Photoshop CS2 Camera RAW or CaptureOne Pro

[Jonathan Consiglio]

Deleted

[René Damkot]

I think for most users C1LE is more then enough. Comes free with Sandisk Ultra III CF cards. (while the promo runs, dunno for how long).
I recommend etcetera profiles (http://etcetera.cc/pub/) for C1 by the way. With these profiles, C1 comes very, very close to the results DPP produces. Way better then C1 with the regular profiles or ACR color wise.

[JKSeidel]

Hmmm, to my poor eyes the ACR images have much better skin tones and the C1 images appear to have a green cast to the skin. The C1 images seem a bit more saturated. I'm not sure I see a significant enough difference to warrant $400+ (for the pro version) over free with PS. Especially since the ACR images seem a tad better to me.

[BrandonSi]

I use C1 exclusively.. I was able to integrate it into my workflow very easily. I love the results.. I've use aperture and the PSCS2 RAW converter, and I still prefer C1 for RAW conversion.. (though I love aperture for it's archiving capabilities!)

[sapearl]

Join the crowd - thought I had it figured out too, until they announced Lightroom.:rolleyes:

......I'm leaning towards going with C1 for RAW, and CS2 for selective editing, and things like that... So many options! I hate this!

[JKSeidel]

Now that Michael Jonsson is working for Adobe, I believe that the RAW capabilities, performance, and workflow advantages will swing to ACR/PSCS3 and/or Lightroom. Time will tell, but I'd be very cautious about going with any iteration of C1 until PSCS3 goes gold and evaluations can be made.

[yb98]

What did they say in the magazine about DPP 2.2 ?
I Suggest you give it a try. It's free and produces excellent results.

[Jonathan Consiglio]

I can't remember.. I'll need to find it and read it again.. Actually, I think it's a PDF file that I have on my computer.. I'll post back after I read it again..

[Lord_Malone]

Why don't more people just stick with using Canon's DPP? Is third party RAW workflow software that much better? I seem to be getting excellent results using DPP with Adobe CS2, though my knowledge of digital imaging software is limited to basic functions. Help me understand. :(

[sapearl]

DPP isn't bad really.... there is nothing wrong with it. I have the app but just wanted a little more of the "seamless" integration of ACR, Bridge and CS2 all linked together. I tend to be a minimalist with my s/w, installing only what I really use, and then trying to get good with that. I still keep DPP on my machine but for the time being use the other.

Lord, you seem to be getting a lot out of DPP and that's what really matters in the end. If you are happy with it, productive and getting good results, then that's the most important thing. ;)

Why don't more people just stick with using Canon's DPP? Is third party RAW workflow software that much better? I seem to be getting excellent results using DPP with Adobe CS2, though my knowledge of digital imaging software is limited to basic functions. Help me understand. :(

[Lord_Malone]

DPP isn't bad really.... there is nothing wrong with it. I have the app but just wanted a little more of the "seamless" integration of ACR, Bridge and CS2 all linked together. I tend to be a minimalist with my s/w, installing only what I really use, and then trying to get good with that. I still keep DPP on my machine but for the time being use the other.

Lord, you seem to be getting a lot out of DPP and that's what really matters in the end. If you are happy with it, productive and getting good results, then that's the most important thing. ;)

Yeah, but I'm always open to new things. I'm going to see if I can't download a trial version of the software and see what it can offer me over DPP. However, I'm done plunking down cash for software that I really only use minimally. I've had CS/CS2 for a while now, but find myself not really using it to it's full potential. Part of it is not having the time to really digest and learn the program.

[kevin_c]

DPP isn't bad really.... there is nothing wrong with it. I have the app but just wanted a little more of the "seamless" integration of ACR, Bridge and CS2 all linked together. I tend to be a minimalist with my s/w, installing only what I really use, and then trying to get good with that. I still keep DPP on my machine but for the time being use the other.

Lord, you seem to be getting a lot out of DPP and that's what really matters in the end. If you are happy with it, productive and getting good results, then that's the most important thing. ;)

Totally agree, if you are happy using it and get good results why change? - I personally get on better with C1 (LE version) but maybe it's just me...:confused:

DPP is very capable software and gives excellent conversions, one of the best out there IMO, but some people just don't like the interface (me included).

[Bodog]

Since the output of RAW converters is based to a large extent on user input, I really don't see how you can compare two and say the output of one is better. Theoretically at least they should all be capable of creating the exact same image. The difference is in the user interface, and what you are used to. I have used C1 for several years and really like the interface. I've also used ACR, DPP, Lightroom, SilkyPix, RAW Therapee and probably several others that I've forgotten. I keep going back to C1, not because I get better images, but because getting the image I want is just easier, since I'm so used to the interface. I really like Lightroom because it is very powerful and there are several things it can do that C1 cannot. Since it is free right now, I can switch back and forth, depending on what I am trying to to. Once I have to pay for it, then I'll have to decide if the added features are worth whatever Adobe decides to charge. Also SilkyPix is a great app and probably the equal of any of the main line converters. It's the only one that I know of that can white balance off skin tones, which is pretty cool. Again the interface is not the one I'm used to, so after the trial period I'm back to C1. It's just easier (for me).

[René Damkot]

Since the output of RAW converters is based to a large extent on user input, I really don't see how you can compare two and say the output of one is better. Theoretically at least they should all be capable of creating the exact same image.

Depends. I've tried DPP, RIT, ACR, Lightroom, C1Pro, C1LE and silkypix. And a few more I think.
There are (more or less) subtle differences. Most noticable in the way a highlight transitions to 'white'. For instance a spotlight with a colored gel can give quite some differences. Have a look. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=137974&highlight=converter)
C1 comes close when using ETCetera profiles, otherwise it's way behind DPP IMO.
ACR is worse IMO with skin colors.
Then again, I'm mostly in a low light environment with tungsten lighting, which seems to be more difficult for a raw converter then the avarage daylight shots...

I mostly use DPP, and use ACR, sometimes EVU, to do highlight recovery, which DPP doesn't do.

[sapearl]

Understandable Lord ;) . Everything does take lots and lots of time....

Working the wedding circuit, albeit part time, and processing quantities of wedding proofs has forced me to learn some of the techniques just to survive. There's still PLENTY more for me to learn. :rolleyes: - Stu

.......I'm done plunking down cash for software that I really only use minimally. I've had CS/CS2 for a while now, but find myself not really using it to it's full potential. Part of it is not having the time to really digest and learn the program.

[Bodog]

Rene, you probably right; I'm sure they all use different interpolation algorithms, But I still have to wonder, is the end difference you see due to the difference in the software, or were you just unable reach the same combination of settings in one to match the output of the other?

[sapearl]

Just sheer speculation on my part - but since they all have numerous control sliders that can be set in an almost infinite combination of "subjective" settings, I'm inclined to agree with you Bodog.

And as was pointed out earlier, some have more intuitive or "better" intefaces which will certainly affect how you achieve the end result. - Stu

Rene, you probably right; I'm sure they all use different interpolation algorithms, But I still have to wonder, is the end difference you see due to the difference in the software, or were you just unable reach the same combination of settings in one to match the output of the other?

[Titus213]

It has, so far, come down to workflow for me. I have DPP and use it on the laptop. It's OK. I have downloaded Lightroom and tried it and can not for the life of me see why I need it. I have CS2 and ACR fits into my workflow perfectly. With the CS3 Beta and ACR 4.0 (Which looks a whole lot like Lightroom to me), I find ACR even more useful. My goal is to get my images useable out of the raw converter. Since I don't accomplish that nearly as often as I would like it's kind of nice to be able to jump right into CS2(3) and try to fix the rest of my mistakes.

And the expense of all these packages is daunting. Unlike sapearl I am not a minimalist when it comes to software. I am a software collector but so far can't come even close to justifying expensive packages that just work marginally different from CS2/ACR.

[Lord_Malone]

Depends. I've tried DPP, RIT, ACR, Lightroom, C1Pro, C1LE and silkypix. And a few more I think.
There are (more or less) subtle differences. Most noticable in the way a highlight transitions to 'white'. For instance a spotlight with a colored gel can give quite some differences. Have a look. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=137974&highlight=converter)
C1 comes close when using ETCetera profiles, otherwise it's way behind DPP IMO.
ACR is worse IMO with skin colors.
Then again, I'm mostly in a low light environment with tungsten lighting, which seems to be more difficult for a raw converter then the avarage daylight shots...

I mostly use DPP, and use ACR, sometimes EVU, to do highlight recovery, which DPP doesn't do.

What did you think about Lightroom?

[Lord_Malone]

I just tried lightroom briefly. The interface doesn't seem as intuitive as DPP, but that may be just because I'm used it. Still it seems a little awkward for some reason. :confused:

I'll play around with it a little more, but I think I'll ultimately stick with DPP since it seems to be doing everything I need it to do. And I'll just stick with PS CS2 for all the other little minor tweaks.

[sapearl]

Makes a lot of good sense Lord..... it's all about what YOU are comfortable with and gives you the best, intuitive productivity.

Now, it will be interesting to see what CS3 gives us. I have not had time to play with the beta - also not really wild about putting "beta's" on my machine - but from what I've heard it looks like it should give us some really nice, better refined tools.

..........I'll play around with it a little more, but I think I'll ultimately stick with DPP since it seems to be doing everything I need it to do. And I'll just stick with PS CS2 for all the other little minor tweaks.

[sapearl]

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words :D .

I don't have to worry too much about overspending on extra stuff - some of my expenditures are subject to the "Dept. of Domestic Budget Approval" .....if you know what I mean. That usually makes me think things 3 and 4 times before whipping out the plastic.

Yeah, shoot more spend less..... don't let the tech distract you from the thing you REALLY love to do.;)

....
And.... as always, I love to hear from you, Mr. Pearl..

[Lord_Malone]

God, I spend way too much time on software and new cameras, and not nearly enough on my skill as a photographer.. When I'm not working, I'm focusing on technology.. Where are my priorities! I just love toys too much to not be obsessed with them!

And.... as always, I love to hear from you, Mr. Pearl..


I'm the exact opposite. I spend too much time learning how to improve my photographic technique, but don't spend enough time trying to improve my processing skills in the digital darkroom. lol

As long as I can post stuff like this on the web I'm happy. ;)

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8981/cag1300filtered1gt9.jpg

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/9373/cag1477filtered1jq3.jpg

[sapearl]

Nicely done Lord. - Stu

[René Damkot]

Rene, you probably right; I'm sure they all use different interpolation algorithms, But I still have to wonder, is the end difference you see due to the difference in the software, or were you just unable reach the same combination of settings in one to match the output of the other?

Both I'd say.
It should be possible to get rid of the typical ACR skin tones by using a custom curve or so in ACR. (like using the ETCetera profile in C1 helps a lot)
There is a difference in the way blown out highlights are handeled when you pull them back though: DPP just makes a uniform gray, where the other pieces of software still retrieve info out of the not blown channel(s).
For now, the easiest way for me is to use DPP mainly, and another converter for highlight recovery.

There was a good explanation on what used to be Rob Galbraiths forum, now ProPhoto home. You need to be a 'full member' to read it, which I'm not, but here (http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/raw-photo-processing-software-technique/65308-dpp-vs-c1-vs-acr-vs-lightroom-anyone.html) is the link.

Biggest drawback on DPP is the lack of IPTC support...

[Lord_Malone]

Both I'd say.
It should be possible to get rid of the typical ACR skin tones by using a custom curve or so in ACR. (like using the ETCetera profile in C1 helps a lot)
There is a difference in the way blown out highlights are handeled when you pull them back though: DPP just makes a uniform gray, where the other pieces of software still retrieve info out of the not blown channel(s).
For now, the easiest way for me is to use DPP mainly, and another converter for highlight recovery.

There was a good explanation on what used to be Rob Galbraiths forum, now ProPhoto home. You need to be a 'full member' to read it, which I'm not, but here (http://www.prophotohome.com/forum/raw-photo-processing-software-technique/65308-dpp-vs-c1-vs-acr-vs-lightroom-anyone.html) is the link.

Biggest drawback on DPP is the lack of IPTC support...

You processing gurus use technical terms that are still over my head. I suck. :(

[René Damkot]

ETCeterea profiles are a *lot* better (at least in my circumstances, and with my 1D2).
Don't have them, but a friend of mine has. I did the I test mentioned above (post #21) again, and the 'blue donut' was gone...

In the thread I mentioned in post #35 there should be an example. Don't know if it's still there though, I decided not to pay to remain a member of those forums, so I can't read even my own archived posts :evil: ... Maybe someone else here on POTN is a member there, and can have a look? (I know a few POTN members also used to frequent there).