C1 Pro 4.8 vs LightRoom 2.3 - LightRoom wins for me

[robbi@laurenson.com]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From my blog:

Switching to LightRoom 2.3

 

After spending some time playing with LightRoom this weekend I’ve decided to switch (at least mostly) from Capture One Pro 4.8. The reason I looked at LR in the first place was because in the import process (my thought is during demosaicing) it cleans up my hot pixel.So I thought I’d see what it can do.

 

In terms of pure image quality, C1 is better. Just. When you pixel peek enough you can see with the defaults C1 is just a little sharper and more detailed. But it’s a small difference and the advantages outweigh that disadvantage considerably for most shots, and certainly with any point-and-shoot no matter how good.

 

What LightRoom offers is a set of localized editing tools which allow you to modify just a part of an image. In true PhotoShop style these edits can be painted onto the image – exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, clarity, sharpness and colour – in any combination in as many different areas of the image as you want. There are selectable brush sizes, feathering, flow and density control for managing the application of the adjustments. There is also the graduated filter allowing the same sort of effect but using a localized gradient. Of course with this sort of power you also have spot removal and red-eye reduction, also paintbrush-style.

 

It’s the way it does it which makes it so compelling. This turns LightRoom into a Killer App for me. I don’t want to shell out for PhotoShop CS4 just yet, but I do want some basic editing capability which C1 just doesn’t offer. I also want to stay as close to the RAW as possible – as better demosaicing processes are developed the base quality of my file keeps pace with the development, all I need to do is revise (if necessary) the adjustments and re-output the file.

 

There’s also something about the spirit of the application. It creates a set of creative limits which agree with me – you can do anything you want with what’s already there, but you can’t create out of nothing what isn’t there. If you want to escape reality, hop over into PhotoShop . When I get to HDR images I’ll probably buy PhotoShop, but I have plenty to keep me busy and happy in LightRoom for now.

 

So what don’t I like? Well, C1 just feels more professional to me, and although I’m not it’s target demographic, I like that about it. The workflow is better evolved with its MoveTo, Trash and Output folders for managing the process. The C1 concept of Processing is also missing in LightRoom. I can output as many formats as I want in C1, whereas I have to output just a single format at a time in LightRoom. Of course I’m not a professional so I don’t exactly need that, but it is very nice to have.

 

Overall I’m excited to have my hot pixel taken care of, even if it is a bit too automagical for me. The icing on the cake is the tremendous capability that comes with it.

 

I will continue to use C1 as a reference and am working up a workflow to include both which I'll post when it's baked.

[Marty]

While I don't have LR what you are listing as positives really sounds just like Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). It comes with other Adobe products too, e.g. Bridge, Photoshop. I agree its editing features are incredibly smart and easy to use, probably all anyone needs in most cases. It is this humble ACR "middleware" which gives the big Adobe products a distinct advantage for photographic processing.

 

I have used Aperture which is comparable to LR for organisation, but the lack of good built-in editing tools means a roundtrip in Photoshop or whatever else you use even for trivial changes. That is just unacceptable.

 

C1 suffers the same problem with weak editing... but its RAW conversion of M8 files blows the competition out of the water! Not only just. Really, no other app I have tried delivers such a crispy clean well toned conversion straight out of the camera the way I shot it. ACR's conversion, all its editing magic notwithstanding, doesn't come close.

 

Unfortunately C1 doesn't have the years of Photoshop heritage that is available to ACR, and I don't know if Leica are close enough to Adobe to improve ACR. So we end up using a mix of the apps out there.

 

Funny though how one measly hot pixel was able to switch your workflow

[robbi@laurenson.com]

I'm actually quite curious about the way people are comparing the packages. It seems like most just compare the default settings as opposed to the final output after adjustment, which seems silly. Then again, I'm a hobbyist and can afford to pay detailed attention to my images rather than having to process 1200 wedding shots at a time!

 

Although it takes me longer to get there in LightRoom, I seem to be able to do pretty much whatever I can do in C1 with the global tools. It seems it really is the demosaicing process which is the main differentiator at the end of the day - everything else is under your control. Given that I don't just use the defaults in C1, I feel with practise I'll be just as effective in LightRoom. In the interim I open the RAW in C1 and LR so I can compare the two and have a better baseline to work from.

 

There is a very interesting RAW converter comparison here Nature Photography Gallery which discusses several of the major players. By the time the image is finally rendered, there is not much difference.

[Shootist]

While I don't have LR what you are listing as positives really sounds just like Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). It comes with other Adobe products too, e.g. Bridge, Photoshop. I agree its editing features are incredibly smart and easy to use, probably all anyone needs in most cases. It is this humble ACR "middleware" which gives the big Adobe products a distinct advantage for photographic processing.

 

I have used Aperture which is comparable to LR for organisation, but the lack of good built-in editing tools means a roundtrip in Photoshop or whatever else you use even for trivial changes. That is just unacceptable.

 

C1 suffers the same problem with weak editing... but its RAW conversion of M8 files blows the competition out of the water! Not only just. Really, no other app I have tried delivers such a crispy clean well toned conversion straight out of the camera the way I shot it. ACR's conversion, all its editing magic notwithstanding, doesn't come close.

 

Unfortunately C1 doesn't have the years of Photoshop heritage that is available to ACR, and I don't know if Leica are close enough to Adobe to improve ACR. So we end up using a mix of the apps out there.

 

Funny though how one measly hot pixel was able to switch your workflow

 

I'm no PS/ACR or LR pro but from what I have seen using either LR or straight ACR against PO C1, any version, I really don't see that big of a difference, There again I'm not a fan of C1 and have never spent much time with it. In C1 I have tried the default settings and made some custom settings and when I look at the final output, whether on screen or print, I really can't see the difference and I actually like the overall output from ACR/LR better.

[jaapv]

Well, I certainly saw a lot of difference here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/86126-21-1-4-needs-c1-4-a.html

[robbi@laurenson.com]

That is quite interesting. I did notice a significant difference between 4.7 and 4.8 as well. Any chance you could post the RAW for the lamp shot somewhere? I'd like to see what can be done with it in LR.

 

Just as an aside, I don't get the impression that Leica has developed their own demosaicing algorithm, rather that Leica contributes to the colour profiles in C1. C1 works on all sorts of RAW files and I can't really see them using a proprietary algorithm for a single manufacturer.

 

I do imagine that demosaicing is a heavy development area for these companies, especially once we start getting into tricky areas like selecting demosaicing algorithms based on analyzed picture content, or even selective demosaicing for different parts of the same RAW file based again on image content. It could become a nightmare - hopefully we have full-color sensors sooner than later and we can avoid the inevitable headaches. Foveon? Foveon? Bueller?

[johnbuckley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't speak to the purple fringing exorcism Jaap was able to do with C1 4.8. I can say this, having given up using C1 -- and CS3 -- entirely in favor of LR. Lightroom's workflow is exceptionally logical and intuitive. It has virtually all of the tools I will ever need. (Now that you can get the Silver EFX plug-in, it even has the B&W tools I need.) As a one-stop photo management and editing system, it's a pretty ideal piece of software. I say that knowing full well there are those who believe, and have the photos to prove it, that a C1-CS4 workflow is the ideal. It's just not for me. JB

[jackbaty]

Just read the Luminous Landscape post about combining a C1 and Lightroom workflow. Not sure it's worth the trouble, but could be useful.

 

A Workflow Combining Capture One and Lightroom

[robbi@laurenson.com]

I did a quick test of an integrated workflow:

• Import into C1
  
• Process an image in C1 to TIFF
  
• Create a LightRoom catalog pointing at the C1 Output directory
  
• Edited the TIFF in LR with a very obvious edit
  
• Closed LR
  
• Deleted the TIFF in C1
  
• Destaurated the RAW in C1
  
• Output to TIFF again
  
• Opened LR to view result
  

Result - because LR uses non-destructive edits on the TIFF, the edit was applied to the desaturated TIFF reprocessed from C1.

 

On the one hand it's nice to have a single place to do non-destructive edits, such as using LR for everything. However one might have the situation arise where the demosaicing or color processing has changed since the image was last output and some more work not related to the demosaicing or color profile needs to be done.

Now the image has literally changed underneath you and it may not be desirable to have to re-tweak the image to restore it to what you had before. This would happen especially if you had compensated for something that your RAW converter has now conveniently 'fixed' for you in the upgrade.

 

In this case we can consider that the TIFF is like a snapshot of the RAW which isn't going to automagically change based on a software update. You get to install the update and then evaluate the change to an image before you decide to utilize the upgraded output. If the upgraded output is better across the board for a set of images, just reprocess them in C1, go back into LR and voila, you have your updated base TIFFs with all your LR edits intact.

 

Of course you need to steer clear of certain types of edits in C1 after the fact - cropping and rotating comes to mind. There would also be potential clashes of color manipulation as well. There are also some scenarios where you may lose capability in LR working on a TIFF vs RAW, such as selective exposure painting, but how bad this may be would require more testing than I'm either prepared or qualified to do.

 

All in all, interesting that it can be done. I'm not sure it's as clean as I'd like, I think I tend towards just using a single package. But I;m very interested to see how this evolves in the future!

[glenerrolrd]

I spent quite a lot of time on this over the last week. First I would state that I really like LR and believe that its everything needed for most photographers. The "claimed "benefits of using C1 or other proprietary raw convertors over Camera Raw(used by LR):

 

1. Better color...more saturated ,better tone separation and closer to the cameras Jpeg rendering. The profiles,presets etc can be tuned to a specifc sensor.

 

2. Better sharpness,noise management and micro contrast.

 

3. Specific sensor/lens adjustments for CA and other lens deficiencies.

 

It is generally agreed that the sensor lens specific improvements are significant advantages but generally most relevant in wide and fast lenses. Want to use a 24 or 21 summilux ..look for the threads on C1 and the impact on CA.

 

The differences in the color and tone rendering can be minimized by producing custom camera profiles and then working with presets. I didn t find any agreement on whether the differences were significant...but it was obvious that with the M8 C1 produces a better color conversion without any tuning. So the "right of the box" argument seems to have merit . It also seems obvious that since adobe has to develop camera profiles for hundreds of cameras ...that C1 s calibration for the M8 and say NX 2 s for Nikon might be better .

 

Most but not all agree that slight improvements can be made in sharpness,noise and micro contrast.

 

 

 

So in my book that translates to "better" conversions are possible by using C1 for the M8 files. Now the value proposition comes at a cost .....buying,learning and maintaining two significant software products. Building a custom workflow to manage the integartion of C1 and LR is significant ( and I think pretty easy to screw up).

 

So I believe the questions are:

 

1. Specifically how will you benefit from using C1 verse LR ? How likely are you to achieve these improvements? Do they represent a real improvement in IQ(for you)?

 

2. Can you invest the time and money to learn two significant products? Can you be successful in doing so? Will you keep it up? Do you want to?

 

I couldn t find anything that really addressed either (1)the real advantages of C1 over LR for an M8 DNG.. (2) what its really going to take to integrate C1 with LR?

 

So the only way to know is to try it and do your own comparison. Or use LR alone and see if you are satisfied. I am sufficiently motivated to try the C1 /LR combination.

[robbi@laurenson.com]

I am now firmly down the path of an integrated C1/LR (or PS) workflow, so for the moment I must eat my title's words .

 

There are two main factors which have affected my decision: The better quality of C1 demosaicing and colour processing and the need for a snapshot to insulate one from the effects of a RAW processor upgrade, which affect any non-destructive RAW processor. A third factor is the Photoshop element - PS needs a TIFF or PSD from ACR to work on anyway.

 

I've gone back and forth extensively from an IQ perspective in C1 and LR, and though I can improve either detail or colour separately to get pretty close to C1, I am not able to do both together without one affecting the other detrimentally. This may speak to my proficiency in LR, but I am forced to admit that I can simply do a better job and do it faster in C1.

 

Since it looks like one is necessarily in the position of outputting a TIFF after RAW conversion and global adjustments, both to allow for 3rd party tool editing and to generate the snapshot required to insulate from a RAW processor upgrade, it makes sense to leverage the better IQ of C1, output to TIFF and then use LR as one would use PS to perform touch-ups and provide final output processing. This is even more so the case when you start leveraging PS specific capabilities like HDR and Panoramic image processing which are only available in PS.

 

The convolution of the workflow is unfortunate. It doesn't strike me as elegant, which is what I was looking for, and it requires a lot more attention to the workflow than a one-stop solution does. But any solution, using either a single or multiple packages, ends up with a similarly convoluted workflow anyway.

 

To answer your questions directly:

 

1) C1 does provide real IQ improvements over LR. Almost as importantly, it requires much less work to do so. I also want the local editing capabilities of LR/PS which are missing in C1, so I'm happy to use LR as a PS Lite type of program and forego ACR.

 

2) I work with software all day, so for me to integrate two packages is not a significant problem. I'm also somewhat OCD so I will keep it up. I hate tangled messes.

 

My workflow so far:

· Create new Catalog in C1 under "Sessions – RAW" folder

o

Use the “yyyy/mm/dd Subject” naming convention

· Import images from camera

o

Do not use subfolders; create a discrete catalog for each subject

o

Set the Job Name to the Session Name + “ – “

o

Import the images with the naming format “Job Name and Image Name”

o

Apply Copyright on import

· Rate and cull images

· Move final candidates to “Move To” folder

· Apply adjustments to images

· Process final variants to 16-bit TIFF in Capture One’s “Output” directory relative to the Session

· Create new Catalog in LightRoom

o

Save in same folder as C1 Session Folder using “yyyy/mm/dd Subject” format

· Import TIFFs from C1’s “Output” folder without relocating the TIFFs

· Perform local adjustments to images

· Output from LR to final TIFF 'Master' files in "Output - TIFF Final" folder

At this point I have a final set of images I consider 'complete'. My next set of evaluations to embark on is to figure out where best to apply metadata (at what stage), and then further how to catalog the images, either using LR's DAM facilities or through another package like Expression Media.

[jaapv]

Have a look at "Imageingester" for importing images. It lets you preset exactly the data you are using, including EXIF and puts the file in the right folder - with the correct naming and dating.