Jump to content

Capture One vs Lightroom

epand56

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ammitsboel

ammitsboel

Posted
Posted

Sometimes it can be consideret a problem that mankind seeks a conlcusion to all questions. When it turns into a problem it still looks like a conclusion but it's a destructive one!

 

Use only what you feel is right.

By feel I mean a perception made from thought and feeling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
Two? .... £10,000, a sobering thought ! :D

 

How to explain to our business partners ?

 

Uncle Bob uses a 50D. :rolleyes:

 

[thread_hijack]

LOL!! Great reason :) Unfortunately he'll soon be using a 7D or a full-frame Sony...course that won't make the pix any better :)

 

And you're right--that is a daunting prospect.

 

But I am seriously considering going full-on M for weddings. Means some huge changes to the way I shoot overall, and to packages, etc... but that might be a good thing in the long run, and I might like it more.

 

Scary though. Very, very scary.

 

I'm also considering an 8 * 10 film camera and some weirdo lenses as well, for the "and now for something completely different" perspective.

 

But the market here is so flooded with "photographers" that a little solid differentiation begins to look very attractive.

[/thread_hijack]

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted
[thread_hijack]

 

I'm also considering an 8 * 10 film camera and some weirdo lenses as well, for the "and now for something completely different" perspective.

 

But the market here is so flooded with "photographers" that a little solid differentiation begins to look very attractive.

[/thread_hijack]

 

If you succeed, hats off.

A brilliant idea, if daunting, offering this to your clients.

I discovered his work

on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

and consider it for others purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
plasticman

plasticman

Posted
Posted
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...

 

I was on the point of giving-up on my M8 until - by sheer chance - I was reminded of Raw Developer by a poster on another forum. I've already said how amazing the detail and neutral color rendition is in another thread - but I really can't stress enough how much I agree with what's been said about it here.

 

It's also an application made with rigorous attention to programming good practice - not only in terms of the incredible flexibility of the options themselves, and their utilization of the best color-spaces for each of the discrete tasks, but also the way it respects the user's computer resources: just watch Activity Monitor when you open C1 or LR vs RD. RawDev's footprint is tiny and controlled in contrast especially to C1 - that programme hogs RAM.

 

I still keep C1 on my computer - I occasionally like to try a conversion as a comparison to RawDev. Mostly to remind myself why I was so disappointed with the M8 for the first couple of months that I owned it. As said, if RawDev hadn't existed I'd be back shooting Portra again... which on reflection may not have been such a bad thing. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you succeed, hats off.

A brilliant idea, if daunting, offering this to your clients.

I discovered his work

on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

and consider it for others purposes.

 

Exactly and precisely. I was even thinking of getting one of these to put on a Cambo:

 

Cooke PS945 Portrait lens

 

Only half the price (well, a little more) than an M9 :)

 

But you've got the idea exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
{Snipped}

 

I still keep C1 on my computer - I occasionally like to try a conversion as a comparison to RawDev. Mostly to remind myself why I was so disappointed with the M8 for the first couple of months that I owned it. As said, if RawDev hadn't existed I'd be back shooting Portra again... which on reflection may not have been such a bad thing. :rolleyes:

 

It would be really interesting to me Mani, if you could supply output you like and a RAW file so we could see what's deficient in C1 compared with RAW developer. I know this sounds like a challenge, but I don't mean it to be; I'm trying to understand.

 

FWIW, there are reasons for C1 using a lot of RAM, not the least of which is that when it is outputting a thousand files as full resolution TIFFs and two kinds of JPEGs at the same time, and allowing you to continue editing with no performance degradation. I don't know if Raw Developer lets you do that or not, but C1 has saved me lots and lots of time (and time=$$)

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted

Jamie,

I would love to see what you get out of this baby.

Do you plan a small set with studio light for the shots,

or just available sources ?

If you call Cambo in the Netherlands, they'll fit it for you.

Very dependable.

 

Regarding RawDev, the difference for me will be mainly for shots

full of crispy details (hair, skin, gown, jewels) shot in full light.

RawDev will be a notch sharper and rich in details.

But frankly, for "atmospheric" lowlight shots, I did not see that much difference,

especially in BW.

 

PS : I saw your message. The lens was a 50 Lux ASPH.

Sometimes difficult with the highlights, but so gorgeous for

a detail freak like me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
Jamie,

I would love to see what you get out of this baby.

Do you plan a small set with studio light for the shots,

or just available sources ?

If you call Cambo in the Netherlands, they'll fit it for you.

Very dependable.

 

Regarding RawDev, the difference for me will be mainly for shots

full of crispy details (hair, skin, gown, jewels) shot in full light.

RawDev will be a notch sharper and rich in details.

But frankly, for "atmospheric" lowlight shots, I did not see that much difference,

especially in BW.

 

PS : I saw your message. The lens was a 50 Lux ASPH.

Sometimes difficult with the highlights, but so gorgeous for

a detail freak like me.

 

Thanks so much for all the info... and I have some feelers out on the Cooke, so we'll see :)

 

Thanks for the notes on RD as well. Someday my Mac will come :)

 

That shot with the 50 ASPH is outstanding. I never "liked" it that much on the M8, but every shot I see from the M9 looks really nice. Hmmm. :) I agree, BTW, on the highlights--the contrast of that lens is just so high it's easy to watch them go...

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted
Thanks so much for all the info... and I have some feelers out on the Cooke, so we'll see :)

 

Thanks for the notes on RD as well. Someday my Mac will come :)

 

That shot with the 50 ASPH is outstanding. I never "liked" it that much on the M8, but every shot I see from the M9 looks really nice. Hmmm. :) I agree, BTW, on the highlights--the contrast of that lens is just so high it's easy to watch them go...

 

The MB Pro screen is so contrasty and crisp.

 

With the 50 ASPH, I really have to get the IL down and then locally "dull" it a tiny bit in CS3 with Viveza.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted

Jamie,

Just to illustrate the difference between C1 and RD on skin tones and textures.

RD is more natural and the original .psd in CS3 is even more finely detailed on

the skin, lips and eye than this quick .jpg copy. All gradations are smoother and

seem closer to reality.

Smallest details are not digital, they're textured.

What do you think ?

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolo

Rolo

Posted
Posted
Jamie,

Just to illustrate the difference between C1 and RD on skin tones and textures.

RD is more natural and the original .psd in CS3 is even more finely detailed on

the skin, lips and eye than this quick .jpg copy. All gradations are smoother and

seem closer to reality.

Smallest details are not digital, they're textured.

What do you think ?

 

Hel,

Nice images. Is this from the 50mm Asph mentioned above ? Very sharp indeed.

 

Can you make it clear which image is which ? C1/RD/CS3 ?

 

I prefer the 'brilliance' of the first frame. edit - I've changed my mind, second is best. :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shootist

Shootist

Posted
Posted
Jamie,

Just to illustrate the difference between C1 and RD on skin tones and textures.

RD is more natural and the original .psd in CS3 is even more finely detailed on

the skin, lips and eye than this quick .jpg copy. All gradations are smoother and

seem closer to reality.

Smallest details are not digital, they're textured.

What do you think ?

 

Don't want to be to critical but just what do those images prove? IMHO, nothing. First off they are different in size, the brighter one being a tighter crop.

Taking into account the different crop size I personally don't see any difference between them, in the JPG's you posted (We all know cropped and resized JPG's aren't the best way to judge anything about any image).

What were the sharpening settings in each developer? For any test of RAW developers the sharpening in each developer should be turn completely off and then the equal amount applied in whatever program you are using to make them into JPG's.

I persoanlly like the brighter tighter cropped image. As to the second image, just like images I get from C1 I find it to dark.

Please say which image came from which developer.

 

Just for the record I really don't use LR for anything other then searching for a image. I do all my processing through Bridge-ACR-PS. Since I don't own and really never plan on owning a Mac I could care less about RAW Developer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted
Hel,

Nice images. Is this from the 50mm Asph mentioned above ? Very sharp indeed.

 

Can you make it clear which image is which ? C1/RD/CS3 ?

 

I prefer the 'brilliance' of the first frame. edit - I've changed my mind, second is best. :-D

 

 

@ Rolo, I agree with you : second is obviously best (pic 2 : RD).

Glad you saw it.

C1 here is more schmalzy, less true (pic 1).

Sharpening is roughly the same, except that in RD sharpening

dont create unwanted brilliance (skin under the right eye, nose, lips).

Lens is 50 Lux ASPH indeed. Difficult with highlights but really fantastic

in tones and details.

@ Shootist : to me differences are obvious, and much more so in

original files.

It's no geeky whimsiness, here.

RD is really better than C1, and much better than LR (I used all 3).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shootist

Shootist

Posted
Posted
Lightroom and Photoshop use the same RAW converter.

 

Yes I know they do, supposedly. But do LR and ACR actually do the exact same job when you are doing adjustments, IE in displaying the image on screen and when printing.

 

I have never used LR to print and have always used, until recently when I bought Qimage, PS to do my printing so I would always Export images to PS and then make JPG's of the one I was going to post here or to another forum and to post to my image site. LR does not like to display multiple copies of the same image which always confused me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...