Why do we all end up using Lightroom?

No, I actually agree with you that Capture One is better! It really is. You made legitimate points. I'd also add: Capture One allows for white balance to be corrected below 2000 K. That's a huge deal for certain situations.

I think the only reason anyone has identified as to why they aren't switching is because they're lazy. But hey - at least I've discovered what the best software is from this, as well as learned about the pattern noise, and the white balance potential in other software besides ACR and Lightroom. This has been a great thread.

DetlevCM wrote in post #17149636
Look at this forum where nearly every thread that asks about a raw editor ends up pointing at Lightroom.

...this wasn't your claim. Your claim was that "people praise Lightroom as if it is the best RAW editor ever." That is a specific claim. And I can open up any thread on Lightroom and not find people making the claims you state they make.

What does this prove?

Why do you care?

You seem extremely bitter about this. Can you explain why what other people do upset you so much?

Of course there is. Because for many people adobe's software does everything they need it to do.

Yep. And if Lightroom objectively processes images worse than Capture One, then you would be able to prove that by showing us these worse images on the net. A single example would fit in with your maths. Yet in a month you haven't been able to do so.

Colour balance is a subjective thing. What you find hideous someone else finds pleasing.

ROFL!

I'm an event photographer. I process thousands of images per shoot, and in most cases I deliver to my client within 24 hours.

I compared Lightroom and Capture One to see which one would fit in my workflow and get things edited quicker and more efficiently: and Lightroom won.

You are never going to find the time. Stop pretending you will when you know you are not.

A single image is not enough.

If you want to compare software firstly we have to agree on what criteria we use to make the comparison.

So far you are only using metrics that allegedly show Capture One is superior, and you ignore all of those that show that it is not.

That shows your clear and open bias. It doesn't show superiority.

CRCchemist wrote in post #17149650
I think the only reason anyone has identified as to why they aren't switching is because they're lazy.

...no, that reason you have identified is complete and utter bollocks. People have stated, in this thread, why they aren't switching. It isn't because they are lazy. If you want to know why, go back and read this thread.

DetlevCM wrote in post #17149534
And you are selectively ignoring my statements:
The image posted did not have banding that you can clearly see banding without the argument that you might just see what you expect.
You can find better images of banding in a thread that discussed the 5D MK II - yes.
BUT in this case, you could easily just see a pattern in noise that isn't there unless you clearly show there is a pattern.

When I see lots of xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx and hardly any different shapes, then I'm not seeing patterns that aren't there. They really are there. And there is a lot of them. And they aren't spotted in the middle of other random shapes. So no, there are no subjective "i might see" here. There is an extremely clear existence of one pixel wide lines on a subject that should not contain such lines but should contain random noise. A line isn't noise but could exist with a probability. But an image that contains a huge number of one-pixel wide lines but avoids two pixels wide lines or diagonal lines is clearly breaking any expected "random" behavior. If you don't see these one pixel wide lines, then you either have a broken monitor, or broken vision. There is no failure of the human brain that makes us by accident think we see these one pixel wide lines.

Don't talk about statistics if you can't see the impossible probability of these one pixel wide lines.

There are more than one way to be blind.

And the FFT analysis? That also caused by random accident?

Yes, but it's a totally different phenomenon when we see patterns in random noise. That is not related to the ability to see the individual pixels forming all the one pixel wide lines. That's like mixing up problems from a defect color vision as being the same thing has not being able to see because the eye us gouged out or swollen shut. The phenomenon you are talking about allows us to see dogs, houses etc in random patterns. But totally irrelevant to this debate. Becaus the phenomenon affects our perception at the macro level. This is lines visible when viewing the image at the micro level. So no brain goofs but a reality.

banquetbear wrote in post #17149668
...this wasn't your claim. Your claim was that "people praise Lightroom as if it is the best RAW editor ever." That is a specific claim. And I can open up any thread on Lightroom and not find people making the claims you state they make.

What does this prove?

Why do you care?

You seem extremely bitter about this. Can you explain why what other people do upset you so much?

Of course there is. Because for many people adobe's software does everything they need it to do.

Yep. And if Lightroom objectively processes images worse than Capture One, then you would be able to prove that by showing us these worse images on the net. A single example would fit in with your maths. Yet in a month you haven't been able to do so.

Colour balance is a subjective thing. What you find hideous someone else finds pleasing.

ROFL!

I'm an event photographer. I process thousands of images per shoot, and in most cases I deliver to my client within 24 hours.

I compared Lightroom and Capture One to see which one would fit in my workflow and get things edited quicker and more efficiently: and Lightroom won.

You are never going to find the time. Stop pretending you will when you know you are not.

A single image is not enough.

If you want to compare software firstly we have to agree on what criteria we use to make the comparison.

So far you are only using metrics that allegedly show Capture One is superior, and you ignore all of those that show that it is not.

That shows your clear and open bias. It doesn't show superiority.

Funny that you consider mangling an image's colour (as has happened to the image I posted) acceptable. As I said, Adobe apologist. You tell me ruinied colour is acceptable... (I had someone claim waiting 30s for a computer to respond to click is acceptable...)
You CANNOT correct the colour distortion Lightroom introduces because it is not even - it is very pronounced in the shadows and not pronounced/not present in the highlights, while any post lighting adjustments affect all brightness levels.
There is a huge difference between changing the overall white balance or having parts of the image (shadows) mangled to produce a hideous tint.

The comment about you being an event photographer... so what?
I went to the graduation circus after my BSc and thankfully only wasted £5 on a disk for the photo taken by the so called "professional" in Sheffield City Hall". Thankfully only the disk because it was a blurry overexposed low resolution in camera JPEG... (which DPP revealed was how it was shot)Hhow the person can even sell those I don't know... but apparently he got paid for that rubbish job.... (but at least £5 is just 2 coffees, acceptable loss)
Just because someone is technically a "professional" or works in a certain job, they aren't necessarily good at it. IT support that doesn't understand user account control is another favourite of mine...

Software use is also no indicator for quality:
Lots of people use Word - despite the fact that it spells misery with long scientific documents and produces a hideous typeset.
LaTeX produces better results - but has fewer everyday users.
PowerPoint vs. LaTeX - unreliable and messy PowerPoint vs. clean and easy to use LaTeX for Pdf presentations... same issue as with Word...

-> Incidentally, you provide clear evidence of the problem at hand.
You are a living example of all the people defending Adobe - mangled colour, loss of detail, lots of noise? "Live with it" or "spend time and edit it"...
But why when other products avoid the grief? No weird colour hue, less visible noise - better sharpness from the start.

You can edit a RAW file in Paint - you can do the same you do in Photoshop in Microsoft Paint - edit an image pixel by pixel.
It will work, but it does not mean it is suited for the task.

And I should throw the ball back at you maybe - the image I posted shows clear deficits in Lightroom over Capture One. (colour change, sharpness, noise)
Maybe you can post an image that shows where and how Lightroom is superior?
(Doesn't mean you cannot make them look the same, you can edit an image pixel for pixel in MS Paint.)
-> It isn't for colour control, it isn't for noise and not for sharpness.
But be my guest.

DetlevCM wrote in post #17149820
Funny that you consider mangling an image's colour (as has happened to the image I posted) acceptable.

..."mangling" is a subjective term.

If you think it is an objective term: then please define what a mangled colour is.

As I said: thats a load of bullcrap.

Stop dishing out the insults.

I'm not an apologist.

I said that "ruined" is subjective.

What the heck does this mean?

Another unsupported assertion.

You claimed "Take Capture One and you can edit an image a lot quicker."

I'm an event photographer. When I evaluated software options (including Capture One) speed of editing was one of the many factors I took into account. I can edit quicker in Lightroom than Capture One.

So you've had a crap photography experience? Well, thanks for sharing, I guess.

If this was some sort of veiled insult, then I'd prefer it if you just came out and said what you think rather than trying to hide it.

I'm good at my job. I specialise in corporate conferences and am the only specialist in my region. Most of my clients are repeat clients. And Lightroom is a key component in my workflow. I can't manage my Photoshelter Galleries in Capture One. Capture One would simply not be a good fit for me.

Again with the subjective measures. Someone has told you in this very thread that using word does not spell misery with long scientific documents. And claiming word has a hideous typeset is simply laughable.

Define "better results."

What on earth are you talking about? Powerpoint is not messy and is very easy to use: especially for PDF presentations. Are you just making stuff up now?

You haven't explained what the problem at hand is.

Oh: you think this is an actual real world problem?

That someone "defends" a software company?

What world do you live in that this is a problem at hand?

These are assertions with no evidence.

I've already told you I'm not accepting these from you any more.

I did at the start of the thread when I thought you were engaging all of us in good faith.

But I don't believe you are at all any more.

So either provide proof for your assertions, or withdraw them.

It has been explained to you why. Several times by several different people.

I have certain requirements: and when I evaluated several different pieces of software Lightroom ticked more boxes and integrated more tightly into my workflow. I have no problems with "weird colour hue." Sharpening and noise can be bulk adjusted in seconds. These are trivial issues for me.

But Lightroom is up to the task for me.

How on earth can you know if it is or it isn't?

No it didn't. And even if it did: a single image is statistically irrelevant.

Why would I need to do that? What particular claim of mine are you wanting me to back up?

This is your thread. You started it. You started it with the intention "to disprove Lightroom being as good as everybody tends to make it."

Why is this so important to you?

Lightroom is more than up to the task for me. And as many people have patiently and politely told you in this thread, it is more than up to the task for them.

If people want to state that Lightroom works for them and works for them well, who are you to tell them otherwise?

IMHO Lightroom is an excellent piece of software. It does everything I need of it and it suits my needs better than Capture One (which is also an excellent piece of software.) No amount of handwaving from you is going to change that. You aren't simply claiming that Capture One is better, you are actually stating that Lightroom is mediocre. I cannot for the life of me see how any objective, rational person could call Lightroom mediocre. This thread is 25 pages long and over a month old and the only evidence you have bought to the table is a single RAW file and the promise to bring more evidence when "you find time."

I think its obvious you are never going to find the time.

Just conceed already. I fully accept that in your opinion Capture One is infinitely superior to Lightroom in every way, and that Lightroom is mediocre. What you need to accept is that your opinion is simply your opinion: and it isn't objective fact.

I'm still waiting on someone to use Capture One on the image I posted in the "challenging raw" thread I started a couple days ago, to demonstrate how Lightroom is obviously inferior.

nathancarter wrote in post #17150143
I'm still waiting on someone to use Capture One on the image I posted in the "challenging raw" thread I started a couple days ago, to demonstrate how Lightroom is obviously inferior.

+1 to this.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Currently I haven't seen the Capture 1 pudding even being served, let alone eaten.

Am I allowed to point out that I use both Lightroom 5 and Capture One 7 Pro, and get bloody excellent results from each?

Am I also allowed to point out while both have strengths, they both have obvious weaknesses too? For example, at the moment I find Capture One's high ISO noise handling clearly superior to Lr's, but Lr's highlight and shadow processing is far better than Capture One's - and I can paint them on in Lr, too...

Am I allowed to point out that anyone who can't get fantastic results with either converter really needs to take a long hard look at himself?

If you want to see what a crappy converter looks like, try AfterShot Pro 2 - that thing's IQ is shocking

Then see what you think about Lr...

Keith R wrote in post #17150244
Am I allowed to point out that I use both Lightroom 5 and Capture One 7 Pro, and get bloody excellent results from each?

No, you are not. Because then you will make the thread creator angry by making - in his view - false claims about Lightroom.

DetlevCM wrote in post #17136757
I have issues with Lightroom being missold as this "great program" when it isn't

Only an idiot takes a software company's word for how good its software is. The fact that for many users (who have tested Lr to their satisfaction) Lr does just what they want suggests - thankfully - that we're not all idiots.

It's our job to be intelligent customers.

If you tested and rejected Lr before parting with any cash, what - exactly - is the problem?

You did do that, didn't you? You didn't actually take a software company's word?

Oh, and for the record, your opinion that Lr isn't a "great program" suggests more that you need to learn how to use it, than that you've got an objective basis for making that statement...

pwm2 wrote in post #17150259
No, you are not. Because then you will make the thread creator angry by making - in his view - false claims about Lightroom.

Blimey - I'd hate to do that..!

The thread with nathancarter's very red images is interesting, but what is it really "testing"? What is the "correct" result? It is an interesting exercise, but that's about it. It is a very challenging image from a technical and creative standpoint, but one can open that DNG in pretty much any raw converter and output something that one can declare is an "acceptable" image. Mostly because if you know how to convert raw images with the tools you have, you can convert it.

As far as the pattern noise thingy, it is an academic exercise mostly because it lives in the underexposed shadow areas and, from my experience with adequately exposed images, rarely needs to be addressed.

I'm not saying I wasted a lot of time addressing it, just trying to put it into perspective. As far as which a raw converter is the bee's knees, it is like arguing over which color is the best. I like orange. Some will say, "no yellow!" or "seriously? green is best!" And others will chime in with "color is lame, the only way to go is black." Okie dome!

It is very difficult to prove opinion.

kirk

Keith R wrote in post #17150244
Am I allowed to point out that I use both Lightroom 5 and Capture One 7 Pro, and get bloody excellent results from each?

Am I also allowed to point out while both have strengths, they both have obvious weaknesses too? For example, at the moment I find Capture One's high ISO noise handling clearly superior to Lr's, but Lr's highlight and shadow processing is far better than Capture One's - and I can paint them on in Lr, too...

Am I allowed to point out that anyone who can't get fantastic results with either converter really needs to take a long hard look at himself?

If you want to see what a crappy converter looks like, try AfterShot Pro 2 - that thing's IQ is shocking

Then see what you think about Lr...

pwm2 wrote in post #17150259
No, you are not. Because then you will make the thread creator angry by making - in his view - false claims about Lightroom.

Heh! That's funny!

I'd be curious, though, to see some real working examples about the diff between C1 high ISO noise "handling" and LRs, that is, from folks that have expertise in both apps (I don't)!

tonylong wrote in post #17150303
I'd be curious, though, to see some real working examples about the diff between C1 high ISO noise "handling" and LRs, that is, from folks that have expertise in both apps (I don't)!

To be honest Tony, I'm going to steer clear of that, but I'll explain why - and why I pointedly said in my earlier post that "at the moment I find Capture One's high ISO noise handling clearly superior to Lr's".

It's because if you'd asked me the same question a few months back, I was using a different camera - I'm using a 70D now, whereas I was using a 7D - and would have given Lightroom the nod over Capture One.

I'm of the opinion that something is actually broken in the current Lightroom 70D "profile", and the results I'm getting from the 70D in Lr reflect neither the capabilities of the camera nor Lr's usual - excellent - standard of noise handling.

In fact, it looks to me like Lr is rendering the 70D's files using the old PV 2003 (the original demosaicing/NR algorithms, which I hated with a passion in Lr pre release 4), rather than PV 2012, even though PV 2012 is selected.

So my current opinion is a "conditional" one, and one subject to probable change when the next release of Lr emerges. It'd be unfair for me to start posting up examples of Lr's "unacceptable" high ISO noise handling when past experience tells me that they're not typical.

Suffice to say though, at lower ISOs, Lr is still excellent: any images in this post with a larger "signature" are courtesy of Lr, and they look pretty damn' good to me...