Wilson Wilson, You can't compare. To be fair, Adobe or Phase One have some means to protect their copyright, which RAW Dev don't have. If you breach copyright agreement, it costs you dearly. I knew about a company in my city which had recently inspectors in their office : around 100 000 euros fine for something like 50 computers running non- registered copies of Adobe software. If you'd breach RAW Dev, you would probably get away with it. I don't mind the watermark in Raw Dev : they're tiny, centered in the image, and were not the least intrusive to judge its features. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 1, 2009 Author Share #50 Posted January 1, 2009 Hi Tim - First, great subject; though one I think that deserved a grumpier light. I have tried and tried to see obvious quality differences that you see in the files and I simply cannot. Granted they have differences, and I find the sharpening halation of the first image to be horrible, but I do not discern the 'clearly better' Processing that you do, and try as I have the colour differences are too dominant and cannot be ignored. You have the luxury of viewing the RAW processed files before brutalising them for Web viewing, do you still see the 'clearly better' differences when viewing the images in this thread or have you carried over a memory of the differences before Jpeg posting? ................ Chris Hi Chris, I think, to be honest, that though the differences are rather clearer when flipping between LR and C1 than they are after 'webisation', one can still clearly see benefits to the C1 version. I do appreciate that it is hard to ex-out the colour differences and that it is also hard to know where lies a level playing field for levels of sharpness and curves but nonetheless I am 100% convinced of this difference in IQ from the two programs and I do think it is visible in the versions I have posted. The places where to me it is clearest are in the inside of the door area, the red 'fancy shaped' air bricks and the green foliage to the right of the building. Also in many of the rock areas. The LR version at 100% and even at lower levels of zoom seems strongly to me eye to 'consolidate' areas of detail in a brush strokey, slightly impressionistic type of way - almost like a fractal up-scale. Whereas that C1 seems to find the detail that is really there. I do prefer colours in LR and workflow too, and because of my Phase One gear I have been trying really hard to to find ways of making LR extract the same levels of detail but no, I just don't believe it can be done.... ;-( Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 1, 2009 Author Share #51 Posted January 1, 2009 I have tried C1 many times after reading a thread like this one and I just don't see that big of a difference between C1 and the most current versions of ACR to warrant the learning curve (Not to mention that the newer versions of C1 drops folders and files all over the hard drive which I can't stand). Sure some of the color renditions or slightly different, mostly with red, but that can be adjusted in ACR to match C1, IF that is what you want, and I find the colors are more subdued and less bright in C1 compared to ACR. And with ACR I don't have to have another program open. If C1 floats your boat then use it. It doesn't for me so I'll be staying with ACR. And I agree totally but I would just say that if you ever get a file you really really want to get the best of of, C1 will do better. Most of the time LR is more than good enough. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted January 1, 2009 Share #52 Posted January 1, 2009 RAW Dev. is 85 euros, and worth every penny.The difference is really impressive. Not if you have to buy a Mac to run it. PC guy here and don't plan on switching any time soon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 1, 2009 Author Share #53 Posted January 1, 2009 I don't like C1 exclusively for it's output.To me it seems they have done a lot of work on improving different parameters but in the way they might have lost an important parameter or two? I find pictures of people developed in C1 to be "distant" or "dead" looking, the "moment" is not kept well with their kind of processing, for some odd reason. Don't get me wrong, I find the C1 output impressive, it just doesn't look beautiful to me. Best Regards H I find C1 needs more curves work to make the files sing but the default rendition is as you say. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 1, 2009 Author Share #54 Posted January 1, 2009 I did the same tests with C1, LR, Aperture and Raw Developer and very textured images of human skin, paintings or old walls. Results : RAW Developer is by far the big winner, neutral in colour and extraordinarily sharp and contrasty in fine details. Aperture is an all-round second, way better than shmalzy colors in C1. Plus Aperture with Nik software plugins becomes a must. C1 is sharper and more contrasty, but I'm always unconfortablewith its unnatural quality - or one has to do a lot of tweakings to obtain well-balanced results. And really the GUI is messy with a lot of back and forth. LR is obviously last of the bunch, softer and less contrasty - but marvellous GUI, the fastest to work with. I'll try Raw Developer - I hear so many good things about it. I would say though that C1 Pro 4.5 is now MUCH better in the GUI department such that in some areas it is actually better than LR. But you do have to do the video tutorials. However, it's file storage/scattering behaviour still frustrates me... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 1, 2009 Author Share #55 Posted January 1, 2009 Both images look great! They have unmistakable quality of $100 digicam in the hands of 5yr old. Its very clear that to bring out BEST in Leica M8 you need to use abacus and pen to decode RAW files from camera. Yeah but then you are on record as liking the D200 so... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 1, 2009 Author Share #56 Posted January 1, 2009 C1 is still the champ, IMO, especially when it comes to skin tones. C1 4.5 is outstanding, quick, stable and produces fabulous files. I haven't seen any other RAW program as good, though admittedly I haven't spent much time with RAW Developer. The Voice Of Reason! How's life Jamie? Is it cold in Canada? I have a week off to go shooting. Fancy a beer? t Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted January 1, 2009 Share #57 Posted January 1, 2009 Yeah but then you are on record as liking the D200 so... Well Put. Don't feed the- Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 1, 2009 Author Share #58 Posted January 1, 2009 Less DETAIL in LR compare to C1? I'll believe it when I see the exact same image converted in both programs, side by side, absolutley no retouching whatsoever, be it automatic or intended. Just plain straight conversion to jpg. Until then, allow me to doubt it Sure - but please don't deny yourself access to better results by believing that! And I would also argue that your methodology isn't telling you anything other than what the file looks like at defaults. I don't regard getting exposure, levels, WB and so on as 'retouching' but merely as finding the correct interpretation from that file for my needs. That's why we shoot RAW, surely? t Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 1, 2009 Author Share #59 Posted January 1, 2009 I just looked at two images carefully in Capture One and LR. It is not the sharpening that is different in C1, it is the micro contrast. It is almost like the difference between some aspherical and pre-aspherical lenses. C1 brings accentuates subtle contrast differences within the images, almost like the Clarity function in LR, but without the "glowing" edges. As I said, it is very difficult to describe, just try it for yourself. Capture One is free with the M8. I sort of agree, but i think the interpolation algorithm is better too. BTW Irakly pointed out something I had worked out intuitively, which is that Clarity absolutely SCREWS your bokeh... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted January 1, 2009 Share #60 Posted January 1, 2009 Hammam (Olivier, isn't it?), I am a long-time LR user, now LR2, and I am sad to report that each time I have used C1, I have been able to confirm that it does a better job with white balance and sharpness. I still continue to use LR, since I prefer its workflow, but once in a while when I get frustrated with some particular image in LR, I pull out C1. It doesn't happen so often though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.