Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: the more i read the more worried i get - deciding on C1 or .....  (Read 17148 times)
superqaz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« on: August 02, 2013, 06:11:37 AM »
ReplyReply

have been following an old thread and reading posts by Jack Flesher and others about how C! v7 is optimized for newer cameras, and DB's produced much better results.

as a relative newcomer to dlsr's [and i will probably always use one thats a previous model and not top of the range, although it will be a pro model/full size sensor]

I'm starting to wonder if i should continue investing time in learning C1, or if there's a more suitable program with doesn't rely on one having DB's or the latest camera

i currently use C1v5.1.2 and a PC witch needs upgrading to run C1v6 or 7. before i start spending on upgrades i'd like to establish the best software to use [although i would have to upgrade my pc to use other programs like Lightbox]

my images will be destined for commercial print, micro stock agencies and the likes of

thanks
Logged
Kevin Raber
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


Kevin Raber


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2013, 08:20:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I am a C1 guy running C1 7.13.  Well worth the upgrade of your platform to run this software.  Michael is a Lightroom guy and I am C1. Both do a great job. C1 7 is a whole new beast though and the flexibility of the interface as well as the options to work with sessions and/or catalogs makes it the processor of my choice. When it comes to output I am always amazed by the results. Michael and I are starting a week long video shoot for a NEW Capture One tutorial all next week. Like the present LR tutorial it should be a very in depth look at C1 and how to get the most out of it. It will take a bit of time to edit, but we should have it ready sometime early fall. My suggestion is regardless of whether you are LR or C1, get your system upgraded as both of the programs work best with the latest OS and hardware upgrades. Oh, and the difference in image quality from C1 5 to C1 7 will be like getting a whole new camera.
Logged

Kevin Raber
Publisher - luminous-landscape.com
kwr@luminous-landscape.com
superqaz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2013, 09:35:00 AM »
ReplyReply

[quote author. Oh, and the difference in image quality from C1 5 to C1 7 will be like getting a whole new camera.
[/quote]

  Kevin, humm  not meaning to be rude in any way but are u sure thats not an exaggeration, i say this cause ive seen lots of talk here about C! being optimized for newer cameras ets and DB's. if this is true then its very good news as im not a natural up grader of things.....seldom believe the hype:)

obviously i dont expect it to be like having a new camera but u imply that the difference would be great.

am very interested in what u have to say about this

currently i use a cannon 40d but will soon get a 5D Mark II

thanks.




« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 09:39:54 AM by superqaz » Logged
mondeo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2013, 09:54:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I am a C1 guy running C1 7.13.  Well worth the upgrade of your platform to run this software.  Michael is a Lightroom guy and I am C1. Both do a great job. C1 7 is a whole new beast though and the flexibility of the interface as well as the options to work with sessions and/or catalogs makes it the processor of my choice. When it comes to output I am always amazed by the results. Michael and I are starting a week long video shoot for a NEW Capture One tutorial all next week. Like the present LR tutorial it should be a very in depth look at C1 and how to get the most out of it. It will take a bit of time to edit, but we should have it ready sometime early fall. My suggestion is regardless of whether you are LR or C1, get your system upgraded as both of the programs work best with the latest OS and hardware upgrades. Oh, and the difference in image quality from C1 5 to C1 7 will be like getting a whole new camera.
Whole new camera? That's a bold claim. Is that a whole new camera with a set of pro lenses?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2805



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2013, 10:23:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think it's an unfair claim. I can't really say about C1, but just look at the radical improvements in a couple of recent versions of LR/ACR where you got hugely-improved handling of shadows and lenses in LR3/ACR6 and then a similar big step forward with highlight tones in Lr4/ACR7.
Logged

superqaz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2013, 10:36:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think it's an unfair claim. I can't really say about C1, but just look at the radical improvements in a couple of recent versions of LR/ACR where you got hugely-improved handling of shadows and lenses in LR3/ACR6 and then a similar big step forward with highlight tones in Lr4/ACR7.

yes point taken , although im still haunted by "C! being optimized for newer cameras and DB's" and how much improvement i would get using an slightly older cannon 5d mk 11
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2805



WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2013, 10:48:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe I'm cynical, but would a canny PR guy promote software as "optimized for older cameras too"?
Logged

superqaz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2013, 11:09:37 AM »
ReplyReply

coarse not, but i thought that when Kevin said "Oh, and the difference in image quality from C1 5 to C1 7 will be like getting a whole new camera", that he was taking into account that i was using and am planning to use [as stated] slightly older cameras
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2805



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2013, 11:25:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I can't compare C1v7 versus C1v5, but I'd be inclined to believe his statement would apply to my old Nikon D100 or D200 files - it's certainly true of how they look in Lr3-5 compared to Lr1/2.
Logged

Jimmy D Uptain
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2013, 10:20:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I would first upgrade the PC. I mean you are gonna want to do that regardless of whether you upgrade software. That way you will get the most out of whatever you are running.
As far as C1 is concerned, now this is important... Make sure your video card you upgrade to plays well with C1. Don't go by their recommendations in the literature. Ask folks what they use and whether they like it.

I use C1 primarily for RAW conversion. I find the adjustment tools are much more fluid and my images just look nice.
The catalog feature isn't ready for prime time. This is something you should be aware of. Don't take my word for it, just check out the user groups.
I use Lightroom for printing and cataloging.
I'm playing with Media Pro for cataloging as the layout suits me better than Lightroom.
I also use Nikon NX2 and Photoshop CS6. It all depends on the desired end result. I may use all softwares on one image, I may use just one.
What I do know is that neither C1 nor LR do everything well for me.
So in essence, I would own both and learn to use both. Your images will thank you for it.




Logged
superqaz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2013, 12:13:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I would first upgrade the PC. I mean you are gonna want to do that regardless of whether you upgrade software. That way you will get the most out of whatever you are running.
As far as C1 is concerned, now this is important... Make sure your video card you upgrade to plays well with C1. Don't go by their recommendations in the literature. Ask folks what they use and whether they like it.

I use C1 primarily for RAW conversion. I find the adjustment tools are much more fluid and my images just look nice.
The catalog feature isn't ready for prime time. This is something you should be aware of. Don't take my word for it, just check out the user groups.
I use Lightroom for printing and cataloging.
I'm playing with Media Pro for cataloging as the layout suits me better than Lightroom.
I also use Nikon NX2 and Photoshop CS6. It all depends on the desired end result. I may use all softwares on one image, I may use just one.
What I do know is that neither C1 nor LR do everything well for me.
So in essence, I would own both and learn to use both. Your images will thank you for it.



yes i am inclined to think that way regarding use of several programs....

re the video card: what sort of difference can be apparent between cards? this sounds important. I thought that if a card complied with open gl standard that would be the end of it...seems not

have been reading around and can see that there will indeed be differences to be gained from using  the new C! version , even with my old camera

thanks
Logged
Jimmy D Uptain
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2013, 07:17:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I use a Mac Mini which doesn't have a video card so I really couldn't say which one, but what I have seen in the forums is spotty support of video cards.
I've never had a video card with the newest iteration of C1 so I couldn't tell you what suffers.
That's why I suggest asking others. Maybe if you see a pattern of happy/unhappy people you could narrow it down. Video cards seem to be an expensive part
of a good PC so it would be wise to research this a bit.
That being said, Lightroom doesn't seem so picky. This is great if you design a system around C1.
Capture one is outstanding software. However it can be temperamental.
In my own personal experience, it seems C1 isn't efficient. It needs horsepower to run smoothly. I was having issues running dual monitors with C1. With Lightroom, its no problem at all.
My Mini is no slouch. 2.3i7, 16gb Ram,  Samsung 840pro 512gb SSD. My catalog resides in a raid 0 thunderbolt enclosure. Yet I still have problems

There are those that run C1 without issue, maybe you can be one of those guys. Me, not so much. But I will continue to use it. It's simply beautiful at rendering.

Logged
superqaz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2013, 04:37:29 AM »
ReplyReply

thanx for the advise....will be researching before iu upgrade my pc
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2013, 08:15:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I just upgraded from C1-6 to C1-1.1.3, I'd back up Kevin's comments actually. The sharpening alone on our Aptus II-8 is the equivalent of around 8 more megapixels, Guy Flesher over on GetDPI says 10. I'm going back and upgrading some 800 books (150K files) shot in our repro studio with the older software to the new engine, a lot of work but the difference really is that significant.

In general it is often the case that significant steps ahead in a raw processing engine can make an older camera into a new 'being', give it newer life. This was the case with ACR when they changed over to the 2010 engine and I assume again when they went ahead with the 2012 engine (though I don't like so don't use it). Case in point, Canon 1Ds original. I always found the files incredibly difficult to work with, especially higher ISO. That was back with whatever ACR was current when I owned the camera in 2005. Using process 2010 it's a different world, I managed to rescue certain difficult to process shots from a trip to Iceland, 7 years later, it really was a new camera. Here is one.


But don't take anyone's word for it, honestly, download C1-7.1.3 and try it out for yourself, do the comparisons.
Logged

superqaz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2013, 09:20:16 AM »
ReplyReply

 you talk of products im not familiar with but i do hear what ur saying.   yes, time to upgrade..thanks
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2013, 03:25:06 AM »
ReplyReply

ACR = Adobe Camera Raw. The engine behind the raw converter in Lightroom and Bridge/Photoshop.
Logged

superqaz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2013, 05:11:53 AM »
ReplyReply

thanks for the clarificaton
Logged
tingyat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2013, 10:36:48 PM »
ReplyReply

@superqaz

Seem to be coming to this party a little late.

Just to say, I had "gone off" C1 sometime back, that is until the Fuji X-E1 came out. Here I had little choice but to get back to C1. At the time and other than Fuji's rather lack lust 3rd party offering, C1 was about the only other option available when it came to processing Fuji's RAW files.

My timing was good, as this was when version 7 had just came out. All I can say is, I was "astounded" by the results I was getting off the X-E1. I was doing a lot of "remainable" light work with this little camera and was often shooting at ISO 3200. At the time ran some tests using Adobe's ACR and C1 and the results were telling. There was nothing scientific to my testing - just enlarging sections of images run through each process and checking out things like shadow detail and colour shift. To my eye and senses, C1 scored every time.

Back to using your Canon 5D MkII. Recently have just "recooked" a whole section of image archive using C1 7.1x.x - namely much of my architectural photography. At the time was using TS 17mm and 24mm lenses on the 5D MkII. Much of this work was shot in 2011 and 2012. Again, as I redo these images, I'm quite astounded by the results I'm getting from C1.

When first prepping and processing these image I was using Adobe's Camera RAW via Bridge (having long given up on Lightroom) and then using Photoshop to clean up and "tweak" the images. All in all, the results then were largely flat, lacked detail in the shadows that I shot for and lacked any sort of pop in the highlights. I couldn't pull the results as I had envisage them at the time the images were taken. As a result, was quite embarrassed with these results. Tried DPP and there, things weren't much better. In that period sort of shrugged off these results and largely put this down to my own "bad photography".

Long story short, after running these images through C1 7.x.x felt decidedly vindicated - this in that the "results" I was looking for were there all along. Seems like the technology I was using previously wasn't up to pulling and producing the results I was looking for. Now, with C1, I have those results and I'm now more than pleased with the outcome.

Also need to add here that I'm in the process of "reworking" images shot on a Canon EOS 1D MkII as well as some early conversion DNG files. All the results now seem a lot better than when I first worked with these files.     

I think this eludes to Kevin Raber's point - that this transition from what I was using before (ACR and DPP) to using C1 7.x.x has been like getting a new camera - if not "literally", then in C1 making better sense of all the image data that's always there. As something of a "qualifier" here need to add this, like cooking, what works for me may not necessarily work for you or work quite in the same way. C1 is a bit like getting into a kitchen - you'll need to "brew" up your own recipes to get things working to your own liking. Wish you luck in this regard.

BUT, just to balance all my enthusiasm here, I'm having issues with 7.1.3 and have had to "downgrade" to 7.1.2. Not sure what the issues are yet. Might be the computer hardware I'm using. It may be something else. However, please don't let this deter you. 

As for "upgrading" your computer hardware - get it done. You ought to be looking at minimum of 8 Gb of RAM, a multi-core CPU and a LCD monitor starting in the 22 inch range. How you get there is up to you.

Hope this helps - Rogan

Logged

Asia Pacific
http://www.rogancoles.com - portfolio
http://archive.rogancoles.com - image archive
superqaz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2013, 04:18:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Rogan, 
very interesting , im convinced now.

ur pictures are most impressive as are the actual buildings. i guess good architects cost money to hire or perhaps we in the uk are scared of imposing/unusual buildings

thanks
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad