How painful is the switch from LR to Capture One?

kirkt wrote in post #18528125
Seriously, spend some time learning to use the software before complaining about it.

You guys weren't kidding when you said that the learning curve is quite steep. It is really steep! But slowly, slowly I am getting to a point where I am very comfortable with the idea of ditching LR and switching to C1. It really is powerful once you got (somewhat) the hang of it.

A few image comparisons here if anyone is interested. Images start on page 2.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/15235​01/0

drmaxx wrote in post #18528143
You guys weren't kidding when you said that the learning curve is quite steep. It is really steep! But slowly, slowly I am getting to a point where I am very comfortable with the idea of ditching LR and switching to C1. It really is powerful once you got (somewhat) the hang of it.

It does take time, and most of it is spent on losing the LR habits and wishing C1 looked and behaved like LR (thank God it doesn't!). Good thing is, you can rearrange the workspace to make yourself more comfortable: mine doesn't look at all like the default:

kirkt wrote in post #18528125
You need to use “”Edit with” to edit a version with C1’s changes in another application - that’s explained in the manual too.

“Open with” passes the original to whatever application you select, I.e., it opens the file in that application. Maybe you want to use that application for some part in your workflow, like lens correction.

Seriously, spend some time learning to use the software before complaining about it.

Kirk

That's pretty obvious, without reading the manual.

I'm not thrilled with needing to create a TIFF for every image than I send to Photoshop, but I guess there's no way around that. If you want to call that complaining, I'm sorry.

Again, creating a TIFF file from a RAW is the normal procedure, even for PS/LR. Verily, Lightroom is nothing but a nice face on Adobe ACR. If you were to open a RAW file directly in PS, without LR, you'd have to go through the ACR window first, make your adjustments, and then SAVE the file as a TIFF or maybe some other format. TIFF is used by the applications by default because it's a lossless format and highly versatile and compatible.

You can't save PS adjustments to a RAW (.dng, .CR2, &c.) file. You just can't. RAW files are not meant to be touched. All your LR adjustments are saved to the metadata portion of the .dng. If you use C1P they get saved to the .xmp sidecar. PS might display the file you send to it from LR, and even tell you in the tab that it's a .dng, but it won't write to it. When it's time to save your PS adjustments it will create a TIFF file and send it back to LR with the suffix "-Edit", on which you can continue to work on LR (with the difference that now the adjustments LR makes WILL be saved to the file itself, unlike the case with .dng's).

C1P, which is not using ACR, skips through all that BS and creates a TIFF file right away and sends it to PS, ready to be worked on.

Just want to add that if you work with and culling hundreds of raw files, you won't be too concern if you can launch LR or PS in the C1 interface. You aren't going to edit each individual raw file and to edit them directly in LR or CC. More than likely you are going to export your selections into couple of dozens tiff files. Then, you launch and edit them in CC....outside of C1.

Alveric wrote in post #18528351
Again, creating a TIFF file from a RAW is the normal procedure, even for PS/LR. Verily, Lightroom is nothing but a nice face on Adobe ACR. If you were to open a RAW file directly in PS, without LR, you'd have to go through the ACR window first, make your adjustments, and then SAVE the file as a TIFF or maybe some other format. TIFF is used by the applications by default because it's a lossless format and highly versatile and compatible.

You can't save PS adjustments to a RAW (.dng, .CR2, &c.) file. You just can't. RAW files are not meant to be touched. All your LR adjustments are saved to the metadata portion of the .dng. If you use C1P they get saved to the .xmp sidecar. PS might display the file you send to it from LR, and even tell you in the tab that it's a .dng, but it won't write to it. When it's time to save your PS adjustments it will create a TIFF file and send it back to LR with the suffix "-Edit", on which you can continue to work on LR (with the difference that now the adjustments LR makes WILL be saved to the file itself, unlike the case with .dng's).

C1P, which is not using ACR, skips through all that BS and creates a TIFF file right away and sends it to PS, ready to be worked on.

Yes, I've used ACR alone, before I started using Lightroom years ago. A friend of mine still does it that way. ACR creates a .xmp sidecar file when doing it that way, so the adjustments are SAVED (in the sidecar file). If you shoot Canon, and use the Canon DPP software for raw files, my understanding is that DPP saves the adjustments into the raw file metadata, because no sidecar file is created, and the adjustments to the raw file are still visible when the raw file is reloaded into DPP.

Many, many, times I only save a JPEG after final editing in Photoshop, so the TIFF files are not needed by me. As far as I know, TIFF's don't offer a big advantage for printing, so unless I do lots of layering in Photoshop (which I would want to preserve in a PSD file for possible further editing), I don't see an advantage for saving a TIFF file. Is there a reason for a saving TIFF file that I am overlooking? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I truly want to know if I am overlooking something that could be beneficial to my workflow.

I very much prefer the Lighroom interface for ACR. I've helped my friend with ACR alone many times and I find ACR alone to be very clumsy compared to LR

BTW, PSD files are just Adobe's version of TIFF, only less compatible.

Alveric wrote in post #18528216
Good thing is, you can rearrange the workspace to make yourself more comfortable: mine doesn't look at all like the default:

Very handy indeed. It took me a while to get the hang of it, but now I am enthusiastically rearranging the tools to suit my workflow - e.g. I tend to start with white balance: therefore I added white balance before the exposure sliders. However, this also makes it much more difficult to learn from all the videos out there. Everything looks different...

Alveric wrote in post #18528216
Here's a magnificent resource for mastering C1P: https://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1514503​290&sr=1-1

Thank you for the tip. Noted and looking out for Version 11 as I am quite keen on getting some systematic help with the layers (and my understanding is that here a lot changed in version 11).

O.k. I am getting more and more stoked about the capabilities of capture one. Here's a comparison of what I am capable of with LR and Capture One only (after several hours of learning).
First original (Capture one, auto-correction - clearly NOT a studio setting as the two faces are directly under a colored table lamp):

And here LR:

I've found that LR adds tons of magenta. When I first switched to C1P I thought my images looked too green, but they were spot on, actually. Another area in which C1P spanks LR is natural skin tones.

drmaxx, you can quickly switch between workspaces once you've saved your own, so that you can follow along with the videos.

KatManDEW wrote in post #18528338
I'm not thrilled with needing to create a TIFF for every image than I send to Photoshop, but I guess there's no way around that. If you want to call that complaining, I'm sorry.

I know what you mean. Personally since I am going to save something from CS6 (like a .psd), I am going to have to do a 'synchronize' anyway (in a catalog), so just delete the .tiff I don't need. If you are using sessions, it is even easier.

But I think this .tiff creation is actually as much a part of the C1 philosophy of not doing much 'under the hood' that you can't control or can't see what is happening as anything.


On the subject of highlight recovery, in general I do like C1 more than ACR, but they are quite different, so ACR still works better IMO on some images. Same with the raw conversion. ACR/LR do a lot more processing than they appear to tell you about. C1 is more prone to maze artifacts (as is DPP), but is more 'raw'. I guess you pick your poison on that one.