C1 PRO vs PS CS RAW Plugin

[ingenus]

Anyone have any views on this? What does C1 Pro have that justifies the big price tag?
Thanks
Iain

[Scottes]

I've just been having a long discussion about BreezeBrowser versus Capture One and I think BB is on the losing end. But to compare it to PS CS.... I'd say that C1 has PS beat in the ability to process many images. I like to go through my images and delete the rotten ones. Then I go back through and I may compare several very similar shots, and/or process some nice ones. And then after all the bad ones are gone I may go through and process some more.

With C1 I can be tweaking an image while another is processing. Or I can just queue them up and hit process while I'm surfing the web. With PS CS you have to tweak the image, wait while it processes, then save it and close it unless you have tons of RAM or very few to process. With C1 I am never waiting - send an image to process and immediately start tweaking the next.

PS CS it's impossible to compare two images without processing them first. C1 gives you a nice side-by-side comparison of the RAW images.

Both PS and C1 take time to generate previews (PS's file browser). I don't like PS's file browser - it takes far too much CPU and almost locks up my system. If I want, in C1 I can click an image and start processing while it generates previews in the background. I don't think PS can do that.

C1 Pro is not worth the price tag unless you have a camera not supported by SE, which is probably not worth the money unless you have a camera not supported by LE. And LE is only $100. Comparison chart is here: http://www.c1dslr.com/upload/c1_comparison_002.pdf

I like C1. I don't not like to wait while software does something. I like background processing so I can continue to work.

[evilenglishman]

PSCS can handle batch processing just as well as, if not better than capture 1.
Breezebrowser produces better images than capture 1 in my experience. Capture 1 is not worth the money

[ssim]

I had been using breezebrowser for the past year and was then convinced to try C1. Never going back. I think that C1 does a better job. They both have their advantages but for image conversion from RAW to TIF I will gladly stay with C1 now.

[robekert]

Anyone have any views on this? What does C1 Pro have that justifies the big price tag?
Thanks
Iain

My 2 cents for what it is worth. First I have a Mac. BB is not avilable on Mac OS. That's out of the way. I like C1 a lot. I believe C1 is ready to break out with many refinements in the next version (4.0) to be released in the fall/04. I have no first hand knowlege to back up this statement. It is just a feeling, in reaction to some of the statements, from C1's US Rep. Michael Tapes. The current version has just been tweaked to work with the 1DMkII and some refinements were added.

One of the things that I like the most about C1 is the custom color profiles that are available for most cameras. They are from ETCETRA. This information can be found on Michael Tapes' site http://www.rawworkflow.com/index.html Michael is the US rep for C1. The company (C1) has made a few missteps in the past few months but they have made efforts to correct the faux pas'.

I like the way my images look when C1 converts them. Where I find a short fall is the sharpening and noise controls. I use PS CS to do this processing in my workflow. The product is expensive......but so was my 1D Mark II and so is "L" glass. Hey you can't take it with you :D

Cheers,
Rob

[ohenry]

Why not download the free trial copies of each and determine for yourself which one suits your needs. It doesn't cost a thing except your time to give them a try.

[Jesper]

Those profiles can be found on http://etcetera.cc/pub/ - But they are not free, so in addition to buying CaptureOne you'll need to pay again (around $30) if you want those extra profiles.

Note that there are a number of different versions of C1: C1 LE, SE and Pro. The LE version supports the 10D and 300D, for the 1D and 1D Mark II you need SE which is a bit more expensive, and the Pro version is the most expensive.

If you've got a 10D, there's little reason to get a more expensive version than LE.

[Hogleg 44]

Right now I am evaluating copies of both C1 and BBv210Alpha for the MkII.
So far I am not real happy with the colors I am getting from C1! But it is fast to use.
And with BB I can't seem to find a switch to allow me to change the parameters of a group pictures on an individual basis, and then process them all at one time. I can batch process a group of pics with one set of values, but if I want to have different settings on only one pic I have to convert it separately and wait before going to the next pic. I must be missing something here but I can't find it! I have had no help as yet from the BB Yahoo group?????
PSCS is ok but seems to be a slow process....I don't really want to run every pic through PS after converting it.
Unless I can find the answers that are eluding me on C1 and BB I think I will just use EVU for now. I like it better than DPP, I think?????

[who10]

PSCS can handle batch processing just as well as, if not better than capture 1.
Breezebrowser produces better images than capture 1 in my experience. Capture 1 is not worth the money

I would strongly suggest that you take advantage of C1's free trials. I use both a G4 Mac and a pent4 PC and have experience using BB, C1 LE, C1 PRO and PSCS. In no situation has PSCS ever made higher quality RAW conversions than C1 - in my own personal experience PSCS introduces noise and artifacts never present in my C1 conversions. For operability I would ditto Scottes comments.

"Worth the money" is a relative term. Buy what meets your needs and budget - I can process "production ready" images from C1 with no further processing, I cannot do that with the PSCS RAW converter at a level of quality I am happy with - that said, if I could only purchase one high end application I would choose BB to convert and PSCS for everything else. It is certainly possible that I don't maximize the full capacity of PSCS conversions - but that only means that C1's operation were easier for me to perfect.

Regarding "noise reduction" what I have noticed is that at ISO 400-1600 C1 outputs an image where Neat Image can best distinguish "noise" from detail (I agree that the noise reduction capabilities of C1 are inadequate but PSCS is no better). Regarding "moire" reduction, I find C1 better than anything else I've tried (although PS is very, very good).

Hope that helps... down load a trial, then decide if a C1 product is worth the money to you. If you can't/don't want to buy both - I would recommend PhotoshopCS because it's more versatile for end to end workflow.


David

[ingenus]

I should have said that I already use PSCS and have been reasonably happy with the RAW processing aspect. Before spending ages trying out C1, I just wanted to get the views of others here first.
Thanks
Iain

[CyberDyneSystems]

What Camera are you using?

I'd look at C1 SE for the "1" series of camera at haldf the cost of "pro" but if you have a 10D then look at the "LE" version.

I Definately think that for RAW convrsion C1 beats PSCS in most every aspect.

[evilenglishman]

PSCS can handle batch processing just as well as, if not better than capture 1.
Breezebrowser produces better images than capture 1 in my experience. Capture 1 is not worth the money

I would strongly suggest that you take advantage of C1's free trials. I use both a G4 Mac and a pent4 PC and have experience using BB, C1 LE, C1 PRO and PSCS. In no situation has PSCS ever made higher quality RAW conversions than C1 - in my own personal experience PSCS introduces noise and artifacts never present in my C1 conversions. For operability I would ditto Scottes comments.

"Worth the money" is a relative term. Buy what meets your needs and budget - I can process "production ready" images from C1 with no further processing, I cannot do that with the PSCS RAW converter at a level of quality I am happy with - that said, if I could only purchase one high end application I would choose BB to convert and PSCS for everything else. It is certainly possible that I don't maximize the full capacity of PSCS conversions - but that only means that C1's operation were easier for me to perfect.

Regarding "noise reduction" what I have noticed is that at ISO 400-1600 C1 outputs an image where Neat Image can best distinguish "noise" from detail (I agree that the noise reduction capabilities of C1 are inadequate but PSCS is no better). Regarding "moire" reduction, I find C1 better than anything else I've tried (although PS is very, very good).

Hope that helps... down load a trial, then decide if a C1 product is worth the money to you. If you can't/don't want to buy both - I would recommend PhotoshopCS because it's more versatile for end to end workflow.


David

Okay, firstly read my post again. I didn't say photoshop produced better images than capture 1 - i said breezebrowser does.
I've tried capture one and I trashed it.
Photoshop may (or may not) introduce a negligable amount of noise but capture 1 produces bands similar to a posterization effect on smooth gradients as a way of avoiding noise.
With capture 1 you cannot specific exact numbers on nearly all of the controls - you have to use sliders that only snap to specific numbers :roll:
Try specifiying exactly the same paramaters in photoshop, breezebrowser and c1 and see what happens.

[jrm]

I should have said that I already use PSCS and have been reasonably happy with the RAW processing aspect. Before spending ages trying out C1, I just wanted to get the views of others here first.
Thanks
Iain

If you already have PSCS, it becomes harder to justify the expense of C1. (Unless you have a PC and can get the real inexpensive version).

I also have PSCS, and downloaded the C1 demo. Wanted to see what everyone raves about. I found the interface very convoluted. It is the only program I have ever used that I could not figure out without a manual. In the end, I deleted it, never having processed a single image.

Still, there _must_ be something to C1 for it to have so many happy customers. I am making no comment on the quality of C1, just the cost and ease of use.

That said, if you have PSCS, there is a must have, free download - Dr. Brown's Image processor. The author works (worked?) for Adobe. You can get it here...

http://www.russellbrown.com/

Also check out the "tutorial video" on the site for more info on how it works. This will fill any holes in PSCS's ability to batch process pictures. I find it invaluable. (No affiliation with the product).

[theoldmoose]

The difference in C1's flow is *background* processing. So far, no other RAW converter has done this. Even though you can 'batch' process in PS CS, you can't do anything else with PS CS while it is grinding through all those images.

In C1, you can tweak parameters on a single image or a group of them, insert them into the development queue, and continue doing your work on other images, or for that matter, you can re-tweak the same ones and re-insert them in the queue. The parameters are bound to the image at the time they are inserted into the development queue, and if you develop an image more than once, C1 is smart enough to tack on a numeric suffix to the name to keep them separate. So, for exposure latitude enchancement, you can process two copies of the same image at +1 and -1 EC, and combine them afterwards in PS CS, using the combined layers trick. Oh yeah, tweaks to the preview are instantaneous, thanks to a super-fast preview format used by C1. It takes a few minutes to generate all the previews on a large RAW folder initially, but after that, everything runs like greased lightning.

Also, C1's user interface, while probably being a bit arcane, actually is far more useable than say, PS CS's RAW converter plug-in-like interface. In PS CS, every time you open a RAW, it pops up a modal dialog that prevents you from interacting with anything else except the RAW you are fooling with, until you hit 'OK' or 'Cancel'. That's just plain annoying, if you are used to something like C1, which has everything all available at all times on a single desktop, letting you move back and forth from previews, to tweaking, to developing, etc., etc., without searching for buried windows, etc.

With all that said, I'm still waiting for PhaseOne to produce a cleaned-up version of C1 without all the various dumb useability bugs and image warts that it seems to have. The promised v3.5.1 bug fix release is due out any day, now. P1 just released the Mac version yesterday, in fact. In general, I use it as my first line of image processing, but there are certain classes of images that just don't look good in C1 no matter what I do, and for those, I have resorted (so far) to Canon's FVU/EVU stuff, or I struggle with the PS CS RAW converter.

I admit that I'm least familiar with PS CS's RAW converter, but I have found it rather uncomfortable to work with, so far, so it kind of discourages me from experimenting too much with it when I'm trying to get something useful done.

In the meantime, I continue to shoot everything RAW, and archive all original images, against the time that someone finally manages to put out a decent RAW converter that combines both excellent user interface/workflow and excellent image output.

Well, one can wish, can't they?

Oh, yeah. To see images done with C1's 'quickproof' downsized JPEG output, take a look at: http://www.pbase.com/theoldmoose
Look in the Field Day 2004 folder. All shots there were taken RAW, with a Digital Rebel. Some show noise, because they were shot at ISO 1600 (the last one, for instance, taken at ISO 1600 handheld with the 50mm f1.8 MKII under available light). If I re-process the image with the regular development under C1, a lot of the noise is cleaned up automatically. Apparently, one of the things that quickproof does is dispense with some of the more time-consuming noise reduction operations.

[Hogleg 44]

Could that that be my cousin, Paul L. Valentine in the white Cap in the first group???

[jrm]

The difference in C1's flow is *background* processing. So far, no other RAW converter has done this. Even though you can 'batch' process in PS CS, you can't do anything else with PS CS while it is grinding through all those images.

Excellent point. Since this is something that doesn't matter to me, I never even considered it. I generally go through the images, make the settings and then batch process in PSCS (via Dr. Brown's Image processor). My system is very responsive on _other_ task while this is happening, so I just "hide" PSCS and do something else. I never even thought about using PSCS for something else while this is happening, so never realized the shortcoming. Thanks for pointing that out.

The difference in interface between PSCS and C1 is really a user preference issue. I have no problem with (and prefer) the PS interface. I know others prefer the C1.

As a "hobbyist photographer" Mac user with a full version of PSCS (and year of experience with PS) the choice was made simple by the pricing structure of C1. They do not have an inexpensive DRebel version for mac, so I would have to pay several hundred dollars for the software. (Windows users have an inexpensive version available).

I am happy with the PSCS results - I would rather put that several hundred towards a new flash/lens/etc. I think that would get me better results in the long run.

On the other hand, if I could get the "low cost" C1 version ($39???) I would buy it in a second. Based on the positive reviews C1 gets, it is a no-brainer at that cost.

--Joe

[Scottes]

Joe you might want to check out PhaseOne.com. They just released some new Mac versions - I got the email yesterday. But I *think* that their cheapest version is $100.

[jrm]

Joe you might want to check out PhaseOne.com. They just released some new Mac versions - I got the email yesterday. But I *think* that their cheapest version is $100.

Very cool... you are right. They now have C1 LE for OS X at $99. Much more attractive than previous offerings.

::required complaint:: why does it have to take so many clicks just to find out the price? ::complaint mode off::

Time to download the demo and see see if I can actually process some images this time. Thanks for the info.

[Scottes]

Joe,

Don't kill yourself - run through the tutorial on how to use it. It is weird at first, no doubt.

[jrm]

Well, I came back from vacation with around 1,000 photos and installed C1LE to give it a shot.

First off, I am very pleased with the interface improvements. I was able to process images quickly and relatively easy. This is much better than the previous version I tried.

Still, I find PSCS easier to use. Most everything I need/use is on one "panel" (Exposure, Shadow, Saturation, WB, "previous image" setting).

PSCS also has a more accurate (and iIMO easier to use) "clipping" warning. C1 makes you turn the clipping on/off with a button. It also does not give you realtime accuracy when moving sliders. PSCS shows clipping in realtime and is simply activated/deactivated by holding the "option" key while moving the slider. Granted, C1 allows you to see the clipped areas when not moving the sliders, and PSCS does not.

The C1 workflow does have some advantage over PSCS. I love how you can hit "Process" and just have the output saved to a folder. In PSCS, you are forced to open the file and save manually. Sure, this can be batch scripted in PSCS (which is how I do it) but C1 provides a much more elegant process. C1 also seems quicker.

I processed several images in both PSCS and C1LE. Based on the talk here, I was really expecting C1 to kick some butt. (My credit card was in hand, ready to drop the $99). I was disappointed.

PSCS produced output that was clearly better than C1LE (I had both programs output jpeg files and did not alter them further). Maybe it was the content of my images. Maybe it was that I am more familiar with the workings of Photoshop vs. C1. Still, the difference was noticeable. PSCS preserved more detail and looked better.

That being said, C1 has IMHO a killer feature. Ironically, I liked it so much that it is why I will not purchase the program...

Crop and rotate.

Until I tried C1, I had no idea how useful a crop tool could be at that point in the workflow. Brilliant idea.

The problem is that the documentation also references the rotate tool. After searching for this feature, I found it is only available in the much more expensive version.

As it turns out, rotation is absolutely necessary for me. While I would like to blame it on the boat, I fear it is me that has a tendency to skew the horizon. Since I will have to open (you don't want to know how many) pictures to rotate anyway, it makes more sense to do any cropping then. If C1 offered rotation in the LE version, they would have my money right now and I would be figuring out how to get the output to look as good as I can with PSCS (which I am sure it can).

Thanks for all the tips and help. I will continue to play with the demo version, anticipating the day that rotation makes it to the LE version.

[drisley]

I've used zoombrowser, breezebrowser, photoshop cs, and C1 Pro.

In my opinion, C1 Pro offers the best quality images, especially when it comes to noise. Photoshop CS offers the noisiest images, and produces some wierd artifacting when zoomed up (I'm not the only one that notices this).
Color tweaking, etc, all are better on C1 Pro, again that's in my opinion.
I find setting batch white balance, exposures, etc, to be easiest on C1 Pro.
For me C1 Pro is the best option, but you have to find the tool that YOU like best.

[Pekka]

PSCS also has a more accurate (and iIMO easier to use) "clipping" warning. C1 makes you turn the clipping on/off with a button. It also does not give you realtime accuracy when moving sliders. PSCS shows clipping in realtime and is simply activated/deactivated by holding the "option" key while moving the slider. Granted, C1 allows you to see the clipped areas when not moving the sliders, and PSCS does not.

Odd, my C1 (3.5 pro) shows the clipping warning in realtime when you move any slider. And you can finetune the threshold when clipping warning will occur.

[jrm]

Odd, my C1 (3.5 pro) shows the clipping warning in realtime when you move any slider. And you can finetune the threshold when clipping warning will occur.

C1 does show a warning in realtime, it is just not accurate. When I move a slider the clipping warning gets "blocky." After I release the mouse button, the "warning" resolves into an accurate representation of the clipped areas.

Not better or worse than PS - just different. Being used to PS -which is reatime accurate while dragging sliders, I find this behavior in C1 annoying. Of course, PS only displays the warning while sliders are being moved, so C1 does have that advantage. The adjustable threshold (whille something that doesn't appeal to me) is another benefit of C1.

[jrm]

I've used zoombrowser, breezebrowser, photoshop cs, and C1 Pro.

In my opinion, C1 Pro offers the best quality images, especially when it comes to noise. Photoshop CS offers the noisiest images, and produces some wierd artifacting when zoomed up (I'm not the only one that notices this).
Color tweaking, etc, all are better on C1 Pro, again that's in my opinion.
I find setting batch white balance, exposures, etc, to be easiest on C1 Pro.
For me C1 Pro is the best option, but you have to find the tool that YOU like best.

The higher quality of C1 exactly what I had heard about and expected. That is why I was so surprised that PS produced images that were so obviously better (In my tests). While I like the results PS produces in general, I am always on the lookout for a tool that can do better (and make my look like a better photographer). :)


As to the interface differences, I agree completely. Different strokes for different folks. This is not a one size fits all area. In either case, C1 seems to have made big imporvements in interface design.

When I get the chance, I will try C1 on some other types of images, including some low light shots that are prone to noise. It would be a nice additional tool to have around - I just need to find it's "sweet spot."

[theoldmoose]

Well, I'm still waiting for C1 to release their 3.5.1 for PC, hopefully with some of the worst bugs fixed. In the meantime, I continue to use the older (now unavailable) 1.3.1 Digital Rebel version, because the current crop of bugs in 3.5 as reported on their support forum are too nasty for me to want to deal with.

In the meantime, on the PS CS front, I've been pouring through the book, "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS", by Bruce Fraser. It's a gold mine of information about PS CS's ACR processing (how's that for a mint of acronyms? :lol: ), and promises to show me how to automate and/or batch a number of operations by the time I finish the book.

For anyone that is thinking about using PS CS's ACR, it is a 'must read'.

[ingenus]

OK guys, I think one of the problems causing the effect I posted about earlier is that - even after taking all your advice on profiles - C1 seems to interpret the colour temp in the raw files differently to PS CS. It always seems to be about 400-500 K higher. How is this possible?

Two (highly zoomed) examples of the 2 interpretations of the same image (with color temp corrections made to be the same) are:

http://freespace.virgin.net/iain.mackenzie/C1.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/iain.mackenzie/ps.jpg

What do you think?

[evilenglishman]

Color tweaking, etc, all are better on C1 Pro, again that's in my opinion.

please explain how they are better considering that you cannot specify exact numbers?

[theoldmoose]

I *do* find the C1 tabbed all-in-one type of interface more 'flowful', so to speak.

However, things like not being able to type in temps, etc. and some other user interface oversights/bugs are just maddening.

[drisley]

Although this isnt a comparison of C1 and PS, it is a comparison of Zoombrower and C1 Pro from DP Review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page15.asp

"As you can see there is very little resolution difference between the in-camera JPEG and that produced by Canon's FileViewerUtility, although sharpening artifacts are fewer and the image may be a little 'cleaner'. Phase One's superb Capture One Pro converter however managed to squeeze a little extra from the file and delivers visibly more resolution as well as no discernible sharpening artifacts"