Jump to content

Capture One vs Lightroom

epand56

Recommended Posts

stunsworth

stunsworth

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

LR does not like to display multiple copies of the same image which always confused me.

 

Do you have "Treat Jpegs files next to raw files as separate photos" selected? It's in preferences/import. You can create separate images to work on by right clicking on a thumbnail and selecting create virtual copy.

 

As far as I'm aware the adjustments between Lightroom and Photoshop are identical. I tend to make the adjustments in Lightroom and then right click and select yo edit the adjusted file in Photoshop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Rolo

Rolo

Posted
Posted

Thanks Hel (is that the right way to address you ?).

 

This is quite a conundrum for me and I'm eager to hear what you and Jamie , and others have to say.

 

I process my images with varying amounts of effort depending on the destination, albeit final or not. Generally, images going to print go thru PShop. Images going to clients for preview go thru Lightroom and later PShop. Images going to this Forum after a day out, go thru PShop. In PShop I rarely use any Plug-ins, although I have several.

 

I'm sat here with 1,300 images to review and present proofs from two weddings. Mainly Canon capture, but some M8 and fewer Hasselblad digital. The fastest way to get these ready for a DVD movie of proofs is Lightroom, IMO today.

 

Overuse of Lightroom presets once caused me a helluva problem when the images hit the final album print proofs. Each image looked really wonderful on it's own, but the same LR Presets seems to react differently to each image depending upon luminosity and colour. Fortunately, I knew from long experience that this doesn't happen to me when I process in PShop, so I started again and now never prepare for print in LR.

 

Following lots of reading matter from Jamie, I recently ventured once again into Capture One trusting his opinions, I don't have the Pro version yet. I acknowledge that I do see an improvement, but it seems to vary from insignificant to quite noticeable. I don't know if Jamie has more than the standard profiles, but if either of you have, I'd appreciate a trial.

 

Whilst investigating Capture One, , I downloaded a demo version of Raw Developer which is incredibly functional and appeals to my logic, but it does look like a programme in development. It's results were quite striking showing detail in the images that I'd not seen before on some images - eyelashes becoming individual elements, hair with detail etc. A look back into C1 and that detail was also there, but not as evident. I now assume Jamie has the skill to bring that out and is therefore confounding people who haven't paid the price of entry - a difficult one.

 

So, I'm still with LR & PShop and getting gasps of appreciation from my clients, but know others have good/better experience with the other developers and I'm keen to see their results and read their comments.

 

Thanks to y'all. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted

Thanks Hel (is that the right way to address you ?).

Johan is better, but Hel is fun too. ;)

 

This is quite a conundrum for me and I'm eager to hear what you and Jamie , and others have to say.

 

It is. I don't have your problem or Jamie's because I don't work on batches. Only small sets (Raw Dev has batch process too).

 

I process my images with varying amounts of effort depending on the destination, albeit final or not. Generally, images going to print go thru PShop. Images going to clients for preview go thru Lightroom and later PShop. Images going to this Forum after a day out, go thru PShop. In PShop I rarely use any Plug-ins, although I have several.

 

I'm sat here with 1,300 images to review and present proofs from two weddings. Mainly Canon capture, but some M8 and fewer Hasselblad digital. The fastest way to get these ready for a DVD movie of proofs is Lightroom, IMO today.

 

Yes. Would do the same.

 

Overuse of Lightroom presets once caused me a helluva problem when the images hit the final album print proofs. Each image looked really wonderful on it's own, but the same LR Presets seems to react differently to each image depending upon luminosity and colour. Fortunately, I knew from long experience that this doesn't happen to me when I process in PShop, so I started again and now never prepare for print in LR.

 

I don't use presets (for the same reason).

 

Following lots of reading matter from Jamie, I recently ventured once again into Capture One trusting his opinions, I don't have the Pro version yet. I acknowledge that I do see an improvement, but it seems to vary from insignificant to quite noticeable. I don't know if Jamie has more than the standard profiles, but if either of you have, I'd appreciate a trial.

 

I use C1 basic with Jamies's M8 profiles (the one he posted here).

 

Whilst investigating Capture One, , I downloaded a demo version of Raw Developer which is incredibly functional and appeals to my logic, but it does look like a programme in development. It's results were quite striking showing detail in the images that I'd not seen before on some images - eyelashes becoming individual elements, hair with detail etc. A look back into C1 and that detail was also there, but not as evident. I now assume Jamie has the skill to bring that out and is therefore confounding people who haven't paid the price of entry - a difficult one.

 

Raw Dev is incredible. I know many here doubt it and made fun of this statement,

but I see what I see. Being mostly in ver close shots (portraits or body shots),

I cannot use another tool now.

 

So, I'm still with LR & PShop and getting gasps of appreciation from my clients, but know others have good/better experience with the other developers and I'm keen to see their results and read their comments.

 

LR is very good, C1 is better, Raw Dev is outstanding (I dream of a sleeker GUI though).

 

Thanks to y'all. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted

Johan--

 

Thanks for posting these.

 

They look like the same gamma to me, but I do agree with you and Rolo that the RD shots have a much more appealing contrast tonality (not color but texture) especially in the upper quartertone where the highlights roll of so nicely into speculars.

 

I suspect you can acheive the same thing with C1 and a tone curve (I always use a contrast-modifying curve in C1 to get lots of shadow detail and to modify the upper quartertone). But the RD shot is totally convincing to me.

 

I'd love to take a look at the RAW in C1, just to see about those speculars. As set, it's fair to say that the C1 has more contrast, so it could be that RD is doing a more linear develop.

 

Did you play with the C1 "film curves" at all? I'm thinking "film extra shadow" might be an interesting place to start instead of standard...

 

And I don't have a Mac...and right now, like Rolo, I'm processing about 1200 shots from a wedding for next week, so C1 is my pal :)

 

Thanks again, Johan--a great shot (and thanks for the kind words on my new site as well... it's slowly getting there! LOL!!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jamie,

I'm glad you agree, it's pretty striking.

And you define it in better words than me.

Now I have a deal for you : you invite me

as a fly on the wall to one of your weddings

and I'll send you these DNG files from RD. :D

Kidding apart, if you wish, I could send it to you

via You Send It.

And you website is truly a model of furm/function.

Elegant, flowing, nice color scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamie Roberts

Jamie Roberts

Posted
Posted
Jamie,

I'm glad you agree, it's pretty striking.

And you define it in better words than me.

Now I have a deal for you : you invite me

as a fly on the wall to one of your weddings

and I'll send you these DNG files from RD. :D

Kidding apart, if you wish, I could send it to you

via You Send It.

And you website is truly a model of furm/function.

Elegant, flowing, nice color scheme.

 

Absolutely send it it to me. Just post the email link in a PM.

 

I never work so well as when I have another job to do (and the excitement over the M9 has been a bit of a time-waster too :))

 

Anytime you're in Toronto you'd be welcome to accompany me! Beer's on me, Johan!

Link to post
Share on other sites
viramati

viramati

Posted
Posted

now maybe I've misses something here so I hope I'm not repeating a question.

I have been a nikon and LR user for years and have just bought an M8. Now I'm really at a bit of a loss with C1 but I do see that at high iso it seems to process RAW file better than LR. What I would like to do is try to set up LR to be able to ' edit in' C1 as I do with CS4, Silver efex pro etc (Photo>edit>chosen programme). So far I'm having no luck in trying to set this up. Does anyone have a step by step workflow for this? Thanks

David

PS I'm a mac user with LR 2.5

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted
now maybe I've misses something here so I hope I'm not repeating a question.

I have been a nikon and LR user for years and have just bought an M8. Now I'm really at a bit of a loss with C1 but I do see that at high iso it seems to process RAW file better than LR. What I would like to do is try to set up LR to be able to ' edit in' C1 as I do with CS4, Silver efex pro etc (Photo>edit>chosen programme). So far I'm having no luck in trying to set this up. Does anyone have a step by step workflow for this? Thanks

David

PS I'm a mac user with LR 2.5

 

Why LR when C1 does such a better job ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted

If you import in C1, then export to LR, you will lose the benefit of RAW treatment under C1. And many details will disappear from your images. I never found a way to use both.

But I did not lose too much time searching. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shootist

Shootist

Posted
Posted
If you import in C1, then export to LR, you will lose the benefit of RAW treatment under C1. And many details will disappear from your images. I never found a way to use both.

But I did not lose too much time searching. :D

 

That is not true. If you open files in C1 and Process them to Tiff files then import to LR just how can you lose whatever edit/convertion done in C1.

Since C1 can't print you always have to use another program for many things, other then printing, after you do the RAW coversion in C1.

 

Actually I do not and have never seen C1 produce a better image then LR ACR. Different yes, but better? I really do think that is in the eye of the beholder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted
I really do think that is in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

No. :rolleyes:

Simply because LR and C1 they don't use the same conversion tool and it shows.

As said before, I compared dozens of shots with important details (hair, wood, etc.).

C1 renders details LR doesn't begin to see.

LF1 did a comparison in 2008 and showed the same results.

Many on this forum saw the same difference.

Before any postprocessing, upon extraction, a file from M8 SD card in LR doesn't look like what it looks in C1. (I used for LR a year.)

Even better than C1 : Raw Dev.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shootist

Shootist

Posted
Posted
No. :rolleyes:

Simply because LR and C1 they don't use the same conversion tool and it shows.

As said before, I compared dozens of shots with important details (hair, wood, etc.).

C1 renders details LR doesn't begin to see.

LF1 did a comparison in 2008 and showed the same results.

Many on this forum saw the same difference.

Before any postprocessing, upon extraction, a file from M8 SD card in LR doesn't look like what it looks in C1. (I used for LR a year.)

Even better than C1 : Raw Dev.

 

You're right they "LOOK" different and of course LR/ACR and C1 don't use the same tools to process a image. If they did they would both be made by either Adobe or Phase One. But better or not that is to each person to decide.

I never liked the way M8 images LOOK processed through C1 and I still don't with M9 files.

 

Of course that is my personal opinion and I'll stick to it.

 

Oh and my real point in my reply above yours was to say there is no reason to lose C1 edited after bring a TIFF into LR.

You can edit any DNG in both LR/ACR and in C1 and never lose any of those edits from either of those programs as long as you reopen the DNG in that program and export it (LR or just click Done in ACR, or open it in PS and save it as a PSD or tiff) or Process it to a TIFF in C1. No mater what other program you may open that processed or export file in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted

Well, the only thing I know is, after importing DNG or TIFF from C1 to LR,

and comparing with the loupe, I couldn't see in LR the details I saw in C1.

And details I can see in Raw Dev I cannot see in C1.

There is more real information in the latter than the former.

Period. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shootist

Shootist

Posted
Posted
Well, the only thing I know is, after importing DNG or TIFF from C1 to LR,

and comparing with the loupe, I couldn't see in LR the details I saw in C1.

And details I can see in Raw Dev I cannot see in C1.

There is more real information in the latter than the former.

Period. :p

 

So what does that really tell you. Maybe LR isn't displaying the image correctly.

Sorry but I really don't use LR for processing. I do use Bridge > ACR > PS and then print using Qimage ( I use to print through PS).

And what I'm really saying is IN PRINT I do not see this better image from C1. I have printed TIFF's done by C1 and PSD's done using Bridge/ACR and then to PS to save them as PSD's then to Qimage for the Printing.

 

I think this extra detail you don't see in LR compared to C1 and don't see in C1 compared to RD is a difference in the micro contrast, contrast and sharpness the raw developing program is imparting to the image. The detail has to be there in the DNG for any raw developing program to display it. Even though you may not see it in LR it is still there, if it is really there, and will show up in print.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JHAG

JHAG

Posted
Posted

 

I think this extra detail you don't see in LR compared to C1 and don't see in C1 compared to RD is a difference in the micro contrast, contrast and sharpness the raw developing program is imparting to the image. The detail has to be there in the DNG for any raw developing program to display it. Even though you may not see it in LR it is still there, if it is really there, and will show up in print.

 

I'm not so sure of that.

How can I judge of the result when LR doesn't show me what I will get ?

Raw Dev is a pure pleasure to work with, because it's pitiless, showing you

the flaws and the qualities of a shot, giving more room to correct it or enhance it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
knmork

knmork

Posted
Posted

I choose raw developer (1.8.8)! :)

 

Read all the postings, and since I already have the C1 4 (w/digilux 4), my original quest was: C1 upgrade or LR-licence? Your discussion made it much easier to see pro/contra for each prog, and not least why LR is more than 3 times the price of RD/C1-upgrade.

 

Since I never got used to C1s way of working, I now think I've found a prog that suits my needs just fine. Cheers :)

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...