Capture One vs Lightroom

[Steve Ash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My positive conclusion out of this discussion is that it obviously does not really matter which raw converter is used.

 

Regards

Steve

[Advertisement]

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

[ericperlberg]

My positive conclusion out of this discussion is that it obviously does not really matter which raw converter is used.

 

Regards

Steve

 

I would say that it doesn't matter which raw converter you use if you don't care about the subtle differences in the resulting print. I do see Capture One results (esp with the Leica profile) as marginally better (small differences in sharpness and tonality) than those I get in Lightroom.

 

But I find the workflow in Capture One so unappealing and limited that I use Lightroom and live with the small loss of quality. I still have people who know what they're doing ask me if my prints are from some kind of MF camera so Lightroom results aren't bad in any case.

 

Also, I'm not always after the finest detail or most subtle tonality; when it comes to artistic experimentation Lightroom offers more options. And I really like that I can use SlideShowPro from within lightroom. And finally, Lightroom offers image management which some people find very useful (I don't).

 

They're tools and you use the tool that best suits your needs. Different people have different priorities so of course they'll have different opinions. Like most things in life, which ever decision you make you have to live with compromise.

[Rolo]

My positive conclusion out of this discussion is that it obviously does not really matter which raw converter is used.

Regards Steve

 

Steve, it's not that simple IMO. There's good and there's better. Trouble is that, the RAW conversions are not consistently better for all subjects. Some handle detail and sharpness exceptionally well, others are better for skin textures... et al.

 

Then there's the interface which doesn't get better and easier than Lightroom, IMO, but there's no doubt that many find the Capture One conversions to be superior. Personally I'm favouring a workflow that starts with Lightroom and moves to Raw Developer, or C1 for more demanding files or bigger print sizes.

 

Not decided yet whether it's C1, or RD as so many users rate C1, but I find the interface to be unwieldily. It might be something as simple as the icons used for the tabs which just don't spring to mind so easily as Lightroom, or Phocus. I suspect that the interface can be improved substantially by my customising C1 with the Pro version features, but that can only be proven after upgrading. For example i want dual monitor support and customised tool menus which are both available at a price. Not expecting anything for free, but it's such a bugger to get started I wonder whether it'll get easier down the road. Perhaps a C1 Pro user can add his thoughts to that.

 

For less demanding users, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Lightroom as a one and only system.

[Jamie Roberts]

My problem with Lightroom is colour, and is always likely to be colour, since Adobe will not adopt the ICC standard for input profiles. It's also just a whole lot worse, it seems, for CCD based sensors with Kodak filters.

 

I don't like the color of the M8 and the DMR in particular in any flavour of Lightroom / ACR.

 

As for customizing the interface of C1, the Pro version can indeed be made to do mostly whatever you like, from organizing all the elements on whatever tabs you like to creating your own styles, ICC profiles and tab presets, to outputting multiple sizes, colour depths, file formats and profiles at the same time You can even create whole sets of keyboard shortcuts, though previous shortcuts and new ones are all supported.

 

I also really, really like the fact that C1 puts its temp files / work files right in the RAW capture directory (relative to your RAW files) and NOT in a central database (like LR does). Though it may seem counter-intuitive, it's actually much easier to archive a set of RAWs (and their work files) independently of other sets: you just burn or copy the RAW directory.

 

So for me, nothing beats C1 Pro in terms of flexibility and quality of output. Does it take a while to wrap your brain around it? Yes--but not as long as you might think.

[JHAG]

William--some people go C1--> LR to use LR like Photshop light, with selections and layers from C1's TIFFs.

 

For me, I just use PS.

 

I also get the other way: LR--> C1 (to PS probably) to use LR's DAM stuff and C1's TIFF output.

 

Let us know what you think of the seminar

 

I'm with Jamie here.

I used LR for 2 years, then ovecame my laziness and took to make a real comparison with a set of shots having many fine details in it (hair, paintings, eyes, woods, etc.).

The best of all was RAW Developer, which rendered incredible details LR couldn't even approach (micro-contrasts and sharpness), with a remarkable

neutrality in all tones.

C1 was a good second with DNG files (I never shoot JPEG).

LR was a distant third, with blurred details (grain of the wood disappearing) where C1 and RAW Dev saw details which were real.

There's been an article in LFI last year about LR and C1, and results were the same.

Postprocessing, I use CS3 with Viveza, which I really find outstanding when not wanting to deal with filters and layers in CS3. Note that I did not try Viveza in LR.

That said, William is right (at least for me) : C1 is a bit clunkier than LR (modules are a breeze).

That said, Jamie is right : after a while and some curve (like Aperture), C1 results are closer to the real thing.

[Rolo]

clipped ....

I don't like the color of the M8 and the DMR in particular in any flavour of Lightroom / ACR.

 

I also really, really like the fact that C1 puts its temp files / work files right in the RAW capture directory (relative to your RAW files) and NOT in a central database (like LR does). Though it may seem counter-intuitive, it's actually much easier to archive a set of RAWs (and their work files) independently of other sets: you just burn or copy the RAW directory.

 

 

Thanks Jamie, I was hoping somebody would come in on Capture One as I am looking carefully at it.

 

I don't have a problem with the LR colours, but agree that C1 seems better.

 

Listening to the colour guru John Paul Caponigro this morning on Colour Management and he uses Photoshop for mega fine art prints. He's suggested a profile enhancement for Lightroom to Adobe to make it more accurate. So personal preference is relevant here, perhaps.

 

I have been concerned about Capture one creating folders, but as you say they are mobile and can be archived with the image files, which I agree is a good method.

 

Again, the LR database is in one place, is not big in size and is backed up automatically. On balance there's not a decider in there.

 

With Adobe, it's necessary to move the files from within Bridge to carry the hidden sidecar files. Is that the same for Capture One, especially if you had a mix of Adobe RAW amendments and a series of Capture One files in the folder ?

[Rolo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The best of all was RAW Developer, which rendered incredible details LR couldn't even approach (micro-contrasts and sharpness), with a remarkable

neutrality in all tones.

 

 

Hel, I've seen that. Quite amazing to see the strands of hair popping out of a mass of black.

 

I've corresponded with the creator, Brian Griffith and he's got many developments planned. No doubt it's a fine developer and has me split between the two.

 

The RD interface is 'primitive', or maybe 'scientific' is a better description, but it sure converts well. Above I referred to detail and sharpness and this is the one I was referring to. I think it will fit well with the LR system where higher quality conversions are wanted.

 

Any thoughts on Capture One V Raw Developer?

 

I already have Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom, plus a copy of Capture One 4 that I am playing with.

[JHAG]

Hel, I've seen that. Quite amazing to see the strands of hair popping out of a mass of black.

 

I've corresponded with the creator, Brian Griffith and he's got many developments planned. No doubt it's a fine developer and has me split between the two.

 

The RD interface is 'primitive', or maybe 'scientific' is a better description, but it sure converts well. Above I referred to detail and sharpness and this is the one I was referring to. I think it will fit well with the LR system where higher quality conversions are wanted.

 

Any thoughts ? I already have Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom, plus a copy of Capture One 4 that I am playing with.

 

Glad you saw it too.

Not sure to understand your question though.

What I do is using the menu File "Process image and save as", then I choose CS3. But in the same dialog, you may choose LR2 or AP 2 or whatever.

Did I reply ?

[Rolo]

Glad you saw it too.

Did I reply ?

 

No doubt, on some images it seems quite dramatic.

 

Anticipate I'll be using LR for DAM and quick/small proofs and PShop for individual post processing. Tricky raw conversions I could manage with RAW Developer, but the alternative is to use C1 for most of the preparation with PShop for the individual post processing.

 

With the Capture One 4 on hand, the cost differences are not significant.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

 

Listening to the colour guru John Paul Caponigro this morning on Colour Management and he uses Photoshop for mega fine art prints. He's suggested a profile enhancement for Lightroom to Adobe to make it more accurate. So personal preference is relevant here, perhaps.

 

I have been concerned about Capture one creating folders, but as you say they are mobile and can be archived with the image files, which I agree is a good method.

 

Rolo--I use PS to print as well. I don't think Capture One is made for printing at all--it's made for "developing"... and I view the output as a "negative" that I will "print" in Photoshop.

 

But I've found that especially for reds (including skin tones) there is just something messed up in ACR / LR so badly that I can't easily prep them in PS for print. And as you know, with weddings we're talking over 500 shots per wedding and every one of them has a skin tone in it Well, you get my drift.

 

PS accepts ICC profiles LR / ACR doesn't--and my problem is with them and their color models, not Photoshop's

 

{snipped}

With Adobe, it's necessary to move the files from within Bridge to carry the hidden sidecar files. Is that the same for Capture One, especially if you had a mix of Adobe RAW amendments and a series of Capture One files in the folder ?

For my workflow, it looks like this:

 

1. DNGs --> C1
   
2. C1 --> JPEG for proofs / web / lab proof prints
   
3. C1 --> 8bpp (or higher on occasion) TIFF (with camera ICC profile) for albums, fine prints, slideshows, portfolio work
   
4. PS --> print device profile
   

So I never have to transfer RAW creation data; PS is always working on corrected / "developed" TIFFs that need to be optimised for a printing medium.

 

C1 is often good enough for the Web. When it isn't, I'll tweak in PS.

 

As for RAW Developer, I'm sure it's great, but it doesn't run on Windoze and that's where I am still

[JHAG]

Well, you get my drift.

As for RAW Developer, I'm sure it's great, but it doesn't run on Windoze and that's where I am still

 

Jack Lemmon : But you can't marry me !

Osgood : Why ?

Jack Lemmon : I'm a man !

Osgood : Nobody's perfect.

[Jamie Roberts]

Jack Lemmon : But you can't marry me !

Osgood : Why ?

Jack Lemmon : I'm a man !

Osgood : Nobody's perfect.

 

 

Oh and someday I'll get a Mac. But it looks like not until after Windoze 7... it's supposed to be, um, "fixed" and I can't face the data migration, if nothing else

[JHAG]

 

Oh and someday I'll get a Mac. But it looks like not until after Windoze 7... it's supposed to be, um, "fixed" and I can't face the data migration, if nothing else

 

D-Day is today.

Apple - Support - Switch 101 - The Great Migration

 

You know the quote : never in digital photo so many owe so much to so few and so on…

[Rolo]

but it doesn't run on Windoze and that's where I am still

 

Your on Windows ...... Argghhhh.... No wonder !!

 

:D

 

Joking apart, I wonder if there is a Windows issue there?

 

Skin tones are not a problem for me, usually. Grey balance in LR or in Adobe RAW normally brings it to heel.

 

There are difficult ones occasionally, but then I just run my PShop CMYK Action to sort it and that never fails me.

 

With such a lot of wedding images to proof and post process, I try to keep my working standards above the bride and groom's expectations, but I'm not attempting to make every 6"x4" print into an exhibition print. My full page images, usually 15 in an album at 14"x12", get a lot of attention and always look stunning when I get them back from the printer.

 

Readers might appreciate that there are weeks in the busy season where us wedding shooters are regularly pushing 2,500 images across our screens. Half of those are presented to clients as proofs and 10% are selected works for finished albums. So efficiency and consistency are important and justifies us being particular about tiny issues. Quite a different task from the regular 'roll a month' shooters looking for the one that matters.

[Englander]

A few days ago I mentioned that I thought RD produced better color and resolution than even C1 but emphasized that I really liked the RD sharpening algorithms. Unfortunately RD only works with Mac, but I have found a PC software that does afford the Lucy-Richardson deconvolution for Windoz folks: Recover Detail and Sharpen Your Blurred Photos I haven't used it, but it sounds very good.

 

Joe

Joe Englander Photography

[Shootist]

 

Oh and someday I'll get a Mac. But it looks like not until after Windoze 7... it's supposed to be, um, "fixed" and I can't face the data migration, if nothing else

 

Jamie there is nothing wrong with Windows. I'm still using XP Pro because Vista added nothing I needed and only thing I didn't want. I have order the Pro version of Win 7 but may never install it.

 

There is nothing wrong with Mac's either but I've always run Windows since 3.11 WFW and don't see any reason at this point to switch platforms, like you the software change is a show stopper for me.

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie there is nothing wrong with Windows. I'm still using XP Pro because Vista added nothing I needed and only thing I didn't want. I have order the Pro version of Win 7 but may never install it.

 

There is nothing wrong with Mac's either but I've always run Windows since 3.11 WFW and don't see any reason at this point to switch platforms, like you the software change is a show stopper for me.

 

Hey Ed--it was more tongue in cheek than anything else. In truth, I run Vista 64 which gives me access to 8+ GB of RAM, which is nice And apart from some weirdness in the color management side of things (which XP doesn't suffer from) Vista has been surprisingly ok.

 

But it's true I can't run Raw Developer, which I'd like (at least to try). Can't buy a Mac just for that, though... at least not until the M9 is paid for

 

@ Rolo--there isn't actually a Windows issue with ACR / LR and color--I usually don't like the skin tones from them regardless of the platform... and PS is equally good on both as well.

 

OTH, Ed (and many others) like Lightroom color, so it's definitely a personal thing, if not a platform thing

[Rolo]

@ Rolo--there isn't actually a Windows issue with ACR / LR and color--I usually don't like the skin tones from them regardless of the platform... and PS is equally good on both as well.

 

OTH, Ed (and many others) like Lightroom color, so it's definitely a personal thing, if not a platform thing

 

Just looking for reasons for your view Jamie, but "there's no accounting for taste" as they say.

 

Comes back to me now, John Paul Caponigro shortcoming with Lightroom was that it didn't have 'soft proofing' available that was needed for his workflow. For anybody interested, he states he has 250 downloads on his site, tutorials and info videos. I like the way he advocates "go as far as you need to in processing, not necessarily as far as you can" (my words, not a quote).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Gismoto]

I think C1 does a wonderful job and I mostly work in C1. BUT the lack of a dust removal tool is really anoying!

 

@ Rondo: looked at your photos: really nice! when do you do your B&W conversion? Do you only use LR or C1 or some other software like SilverEffex or TrueGrain?

 

Thank you,

 

Tobias

[Jamie Roberts]

Just looking for reasons for your view Jamie, but "there's no accounting for taste" as they say.

 

{snipped}.

 

Absolutely not, Rolo--it's true. But another forum member (Zlatko B.) has just given me one of the magic keys to the ACR / LR kingdom with CCDs--change the red hue to around +50 and you won't get overly magenta skin (which is the bane of all neutral processed ACR stuff), especially in tough light.

 

Unfortunately, this changes red into scarlet, but that's a tradeoff I'd make.

 

So I do have demonstrable and measurable reasons for sticking to C1 (not least is that I can proof in CMYK while I work in RAW, which saves me so much printing testing it isn't funny), but I've found they're long and mostly complicated and many don't care

 

But it isn't a Windows thing. Having said that, I'd love to afford a Mac just to give it a whirl. But I'm invested where I am, and I'm going to need funds for an M9 or two, I think.