Lightroom vs. C1 Pro - What I found. Do you agree?

[aaronrider]

Ok, so I have been doing a ton of testing lately with Lightroom 2.0 Beta and Capture One Pro (because I need to buy something soon), and I noticed some big differences between both of them when it comes to color production. C1 Pro produces WAY cleaner/ more realistic colors then LR. This is especially good when I'm shooting sports (Motocross). At the same time, LR makes it easy to get good/rich skin tones when shooting people pictures. People pictures really do look a TON better in LR after a couple slight adjustments. However, if I try converting anything that requires realistic/ clean colors, LR ALWAYS adds wierd color casts compared to C1 Pro. As of now I can't get the best of both worlds in a single converter. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but this is what I have been finding. I know that C1 Pro has a crappy interface and less options compared to LR (Which sucks), but I am more concerned about which program gives better results. Can anyone backup my findings? I know it sounds strange, but I'm pretty sure that I'm Just going to buy both raw converters. haha.

[HankScorpio]

I use C1 4 (not pro) as well as LR and C1 produces much nicer images for much less work in my opinion. I pretty much import all photos into lightroom, pick out the best of the keepers and throw them into C1 and run the rest through lightroom.

[Victoria Bampton]

Hold off for the moment Aaron. Wait and see what's in the LR2 final release, and your decision may change. But I do know what you mean.

[Bobster]

its weird, i find C1 has the better interface, is faster, and gives better results compared to LR..

my work flow is Pixort, C1, Photoshop

[René Damkot]

Have you set anything in the "calibrate" tab in LR?
Do you use DNG? (AFAIK C1-4 has a problem with that, but I haven't used / read about it for a while).

[blinded]

Yes, Lightroom (well really ACR, what it's based on) has bad color. You can calibrate it but it won't really be true. I've never really liked Capture One either. Super expensive and consistently the slowest to convert RAWs in all reviews I've seen. There's something smug and elitist about Phase One as a company too, so I don't like them. Just wait for Lightroom v2. It will finally have correct color and better camera profiles, rather than the v4.4/(original profile) in the calibration tab. I've heard about it multiple times and last when Adobe was at the Microsoft Pro Photo Expo.

[gef]

I downloaded the trail of Capture One as I find myself becoming unhappy about the colours in lightroom. I compared C1 to DPP and found them to be very close to one another. I ask my wife what she found to be more natural and/or correct colour and she picked C1. I hear LR2 is suppose to correct this, but I have no idea when I can expect the next version, and whether it will be good enough. Would have been nice to see a beta that reflected this update so I can compare the two. For now I'll run with the trail of C1 and see how I feel at the end of it...

[Beaufort 12]

For me, Lightroom's skin tones are the worst, its detail rendering is bad, and the colors flat and lifeless. The controls can't match the amount of control you have with DPP, for example, especially the RGB tab's curves.

I have been working with Lightroom intensively for over a year and am ditching it now. For me, it's the most overhyped piece of... software. Adobes powerful marketing machine (based on the fame of the great Photoshop software) and grassroots marketing in the forums have given it a better stance than it deserves.

The upgrade of Lightroom will not change this, except they rebuild Adobe Camera Raw. Which is not likely to happen, as Adobe people think so highly of themselves they would never think Camera Raw isn't great.

I have not used C1 yet, but hearing from quality concerned photographers I know, it stands head and shoulders above Lightroom, as does DPP.

Many people mistake the workflow abilities of Lightroom with image quality. Lightroom starts out from a flawed source - a bad RAW conversion. No amount of features can change that.

Oh - I seem to have gotten angry here...

But I didn't want to! I got. Oh, no! I want to get back to my peaceful life. I have an idea! I forget about Lightroom!


Well, I'm grinning now, as I work with DPP. And I will take a look at Capture One Pro.

[Beaufort 12]

I compared C1 to DPP and found them to be very close to one another.

I hear that, too.

Some say, C1 has better detail rendering, but I have yet to see that.

I'm sure both C1 and DPP are great pieces of software.

I also heard the best about C1 pro's organization of the editing process (see, I'm trying to avoid the word "workflow". Maybe it makes me a better person).

[Beaufort 12]

Yes, Lightroom (well really ACR, what it's based on) has bad color. You can calibrate it but it won't really be true. I've never really liked Capture One either. Super expensive and consistently the slowest to convert RAWs in all reviews I've seen. There's something smug and elitist about Phase One as a company too, so I don't like them. Just wait for Lightroom v2. It will finally have correct color and better camera profiles, rather than the v4.4/(original profile) in the calibration tab. I've heard about it multiple times and last when Adobe was at the Microsoft Pro Photo Expo.

What are you using right now? DPP?

[gef]

I may have to consider DPP again... I am also thinking about Bibble 5, but I don't know when that's due, I don't like version 4 interface and that turned me off it. But I may try it again. In the end it's the quality of the output that matters, LR can have all the bells it wants, but if I dislike the output, well it's not much use to me.... Time will tell if LR2 changes my option....

[aaronrider]

Cool. So it looks like im not crazy after all :)

[davidcrebelxt]

Just wait for Lightroom v2. It will finally have correct color and better camera profiles, rather than the v4.4/(original profile) in the calibration tab. I've heard about it multiple times and last when Adobe was at the Microsoft Pro Photo Expo.


What did you hear, anything new in particular?

[Beaufort 12]

Cool. So it looks like im not crazy after all :)

Too bad. You're missing out on a lot.

[Beaufort 12]

What did you hear, anything new in particular?

You hear these tips about the calibration panel a lot, but they are, in my opinion, a web story.

If the conversion is flawed - and in Lightroom it is - you can calibrate the heck out of your camera. It won't help.

Also, so I heard, camera calibration is best for controlled light conditions, like in a studio, and the more light changes, the less advantage you have from it.

[René Damkot]

It won't help.

I agree it's not perfect, but is sure helps...

I'll believe LR2 does better when I see it, but I'm willing to wait untill I see it, before dismissing it outright ;)

[Mike55]

Try Silkpix. Make sure you download the trial though and not the free version. In the trial version you can lower the demosaic sharpening to zero to see what the files look like without sharpening in it's converter. I have found Silkypix to be a notch better than DPP even. It also has a great DR recovery tool, which DPP does not. The only problem I have with Silkypix is the workflow is not as good as DPP or LR. But in terms of IQ, it's great. And supposedly they lean towards the Canon side of things in terms of RAW conversion. I tried C1, but did not like the IQ compared to DPP and SilkyPix. Seriously, if you are worried about colors and like DPP but want better dynamic range tools, get Silkypix:

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/

[Mike55]

I agree it's not perfect, but is sure helps...

I'll believe LR2 does better when I see it, but I'm willing to wait untill I see it, before dismissing it outright ;)


If LR2 improves it's IQ to DPP or SilkpyPix level I will rush out and buy it.

[blinded]

from http://twitter.com/bruceww (what interested me most):

eric chan from adobe..new raw processing with DNG 1.2, better warm tone rendering, camera matching profiles,profile editor,avail soon.

image debluming from msft research...removes blur...unsharp mask on steroids with no visible "ringing"..

bibble pro 5 beta..raw processing...16 core amd machine..it's fast if you need it!

jpeg xr, more correctable, half file size with same compression quality, progressive decoding

[davidcrebelxt]

You hear these tips about the calibration panel a lot, but they are, in my opinion, a web story.

If the conversion is flawed - and in Lightroom it is - you can calibrate the heck out of your camera. It won't help.

Also, so I heard, camera calibration is best for controlled light conditions, like in a studio, and the more light changes, the less advantage you have from it.

That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the rumored (confirmed rumor) that color will be better in next ACR/LR.

[PixelMagic]

Some of the opinions in this thread are simply laughable. The opinions on software from someone who can't do a basic task like saving a TIFF file have got to be taken with more than just a grain of salt.

[Mike55]

from http://twitter.com/bruceww (what interested me most):

eric chan from adobe..new raw processing with DNG 1.2, better warm tone rendering, camera matching profiles,profile editor,avail soon.

image debluming from msft research...removes blur...unsharp mask on steroids with no visible "ringing"..

bibble pro 5 beta..raw processing...16 core amd machine..it's fast if you need it!

jpeg xr, more correctable, half file size with same compression quality, progressive decoding


LR2 is out, so I guess we will see. You can download the trial version of LR2 tonight.

[davidcrebelxt]

LR2 is out, so I guess we will see. You can download the trial version of LR2 tonight.

After initial install, I don't see any improvement... maybe a setting somewhere? (Or maybe I need to to PURCHASE a profile. :confused:)

Or perhaps they're launching LR2 without the new ACR... <sigh> That makes me think it could be a ways off still... here's hoping I'm just missing something. Think I'm gonna go to bed and let you guys hash this thing out till tomrrow.

[Mike55]

After initial install, I don't see any improvement... maybe a setting somewhere? (Or maybe I need to to PURCHASE a profile. :confused:)

Or perhaps they're launching LR2 without the new ACR... <sigh> That makes me think it could be a ways off still... here's hoping I'm just missing something. Think I'm gonna go to bed and let you guys hash this thing out till tomrrow.


I do notice an improvement. Detail is still not DPP level but color seems better IMHO.

[davidcrebelxt]

I do notice an improvement. Detail is still not DPP level but color seems better IMHO.

Note: there are profiles to download from adobe to get improved color in LR2... after installing them I see a big difference!

[Victoria Bampton]

Here's the link: http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles

[Mike55]

The graduated filter in LR2 is one of the most amazing tools I've seen.

[blinded]

Anybody want to post some examples? like old profile jpeg vs new profile?

[Mike55]

Anybody want to post some examples? like old profile jpeg vs new profile?

Check it out. Read the post a couple notches down by Victoria. All the download info:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=544277&page=2

I can tell you there is very little difference between DPP and LR exported jpegs now when viewed in Photoshop. However, I still hate how crappy nature landscape images look in lightrooms preview window. The exported file is much nicer.

[Victoria Bampton]

You shouldn't be seeing a difference between the exported one and the LR preview Mike.

[Mike55]

You shouldn't be seeing a difference between the exported one and the LR preview Mike.

Quite a difference in sharpness and detail. I'd be happy to post some screen samples. Probably an issue with the preview resizing mechanism.

[Mike55]

LR2 preview:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/Lr2preview.jpg

LR2 exported jpeg:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/LR2exported.jpg


All of my nature landscape images look terrible in the LR preview window. That's one of the reasons why I never jumped into the program. I never knew what I was really getting until I exported unlike DPP or Silky.

When exported, they look much nicer. The trees in the preview image are awful, as is the grass in front. It looks like it was taken with a very cheap lens. The exported jpeg has very nice fine detail and is far superior. It's probably a bug with LR's preview resizing. You would think they would want the preview images to look a little nicer ;) It's not as big of a problem for portraits or product photography. But for nature landscapes with trees and all sorts of fine detail and tought light, it's much more apparent.

[Victoria Bampton]

Sharpening isn't applied to Develop preview unless you zoom into 1:1 - but if you zoom into 1:1 and then view it in Loupe mode, you do get to see if with sharpening applied.

[Mike55]

Sharpening isn't applied to Develop preview unless you zoom into 1:1 - but if you zoom into 1:1 and then view it in Loupe mode, you do get to see if with sharpening applied.


Sharpening was not applied in either example.

[René Damkot]

Yes it was, since the sliders aren't at zero in the first screenshot. So the exported jpg was sharpened ;)

[Mike55]

Yes it was, since the sliders aren't at zero in the first screenshot. So the exported jpg was sharpened ;)

Those are the default settings and make no real difference. I also exported jpegs from DPP and SilkyPix with no sharpening applied and all exports looked identical except for slight color variations.

Adobe has never had the nicest looking downsizing(for landscapes at least), which is what's going on in the preview mode.

[René Damkot]

Those are the default settings and make no real difference.

View the image in "Develop" at 100%, and switch the "detail" tab on/off.
Then see again it doesn't make a difference :rolleyes:

[Mike55]

View the image in "Develop" at 100%, and switch the "detail" tab on/off.
Then see again it doesn't make a difference :rolleyes:


It really doesn't. 25 on a 1.0 radius isn't much for a full size image. ;)

Plus, a simple light sharpening would not cure what plagues the preview image. That's been downsized and rendered mushy with a heavy loss of detail. The actual file itself is fine.

[Beaufort 12]

LR2 preview:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/Lr2preview.jpg

LR2 exported jpeg:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/LR2exported.jpg


All of my nature landscape images look terrible in the LR preview window. That's one of the reasons why I never jumped into the program. I never knew what I was really getting until I exported unlike DPP or Silky.

When exported, they look much nicer. The trees in the preview image are awful, as is the grass in front. It looks like it was taken with a very cheap lens. The exported jpeg has very nice fine detail and is far superior. It's probably a bug with LR's preview resizing. You would think they would want the preview images to look a little nicer ;) It's not as big of a problem for portraits or product photography. But for nature landscapes with trees and all sorts of fine detail and tought light, it's much more apparent.

I don't think there's a difference between preview and image. Lightroom is a WYSIWYG application. The awful skin tones are really that awful in Lightroom.

If you have differences between screen images and output, maybe you need to check your screen calibration.

[Picture North Carolina]

There's something smug and elitist about Phase One as a company too, so I don't like them.

IMHO, arrogant, obnoxious, uncommunicative, unsupportive, and contemptuous are more accurate descriptions of Phase One. I won't even begin to relate the story of the frustrating product upgrade catastrophe I experienced with this uncommunicative company. The final outcome? I fired their rearends. They're gone. Kaput!

(P.S. - I didn't like their product while using it, either. One of the least intuitive, hardest-to-learn, poorly thought out and designed, least user-friendly interfaces I have seen in any application, let alone image processing software.)

Edit: I should point out that I use the above adjectives to describe my personal opinions of Phase One, the company and not the personnel.

[Bobster]

swings and roundabouts, i think they've put a lot of thought into the layout, using tabs is much quicker than lightrooms scroll up and down approach..

[gef]

While I find the UI of Capture One... clunky, I do like the output... I need to give LR2 and C1 a run and see if LR has improved the output enough to stay. In the end as much as I prefer the UI if LR if the results are poor then what's the point of using it..... I wish Bibble 5 was out so I could compare the UI and output as it's another program I would consider.... I like what I see so far...

[HankScorpio]

I've never had an issue with Phase One. They've always been helpful and open when I've dealt with them.

[Picture North Carolina]

swings and roundabouts, i think they've put a lot of thought into the layout, using tabs is much quicker than lightrooms scroll up and down approach..

Well, I cannot say. I do not use LR, so a comparison would not be possible. I find the C1 interface poorly designed when compared to other tools. I designed software for years and perhaps my impatience with bad interfaces derives from that.

But ultimately, I think the comments others are making here are the most important, and that is that the final image output is the most important factor. If a piece of software produces kickin' output, people will learn to use it no matter how poorly-designed the UI is. However, I've noticed that Capture One does not enjoy the favoritism it did a couple of years ago. There are many voices that now say that competing products have competed up to, and perhaps surpassed the C1 results.

[Picture North Carolina]

BTW, how come SilkyPix is rarely mentioned in forum chatter? I've read reviews that judge it among the best. Apparently slow, but excellent quality output.

[Mike55]

BTW, how come SilkyPix is rarely mentioned in forum chatter? I've read reviews that judge it among the best. Apparently slow, but excellent quality output.

It's IQ is amazing but it's very slow and is not optimized.

[Mike55]

I don't think there's a difference between preview and image.


Do you wear glasses at all? There's a large difference between the two. The first looks like it suffers from some sort of downsizing softness.


If you have differences between screen images and output, maybe you need to check your screen calibration.

It's good to go. DPP does the same thing. It's just a lower quality preview image.

[Beaufort 12]

Do you wear glasses at all?

No, I throw them against the wall!

[Beaufort 12]

However, I've noticed that Capture One does not enjoy the favoritism it did a couple of years ago. There are many voices that now say that competing products have competed up to, and perhaps surpassed the C1 results.

I have heard the exactly opposite thing.

People with quality in mind turn to C1 pro, and they rate not only its IQ, but also its "workflow" the best.

Everyone has to see for himself, and I'll be giving C1 Pro its testrun in the coming weeks.

Lightroom is a typical ease of use-application with middling to less than middling quality.

Regarding hearsay, you need to hear the soloists more, and the chorus less.

Just like at the opera.

[Irreverent]

Do you wear glasses at all? There's a large difference between the two. The first looks like it suffers from some sort of downsizing softness.



I don't wear glasses and I really don't see a jot of difference between the two.

They both look pretty flat and unsaturated to me, but in terms of detail, as far as I can tell they're identical.

Did you resize the images to get them up here? Also, just to confirm you haven't got any output sharpening turned on in your export options.

As far as I can tell, LR uses whole magnification factors, so there rarely should be many issues with preview scaling, unless you are somehow using some weird arbitrary view ratio.

[dave_bass5]

I think a quick look on the PO forums will tell you how much the Pro's are hating the latest version fo C1 V4.
Seeing as it is only a lite version and the pro version is over a year late already IIR to me it seems that while C1's output was fantastic the current version of the program is not being used by pro's as much as C1 V3.7.9 pro is but thats now a very old program. Not sure it supports all the latest RAW files.

Personally i loved C1 V3.7.x and when i had to switch to V4 i was still happy with it. But then LR2 beta came out and seemed to do more for me that C1 did.
In the end it was the very poor customer handling that PO gives that made me un install C1. They wont give anything away, just seem to be relying on their once, great reputation while loads of tier customers are complaining about the situation where we dont have a pro version and it seems we wont get one for a while.

PO are now too far behind IMHO and LR2 is now much better, especially now we have the new profiles.

[Picture North Carolina]

It's IQ is amazing but it's very slow and is not optimized.

Yes, the reviews of SilkyPix did say it was slow. However, my workflow is not that of a wedding or event shooter, so production speed is not a big issue.

What do you mean by "not optimized?"

[Picture North Carolina]

Regarding hearsay, you need to hear the soloists more, and the chorus less.

Not heresay, but personal experience. Perhaps you missed my previous post above that briefly mentioned I have used it. I owned it and used it, but gave up on it when I went thru a hellish session with abysmal customer support trying to upgrade.

And to be honest, I did not find the image quality superior either. I have read reviews that state the same thing.

[HKGuns]

I'm just an amateur, but I find Capture One 4, the light version, very useful, fast and produces amazing image quality. Best money spent on SW so far.

[Beaufort 12]

PO forums

PO forums?

Pederast Orphans?

Proletarian Onanism?

Picture Oratory?

Phase One?

[Beaufort 12]

I think a quick look on the PO forums will tell you how much the Pro's are hating the latest version fo C1 V4.
Seeing as it is only a lite version and the pro version is over a year late already IIR to me it seems that while C1's output was fantastic the current version of the program is not being used by pro's as much as C1 V3.7.9 pro is but thats now a very old program. Not sure it supports all the latest RAW files.

Personally i loved C1 V3.7.x and when i had to switch to V4 i was still happy with it. But then LR2 beta came out and seemed to do more for me that C1 did.
In the end it was the very poor customer handling that PO gives that made me un install C1. They wont give anything away, just seem to be relying on their once, great reputation while loads of tier customers are complaining about the situation where we dont have a pro version and it seems we wont get one for a while.

PO are now too far behind IMHO and LR2 is now much better, especially now we have the new profiles.

If you are going to Lightroom, you're in for a treat.

Truly bad RAW conversions.

[Mike55]

If you are going to Lightroom, you're in for a treat.

Truly bad RAW conversions.

Not anymore.

[dave_bass5]

PO forums?

Pederast Orphans?

Proletarian Onanism?

Picture Oratory?

Phase One?

Yeah, one of the above.

[dave_bass5]

If you are going to Lightroom, you're in for a treat.

Truly bad RAW conversions.

IYO of course (thats, in your opinion).
Been using LR2 since April, instantly loved it and now i use the full version with the new Adobe camera profiles.
I agree, the output of C1 is very good but the Adobe stuff can also be very good, you just need to put some effort in to calibrating ACR when you first get it.
C1 v4 was great but having the new features in LR2 means i need to use PS less and less. not a bad thing at all.

[Picture North Carolina]

Yeah, one of the above.

:) ;)