Capture One, or the future of post-processing

Owing to pernicious issues with Adobe Bridge/Camera Raw (specifically, that even with significant amounts of memory my previews are super slow despite having a high-performing rig), I'd decided a while ago to look for an alternative to ACR for my post-processing. I tried a couple known options due to their low cost, but I can't say I was very impressed with much of their capabilities, either in terms of actual "power", what outcomes I could get out of them, and their user-friendliness. It just didn't click. And then I found out about Capture One, and finally post-processed a project with it. It blew my mind.

Amongst the many positives:
-I found the interface to be intuitive and smooth, didn't try to be a Lightroom clone (which I never cared for), but did its own thing. Still felt intuitive. (That being said, it's somewhat of a learning curve to get used to where stuff is, but that would always be true.)
-File management and preview tools are user-friendly and feel integrated throughout the platform. In Lightroom, I'm almost struggling to figure out how to simply export my photos, yet with Capture One it is easy and quick to establish preferences, see watermarks while you're editing (optional); moreover, if in the export module you set the preference for your photos to never upscale and resize the short side to let's say 2880 px, it will let you know as you're cropping whether your photo will be big enough to meet your export preferences. I haven't tested other export scenarios yet, but color me impressed. It can also export multiple versions/"snapshots" of your photos in one go. ACR exports through Bridge are a thing of the last century, as if Adobe deliberately killed it to make people use Lightroom: you can't automatically resize in export while blocking upscaling, you have to select every version of your photos individually to export them, and there is this weird thing with it having to open and switch to Photoshop for every single photo you export, making the workflow quite the torture. No wonder I ever put off my post-processing. I've never tried snapshots with Lightroom, but I'd expect an experience similar to ACR.
-Editing tools feel powerful, varied, and sophisticated. The batch I've just PP'ed didn't quite allow me to explore the full possibilities. The color management tools certainly have piqued my curiosity.
-Library Tools: Not something I've usually wanted in RAW processing software (I prefer to keep my editing and storing separate), but I'm thinking this could offer some possibilities. That being said, I'm also worried about the catalog becoming bloated and slow once you add several years worth of RAWs, which would favor the creation of year-based catalogs, making the library tools less interesting. Something to consider.

Some (real and potential) negatives:
-I use more than one computer for post-processing (my desktop and occasionally my laptop, which don't share a file nor disk structure), and I'm concerned it might be awkward to do so, especially since you have to import photos into a catalog to edit them. Haven't tried exporting/importing catalogs yet, though this should be possible. Not sure how intuitive it would be for my purposes.
-Spot Healing Tool: In my current usage I felt like the spot healing tool was possibly weaker than in ACR/Lightroom, leading to more reliance on Photoshop to edit out potential image flaws. Not sure that I would currently consider it a deal-breaker.
-Metadata: In the batch I've finished with Capture One, I've had an issue with one photo's metadata being messed up and not sorting correctly in Adobe Bridge when I sorted by date created and with some photos also not correctly being tagged as having been taken with the Sigma 24-105A (rather than the full name of the lens it received only the short version of the name). Not a deal-breaker per se, but could render metadata frustrating to use for sorting/analysis of a photo library.
-As with most other photo editing software, it doesn't seem to want to recognize XMPs or the editing files of other programs, so if you migrate you're pretty locked in - including by being faced with having to re-post-process your entire collection. That being said, with the ease, this could be rewarding and reasonable in my case, as this is something that I was considering to do even without migrating software, but could be quite onerous for those with larger libraries.

Anyway, at this stage I feel like I'm just writing this to convince *myself* to make the jump to Capture One, and it might be working. Pricing, however, is kind of a barrier, since the software isn't cheap, especially compared to the current Adobe subscription option, though increasingly it feels like it might be worth it in workflow efficiencies - making post-processing fun again.

Have you been using Capture One? Looking at its several iterations in the last few years, how has it evolved both in terms of its actual capabilities and as a product (i.e. corporate practices of its developer)? What would you think of the prospect of having to re-post-process your entire library if you were to migrate from one program to another - pleasant, not, opportunity for improving past photos, potentially unavoidable in this day and age if you think you might be at digital photography for the next 25-30 years? Do you like/use library tools with your RAWs?

I have to admit that I am surprised that Capture One doesn't to be talked about much on those forums and wondered why that might be (especially now that I'm pretty sure that I'm looking on the correct forum!). I'd certainly to hear people's opinions, for those that have tried it and liked or didn't like it.

There are quite a few people working with c1 here on the forum - just not as many nor outspoken as the LR ones. I switched from LR a while ago and are not looking back. The fantastic ability to control color, layers and speed are probably the three most important improvement for me compared with LR. I also do like the base processing of the raw files better on C1.

I used Adobe Photoshop 5 and Raw for many years. When I got a new camera, I was forced to get a new version because the raw files were not supported in Adobe Raw -- their way of maintaining their cash stream. Plus they had just switched to the subscription plan, which I (still) resented as a cash grab. I tried Canon DPP that came with the camera, but I did not at all like the sharpening algorithm. I tried the free version of Capture One, liked it, bought it, and never looked back. I do often use Photoshop for final jpeg processing. And I rely on its focus-stacking capability. I wish that Capture One had it, because everything else is better than Photoshop.

Thanks for your comments. And in the time that you've been using C-1, what have you thought of the developer's business model? Do they support their software and their clientele?

When you switched did you keep your old RAWs converted as they were, or did you give them a second go with C-1? Curious how people have been handling such a transition.

That's a lot of words.

Apricane wrote in post #18882011
When you switched did you keep your old RAWs converted as they were, or did you give them a second go with C-1?

I have my old LR catalogue and keep a version of LR6 around for these. Only the new pictures are in the C1 catalogue. Works well for me.
In the begin of the switch, I did a lot of cross comparison between the old converted pictures from LR and what I can do in C1 - mainly to learn the ropes. Contrary to you, I did not find C1 intuitively. There was an intense learning curve just to get the simplest things going. The cross comparison helped me to focus on the (for me) important stuff.

drmaxx wrote in post #18882029
Contrary to you, I did not find C1 intuitively. There was an intense learning curve just to get the simplest things going.

I would say the same thing. I wrote C1 off a couple times, but came back to retry it each time Adobe irritated me. I finally learned how to re-organize the commands and made my workspace make sense. Now I really enjoy C1 and find it gives me much better results than LR. Plus it is easier to use.

Well indeed. Which could explain how difficult it is to use compared to LR, which is all over the place. Even knowing ACR, LR is a pain to try using, at least for editing. I think I might start transitioning to C-1.

Skimmed through your post. C1 is great, you should have no concerns about ongoing support. I suspect it isn't talked about much because most folks here are not full time pros. I assure you there are lots of folks all-in on C1.

You will still want a dedicated pixel editor. Affinity Photo is a nice option.

My question concerning Capture One is how easy is it to use for applying settings to multiple images all at the same time? The ability to apply settings to tens or even hundreds of images at one time is why I use Lightroom for events. Can you quickly adjust multiple images at once as easily as you can with sync settings in Lightroom?

Nogo wrote in post #18882169
Can you quickly adjust multiple images at once as easily as you can with sync settings in Lightroom?

The short answer is: Yes.
As with many things in C1 you have several ways to achieve this. Choose several pictures and your changes are all applied to these pictures (auto sync in LR), you have the option to 'copy' the changes of your picture and 'paste' that to as many pictures as you want or you can copy specific settings and apply them to other pictures.
And before I sound too much like a C1 sales person: I do personally like the sync approach of LR better.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18882165
You will still want a dedicated pixel editor. Affinity Photo is a nice option.

Thanks. Looks interesting.
Edit: I only found a LR / C1 competitor and not a Photoshop replacement. Am I missing something?

Is there anyone here on POTN who uses C1 and used to use Lr and relied heavily on catalogue features such as Smart Collections? I have a simple Year/day file system for the RAW files, and then all my organisation is done in Lr with mostly Smart Collections and Collection Groups. All this is organised using IPTC subject codes, combined with keywords. I also make very heavy use of Lr's Virtual Copy feature, many of my images have at least one VC and many will have three or four, or more if they are to be printed in a couple of different formats. An aside Adobe could very easily do VC's in Bridge, all they would need is to allow different versions of .xmp files for a single image. I hear talk of a single integrated environment, but is it possible to have different environments for different tasks? Metadata management doesn't really need you to have all of the development tools instantly available for example.

Will the catalogue system handle non RAW formats, and especially 16 bit PSD files? Currently when I round trip to Ps I save in that format, and then continue to manage the files in Lr, including making VC's. I will often do Ps edits, then bring an image back to Lr to do a final monochrome conversion as one of the options for the image.

I made a lot of use of the Lr Print module, but I print to my local printer a lot less these days, I have found a very good lab that is miles cheaper than printing with quality paper and OEM ink in the UK. I still think the Lr Print module is the best system of it's type I have used, and is good for multiple image layouts. As long as access to saved output combinations is nothing more than a right mouse click away as it is in Lr that will be OK for export.

I'm one of those that has adopted the system of only producing output files when required for a specific use. That way they will be correctly matched to that use. I also use them and then delete them once used. So for me Lr is my main method of viewing images on my PC, since that is also the simplest way of actually finding the correct images in the first place.

All alternatives must also either use the Windows screen drawing API's to handle HiDPI screens, or have a good HiDPI interface, since I'm using a 5K monitor. I would also need to find an alternative to Ps, and I would like to see it have at least as good support of 16 bit images.

All of these tools are of just as much importance to me as the actual conversion achieved. The Adobe processes engine is still after all considered to be in the top three available. I'm currently using Lr Classic on subscription, but have been using Lr since 2012.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18882311
Is there anyone here on POTN who uses C1 and used to use Lr and relied heavily on catalogue features such as Smart Collections? I have a simple Year/day file system for the RAW files, and then all my organisation is done in Lr with mostly Smart Collections and Collection Groups. All this is organised using IPTC subject codes, combined with keywords.

The catalogue feature of C1 is certainly as flexible as LR. Smart collections are available. Very strong and extensive possibility to screen for all sorts of features and parameters.

BigAl007 wrote in post #18882311
I also make very heavy use of Lr's Virtual Copy feature, many of my images have at least one VC and many will have three or four, or more if they are to be printed in a couple of different formats. An aside Adobe could very easily do VC's in Bridge, all they would need is to allow different versions of .xmp files for a single image.

I C1 they are called variants and behave very much like the VC in LR. No difference there. You also can search for and display only the different variants (e.g. just variant 3). I am not aware of xmp files in C1 - everything is organised within the catalogue.

BigAl007 wrote in post #18882311
I hear talk of a single integrated environment, but is it possible to have different environments for different tasks? Metadata management doesn't really need you to have all of the development tools instantly available for example.

Not sure what you mean with this. But in C1 you can freely define your workspace. Any tool and group of tools can be deleted or moved around. They can be saved and loaded easily (like preferences) - so you can just go for a very simple metadata edit workspace where you blend out everything else. And then load your personalised development workspace.

BigAl007 wrote in post #18882311
I made a lot of use of the Lr Print module, but I print to my local printer a lot less these days, I have found a very good lab that is miles cheaper than printing with quality paper and OEM ink in the UK. I still think the Lr Print module is the best system of it's type I have used, and is good for multiple image layouts. As long as access to saved output combinations is nothing more than a right mouse click away as it is in Lr that will be OK for export.

No print module in C1. You can export very very efficiently - but I am not aware of fancy layouts and multiple pictures on one page.
Edit: Wrong - the print function is better then I expected (never used ).

drmaxx wrote in post #18882194
Thanks. Looks interesting.
Edit: I only found a LR / C1 competitor and not a Photoshop replacement. Am I missing something?

Don't know what you were looking over but

https://affinity.serif​.com/en-us/photo/

is made for single image conversion, layer composites, local adjustments. C1 is made for bulk import and working with large amounts of files with minimal local adjustment tools.

The copy/paste of various settings is great. There is a screen that lists all the adjustments you are about to c/p and you can deselect whatever you want. You can also set up a style and apply it at import.

They offer a more robust DAM but I haven't had a need to use it. As a commercial photog, I generally wrap up a project and don't really want to see it again.

C1 for thethered shooting is top notch.