Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: capture one 4.1 Vs Ligtroom 1.4  (Read 7524 times)
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2008, 10:49:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mort I will have to disagree with you 100%.
Sorry I just saw that you said the one T-1000 did.. that may be true but on Mine images C-1 is Clearly better. IMWO
Hi Snook. Yes, many people who are probably way better than me at post processing have told me that. And I respect their opinons. But I have yet to see a convincing side by side comparison that clearly shows one is better than the other. The one presented in this thread is far from convincing, for example. So I'm not doubting you - I'm just saying I've yet to see a comparison that convinces me.

My personal view is that while the differences in demosaicing algorithms make a difference, a far bigger factor is the skill of the person using the tool, and the familiarity of that person with the tool. For example, I have no doubt that a person who really knows C1 and uses it regularily can produce a better file using C1 than they can using LR, which they might not know as well, and may only use occasionally. I also have no doubt that a person who really knows LR and seldom uses C1 is going to get better results from LR than C1.

Comparing converters is apples and oranges. The person doing the comparison is always going to know one tool better than the other, and that's bound to make a difference in the results. I think the quality of the raw conversion engines has gotten so close that the primary difference in results has more to do with the skill of the user, the user's familiarity with the tool, and the ease of use and power of the tool's features. That's just my opinion, of course.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2008, 10:56:54 PM by Mort54 » Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
michaelnotar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368


« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2008, 01:06:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've just been looking at my old files, C1 3.7.9 looks much sharper, less noisy for architecture and landscape with my P45+ than V4

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i noticed that with focus set to 0 in v3, light sharpening is still applied, it has to be set to disable to turn off all sharpening effects. just had a shoot where some files were processed in v3 others in v4 and the v3 were slightly sharper due to that.
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2008, 06:49:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Since Version 4 of Camera Raw I think detail extraction is close to Capture One. Modulation of dark tonal values is better in C1. But maybe experienced users of ACR/LR can compensate the difference with advanced adjustments. On the other hand: when sharpening the images (at the end in Photoshop on layers) the results from the C1 files are … maybe not really sharper but at the same level of sharpness finer and subtler. The files of ACR compared to the C1 files have somehow a slight coarse look. So the difference is maybe not that big if you compare images without sharpening. But it’s getting more obvious after sharpening. Which may indicate a better detail extraction of C1… I think. But all in all the engines are quite close now from my point of view.
Much bigger the difference with regard to the look, the gradation and colors of the images. Well, obviously depends on the users taste. But whitebalance is a pain in ACR/LR for me personally and it takes some effort to find the right or a pleasing balance. Too, the images look flat in ACR/LR before I adjust something. Default settings in C1 look much more "film like" with regard to gradation and colors. So the new "camera profiles" – or better color correction presets – in ACR/LR are a good improvement. But not for the files of my P45 – the colors in ACR are a joke with the old "camera profile" as well as with the new Beta profile. Apart from that exposure is always 1 stop of (captures are 1 stop too dark in ACR so I have to push 1 stop and add noise herewith). Color and exposure of my small DSLR is somehow okay in ACR but images look flat here as well by default. With regard to the whole color management workflow the four output profiles in ACR/LR are a serious restriction. Me I need none of these four color spaces and at least this is a reason to refuse using ACR/LR.
While ACR is a plugin for those who want to process some raw files now and then LR and C1 offering enhanced workflow. But from my point of view LR has far too much options and sliders… all that slows down workflow. And the additional tools are much better organised in Photoshop (with much more control e.g. color warning, layers in different modes and so forth).
I hate the interface of LR and that of C1 V4, too. Too dark if you spent a long time in front of the display. I prefer the middle grey interface of the C1 V3x Windows version or the white one of the MAC version.

Quote
i noticed that with focus set to 0 in v3, light sharpening is still applied, it has to be set to disable to turn off all sharpening effects. just had a shoot where some files were processed in v3 others in v4 and the v3 were slightly sharper due to that.
Yes. Especially with threshold set to zero the sharpening is quite aggressive though the amount of sharpening is set to zero. In V3x you have to disable sharpening in the preferences. And in this case V3 and V4 produce the same results.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2008, 06:53:43 AM by tho_mas » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1118


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2008, 09:25:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I am finding C1 a much better raw processing tool than LR but than again C1 was always really at the top with many of the camera's I owned but for Phase files no question C1 is better in my view . A lot less adjustments just to get a good base image. LR comes in at least 1 stop too dark and the kelvin temp just is not even close to what the light temps are so it gets confusing because many times i will set my kelvin and apply that to outdoor images. I know I can do presets and all that but I still find C1 a better tool for Phase files plus it has lens corrections and such for my mamiya lenses. Little clunky on interface but I am hoping the Pro version will improve that.
Logged

terence_patrick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2008, 01:18:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm a long time ACR user, but just recently tried out C1 4.1 just to see what it offers. Like many here, I found that the program was extremely slow on my machine, which isn't saying all that much (using a dual G5 2.3ghz, 6.5gb ram, 10.4.11). But to zoom in/out, move a file around, or many any adjustment, it always takes 3+ seconds to make the adjustment then "focus" the image. Is that a typical experience for this program? And when making changes to files, must I process the image (thus creating a new TIFF) just to open it in Photoshop? It took me a looooong time (+30 mins) to work through a test folder of 50 or so files, which took about 10 mins in ACR. I did like the way the C1 processed the images, but does it require a beefy Mac Pro to really get it going efficiently?

Is C1 Pro any better? Will it support DNG files?
« Last Edit: August 03, 2008, 01:19:49 AM by terence_patrick » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4210



« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2008, 04:13:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm a long time ACR user, but just recently tried out C1 4.1 just to see what it offers. Like many here, I found that the program was extremely slow on my machine, which isn't saying all that much (using a dual G5 2.3ghz, 6.5gb ram, 10.4.11). But to zoom in/out, move a file around, or many any adjustment, it always takes 3+ seconds to make the adjustment then "focus" the image. Is that a typical experience for this program? And when making changes to files, must I process the image (thus creating a new TIFF) just to open it in Photoshop? It took me a looooong time (+30 mins) to work through a test folder of 50 or so files, which took about 10 mins in ACR. I did like the way the C1 processed the images, but does it require a beefy Mac Pro to really get it going efficiently?

Is C1 Pro any better? Will it support DNG files?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think it's a processor architecture thing, needing an Intel processor. Maybe even a used Intel Mac is enough for your purposes.

Edmund
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2008, 08:44:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think it's a processor architecture thing, needing an Intel processor. Maybe even a used Intel Mac is enough for your purposes.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not so great on my intel Mac Book. 3 seconds for images to clear after adjusting.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4210



« Reply #27 on: August 04, 2008, 09:04:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's not so great on my intel Mac Book. 3 seconds for images to clear after adjusting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

the desktops should be seriously faster for this type of work.
may be worth putting a faster disk in your macbook.

Edmund
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2870


WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 04, 2008, 01:17:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I did like the way the C1 processed the images, but does it require a beefy Mac Pro to really get it going efficiently?

Is C1 Pro any better? Will it support DNG files?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is definitely best on Intel chips.

My setup:
Intel MBP 17" 2.16Ghz Core Duo: 2gb ram 100 gig 7200rpm (i.e. first generation intel laptop with upgrade hard drive).

Time to snap after adjustment (exposure, contrast, WB): <1/2 sec (too fast to measure)
Time to snap after zoom to 100% (w/ thumbnails and adjustments pane shown): 2.5 sec
Time to snap after zoom to 100% (near full screen, thumbnails and adjustments pane hidden): 6 sec

Doug Peterson
[a href=\"http://www.captureintegration.com]Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer[/url]
Personal Portfolio
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #29 on: August 04, 2008, 03:17:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
the desktops should be seriously faster for this type of work.
may be worth putting a faster disk in your macbook.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's funny, for photoshop I used to have the powerpc dual 2.7 ghz processor G5 desktop and I bought an intel macbook 2.2 ghz dual processor for location work (both 4megs ram) and I found the macbook was markedly faster. The new intel desktops I'm sure do rock out though.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4210



« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2008, 04:02:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's funny, for photoshop I used to have the powerpc dual 2.7 ghz processor G5 desktop and I bought an intel macbook 2.2 ghz dual processor for location work (both 4megs ram) and I found the macbook was markedly faster. The new intel desktops I'm sure do rock out though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213046\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I too bought the cheapest MacBook Pro, and found it"s a very fast machine. Still have to upgrade the RAM, though. he desktops are now obscenely expensive when compared to the laptops, but one can hang wonderful screens off them.

Edmund
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2008, 08:46:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I too bought the cheapest MacBook Pro, and found it"s a very fast machine. Still have to upgrade the RAM, though. he desktops are now obscenely expensive when compared to the laptops, but one can hang wonderful screens off them.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey, I have my 19inch Eizo connected to my macbook and it's great.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad