Phase One software...High End fashion photography...

Does anyone know what this software does that Photoshop CS wouldn't do?

I saw the MSNBC special called "Tech Summit" and they interviewed high end fashion photographer, Joseph Cartwright, and he stated he used "a camera with a digital back to to send pictures directly and instantly via firewire to his computer to the Phase One software. About a $30,000 plus setup." It was VERY high end professional photography. It was amazing to see how he took pics, and his camera was tethered via Firewire to his Mac and he printed out a print in 2-3 seconds. I don't know what kind of printer he had but it was the size of an office stand-up Xerox machine. He stated, "He can now give the client the finished print at the end of the shooting day vs it normally would have taken days to process!" and "Film photography will absolutely go the way of vinyl. Professional photographers will not have a choice."

Anyway, he used Phase One software and they have versions available for prosumers like us. There's even one called Phase One Rebel.


But what does this program do that Photoshop CS can't do? It main siginificance is working with RAW files which Photoshop can utilize also...

At the least it was neat to see how high tech pro photography has become with their VERY expensive equipment. In ten years, I'm sure they'll be looking back and say, "What you were tethered via Firewire to your computer? You couldn't just snap the picture and send a 100mb photo wirelessly to your computer? Dude (or Dad) how primitive?

http://www.phaseone.co​m/

http://www.phaseone.co​m …upport/Document​ation.aspx
phase one video tutorials

http://www.cartright.c​om/portfolio/index.htm​l

Hi,
I don't know where you're from but have a look at this ...

http://www.warehouseex​press.com/arouse/c1.ht​ml

Andy Rouse is a well known wildlife photographer in the UK.

I've tried the 30-day pro demo and it makes Raw conversion / tweaking very fast. I'm still on photoshop 5.5 so haven't got Raw capability yet. but I've just ordered the 'SE' version.

Cheers

I use Phase One's software and I also have CS. I think the difference is in several areas...

1. The amount of tweaking
2. The ease of tweaking
3. The SPEED of tweaking
4. Batch tweaking
5. Batch processing
6. The speed of the Processing
7. I could go on and on....

It comes down to this simple fact:

Capture One was MADE to process RAW files
Photoshop wasn't (until CS)

side note: Phase One has been creating software to process RAW files for a long time and they have had that amount of time to perfect THIER algorithms...From what I understand CS uses CANON's algorithms and C1 develops thier own, better, faster...and so on. You would think that Canon would have better software, but you have to remember that Canon is reletively new to the digital scene compared to Phase One and their backs.

Scot, thanks for the reply. I sort of figured that was the difference. Phase One has just been at it a long time.

So do you think it is worth it to get the $299 version if I plan to use RAW files with my Digital Rebel? It would be cool to use similar software (ie Phase One) just to have the knowledge of what the pros are using.

What is your setup consist of? Do you use one of those fancy and EXPENSIVE digital backs. I find it all very fascinating from a technical angle. I can't see myself having a need for digital backs now. But I'm sure it'll be cheaper eventually and the average prosumer can dabble in it.

To answer your question: Is it worth it?
That depends on you. My day job is photography so I demand the best so I can give my customers the best. I have the full version of the software and I don't regret the investment one bit. I shoot with the Canon 1ds and 10d...no back just yet The DSLRS perform very well in the studio environment and they obviously have the versitility to go portable. I may in the future go with a DB in the studio, but I don't find it necessary in the current market I am in. I have demo'd some backs, and they definately outperform the DSLR's, but in my case, for now, It's not needed.

I don't think you need to spend $299.00 on the SE version. If your camera is the 300D, just spend $49.99 on the Digital Rebel version of C1. Sure it's missing some functions, but you can't argue with the price!

I was quite happy with Canon's FVU software, and I will Canon's own new conversion software, when it's available; at the the same time, I downloaded trial versions of Breezebrowser and C1-Rebel. After reading the instructions (!) I love my C1 software: easy to use, with lots of functionality (much, much more than FVU). I also found it easier to use than PSCS (instructions easier to read, too!)

Cheers,

Costa
Back to SLR photography 10 years after having my Pentax MX stolen...

Yeah, I wanted the Rebel version just to play around with but I have a Mac and I believe the Rebel is PC only. Always being left out-- us Mac users.

So, I'll have to get the SE version if I want to use Phase One. However, I'm still trying to see if I need Phase One considering now that Photoshop CS has RAW file capabilities...

What exactly is a "Digital Back"?

Don't know exactly, but from what I can gather it is a add on to a film camera that gives the camera a digital like capability. The prices are outrageous. $20,000-30,000 a "back". All of a sudden $4500 for a 1D MarkII seems like a bargin.

Rob

pn.md wrote:
Yeah, I wanted the Rebel version just to play around with but I have a Mac and I believe the Rebel is PC only. Always being left out-- us Mac users.

So, I'll have to get the SE version if I want to use Phase One. However, I'm still trying to see if I need Phase One considering now that Photoshop CS has RAW file capabilities...

I feel your pain. I am also a Mac user. I have the SE Version. It was offered with additional profiles from Magne Neilsen. I find C1 to be more sophisticated than CS and like its RAW output better then CS. Think of C1 as a compliment to CS.

Rob

Capture One DSLR from Phase One and the Camera Raw plug-in for Photoshop 7 and CS are both designed to convert raw image files for further editing/processing/pri​nting. In that respect they do the same job.

Neither product is based upon the Canon SDK. They use their own proprietary conversion algorithms. The interfaces are different and they take a somewhat different approach. Neither product nor the Canon conversion utility will give the "best" result every time, but the differences in image quallity are, by and large, minor and it can be a subjective matter which result you prefer. The workflow for the packages is very different. I prefer the C1 approach, but there are plenty who like ACR.

Regards,

Digital backs are used with medium-format cameras (like the Mamiya 645), and generally come in 22 MP or larger sizes. They tend to be power hungry, and usually don't include an LCD display, so they are typically used in a studio where you can get power, and tethered to a computer to use as the interactive display and controller.

Kind of specialized, and there isn't a lot of them sold, so they tend to be pricey. Pros that need that kind of flexibility, though, can justify the price.

Medium Format camera (most of them) have removable "back" that hold the film,. in some cases different backs hold diffferent sized film.

Some of these Medium format cameras are adaptable to, or even have dedicated "Digital backs" that replace the film back. (in fact there is even some comonality to the film backs,. so a digital back may fit several models of camera)

The current digital backs range from 6 MP up to 22MP .. and they'll keep getting bigger.

Some are portable,. some need to be tethered directly to a computer VIA firewire etc...

There was even a type called a scanning back,. which literally have a built in scanner similar to a film scanner,. that scanned the image .. theses were all "tethered" and required long durations for the shot.. (for obvious reasons)

Mamiya and "Leaf" currently offer the 645 with a 6MP digital back that is perfectly portable for less than the cost of the MkII... (if memory serves me correctly)

God, how I'd love to be able to afford a digital back for my Hassy's. The quality of the Zeiss glass is far superior to my EOS glasss and a 22mp file would probably overwhem my PC but when I think of the images I could create with a digi back, I just drool! In all likelyhood, Hassy and the other digi back makers probably won't create backs that will be usable with my 500CM. Why allow that much backwards compatibility? Still, I love my Hassys and would gladly GIVE my 10D away if I had a truly portable Hassy digi back. Oh, well......

Hey, a fella can dream, can't he??!! :P