I think i just fell in love with C1

[timmyquest]

You tell me, which looks better?

One was done with PS one was done with C1

http://www.questphotos.com/october2004/header.jpg

http://www.questphotos.com/october2004/header2.jpg

[timmyquest]

As i'm going through the 200 or so photos i took today i'm noticing how much FASTER this is then PS. If anything that is the largest advantage.

[maderito]

Timmy,

1. Did you post the same image twice?

2. Is that an Adobe RGB image you didn't convert to sRGB?

I know the answer to #1; I'm not sure about #2.

[timmyquest]

Timmy,

1. Did you post the same image twice?

2. Is that an Adobe RGB image you didn't convert to sRGB?

I know the answer to #1; I'm not sure about #2.

After comparing the images on the web to the images in PS i think that your assumption of #2 is most correct :oops:

I also noticed that i saved the "second" as a tiff...thus my website is defualting you to the 1st :oops: :oops: :oops:

Fixed now.

[maderito]

Time to check the quality control department at questphotos.com. :)

The first image is slightly warmer with slightly more saturated colors. The reds seem better rendered in #2. I'll guess #2 is C1.

C1 is addictive because the work flow lends itself to speed. I keep going back to it despite its many quirks, some of them very annoying.

[tofuboy]

The exposure (or brightness) is slightly different between the two. If none of that was changed in the post processing, then I like #2 better. If it was changed in the post processing then I have no preference.

[sGu]

C1 is addictive, too addictive in fact, its workflow blows PS away, after my C1 trial expired, I was devastated ... now i'm slowly getting to like DPP's workflow, until i save up enough for C1.

Anyone know Photo Mechanic's workflow? From what i know, it's Rob Galbraith's favourite RAW workflow, but never heard anyone else's using it.

Oh, Bible 4.0 is released(or will be very soon), that'll add another member into RAW processing program's family. :D

[cmM]

capture one is my choice. I don't have PSCS, so I can't compare. (I have PS 7)

C1 is great though.

[Scottes]

Yep, I'm desperately waiting for C1 to support the 20D. I've actually debated about going back to the 10D until I can use C1 again. PSCS/Breeze/DPP are all too painful after using C1 for a year.

[Jesper]

The second image has more contrast than the first. Probably the second one is from Capture One.

Are these both converted with the default settings?

If you tweak the settings a little bit, you can get the same result from Adobe Raw Converter as what you get from Capture One.

[vfilby]

Why is C1 so good? Is it really worth the money? I only shoot raw when I know that the photo will go into high res print or I know that if I don't get the photo my editor will kill me (I'll have to arrange with bob gross for his services during the wake!)

So I typically use pixort to quickly review all the images, check quality, focus and details. The interface allows me to do these quickly. I then select the best copy them to a working folder and use BB to create a web preview for my editor so he can select the photo.

I then convert the selected one using PSCS and edit. Isn't PSCS's raw decoder based off of dcraw.c and isn't that supposed to be superior to the canon raw? I believe that BB is also based off the dcraw code.

How could I benefit from C1? (forgive me I am very skeptical)

[timmyquest]

The biggest thing is speed. If you've ever done raw conversion in PS you realize how much of a pain in the ass it is.

C1 seems to get rid of all the speed issues related to PS.

[vfilby]

The biggest thing is speed. If you've ever done raw conversion in PS you realize how much of a pain in the ass it is.

C1 seems to get rid of all the speed issues related to PS.

OK, all my speed needs are met by pixort. For a given photo shoot I typically only have one photo that get's processed, so I don't mind the lag. If I am not shooting for money I usually don't bother with raw. For me raw is an "in case I screw up" safety net.

I certainly don't use the PSCS browser.... I tried that once.

[Jesper]

I then convert the selected one using PSCS and edit. Isn't PSCS's raw decoder based off of dcraw.c and isn't that supposed to be superior to the canon raw? I believe that BB is also based off the dcraw code.

As far as I know, Adobe Raw is indeed based on the dcraw.c code, but BreezeBrowser uses Canon's libraries for the RAW conversion (not the dcraw.c code).

[timmyquest]

The biggest thing is speed. If you've ever done raw conversion in PS you realize how much of a pain in the ass it is.

C1 seems to get rid of all the speed issues related to PS.

OK, all my speed needs are met by pixort. For a given photo shoot I typically only have one photo that get's processed, so I don't mind the lag. If I am not shooting for money I usually don't bother with raw. For me raw is an "in case I screw up" safety net.

I certainly don't use the PSCS browser.... I tried that once.

Well...then dont use it :?

If your happy with your workflow then more power to ya.

When i'm out shooting sports i shoot entirely in RAW. As a matter of fact, since i doubled my memory a few weeks ago i dont think i've been in jpeg since.

To each his own i say.

[tommykjensen]

Have You had a look at Bibble.

I tried C1 once but found it to be difficult to figure out how to use.

Have a look at Bibble, the pro version is cheaper than the C1 SE and PRO versions.


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45343&highlight=

[Jesper]

Timmy, have a look at Bibble too (see this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45343 )

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04101401bibble4.asp
http://www.bibblelabs.com/

I haven't tried it myself yet, but it does look really interesting.

[tommykjensen]

The biggest thing is speed. If you've ever done raw conversion in PS you realize how much of a pain in the ass it is.


Disagree with that. Maybe its just the speed of Your pc :wink:

[IanD]

The one detail that C1 has over PSCS Raw is that the conversion takes place in the background, allowing you to work on anoher file while it is processing. I use C1 on the desktop and PSCS on the laptop.

[vfilby]

As far as I know, Adobe Raw is indeed based on the dcraw.c code, but BreezeBrowser uses Canon's libraries for the RAW conversion (not the dcraw.c code).

It looks as if you are indeed correct. Bibble is also listed as a user on dcraw's website.

[timmyquest]

The biggest thing is speed. If you've ever done raw conversion in PS you realize how much of a pain in the ass it is.


Disagree with that. Maybe its just the speed of Your pc :wink:

For me i guess its a matter of ram. I have 1 gig of ram, if i want to work on 160 photos that i took at a football game then i have to go through them one at a time. Then PS loads the now adjusted raw photo into PS thus using up more ram.

After about 25 4mp images my computer starts to get really slow.

With C1 i have the ability to adjust the raw file, decide if its a keeper or not all without ever opening the actual file.

After i have my set of keepers, i can then process them; get up, go pee, come back and they are ready to be cropped and saved.

[tommykjensen]

With C1 i have the ability to adjust the raw file, decide if its a keeper or not all without ever opening the actual file.

After i have my set of keepers, i can then process them; get up, go pee, come back and they are ready to be cropped and saved.

This is now also possible with Bibble. I think C1 will get real competition from Bibble.

[jukas]

I have PSCS and and while use it for things like sharpening (final step) and some curves adjustments, I do almost everything else in C1.

I too love the speed, the ability to apply multiple processing changes (WB, exposure etc) to multiple images with 1 click and that fact that C1 doesn't touch my original RAW files. Here's how I normally handle my workflow

Download images from CF Reader into shooting specific folder.
Create SubFolder called Default Work
Import into C1.
Select all Images and Save All Capture Settings to the "Default Work" subfolder. (This allows me to easily revert to the default raw file for one or all of the images without sifting through all the .work files)
Apply any minor WB, EC and CC changes.
Do any minor level adjustment necessary
Batch Process the Images as 16bit TIFF files at 300DPI. (If I need a image immediately for proofing, I'll process a quick JPG)

I save all croping, major curves adjustments and sharpening to be done in Photoshop.

[ssim]

I have been converted into a C1 diehard.

When I started doing digital I started using the canon software which was incredibly slow in my opionion. I then went on to breezebrowser. This was pretty good for what I knew at the time. I also bought C1 around the same time but found it hard to get the hang of. Having spent the time to learn it's basics, I'll never go backwards. The ability to process in the background while you continue to work is great.

Most of the images that I now process only require conversion to jpg in PS.

I still do use breezebrowser but only if I want a quick look at the CR2 images.

[timmyquest]

With C1 i have the ability to adjust the raw file, decide if its a keeper or not all without ever opening the actual file.

After i have my set of keepers, i can then process them; get up, go pee, come back and they are ready to be cropped and saved.

This is now also possible with Bibble. I think C1 will get real competition from Bibble.

I will have to check it out.

[Tiger1]

:D I've read all of these posts a couple of times and have a couple of questions please:

:?: It seems that most process then crop. I read in a couple of books where a lot of folks crop all shots first and then process. It said that this saved time due to smaller images. Would like your opinions please.

:?: Have been reading about Adobe's DNG (Digital Negative) and the "common ground" format it would establish for the future. Does C1 and Bibble acknowledge this format yet and what are your opinions of DNG?

:D :D :D Thats it - Thanks for your help.

Gene

[Scottes]

I like to crop in C1 because it produces a smaller TIFF and a more accurate histogram. I don't think this is possible in PS CS though.

[jukas]

:?: It seems that most process then crop. I read in a couple of books where a lot of folks crop all shots first and then process. It said that this saved time due to smaller images. Would like your opinions please.


I got in the habit for processing then cropping back when I only used photoshop. Since C1 doesn't make any changes to the actual RAW file, I suppose I could easily do my cropping in C1, but still the habit remains.

[Tiger1]

:D Does Adobe Camera raw 2.3 allow for cropping before converting to PS CS?

I'll get PS CS upgrade with CR 2.3 tomorrow, but curious today. I think Jesper probably has experience eith this one.

Gene

[Scottes]

Does Adobe Camera raw 2.3 allow for cropping before converting to PS CS?

No, but it's kinda moot since you're already in Photoshop.


Speaking of cropping, I played around with Bibble last night, and realized that the Histogram is not representative of the crop area. No matter where or how much you crop the histogram stays the same. On Capture 1 the histogram reflects the crop area - this is something that I feel is more accurate and a feature that I really like.

[Tiger1]

:D Thanks Scott :D

I downloaded C1-LE trial for my 10D and found it difficult to learn. Maybe I'll just buy the LE package and give it a real try.

What do you thing of the Adobe DNG (digital negative) venture?

Thanks,

Gene

[Scottes]

What do you thing of the Adobe DNG (digital negative) venture?

For something like this I'm not a huge fan of standards. "Design by Committee" is generally sad. So the standards have extension which allow a manufacturer to add stuff, so their version is no longer standard for some features. (EXIF and MakerNotes, right?) Standards usually try to find common middle ground applicable to everyone, which usually works towards limiting the real cutting edge stuff.

Standards are fine for some things, like computer network communications and the diameter of a gasoline nozzle in a gas station. But when things don't need to work together - like Canon software on a Nikon image - then I'm not so supportive. It makes things easier for the middlemen (PS, Bibble, Breeze) but limits the leaders (Canon & Nikon).

I'd rather just see Canon/etc distribute the format in advance, allowing PS & Bibble & Breeze to have a version ready for the release of a new camera.

[Tiger1]

:D It certainlly seems that if you maintain a "copy" of your raw files that in 20 years or more you should be able to use them again. I wouldn't think that the use of raw capture will disappear and will always be useful with whatever program is current.

Gene

[Namagemo]

Scottes wrote: Speaking of cropping, I played around with Bibble last night, and realized that the Histogram is not representative of the crop area. No matter where or how much you crop the histogram stays the same. On Capture 1 the histogram reflects the crop area

Important info..Thanks!

:?: I am still using C1 Rebel limited to ~10 conversions at a time which for the most part is OK for me. Is there an advantage worth upgrading to C1 LE (or SE)? (~$30 until Nov ??)

[Scottes]

I am still using C1 Rebel limited to ~10 conversions at a time which for the most part is OK for me. Is there an advantage worth upgrading to C1 LE (or SE)? (~$30 until Nov ??)

To the best of my knowledge, to LE, absolutely not. I'm almost 100% positive that the only thing you'd get is the abiltity to process files from another camera like the 10D. You may also get 10 more files for batch (20 total) but is so I don't think that's worth $30.

Going to SE might have it's [slight] advantages but I don't really know for sure.

Here's a comparison chart for the real info rather than my guesses:
http://www.phaseone.com/upload/comparisonchart.pdf

[GregM5]

What about the loss of detail in the second image (such as in the legs of the shorts of the boy in the air) as opposed to the first image?

-Greg

[timmyquest]

Decided to try bibble, i like it alot!

[bibble]

Howdy! Just found this forum in my log 8)

Since someone mentioned it a few messages ago, Bibble is not based on Dcraw. Bibble uses a couple of davids routoines for reading a file or two, but thats it. Our fully optimized and color managed image pipeline has been being evoloved for 5 years now.

Bibble Supports most Canon Cameras including the 20D, and 1DS Mark II and runs equally well on Window, Macintosh or Linux. In addition to delivering the highest quality conversions, bibble has unmatched speed (at least 2x and sometimes 6x the other programs), and an extremely efficient workflow.

The Pro version also includes a raw plugin for Photoshop (7.0 and CS), and lite version has one that works with Elements (2.0 & 3.0).

All of this is available for a fraction of the price of C1. And If you already own C1, we are offering a competitive upgrade discount: http://www.bibblelabs.com/c1.html

Some of biblbe new neat features include advanced highlight recovery: http://www.bibblelabs.com/products/bibble/Highlights.html as well as more detail and fewer artifacts then the other guys: http://www.bibblelabs.com/products/bibble/detail.html

A fully functional trial version is always available on teh website. Give it a try! I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have when using it.

Thanks!
Eric
bibble@bibblelabs.com
www.bibblelabs.com (http://www.bibblelabs.com/)

[karusel]

I thought Breezebrowser rocks. After trying C1 pro, I would hate the idea of ever having to work in Breezebrowser again. Yeah, I must sound like some 'random' guy on TV stating how much his life changed since he started using this new blender, but it's true. C1 IS that good. I'm not saying it could not be better, but I'm just nitpicking and besides, I haven't yet upgraded to new version that I heard came/is coming out.

[MikeL117]

The first has considerably more detail, but that may simply down to to excessive application of contrast, noise reduction and sharpening, better highlight recovery and better shadow detail. The second has a better colour balance.
The obvious cloning artifacts in the second have nothing to do with my considerations :)

[toddb]

No one likes PS when they first use it. You have to be pretty committed to really fully understand how to use it because it's not easy mostly because it has too many options for someone just starting. I used C1 trial and never got used enough to it to like it so it's probably a preference thing. It's just that PS CS I can automate EVERYTHING and once you get that down, I think you'd really start to like PS allot more.

[timmyquest]

No one likes PS when they first use it. You have to be pretty committed to really fully understand how to use it because it's not easy mostly because it has too many options for someone just starting. I used C1 trial and never got used enough to it to like it so it's probably a preference thing. It's just that PS CS I can automate EVERYTHING and once you get that down, I think you'd really start to like PS allot more.

I've used PS for years, and i will not use it ever again for RAW conversion. That is all most of us are re fering to.

[toddb]

I thought it only fair to go back and give C1 LE another look. I think why I don't like it was mostly because I'm not use to the layout. I loaded a couple hundred raw files in a directory and see what I could do with them. First thing I notice is that it was creating 2MB preview files in the C1 preview directory, is that normal?

The first thing I wanted to try is to recover some highlight detail in a recent shot and had a real tough time with the controls (again probably because I didn't know what I was doing). The biggest thing that was making me a little impatient was the fact that every time I wanted to zoom in on an area, it had to recreate the preview which was slow....and in this zoom state, if I wanted to make a little change it had to again rerender the preview (is this normal, that would drive me mad I'd think?).

I think why C1 doesn't fit me because for me the RAW conversion is just one step in my total process. I have some specific tweaks that I just apply to a mass amount of files in the file browser under PS. When I want to make individual tweaks, I'll open the image in the RAW converter and instead of opening it, I just update the file and not open it so I don't see the process lag you do....I later batch process the entire lot of files when I'm done. I like to be able to have a one button action to process all raw files and auto create say a web gallery....or I do stuff with video so I will have them all processed for video work with certain size, crop, bw, boarders, or whatever.

I'm really not trying to say PS is way better then C1 because really they are two different animals. Maybe if I was just doing RAW conversions I would have a different perspective and that's all I'm trying to give here.

[karusel]

Um.. in C1 you can either click a button to process the photo you've just set up and in the meantime do the next one, or you can set up all the files you want to process and then click the process button, go for a coffee or a pizza (depends on the number of files) and that's it. Furthermore you can process those files again and this time specify lower resolution for web use.

Also, as far as I can remember, I actually didn't like photoshop at first, it was very confusing with all the options and whatnot, but that was like 10 years ago, now I think working in any other program of this kind would be a really bad call.