Selling 20D ETC Profiles
I bought the ETC 20D colour profiles last month, and they are fantastic.
Colour is superb. But, I just can't get into the workflow of C1 Pro as I prefer PS CS2 Adobe Camera Raw. Plus, there are a few other little niggles I can't get past in C1 Pro.
I want to sell my ETC 20D profiles for $15 to recoup some of the money I spent.
Is this allowed? All I can say is I won't be using them anymore. Good thing I hadn't spent money on C1 Pro yet.
sharpnsmart@canada.com
Colour is superb. But, I just can't get into the workflow of C1 Pro as I prefer PS CS2 Adobe Camera Raw. Plus, there are a few other little niggles I can't get past in C1 Pro.
I want to sell my ETC 20D profiles for $15 to recoup some of the money I spent.
Is this allowed? All I can say is I won't be using them anymore. Good thing I hadn't spent money on C1 Pro yet.
sharpnsmart@canada.com
0
-
Why do you prefer PS CS?
C1 gives better conversion in just about everything thing. If you learn to use C1 you will find that you very rarely require to use anything else as expensive as PS CS.
I have discovered a cheaper application than having to outlay lots of money to get 16 bit functionality. It does layers and masks all in 16 bit, crops, curves levels, resize, prints etc etc etc. It even does colour space conversion if required.
The profiles are easy to install and will appear in any pick list for a colour management aware application is you have followed the install instructions.
if you already own PS CS, then I am too late.
😄 😄0 -
I prefer the workflow of Adobe Camera Raw.
But, more importantly, the conversion quality is much better in PS CS2.
The only thing that I like about C1 better are the third party ETC profiles, but it's not worth it when you get banding/noise issues.
PS CS2 gives much more detail, with lower noise, and fewer artifacts.
Have a look at this thread where I explain
http://forum.phaseone.com/viewtopic.php?t=10830 -
Interesting that you say that and can show it. Most of the complaints go the other way that PSCS is noisey, shows banding and soft.
Any way each to his own. If you are happy with what you are getting out of PSCS then go for it. I trialled it for a month and was very unhappy with the results.
Ian M 😄0 -
I've tried and tried to like C1 Pro since I liked the ETC Profiles sooo much.
But I have finally given up.
Despite my best efforts, I also cannot get the same amount of detail out of C1 conversions without introducting alot of noise. The only problem I have with PS CS2 is that I can't get as good colours as I can with the ETC profiles, although I think PS CS2 still beats the default C1 profile.
Here is a comparison with my default settings in PS CS2 for noise, and C1 Pro conversion with noise reduction turned down a fair bit. I still couldn't get close to the same detail. Sharpening is similar on both. If I crank up the sharpening on the C1 version, I get a lot more noise and some ugly artifacting.
http://images2.fotop.net/albums2/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/comparo.jpg0 -
Very interesting... This sure looks like a Soft rather than Standard Look for Sharpening. Or possibly Sharpening at Process turned Off in the Preferences. I know Capture One is capable of excellent sharpening.
Not doubting for a minute what anyone likes, because folks have all kinds of tastes. Some like hamburger while some prefer filet mignon.
But from a scientific and an analytical perspective, it comes down to Math, and Phase One's algorithms are the most sophisticated and far superior than the others. Add to this a Workflow that is at least 50% more efficient than others softwares.
This is a software that has been tested WorldWide and developed with the direct input and insight of the best Photographers Globally.
Wondering if a Trial was enough to truly test and become proficient with the Tools. From a Support standpoint, we still get inquiries about a feature or capability from longtime Users that are already within the software and never discovered!
This makes me think of...The Guy who bought a chainsaw because he was told he could cut down more than 50 trees per day. After 2 days of sun up to sun down work, all he could manage was 10 trees.
When he went back to the store and expressed his dissatisfaction, the Salesman stated, \"well lets see what's the matter with this saw\", and briskly pulled the ripcord bringing the chainsaw to a smoky scream.
Whereupon the Customer promptly exclaimed, \"What's that Noise\" !
Cheers, 😂
kdc0 -
I used to be a C1 only user back when I had my 300D. I have lots of experience with it.
The sharpening used was soft at 60, and it was not turned off in preferences.
I find the C1 sharpening is very noisy and \"dirty\" compared to PS CS2 camera raw. In fact, I just read a comparison of various converters, and they found the same result. PS CS2 produced the cleanest output where sharpening was concerned. Even with sharpening turned \"off\" in preferences, C1 Pro still had \"noisy\" edges.
From the above article:
\"ACR: made one of the cleanest renditions of this image. Note the minimal amount of color artifacts in the white window sections. Very little, if any, behind the scenes sharpening was applied.\"
\"C1: Even though we have set no sharpening and we have \"disable sharpening on output\" selected in preferences, C1 is moderately aggressive on contrast between adjoining areas light and dark pixels. Also, there is a lack of smooth gradation in the pixels in the window frame cross bars. Color noise is average or less compared to the other converters in this article.\"0 -
Hello,
Speaking of comparisons, I am not sure if this is 100% relevant to your post, but you might want to look at this one also:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=14264486
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=14262373
It's a long thread but at least just go through the posts by "PIXsurgeon". He has done one of the most thorough (and recent) comparisons that I've seen. One quote example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/46544148/original
Here, we can see that ACR produces a much stronger low-frequency noise impulse ("coarse" texture of OOF/BOKEH areas of backdrop, with relatively visible blobs of RED-channel chroma noise), whereas the C1 output produces a much finer-grained, less-offensive noise-spectra on the shadows. C1's Luminance measures a bit higher (in absolute terms) than ACR. However, C1's output is much better looking, and, this also clearly demonstrates that ANY CLAIMS on noise-reduction of C1 in shadows "killing" or "smearing" detail, is just Greek/Roman MYTHOLOGY. Any difference is caused by tonal values being PUSHED up by ACR, as well as its lower contrast levels, overall.
Putting aside the differences in contrast, which ACR does not manage to handle well, it is also wort mentioning that further histogram examination reveals that ACR already clips some croma channels at this contrast level, whereas C1 delivers the broadest tonal bandwidth, particularly on the shadows (as examined on the histograms).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
C1 has its bugs and problems but overall is still considered by many to be the best there is. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Can
[quote="drisley" wrote:
I used to be a C1 only user back when I had my 300D. I have lots of experience with it.
The sharpening used was soft at 60, and it was not turned off in preferences.
I find the C1 sharpening is very noisy and "dirty" compared to PS CS2 camera raw. In fact, I just read a comparison of various converters, and they found the same result. PS CS2 produced the cleanest output where sharpening was concerned. Even with sharpening turned "off" in preferences, C1 Pro still had "noisy" edges.
From the above article:
"ACR: made one of the cleanest renditions of this image. Note the minimal amount of color artifacts in the white window sections. Very little, if any, behind the scenes sharpening was applied."
"C1: Even though we have set no sharpening and we have "disable sharpening on output" selected in preferences, C1 is moderately aggressive on contrast between adjoining areas light and dark pixels. Also, there is a lack of smooth gradation in the pixels in the window frame cross bars. Color noise is average or less compared to the other converters in this article."0 -
The funny thing is, as soon as I looked at those images, I noticed ugly artifacting in the first image before I even knew what it was.
Then I realized it was a classic example of a C1 Pro conversion. I just don't like it. The hair shows an ugly stair stepping pattern, and I do find that unless you increase the \"banding suppression\" slider to atleast 3/4, and also reduce the noise reduction setting, you do get horrible banding, especially in the shadows and highly saturated areas, and removal of way too much detail. The ACR conversion has very clean edges, and will take to USM much more nicely than the C1 conversion. You can even increase the colour noise reduction in ACR, and get a much less noisy image, and it will still retain atleast as much detail as the C1 image, but with much smoother, cleaner edges.
I actually find that ACR produces more natural appearing grain, that is much less distracting, and helps show way more detail than anything I can get in C1 Pro despite my extensive efforts over the past month or so.
Basically I realized I was spending SO much time just trying to get my C1 Pro images to look like those from ACR. That's when I finally said \"why waste the time when I actually prefer the ACR workflow anyway?\".
So, I'm back to PS CS2 for raw, and I am a happy camper again (although I still prefer the colour accuracy of the ETC profiles).
For ISO100-400 images, I think C1 Pro does a very good job. But, I regularly shoot ISO1600 in difficult lighting, and I just did not like the results (as much as I wanted to like them).
However, I'm glad that some people do like C1 Pro and support it.
Different strokes for different folks, and it pushes each raw converter designer to work harder. The last thing I would want is a Adobe Camera Raw monopoly.0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
8 Kommentare