Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom Catalog --> Capture One Catalog (Beta tool)  (Read 4631 times)
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2013, 12:35:25 AM »
ReplyReply

No reason at all, it could be sensible for them.
Can I see them doing it ? not at all. I doubt they'd consider the effort(=cost) worthwhile. Plus whilst I think a lot of people will give a smaller player like Phase One some slack if they don't get it right for the first few times, if Adobe release a poor offering it would be heavily criticised.

Lightroom's cataloguing is the key feature for them to develop and improve on as it keeps users locked into the product and less likely to migrate elsewhere.
I find it remarkable that they aren't putting more effort into improving this part of the program for that reason alone.
One might hope that open-source people (rawtherapee? dcraw?) or standards-oriented companies (Adobe) started an initiative to define an open raw processing/cataloging format. What do you need in order to get the basics right? dcraw as a standardized file-reader, xml data describing picture edits and tags, some database format allowing you to easily store and access those xml data? (I am into neither databases nor xml).

I don't expect raw images rendered in Lightroom to ever match raw images rendered in some other developer unless I do some manual labour. But having the basics right (like +2 EC or cropping 50%) would sure bring most of my images a lot closer without my intervention.

-h
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2013, 01:02:34 AM »
ReplyReply

define an open raw processing/cataloging format.
Rather wishful thinking.
At least most are sticking to variations of SQL, so at least some of the data entries can be decoded.

Quote
having the basics right (like +2 EC or cropping 50%) would sure bring most of my images a lot closer without my intervention.
This will be the really clever thing to get right.
As you say, there'll never be an exact match (especially for those that choose to use radical presets), but with some effort I would have thought you could get pretty close with a degree of research. Then just tag them as auto imported to separate them from properly optimised, natively imported images and we're well on the way.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3907


« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2013, 01:51:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't expect raw images rendered in Lightroom to ever match raw images rendered in some other developer unless I do some manual labour. But having the basics right (like +2 EC or cropping 50%) would sure bring most of my images a lot closer without my intervention.

Hi,

And therein lies the problem. A +2EV in Exposure, means something completely different (mostly mid-tones are adjusted, others are compressed or expanded,probably while observing edge transitions) in Lightroom, than in most other converters that use it as a straightforward linear gamma multiplier for Raw data values.

Having the parameter values is only a (small) part of the full story.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 04, 2013, 12:25:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Along the same lines, sort of - have been wondering about C1 (& Media Pro too, IiR) using .xmp "sidecar" files. I have been using Lightroom catalogs to manage raw files & more, but occasionally access those same raws to process with C1. If I enable that checkbox in C1 to write .xmps, will it over-write the ones Lightroom has already generated? You can tell I don't want to find out the hard way.

John

John:  By default, LR doesn't write information out to sidecar files, but keeps everything in its catalogue.  One can enable autowrite to .xmp in the LR preferences or save the metadata out manually.  If another program overwrites the .xmp and the file is subsequently read by LR it pops up a box telling you that the metadata has been changed and asks you whether you want to keep it as is or overwrite it with LR settings.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2013, 11:32:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have just tested on all my P45+ files, conversion works fine but the results are absolutely junk. I am aware that this is a beta.

I have something like seven years of experience with Lightroom, and yes I have been using Capture One before that. The problem I have with C1 os that the more I use it the more I dislike it. I have tested almost all raw converters, except Apple Aperture, and I actually bought several of them, including C1 Pro.

I would convert to C1 one if I found it advantageous to LR, but it is not my experience. The only advantage I see is less moiré and aliasing artifacts with P45+.

On the other hand, I like my P45+ and may be I also will like C1 one day, but as of now, that day is very far away!

Sorry, just my opinion!

Best regards
Erik
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3907


« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2013, 12:59:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I have something like seven years of experience with Lightroom, and yes I have been using Capture One before that. The problem I have with C1 os that the more I use it the more I dislike it.

Hi Erik,

What do you dislike? Image quality, different workflow, ... .

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2013, 05:18:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What I dislike with C1?

1) User interface
2) Color rendition
3) Controls

The way I work with LR I mostly begin with a gradient on sky, mostly using highlights control to get better sky and very little under exposure, increasing saturation and clarity. That makes a fine sky and clouds without affecting tree tops so much. C1 has gradient on layers but has only "HDR" controls on "background" layers. Also, "HDR" controls simply don't work as well as in Lightroom.

Next thing I do in Lightroom is to adjust exposure (using the now reduced sky), setting black point, so I get some dark clipping (if it is a normal image) and use shadow control. This effects can be done in C1 but I feel they are less subtle than in LR. Only after these basic adjustment do I touch contrast.  The "feel" I have is that LR controls are much more subtle.

I have bought C1 Pro something like November last year when I worked with some Phase One images. So I have had it for some time. My expectation was in part that I would learn to use it with time, but as said the derivative is negative for me.

As I said, I have used Lightroom since 2006, and it has developed generally in the direction I liked especially since Eric Chan got involved. It is difficult to make old dogs sit, they used to say here in Sweden.

I tested the "import LR catalog", and got the result below. Image on left is POne interpretation and the right one is a tiff imported from the Lightroom catalog. I now that the import catalog function is a beta and the import itself works fine. The raw file is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples/20130630-CF043307.iiq

I am not a people shooter, so I know little about skin tones.


Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 06:53:06 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3907


« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2013, 06:02:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What I dislike with C1?

1) User interface
2) Color rendition
3) Controls

The way I work with LR I mostly begin with a gradient on sky, mostly using highlights control to get better sky and very little under exposure, increasing saturation and clarity. That makes a fine sky and clouds without affecting tree tops so much. C1 has gradient on layers but has only "HDR" controls on "background" layers. Also, "HDR" controls simply don't work as well as in Lightroom.

Hi Erik,

The first thing I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you are trying to use the same workflow in C1 as you grew accustomed to in LR. That would be a mistake. The reason you begin in LR with a gradient, and especially with highlight control, is due to the highlight compression you get in LR, in particular for ETTR shots. Capture One doesn't do such extreme compression, as long as you use a "Linear Response curve", instead of a "Film Curve".

Check the attached Raw digger histogram and default Clipping in"basic" conversions of an image tile for a pano stitch. The image was exposed 'optimally', only approx. 3K highlight pixels in a single channel were clipped, and almost 1K pixels in the shadows. Only exposure bracketing by + 2/3rd and -1/3rd of a stop would have captured the entire dynamic range of the scene with this camera.

Now look at the basic conversions animation, all exposure corrections at zero, only White Balancing was applied based on the default camera profiles. It's obvious that the Lightroom result needs serious highlight work, and that Capture One requires shadow work. Two entirely different roads need to be taken for a better quality output. There it helps to be familiar with the controls.

Where Lightroom requires a minus Highlights correction to bring back some definition in the clouds, Capture One does not because the cloud definition is fine (I'd  brighten up the upper part of the blue sky a bit though). Capture One requires lifting of the non-sky brightness, not by a gradient but by either the High Dynamic Range Shadow slider or, much better, an adjustment layer of the land area and an exposure increase, combined with some Saturation and Clarity.

Quote
Next thing I do in Lightroom is to adjust exposure (using the now reduced sky), setting black point, so I get some dark clipping (if it is a normal image) and use shadow control. This effects can be done in C1 but I feel they are less subtle than in LR. Only after these basic adjustment do I touch contrast.  The "feel" I have is that LR controls are much more subtle.

Again, a different approach is required, and I prefer the quality that C1 offers (but I admit that I'm more accustomed to Capture One's predictable response versus Lightroom's under-the-hood automatic adjustments). I also prefer to do most post-processing in Photoshop, because it gives more accurate control, and better plug-in adjustment capability than either Raw processor offers in general. But that's where the overall workflow preferences also apply.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 06:21:42 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
jwlimages
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2013, 07:44:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
John:  By default, LR doesn't write information out to sidecar files, but keeps everything in its catalogue.  One can enable autowrite to .xmp in the LR preferences or save the metadata out manually.  If another program overwrites the .xmp and the file is subsequently read by LR it pops up a box telling you that the metadata has been changed and asks you whether you want to keep it as is or overwrite it with LR settings.
Thanks for the response, Mike.

Yes, I'm aware of how LR handles writing .xmp sidecar files (or not), and about the warning of changed metadata. But I was asking if anyone had tried allowing Capture One to access the same raw files as those in a LR catalog. It seems like allowing each program to write .xmp's is a recipe for disaster - LR would get tripped up by C1-generated .xmp's (if you "import from disk" the changed metadata), and C1 would lose the metadata (edits) it recorded if you have LR overwrite those .xmp's.

I suppose you could "restrain" LR to keep all metadata in the catalog & let C1 do all the .xmp-writing, but that just seems highly precarious. I have never trusted setting LR to keep all metadata in the catalog file only.

John
Logged
Jimmy D Uptain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 101


« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2013, 12:02:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Does C1 reference the original files or does it move them?
And an observation:
Right now I'm testing it. And though it doesn't crash while building the catalog, it is taking a long time.
(Well it just crashed at 13000 files) Oh well Cry

Also, the previews are huge in size. So far the catalog is 14.55 gb and its not even halfway through.
The LR catalog is 537mb. I'm not fussing, just curious as to why it is so big.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad