In favour of Capture One (again)

[hammam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hammam, you will have to try that for yourself. Everyone sets their parameters differently and then we will get into the whole discussion of "this one is oversharpened, that one is not etc." You are welcome to have doubts, but if you ever need to pull the last bit of quality out of your Leica files, do try Capture One.

 

I can just tell you from my own experience of printing for exhibitions: Capture One is fantastic! And I am saying this even though the interface is terribly unintuitive and I sometimes think that my processor will explode.

 

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.

 

Bernd, it's funny but a few years ago, C1 was my favorite converter. Then they fiddled with the interface, trying to emulate the dark LR look in the process, and they ruined everything. I just ditched it.

 

Now, I've been intrigued, so I've already begun doing comparisons between it and LR 2.2, and you may be right. I am not entirely convinced yet, but there is something there. I am not sure if it's more detail, or a more subtle, more gradual, way of rendering the image, but I am surprised that I tend to prefer the C1 final look.

 

Now, I only have C1 LE and, please telle me if I'm wrong, you can't either save adjustments or do batch processing with it, right? You need the very expensive Pro something, right? Thank you.

[hammam]

Actually, what I have is C1 vers. 4.0.

[Advertisement]

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

[tashley]

Actually, what I have is C1 vers. 4.0.

 

There are several different versions - and according to their price r which camera they were packaged with, they do different things but every version other than trial versions should be able to process images: the more cut down versions will simply not allow you to edit images from a wide range of cameras.

 

t

[John Thawley]

Sorry.... and I don't mean to just parachute in here.... BUT

 

I can't help but notice the posturing by individuals stating their "results" as if they are the definitive source of all things labeled "accurate."

 

I'm reminded of conversational similarities heard in my days pursuing aural perfection in high-end audio equipment. Finally one day, I came to a simple conclusion.

 

A local audio salon would insist I audition a new piece of equipment from time to time. Of course, at that stage of the game, the piece had to be installed into my system and left in my home for a few weeks in order to properly audition it in my environment.

 

The last piece they brought was a beautiful hybrid tube / solid state amp/pre-amp combination. It sounded phenomenal. It honestly rocked my world. I kept it for nearly a month putting off calling them to come and collect it. Frankly, I wasn't in the mood to drop several thousand hard-earned dollars on a new piece of stereo equipment... but I was getting very tempted.

 

Finally, the piece was pulled from the chain and my components re-inserted. Once it was back together, I fired up the system and put a favorite record on the turntable. Low and behold... it sounded OUT OF THIS WORLD. Honest, it sounded fabulous.

 

The moral of the story.... both produced an outstanding playback system. And in truth.... one was NOT better than the other. They were both fantastic (as at that level of equipment, they should be). They just sounded different. Not better. Not worse. Just slightly different characteristics.

 

I'd suggest at this level of the game, we all have likes and dislikes..... we all have a different criteria of what's most important. I don't think you can say "THIS IS BETTER." I think you have to find what works for you... what output suits your personal taste and make it work for you.

 

I could be wrong.

 

JT

[tashley]

Sorry.... and I don't mean to just parachute in here.... BUT

 

I can't help but notice the posturing by individuals stating their "results" as if they are the definitive source of all things labeled "accurate."

 

I'm reminded of conversational similarities heard in my days pursuing aural perfection in high-end audio equipment. Finally one day, I came to a simple conclusion.

 

A local audio salon would insist I audition a new piece of equipment from time to time. Of course, at that stage of the game, the piece had to be installed into my system and left in my home for a few weeks in order to properly audition it in my environment.

 

The last piece they brought was a beautiful hybrid tube / solid state amp/pre-amp combination. It sounded phenomenal. It honestly rocked my world. I kept it for nearly a month putting off calling them to come and collect it. Frankly, I wasn't in the mood to drop several thousand hard-earned dollars on a new piece of stereo equipment... but I was getting very tempted.

 

Finally, the piece was pulled from the chain and my components re-inserted. Once it was back together, I fired up the system and put a favorite record on the turntable. Low and behold... it sounded OUT OF THIS WORLD. Honest, it sounded fabulous.

 

The moral of the story.... both produced an outstanding playback system. And in truth.... one was NOT better than the other. They were both fantastic (as at that level of equipment, they should be). They just sounded different. Not better. Not worse. Just slightly different characteristics.

 

I'd suggest at this level of the game, we all have likes and dislikes..... we all have a different criteria of what's most important. I don't think you can say "THIS IS BETTER." I think you have to find what works for you... what output suits your personal taste and make it work for you.

 

I could be wrong.

 

JT

 

 

Yup, I think you're wrong. Or rather, I think that whilst everyone might have different preferences for the individual 'look' of different RAW converters, some are more accurate than others. That accuracy is expressed in terms of colour, handling and extraction of tonality, and extraction of detail. These are all things that can be measured.

 

At the top of this thread I claimed that, rather disappointingly as a LR fan, I had proved to my own satisfaction that C1 extracts more accurate detail from an M8 file than LR does and I am 100% certain that this is true. Also, given the right lab test setup I am 100% sure I could prove it.

 

Sorry!

 

Tim

[ammitsboel]

What do people do to make the C1 files look good then?

Is PS a must?

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What do people do to make the C1 files look good then?

Is PS a must?

 

First, correct exposure in the camera is a must. My first act in C1 is to apply my chosen camera porfile globally to all the imported files. I then check for exposure adjustment in C1 and adjust to taste. Then I colour balance all images. I prefer to do this individually, frame by frame, but many will also do that globally. It does depend on your shooting environment. Mine tends to vary widely so I adjust images individually. It is worth the trouble.

 

I rarely need to use PS for further adjusting other than (rarely) dodging & burning and any layering or trickery I may desire. Sometimes, I actually print direct from C1.

 

The real secret is having a critical eye to perceive what you want and a clear head to know which part of the tool will do it for you. Practice, practice, pract........etc.

[ho_co]

Actually, what I have is C1 vers. 4.0.

 

I believe you can download version 4.5 for free. (I think the main difference is just in the cameras recognized, but there's no reason not to have the latest, right? )

[Shootist]

Please look at these two images and tell me which one was converted with C1 and ACR 5.x.

 

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!

 

[wlaidlaw]

For anyone starting out or converting to C1 V4.x, I would strongly recommend watching their video on RAW workflow very carefully. At first I did not like V4 nearly as much as V3.7 but it was my fault not theirs. Once you get the hang of it after a few goes, the logic of whatt they have done begins to sink it and you may be amazed that you ever found it difficult or laborious. Tim - if you are free and in Sussex next week and would like to meet up, I am also back in Sussex - PM me.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

Please look at these two images and tell me which one was converted with C1 and ACR 5.x.

 

[ATTACH]120041[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]120042[/ATTACH]

 

Ed,

 

I am not sure you can tell at 960 x 646 resolution and on screen. However if you are printing to either 13" or 17" wide, C1 4.5.2 resolves M8 files better than ACR 4.6. The colours of ACR 4.6 conversions of M8 DNG's can show "blockey" almost posterized areas at 17" wide. I also think that C1 controls backlit edge colour artifacts and moiré better than ACR 4.6.

 

Now having been playing with ACR v5.2 only for today, I think it is an improvement on 4.6 (certainly for Ricoh GX200 DNG's, which is what I have been doing today) and I have not compared M8 files on 5.2 as yet, so they may now be closer to equal.

 

Wilson

[erl]

Shootist, I see some colours brighter in the 1st pic but shadows are more open in the second one. However, this could very easily be due to your handing of both programs. Probably both can get you close to where you want to be so the other question is "how easily?"

 

I think picking differences like this with all the variables involved, using the internet to interpret your comparative works is a bit risky at best. Unless there are glaring differences and advantages, we will all end up with different choices, just as we do with women and cars. The real differences are always in the handling.

 

P.S. My tip is that the second one is the C1 version.

[tashley]

Please look at these two images and tell me which one was converted with C1 and ACR 5.x.

 

 

Not sure... whichever one gives the most detail when seen at a size larger than the cover of a paperback :-)

[tashley]

For anyone starting out or converting to C1 V4.x, I would strongly recommend watching their video on RAW workflow very carefully. At first I did not like V4 nearly as much as V3.7 but it was my fault not theirs. Once you get the hang of it after a few goes, the logic of whatt they have done begins to sink it and you may be amazed that you ever found it difficult or laborious. Tim - if you are free and in Sussex next week and would like to meet up, I am also back in Sussex - PM me.

 

Wilson

 

Hi Wilson!

 

Fraid not - I'll be away taking shots in Istanbul with my new P45+ kit and a Panny G1 for laughs... sorry to miss you!

 

t

[John Thawley]

At the top of this thread I claimed that, rather disappointingly as a LR fan, I had proved to my own satisfaction that C1 extracts more accurate detail from an M8 file than LR does and I am 100% certain that this is true. Also, given the right lab test setup I am 100% sure I could prove it.

 

Sorry!

 

Tim

 

I could live with the first claim.

 

Unfortunately, the second part is pathetic. Lab test?

 

JT

[John Thawley]

Please look at these two images and tell me which one was converted with C1 and ACR 5.x.

 

[ATTACH]120041[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]120042[/ATTACH]

 

Unfortunately, we don't have access to the proper lab test setup to make that determination.

[BerndReini]

I guess we are always just expressing preferences when we are offering these suggestions. However, it is a strong preference and if this strong preference can get someone else to see for themselves than that's all that matters. This post will probably cause me to try out raw developer and Hammam to give C1 another chance. So in the end all is well.

 

Hammam, I am not sure by the way about the C1 LE version. I upgraded almost immediately two years ago because of the batch processing features of the pro version. You may have to create a Tiff in LE to maintain your adjustments, but if you are only using then program for a few selects, this should not be a problem.

[BerndReini]

Congratulations! You are so right. Raw Developer is amazing. It really is the best. I just did a side by side comparison of the same image developed once with C1, then with RD. I left the sharpening at whatever setting the program recommended and viewed both TIFFs in Photoshop (Arrange - cascade horizontally) at 100%. I assumed that maybe RD would show more detail because of heavier noise reduction in C1, but the results shocked and amazed me. Except for the reds, which showed more noise with RD, the image was not only sharper but also less noisy, especially in the shadow areas, when processed with RD.

 

I am embarrassed to say, I think I bought the program years ago and forgot all about it. The image does not show a watermark. Does this mean that I already had the registered serial number?

[tashley]

I could live with the first claim.

 

Unfortunately, the second part is pathetic. Lab test?

 

JT

 

Well Buddy, sorry you don't think that resolution can be lab tested. That really is not my problem!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[delander †]

Please look at these two images and tell me which one was converted with C1 and ACR 5.x.

 

[ATTACH]120041[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]120042[/ATTACH]

 

 

Ed, the top first image is from C1. Please confirm,

 

Jeff