Capture One 12...
Stakes raised considerably by Adobe’s latest update. Time for Phase One to become more aggressive in adding features while lowering prices.
I skipped the v11 upgrade because I had bought the full product just 4 months before, but as nice as Capture One 10 has been, I can’t see myself ever paying over $100 for yearly upgrades.
I skipped the v11 upgrade because I had bought the full product just 4 months before, but as nice as Capture One 10 has been, I can’t see myself ever paying over $100 for yearly upgrades.
0
-
... and yet using Lightroom instead costs £9.98 a month so almost £120 a year! (I don't know what they charge in $.)
Ian0 -
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
... and yet using Lightroom instead costs £9.98 a month so almost £120 a year! (I don't know what they charge in $.)
Ian
True.
The difference is for the same $10/month, you get Photoshop - which opens up an entirely new world of retouching/processing possibilities.
In fact, if you notice, Capture One’s latest features are all partial implementations of Photoshop features that have been around forever.
So, yes, if it were Capture One vs Lightroom for roughly the same money, Capture One would be competitively priced and a good case could be made that it offers more value than Lightroom. However, when Photoshop enters the picture, it’s no longer a contest. That’s why Adobe has been so successful with the subscription: bundling Photoshop with Lightroom made it a no-brainer for most people.0 -
[quote="Irvin" wrote:
[quote="Ian3" wrote:
... and yet using Lightroom instead costs £9.98 a month so almost £120 a year! (I don't know what they charge in $.)
Ian
True.
The difference is for the same $10/month, you get Photoshop - which opens up an entirely new world of retouching/processing possibilities.
In fact, if you notice, Capture One’s latest features are all partial implementations of Photoshop features that have been around forever.
So, yes, if it were Capture One vs Lightroom for roughly the same money, Capture One would be competitively priced and a good case could be made that it offers more value than Lightroom. However, when Photoshop enters the picture, it’s no longer a contest. That’s why Adobe has been so successful with the subscription: bundling Photoshop with Lightroom made it a no-brainer for most people.
It would be interesting to know how many of the Lightroom focused users also use PS and how much of it how often.
To be quite honest the PS software and that of its copyists has always baffled me. I don't think my mind works the right way for it.
Giving me parts of PS functionality (there are, after all, rather limited options for introducing totally new and widely useful features to digital photo editing applications that have not already been offered somewhere - whether used or not) that I can make use of in a way that I actually understand and find logical is find by me.
I'm averse to willing paying for stuff I am very unlikely to use. Mobile phone contracts that offer more call time and message options than most people are ever likely to use are another example of marketing appearing to offer a great deal but not really giving much away in reality for the majority of users.
Just my thoughts of course. Everyone else's virtual mileage may vary.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many of the Lightroom focused users also use PS and how much of it how often.
Grant
My guess is most of them - given the fact pictures are routinely retouched nowadays. That’s the reason Capture One keeps adding Photoshop-like features.0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many of the Lightroom focused users also use PS and how much of it how often.
Professionally I use Capture One more frequently, personally I use Lightroom more often than not. Though with the LR masking features I'm starting to use it more professionally again.
As for Photoshop I use it all of the time but I'll try to avoid the trip there if I can. There are several things that just can not be done outside of photoshop and a lot of the tools in CO & LR are slow/laggy, & clumsy where in PS they are intuitive, responsive, & my computer fans don't cycle to maximum speed when I use the brush tool.0 -
[quote="cdc" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many of the Lightroom focused users also use PS and how much of it how often.
There are several things that just can not be done outside of photoshop and a lot of the tools in CO & LR are slow/laggy, & clumsy where in PS they are intuitive, responsive, & my computer fans don't cycle to maximum speed when I use the brush tool.
That’s exactly my experience.0 -
[quote="Irvin" wrote:
[quote="cdc" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many of the Lightroom focused users also use PS and how much of it how often.
There are several things that just can not be done outside of photoshop and a lot of the tools in CO & LR are slow/laggy, & clumsy where in PS they are intuitive, responsive, & my computer fans don't cycle to maximum speed when I use the brush tool.
That’s exactly my experience.
Maybe it's because you're trying to use a raw converter as an image manipulation tool?
If it was really as simple as it sounds, LR would have had ALL of Photoshop's tools already...0 -
[quote="WPNL" wrote:
[quote="cdc" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many of the Lightroom focused users also use PS and how much of it how often.
There are several things that just can not be done outside of photoshop and a lot of the tools in CO & LR are slow/laggy, & clumsy where in PS they are intuitive, responsive, & my computer fans don't cycle to maximum speed when I use the brush tool.
Maybe it's because you're trying to use a raw converter as an image manipulation tool?
If it was really as simple as it sounds, LR would have had ALL of Photoshop's tools already...
No exactly an accurate interpretation of what has been said here. If anything, the point is that most users of Lightroom will also use Photoshop because it does things that raw converters do not.
That said, the line between pure raw converter and traditional pixel editor is getting ‘blurrier’ by the minute because raw converters are adding more and more Photoshop-like features (to compete with the Adobe industry standard) and some (like Affinity Photo and ACDSee) even function as raw-converter/pixel-editor hybrids.0 -
[quote="WPNL" wrote:
Maybe it's because you're trying to use a raw converter as an image manipulation tool?
If it was really as simple as it sounds, LR would have had ALL of Photoshop's tools already...
Maybe I wasn't clear but that is the point I was making.
I welcome the photo manipulation tools CO and LR are introducing, but more often than not photoshop does it better.0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
9 Kommentare