Over the last several years I have occasionally tried other RAW processors (other than my standard Lightroom) after reading countless threads about how much better they were, but could never really notice a difference other than at extreme pixel peeping magnification. However, recently tried Capture One Pro and a bit shocked on the very first photo I looked at.Both photos are presented as they are imported (I realize each program adds some adjustments on import, but tried to keep them as 'RAW' as possible.) Does anyone else see a dramatic difference? Is it just that C1's basic adjustments look better, or is there really something to this? I'm not so sure I want to start over with a new program. I hope it shows here, if not I can upload 100% zoom crops.Lightroom FirstCapture One Pro 10 Second.
Hi, I see differences, but to be honest, I don't think I'd prefer the C1 image as a starting point. I NEVER EVER judge a raw processor by how it renders my files with its defaults. That is not the point of a raw processor, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see anything in the second image that can't be equaled in LR, but I see stuff I don't like in the second one that perhaps can't be undone (I don't know C1, so I state 'perhaps').
Let’s take a closer look at Capture One vs Lightroom. On one hand, we have Adobe’s Lightroom, and on the other, Phase One’s Capture One. We’ll look at what makes them similar, and what makes them different.
I notice a slightly different WB that leads to a magenta cast in the second image, especially visible on the boy's forefront and hair. These are two very different hair colors!The Lightroom image looks exactly how I'd expect a LR import to look: a bit flat but with a correct translation of the camera's WB. LR imports are not directly usable and always need some degree of processing.My advice: if you hesitate to learn a new workflow, then don't decide based on this default-settings comparison. Decide on fully processed-to-your-liking outputs, and on which workflow fits you best.
It's the end-result that counts, not the starting point, and how easily you got there.Cheers. I also have noticed the difference in rendering RAW files from X-Trans II & III cameras in CO. Personally, I do like renderings of X-Trans II RAW files, but not from X-Trans III in CO. I did side by side comparisons X-Trans III RAW files with free RFC, and I find RFC handles luminosity better, than CO when converting RAW to TIFF.
So, I do flat conversion with lowered contrast and sharpness set to Natural, and then I continue edit in CO. Also RFC gives me choice of Fuji colors, CO not.If you shoot people with X-Trans III camera, maybe Provia sim is not a good choice, cos it exhibits too much magenta, or pink cast, which difficult to correct it in post. Click to expand.Yes, in Capture one you can take a RAW file back to it's captured state. I don't know how to do this in LR and have not used LR in many years. My workflow is pretty well established using C1 workflow and DAM assets. And yes, I 'm still learning new tips and tricks to make my workflow easier and faster.
Everyones is going to be different.It depends on how you have customised C1 for your use. Either find or add the tool Base Characteristics to your tool set.By changing the curve to linear this will take away the capture one setting and give you just the RAW data as the camera captured the image. They will be no film styles added or formulas created by the processor.
In my eyes the colors algorithms are better in C1 than in LR for handling Fuji files. Also once you learn how to use the Color Editor that will help with finishing your image. You may or may not need to use PS to finish or retouch the final image. That will depend on your taste.I like the work flow and the ability to customize the tools in C1. C1 also has some nice built in film styles to choose from as well abet they are based on their formulas for different films.There many different film processor out there to choose from.
Many people like the fuji color as they are SOOC.This Please login or register to view links may help out with C1 and it's work flow as well as setting your work space. There are few other there that may help you in using C1. It may covering landscape yet the techniques can transferred to people/portrait as well.Hope this give you some insight to C1. Yes, in Capture one you can take a RAW file back to it's captured state. I don't know how to do this in LR and have not used LR in many years.
My workflow is pretty well established using C1 workflow and DAM assets. And yes, I 'm still learning new tips and tricks to make my workflow easier and faster. Everyones is going to be different.It depends on how you have customised C1 for your use. Either find or add the tool Base Characteristics to your tool set.By changing the curve to linear this will take away the capture one setting and give you just the RAW data as the camera captured the image. They will be no film styles added or formulas created by the processor.
In my eyes the colors algorithms are better in C1 than in LR for handling Fuji files. Also once you learn how to use the Color Editor that will help with finishing your image. You may or may not need to use PS to finish or retouch the final image. That will depend on your taste.I like the work flow and the ability to customize the tools in C1.
C1 also has some nice built in film styles to choose from as well abet they are based on their formulas for different films.There many different film processor out there to choose from. Many people like the fuji color as they are SOOC.This Please login or register to view links may help out with C1 and it's work flow as well as setting your work space. There are few other there that may help you in using C1. It may covering landscape yet the techniques can transferred to people/portrait as well.Hope this give you some insight to C1. Click to expand.You're not taking the raw data back to it's captured state. You're removing the C1 auto tone curve. The image you then see is still highly processed by C1 and is still a unique proprietary C1 interpretation of the raw data.
You're still, among other things, applying an input camera profile and there's no option to turn that off. Right above Curve in Basic Characteristics try changing the ICC Profile to none.The choice to use a raw converter (almost any raw converter) is a choice to start with that software's engineers' default processing of your raw file. By the time you see the image it will have been extensively processed and you don't get an option to see the raw data as the camera captured the image.
The one exception may be Raw Therapee. With the exception of WB RawTherapee will allow you to disengage all processing, but you won't like what you see.Suffering the default open of a raw converter is part of the process. The question is can you customize that to get your image. With C1 or LR you can.
Click to expand.I'm also new to COP, far better for me than LR as far as image quality goes. Here are some things:I think the LR highlight slider on its own can recover more than the C1 slider. However, if you use all the tools together, C1 does a better job overall, at least for my use. For example, try the Color Balance tool and use the slider on the right side of the Highlight wheel.
Also the Levels tool recovers highlights well, and you can use both of these along with the highlights slider. It's kind of an embarrassment of riches lol.Presets and Styles work better in C1. You can make presets for each tool, and then combine them if you like into styles.
It's much more flexible.Sharpening and Noise Reduction. I think LR is better with noise reduction. C1 Sharpening is about the same, although I miss the Mask slider. On the other hand, with my Fuji files at least, the RAW rendering is so much superior to LR that not much sharpening is required. Also, the Structure slider in the Clarity tool is often a better way to sharpen.I mentioned Levels before, but it's a great tool. You can use it for shadows and highlights, contrast, and mid-tone adjustments, all in one place. I also mentioned the Color Balance tool, and the ability to adjust contrast / brightness there separately for shadows, highlights, and mid-tones is great.In the Curves tool, you have a Luma option which allows you to adjust contrast / brightness without affecting color too much.
It's very useful.I like the Color Editor Tool a lot. You can select a color, like blue in the sky, adjust the broadness of the color you are selecting, and then adjust saturation, brightness and smoothness. You can do this with I think 8 separate color ranges. You can also turn the color selection into a mask and then make adjustments.The masking / local adjustments are brilliant, far better than LR's adjustment and other brushes. You're not taking the raw data back to it's captured state. You're removing the C1 auto tone curve.
The image you then see is still highly processed by C1 and is still a unique proprietary C1 interpretation of the raw data. You're still, among other things, applying an input camera profile and there's no option to turn that off. Right above Curve in Basic Characteristics try changing the ICC Profile to none.The choice to use a raw converter (almost any raw converter) is a choice to start with that software's engineers' default processing of your raw file. By the time you see the image it will have been extensively processed and you don't get an option to see the raw data as the camera captured the image.
The one exception may be Raw Therapee. With the exception of WB RawTherapee will allow you to disengage all processing, but you won't like what you see.Suffering the default open of a raw converter is part of the process. The question is can you customize that to get your image. With C1 or LR you can.
Click to expand.Very true.It also may depend on far the OP wants to go toward the RAW data. You added one step he can take if they want to. Most people want or need a starting point hence raw convertors give them that interpretation. For me going to Linear Responce gives me the starting the point for working on an image. I was never very happy with the algorithms that were applied by Adobe engineers in LR to Canon, Nikon, Fuji or Leica files. For fuji files I have been much happier with C1 since version 6. Unless you've changed the default import setting, Lightroom applies a Profile called 'Adobe Standard' at the time of import.
To see which profile has been applied, go to the Develop module and flip open Camera Calibration.I thought the Adobe Standard profile always looked a little flat and washed out, similar to your Lightroom example, above. Most of the time, I prefer the Fuji 'Camera PROVIA/STANDARD' as a starting place, so I changed the default Lightroom import setting from Adobe Standard to Provia. In a small percentage of my shots I will switch to Astia or Velvia profiles, but I never prefer the Adobe Standard.But as others have said, the starting point is only that. Whether I start with the Adobe Standard or the Provia profile, I will probably end up with about the same result - but by changing the default Import setting, I have shortened my workflow by one click.
Click to expand.You can try Capture One for 30 days for free. And the trial resets with every new release. This is the third time with the trial for me. With the first two times, I still preferred Lightroom. Enough had changed with Capture One with the last release that I decided to purchase it.Here's how I compared the two:I would take a RAW file from either a Nikon, Fuji or Olympus. Process it in let's say, Lightroom. Finish and stop for the day.
The next day, I'd process the same RAW file in Capture One without looking at the results from Lightroom. Finish and stop for the day.
On the third day, I'd print both out either 8.5x11 or 17x25. In the vast majority of cases, I preferred the print made with Capture One.If I compared the two, I could almost always get the Lightroom output to equal the Capture One output.
But usually, I arrived at my preferred output first and easier with Capture One. Click to expand.C1 has a richer editing toolset than LR. (NOTE: Not talking about the database features of the two programs with is entirely another topic.) So I can do more with C1; I can make adjustments to images in C1 that aren't possible in LR - especially color adjustments. That means I'm more likely to be able to complete an edit in C1 and that's the goal. When processing raw files I really want to avoid moving to a second raster editor to complete an edit. It's not 100% avoidable but the more avoidable it is the better my life.For example: Just as an Illustration, with C1 I can turn every other stripe in an US flag green.
You're not pulling that off in LR.Folks bring up the cost of C1 as a hurdle. This I find odd when compared with the cost of Adobe's monthly license. (I know LR is still available stand-a-lone). Over time the cost of C1 plus upgrades continues to average down compared with the Adobe monthly license so that after say 5 years you're about neck and neck and then LR becomes the more expensive option.
Especially so should you decide to stop paying.
Posted By on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 in, Martin did a just brilliant job on this eye-opening article, and I want you to be able to read it (even if you’re not a ). His article is the cover story in the Sept. Issue of Photoshop User magazine (published 10-times a year for KelbyOne members). The magazine is normally around 120 pages per issue, but I pulled out just Martin’s article for you to download in PDF format below.SPOILER ALERT: In short: Martin shows you the difference between how Capture One Pro “juices” their RAW conversion, and how you can set up Lightroom to have the same look, if you want that “juiced’ look.” I think a LOT of people will be surprised and enlightened when they read this.to Martin’s article.Hope you find that helpful. That’s it from here in Italy’s Dolomite Mountains. Looking forward to meeting some of you in Venice on Saturday. ?Ciao!– ScottP.S.
Thanks to everybody yesterday who shared my details for this weekend. Much appreciated (you guys are cool!) – only three days to the photo walk.
I’ve been using LR for years now, but since the announcement that Adobe will be discontinuing LR standalone I’ve been looking at other tools. I’ve spent a few weeks now using C1 Pro 10.2 demo and almost obsessively comparing it to LR.I usually shoot just about everything except people, so I can’t really comment on how C1 looks with people pictures.The first thing I noticed when importing my RAW files into C1 is that the color balance is warmer and the color palette is different than Adobe’s default.
I mostly prefer C1’s colors over Adobe’s but found that I can usually get Adobe’s colors to look very similar to C1’s colors with a little work. It does seem to me that C1 makes pine trees look, to my eyes, noticeably more yellow than LR, though. It seems like C1’s default for RAW files is closer to a final rendition than with Adobe. It seems like Adobe mostly presents RAW files “as is”, while C1 seems to tweak colors, color balance, sharpening, and highlights/shadows to some degree.I often use “Auto” exposure as a first step in both programs to get me to a good starting point if my exposure was off.
C1’s auto-exposure, for my photos, seems to get highlights and shadows just about right, while LR’s auto-exposure seems to often over-expose my RAW files and often washes out the sky.I didn’t find the “auto” masking in C1 to be as good as LR. LR’s auto-masking works really well most of the time. It “colors within the lines”, so to speak. C1’s auto-masking doesn’t seem to work all that great. It’s better than nothing, but I seldom got it to ‘color within the lines”. Maybe I wasn’t using it right.In the metadata LR shows for all of my files, there is a “USER COMMENT” field that does not appear in my C1 metadata. Note that I didn’t import my LR catalog into C1; I just added folders from disk to a C1 catalog so maybe “USER COMMENT” is part of LR’s catalog.
I need that data from my files in C1, though.LR’s clone/heal feature works reasonably well but I had hoped that C1 had a more advanced version of that. Unfortunately, my experience with their clone/heal was that it worked about as well as LR – adequate.C1 does not have radial filter like LR and I use that occasionally and would probably miss it a little.After using LR for years, I found C1 workflow very hard to get used to but it got easier after awhile.
I chalk that up to being new to the program. I also found myself missing the Transform (auto-keystone adjustment) feature in LR when using C1. In LR, if I don’t have my verticals quite straight, or my horizontals quite level, I just click on Transform-Auto and wa la, my verticals and horizontals are nearly perfect – with just one click.
With C1, you have to use the keystone correction tools manually, draw vertical and/or horizontal lines to denote how you want your lines to appear in the photo, and then click Apply. If you’re still off by a little bit you can try again or use Free Rotate to make the finishing touches. This is MUCH less simple than LR. I much prefer LR’s automatic option to do this and find C1`s method annoying. I find it really questionable how many professionals find it great that images look better “out of the box” in Capture One.Excuse me but – are you photographers or kids who are just playing around?!The #1 reason why one uses RAW in the first place is to get an unprocessed image, so that one can develop it oneself. Otherwise, you might as well shoot all JPG and let the camera sharpen, tonemap and whatever to create “a better look out of the box”.I for one was appalled when I realized that Lightroom (at least a few years ago) had default settings that were NOT all 0 (or whatever the neutral value may be for a given control). I expect FULL creative freedom with whatever my camera gives me.
That means that by default, the RAW processing tool should do NOTHING aside from the necessary color space mapping to bring the RAW image to something that can be viewed on a monitor.But it’s good to know that both Lightroom and Capture One produce the same base image when their settings are all set to neutral (haven’t tried Capture One yet). That way, professionals can set up their own default preset(s) (if at all – I prefer to tackle my sessions one by one) and kids can play around. I carefully read the article and I thank very much the author. I’m a LR user and I’m very satisfied, I also tried Capture One, but will not make the switch, I feel confortable with LR.
But there is one BIG BIG BIG thing we must admit! Capture One is much better in the management of the highlights. Look at the picture in the PDF article, the photo where it is illustrated the use of Highlights and Shadow Recover. With Capture One in the upper left where should be the sun, there are no artifacts or halos around the sun while LR is crap, sky turned grey, unwatchable!
C’mon Adobe, you have to improve!. My work is starting to shift more towards tethered shooting and don’t want to shell out the $$$$ and shift my workflow which is totally CC based to CapOne just for tethering. And we shouldn’t – if the CapOne engrs can do it why can’t Adobe? It’s embarrassing when shooting tethered with a client and then waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the image to appear – even running USB 3.0 on a fast computer with gobs of memory, and even though am shooting a D800.
36MB is PEANUTS these days – c’mon Adobe!!!!. Very good article. I found the article quite balanced, and constructive, rather than saying one is better or worse, but instead centering on how to give a similar rendition of one to the other. I see a lot of people get quite hooked up on this bit and that bit being wrong in the article, or whatever, but the main topic was useful for me. Glad you took the time to get something on the internet about it.I too am right now just in the middle of a trial transition between Lightroom and Capture One. I wrote up a rather verbose description of what I have found so far, not to trash either side, but more my observations while attempting to see if migration from one to the other is possible. If anyone wants to read it.
First of all Mr. Evening is writing books for Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop (which are very good and I own both). Secondly, Mr Kelby’s Kelbyone service is absolutely terrible in my experience – videos not playing correctly or autoplaying – etc on both the Mac and the iPad, and when you try to cancel there is no cancel button, they force you to CALL them up to cancel.SO lets level the playing field here a bit shall we, there is in fact a good book on C1 written by Sascha Erni titled “Capture One Pro 9” whichin a level headed writing style covers C1 in depth as Mr. Evening’s books cover Adobe LR/PS. Mr Erni has experience with the developers of C1 as well as Martin does with Adobe so he is an expert on the program and the code comprising some of the image processing algorithems. He compares LR in a straight forward manner without criticizing LR and MR. Evening has also done this for the most part in this articale without criticizing C1.So with this as a backdrop let me just point out the main difference between C1 and LR in terms of color adjustments.
The entire C1 image processing pipeline exclusively uses ICC profiles that are specifically implemented and calibrated for specific hardware devices such as cameras, displays and printers. And Adobe took the lazy way out by plopping in a “one size fits all” approach with the “Adobe Standard” profile. This is nothing to be complemented in any way – it is a waste of our time. C1 “overcooking” images is also a waste of our time.Lightroom is so outdated it is pathetic given how much money Adobe rakes in over the program and they completely SCREW people who use the stand alone version by purposefully omitting features that are included in the CC 2015.8 version such as the new Reference View feature, and NUMEROUS other features.
I have heard from a very well informed source (who’s last name ends in “rup”) who actually stated that some of code that is critical to performance was written in 2007.C1 is a very expensive program initially but does not pull this bullshit. Once you purchase the program the first time (which adminittedly costs as much as a monthly BMW payment at $300) the upgrades are not bad – $90 per year with a 10% discount – there is always a 10% discount somewhere.So marketing BS aside use whichever program you like. I am not a C1 snob, I use both programs becasue I purchased them both.
I am actually gravitating towards Lightroom lately because it has some features I like that fit my “WORKFLOW” better and “TAKE MY PHOTOS TO THE NEXT LEVEL”. Ha, a little stab at what is really going on with this article on Scott Kelby’s money making magical mystery tour.This endless bullshit is not even relevent anyway. Do the many incrediblly talented teenagers taking pictures with cellphone cameras in terms of composition, style, content, etc – then editing them conservatively using $3 apps give a shit about which “RAW converter” to use on a computer or camera that costs more than they make working part time for almost a year?Talent doesn’t have a damn thing to do with cameras or software or color management! AMEN to Vincent Versace!
He does not play this crap – he tells it like it is. There is a great YouTube video titled “The lens is the brush”. He praised a Nikon 70-210mm f/4.5-5.6 D lens launched around 1993 which he said he built his career around and stated that it “has the best bokeh I have ever seen”. So he is not peddling gear.
His main point though was to drive home the fact that the software and the gear are NOT that important.Do you think wedding photographers who don’t live in Los Angeles need $20,000 worth of “WHAT”S IN MY BAG” garbage?So back to the shilling guys. And hopefully we can take all of this including everything I just ranted about with a grain of salt because none of it is important when you have talent and can fix most image problems in post – regardless of which camera or software you are using. Just consider that in a few years cellphone cameras will be good enough for all of us to use as a main camera that fits in our pockets, you know like the teenagers are already doing now. Well.On one hand the articel describes quite frankly the more sophisticated sharpening and other improved algorithms of C1 that are superior to LR’s.But there are some errors in there, too. The highlight sliders of C1 recover significantly better blown skies, I have tested this repeatedly with different versions of LR.
I’m a wedding and portrait photographer based in Chicago. Currently I’ve gotten into more studio portraiture and thought that as I build out a new portfolio for our company, I would give C1 a shot. Since 2011 I’ve been a LR user and can say that I’ve been pretty happy with it.I read somewhere and agreed with the quote “Lightroom feels like an comfortable old pair of worn out slippers.” My workflow and speed of processing in LR is quick. Tonal adjustments and crops take me seconds to do on basic images. The switch to C1 for my first time ever was very odd.
I knew the tools I was after and it was just a matter of time to find them and set them up in C1 the way I was used to it in LR.To be honest I spent most of the time simply configuring the tool bars, menus and shortcut keys to be exactly the way I like it. Knowing that if it wasn’t that way, I would be left with a bad taste in my mouth. All things being equal in terms of settingsI think I can safely say that C1 is better at this moment in time.Defining the “better” is difficult. The RAW images do look noticeably better when imported but of course you can work to bring them close. I could see more detail, had more options and the controls are smoother. The detail was discussed in the article so let me talk about the options. The Color Editor is a tool which is out of this world.
I would guess that the HSL is the closest thing in LR but it’s much more intuitive in C1. The Color Balance is also a great tool and more intuitive.That’s just a few options but to put it this way, LR is like driving a Honda Accordit’s my wife’s car and it drives perfectly fine from point A to B.
But C1 is like getting into the cockpit of a much more sporty car which can handle the speed and corners much more smoothly. When making adjustments in LR it feels like the pixels are less comfortable with what I’m asking them to do.
In C1 they respond perfectly. This all might sound very bizarre in how I describe it. But coming from a guy who absolutely hates the idea of changing his workflow aroundI believe that I’ll be ditching LR and migrating over. You just need to try C1 and see for yourself.
I’ve been looking for a forum to write my opinions on LR vs C1I’ve been a digital operator for a few years now. Maybe 7 years.I lived and worked in Paris for 4 of those years, I was digital tech with one of the largest and highly regarded digital houses in Paris, working with some of the ‘big’ photographers, clients, art directors,magazines. Lots of high-end fashion, commercial, advertising and editorial jobs. Too many to remember.I now do the same in Barcelona and in between I did it in New York. I’ve worked on jobs in the largest and best studios, and I’ve worked on location jobs where I ended up carrying my laptop setup while shooting tethered up mountains across rivers. I use lightroom and C1. Lightroom for me is quick and easy and C1 is, well I’m still learning.
I will say this though, “Force Quits” are frequent and very annoying with Lightroom and after several months using C1 no “Force Quits”! NONE!The main reason I use C1 is shooting tethered. Capture 1 outshines Lightroom by miles and miles! Its well worth the cost just in tethering alone.
Lightroom is slow, much too often stops working, several times forcing me to un-plug the tether cable and shoot with the camera memory card.So with Lightroom you get; ease of the retouch, force quits and tether lockups.Capture 1 offers; Hard and confusing to update, complicated retouching, Exceptional tethering, not a single force quit so far. I do not think this was an honest article.1. It’s published by Kelby Media (a shill for Adobe) about an Adobe-specific product being compared to a non-Adobe product that was originally built by, and for, a specific camera line.2. Kelby has chosen to remove the exclusiveness of the article for paid KelbyOne subscribers, and post the lead article of their now-digital-only magazine (even though subscription rates have not changed) online for free. And it’s posted on a KelbyOne managed website.3.
Kelby claims that he feels that the contents of the article are so important, that it is necessary to make available to everyone at no cost. This leads one to consider whether this is truly useful information, or Mr. Kelby being pushed to further Adobe’s agenda (and Mr. Kelby’s own pocket) because the Adobe Lightroom software is losing ground to a competitive product (again, originally meant for a specific camera line—which is directed at an exclusive group of professional photographers that can afford the camera line).It is my opinion that Adobe has worked to insistently bring their products to the masses.
No longer is Photoshop meant for professional photographers and artists. No longer is InDesign meant for professional publishers. Unfortunately, this has lead (rightly or wrongly) to faux-pros, those who honestly strive to become professional, and professionals to seek alternatives. The alternatives may be desires for improved stability, higher-quality RAW conversion, better pricing—all in an effort to produce exclusive art that cannot be obtained through “common” software.4. If the article were honest and truly useful, then similar compare-and-contract documentation would be provided in regards to other photograph-processing software (i.e., now-discontinued Capture NX2 used exclusively by Vincent Versace, ON1 Photo RAW, or another camera-specific software like Hasselblad Phocus).Note: Of course, it would make no sense to document discontinued software, but it would be worth noting the outstanding quality of the software, as noted by Mr. Versace, and his recommendation to replace NX2 with Phase One’s Capture One.
Sure, he had plenty of great things to SAY about both, but he also SAYS lightroom pre-sharpens to 25, Capture One pre-sharpens to 140-180, meaning that Capture is twice as sharpened.But lightroom’s scale is 0-150, so they are pre-sharpened to about 1/6 of full. Capture One’s scale is out of 0-1000, so they are pre-sharpened to about 1/5 of full. (Slightly more, but certainly not TWICE as much)Furthermore he SAYS comparing images set to x in one and y in another look similar, but his own examples show this is not the case!
Look at the third example of the tree bark that is supposed to look the same.Does that look the same to anyone?. Steve M, I have to disagree with your comments about this not being an honest article. After actually reading the article, the author shows no bias toward the Adobe product. He is merely pointing out how LR users can achieve similar results that are produced by default in Capture One.In fact in the first paragraph of the article he writes; “I concluded Capture One is indeed a solid RAW processor that has a number of unique features that are missing in Lightroom”.And in closing he states; “I am disinclined to criticize Capture One’s approach.
If Capture One customers find the optimized approach gives them the end result they’re after quicker, are they wrong if they happen to like what they see? Capture One certainly has the professional-level tools to produce great-looking images”.(I included those quotes from the article in case you hadn’t read it)As to your other points – This was published in a magazine called “Photoshop User” and Mr. Kelby’s Business based on providing training for folks that want to learn to use Adobe products. I’m not sure that makes him a “Shill” for adobe, but you apparently do.Also, one might conclude that Capture One is also interested in “bringing their product to the masses” as according the the the Capture One website the program has support for 400 cameras. This includes models from just about every camera manufacturer, from top of the line pro models to point and shoots.
It sounds like a good marketing strategy to get you product into the hands of as many consumers as possible. You read my mind! I mean I own LR but moved to Capture One.
As a Nikon shooter I used Capture NX2 too, which lead to much higher IQ as LR ever was able to. And Capture One even produces much better IQ for me than LR or PS will do. And it has nothing to do with just being a special “look”.So excited as Scott is I don’t even need to read the article as it will be of course pro Adobe but it clearly shows to me that Scott is well knowing that Capture One produces better IQ. What LR can do better than Capture One is the workflow, esp. Handling of catalogs and printing. Scott – Thanks for sharing this article with the LR Killer Tips audience. Over the years I found a core set of LR develop settings that I adjusted on just about every photo including +clarity, +contrast, +vibrance, +sharpness, +sharpening mask, +noise reduction.
Since I was increasing these settings more often than not I decided to make those minor adjustments my new import preset (note: Noise reduction tied to ISO by camera serial number). I still need to review all of my images, decide what to keep/show and make additional edits, including adjustments to the sliders changed during import, but the revised import settings saves me the extra slider moves when importing a new CF card. It’s not a big deal on one image, but if you have hundreds of images having those small adjustments (that I would make anyway) already set in the Develop module is a real time saver.
Hi all,good article. A bit too much in detail regarding the different default settings for sharpness and noise reduction. LR’s vibrance slider is almost the same as Capture One’s saturation slider. The color editor of COP is my personal greatest advantage comparing to LR. LR has more specific tools to work with (red eyes reduction, Pano and HDR) and Capture One has slightly more powerful general tools in my opinion. You may get nearly the same results in RAW conversion but this depends on image and camera.Best regards,Jens. I must say that comparing raw files from my camera (olympus em5) I can notice a difference I sharpness when both programs have sharpnening set to zero.I also found that the dng files LR save the raw files in (this is an option many people say is the best to use) have this loss off sharpness.
If I compare the dog file vs the raw file in capture one, I can not get the sharpness in the dng file as compared to the orishi all raw fileI’m very curious what on1 has to offer with the upcoming raw processor, very pleased with the on1 software so far. <a href=”target=”blank” rel=”noopener” data-mce-href=”src=”border=”0″ alt=”” data-mce-src=”/></a>. <a href=”target=”blank” rel=”noopener” data-mce-href=”src=”border=”0″ alt=”” data-mce-src=”/></a>.