Capture One 11 VS Lightroom Classic ( Video Shoot Out )

Hey everyone,

Here's a quick comparison of how Capture One 11 and Adobe Lightroom handle raw images...

Check it out and leave a comment...




Which one do think, does a better job of processing raw image files?

Leave a comment below...

Craig

You asked for an opinion and I'm good at getting myself in trouble so here it goes.

I gave C1 a good trial a few months ago. Excellent software which was high on my list but IMO you are comparing apples to oranges. C1 is far more processed out of the box. If I had been looking at both LR and C1 for the first time I'd say ugh to LR and wow to C1.

Adobe Standard is flat. I have been in several conversations about this and appears by design. Adobe expects you to tweak, apply a camera profile or use a profiler like ColorChecker Passport. Your comments about saturation with C1 are about what I have read. Some say a tad oversaturated but it didn't bother me.

As for sharpness is the video showing the detail window at factory settings in LR? Also export sharpening was not applied because you can't view that before export, only after. What stage was C1 at? I posted several edited and exported examples on another forum and no one could tell the difference. This included the whole package, color and sharpness. I did find the lens corrections, all the sharpening stages, clarity, structure and worked them all with C1 carefully.

C1's color rendition is very good and gets to the finish line faster. Color is a preference as well unless you are in the business and using profilers. I can't say anything about that as I've never used a profiler.

In conclusion yes, C1 looks much better out of the box.

Since comments were asked fo, how about writing up your results and posting them here for us to read? Rather than using this text based BBS as a simple tool for driving traffic to your Youtube channel, which seems to be becoming a common tactic here on POTN these days. Lots of people are doing this, it just happened thar this one was the one to push me to comment on it.

I come to POTN because it IS text based, which allows me to take in the information at a pace to suite me. I have a health condition that affects my memory, and being able to instantly rewind, and read over a sentence or even a few words is invaluable. Also I have always found simply watching video to be my least favoured learning method. A good teacher, with a willing class has always been number one, but after that comes well writen text for me. By all means then include a link for those who might like watching a video better.

Alan

To me the thread is an ad for the author and for C1P. Comparisons between C1P and Adobe products have been done to death over the years. By apply import presets you can give an image the same look,,,,assuming you want it.....as you will get when C1P opens a raw file.

Other than subjective opinion, you cannot really compare one raw converter to another unless you set some sort of metrics for comparison and measure them. Even if you do that, what is "correct' and "looks good" to one person may not hold true for another. And comparing default renderings out of the box is practically irrelevant, unless you use a raw converter with no adjustment to any image you shoot. C1 users know that there are multiple tone curves that may be applied to an image ("film curves") and LR users know there are multiple camera profiles that do the same to tone and color. In both cases, the user can roll their own as well, in addition to presets, to address whatever subjective looks one wants to achieve by default.

The lower contrast images in LR need a black point and white point adjustment. Also, the target you shot at the beginning of the video has glare on it from your straight-on over-under lighting - use that target image for profiling at your own risk, as it is shot incorrectly for that purpose.

A comparison amongst raw converters for something a little more quantifiable would be a demonstration of highlight reconstruction and recovery, for example, or shadow rendering and noise/demosacing artifacts.

kirk

kirkt wrote in post #18554584
Other than subjective opinion, you cannot really compare one raw converter to another unless you set some sort of metrics for comparison and measure them. Even if you do that, what is "correct' and "looks good" to one person may not hold true for another. And comparing default renderings out of the box is practically irrelevant, unless you use a raw converter with no adjustment to any image you shoot. C1 users know that there are multiple tone curves that may be applied to an image ("film curves") and LR users know there are multiple camera profiles that do the same to tone and color. In both cases, the user can roll their own as well, in addition to presets, to address whatever subjective looks one wants to achieve by default.

The lower contrast images in LR need a black point and white point adjustment. Also, the target you shot at the beginning of the video has glare on it from your straight-on over-under lighting - use that target image for profiling at your own risk, as it is shot incorrectly for that purpose.

A comparison amongst raw converters for something a little more quantifiable would be a demonstration of highlight reconstruction and recovery, for example, or shadow rendering and noise/demosacing artifacts.

kirk

The updated auto feature does a job with black point and the others in the Basic window. I don't always agree with it but a good start. I have it set up so it auto applies during import. Also sharpening, NR, lens correction and camera profile with a few colour tweaks auto apply so I have a import to export workflow if I want it.

This explains why I chose to stay with Adobe and I'm not a big fan of the plan. It gave me what I needed in the areas most important to me and I was prepared to sacrifice others. Depending on what Adobe does in the future I may yet revisit C1.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=AZdzcaaqaeY

I have said before. If they put DPP's engine into LR which included DLO I'd pay for it.