Why stay in C1 longer.. when Photoshop is an option?
Why should I stay in C1 longer than it takes to convert a raw file for Photoshop?
This question - slightly rephrased to a statement - could be a very eye-catching introduction to a following explanation of the advantages of using CaptureOne (hereafter named C1).
Unfortunately I have never met that good explanation.
To me C1 is primarily a raw-converter, very helpful regarding initial WB and Levels adjustments with nice readable RGB values. And that’s it. Then my image is ready to be generated for Photoshop as a 16 bit TIFF file.
Why should I do initial noise-reduction in C1 when Nik’s Define 2.0 is much more sophisticated.
Why should I do initial sharpening in C1 when this can be done in a more dedicated plug-in in Photoshop?
Why should I hunt sensor-spots with a navigator in C1 that is extremely reluctant to update its position in the view-area (and is very easily detached from its normal position if the cursor for a moment is moved over the edge), why - when I could wait and do the healing fast and smooth in Photoshop?
Why should I correct my lens distortion in C1, when this can only be done as either pincushion or barrel adjustments - but not in a combination, when all combinations can be corrected without problems in a dedicated plug-in in Photoshop?
Why should I correct perspectives in C1 that is better over-viewed and controlled in Photoshop?
Why should I use local adjustments layers in C1, when the layer and mask technique is much more advanced and precise in Photoshop?
I could add a few more.
I take that CaptureOne is not addressing the very small segment of users that own C1 but are without an image-editor. How many are they?
No, CaptureOne is about to built-in Photoshop-like features in C1.
Why?
I asked a C1-expert, why I should bother to use e.g. the curve tool in C1 in favor of my beloved Curves in Photoshop, and his answer was this:
When working with the Curve Tool in Capture One, you work directly on the RAW data in full bit depth so you can do much more dramatic changes before the image data starts to break up compared to working on the data later in Photoshop.
Wow! This explanation could persuade me to use the more rigid adjustments in C1.
If I was sure to benefit from it - if there were a gain - it could be worth the time and effort.
Is there a gain?
When working with the Curve Tool in Capture One, you work directly on the RAW data in full bit depth.. the expert said.
How is that possible on a raw file?
To my best knowledge Photoshop’s internal format is close to TIFF though finally saved as PSD, and my guess is that C1 is also creating an internal format (e.g. TIFF), as it would be infeasible to work directly on each existing RAW format.
So, in my opinion there is no difference in the bit depth between the internal format in C1 and a 16 bit TIFF file, generated from that internal format.
If my assumption is right (and I hope it is not), it makes no difference if a certain image-adjustment is made inside C1, e.g. a curves adjustment, or the adjustment is made in Curves, after the 16 bit TIFF file has been transferred to Photoshop, regarding bit depth and robustness of the image-data.
I formed this postulate as an additional question to the C1-expert..
- and had no answer.
Can anyone in this forum answer the question? PhaseOne experts are most welcome to join.
This question - slightly rephrased to a statement - could be a very eye-catching introduction to a following explanation of the advantages of using CaptureOne (hereafter named C1).
Unfortunately I have never met that good explanation.
To me C1 is primarily a raw-converter, very helpful regarding initial WB and Levels adjustments with nice readable RGB values. And that’s it. Then my image is ready to be generated for Photoshop as a 16 bit TIFF file.
Why should I do initial noise-reduction in C1 when Nik’s Define 2.0 is much more sophisticated.
Why should I do initial sharpening in C1 when this can be done in a more dedicated plug-in in Photoshop?
Why should I hunt sensor-spots with a navigator in C1 that is extremely reluctant to update its position in the view-area (and is very easily detached from its normal position if the cursor for a moment is moved over the edge), why - when I could wait and do the healing fast and smooth in Photoshop?
Why should I correct my lens distortion in C1, when this can only be done as either pincushion or barrel adjustments - but not in a combination, when all combinations can be corrected without problems in a dedicated plug-in in Photoshop?
Why should I correct perspectives in C1 that is better over-viewed and controlled in Photoshop?
Why should I use local adjustments layers in C1, when the layer and mask technique is much more advanced and precise in Photoshop?
I could add a few more.
I take that CaptureOne is not addressing the very small segment of users that own C1 but are without an image-editor. How many are they?
No, CaptureOne is about to built-in Photoshop-like features in C1.
Why?
I asked a C1-expert, why I should bother to use e.g. the curve tool in C1 in favor of my beloved Curves in Photoshop, and his answer was this:
When working with the Curve Tool in Capture One, you work directly on the RAW data in full bit depth so you can do much more dramatic changes before the image data starts to break up compared to working on the data later in Photoshop.
Wow! This explanation could persuade me to use the more rigid adjustments in C1.
If I was sure to benefit from it - if there were a gain - it could be worth the time and effort.
Is there a gain?
When working with the Curve Tool in Capture One, you work directly on the RAW data in full bit depth.. the expert said.
How is that possible on a raw file?
To my best knowledge Photoshop’s internal format is close to TIFF though finally saved as PSD, and my guess is that C1 is also creating an internal format (e.g. TIFF), as it would be infeasible to work directly on each existing RAW format.
So, in my opinion there is no difference in the bit depth between the internal format in C1 and a 16 bit TIFF file, generated from that internal format.
If my assumption is right (and I hope it is not), it makes no difference if a certain image-adjustment is made inside C1, e.g. a curves adjustment, or the adjustment is made in Curves, after the 16 bit TIFF file has been transferred to Photoshop, regarding bit depth and robustness of the image-data.
I formed this postulate as an additional question to the C1-expert..
- and had no answer.
Can anyone in this forum answer the question? PhaseOne experts are most welcome to join.
0
-
...I have a few minutes, and can simply answer why indeed? Feel free to do whatever you wish as far as workflow.
At first and very quick reading...an issue such as dust spots, I find IF I have them (and I try to avoid that)...that COne blows PS out of the water because I can correct ONE file and apply to all (dust spots are consistent) rather than once at a time. So PS might be best for one file, but COne has its strength in that situation.
And even if exposure adjustment results were identical Raw-To-16 bit TIFFs....and I'm not sure that's true...compare the size of a 16 tif to a RAW varient (huge as far as storage footprint). Another difference being any adjustments to the TIF are destructive, whereas the adjustments to RAW files in COne do not impact the original...
I am not trying to change your thinking, there's no right or wrong. And I certainly do a lot of post using other software solutions....but IMHO, many of the additions to COne past simple RAW conversion have been a value to the user. I do not see COne as a replacement for an image editor...nor do they as they allow the option to open files in an image editor.0 -
Hi there, [quote="NN160897UL1" wrote:
Is there a gain?
When working with the Curve Tool in Capture One, you work directly on the RAW data in full bit depth.. the expert said.
How is that possible on a raw file?
The images you see inside Capture One (or Lightroom, for that matter) are not developed pictures you then continue to work on. It’s an on-the-fly rendering from the original RAW data, using the settings you made to create the image you see. (Capture One calls the placeholder images that are displayed Proxies, Lightroom Previews).
Only when you use the Process panel will a “real†image be created, from the RAW data, using the settings you chose inside Capture One. I like to refer to this step as “baking the editsâ€.
This also means that there’s no need to create 16 Bit TIFFs every time. The approach is to keep your stuff in its original RAW format, Capture One keeps track of the “Recipies†you chose to develop the photos, and you create ad hoc the photos in the image format and with settings you require. If this means additional work in Photoshop, you’ll fare well with 16 Bit TIFFs. In many cases, you can process the image completely inside Capture One, hence the addition of further image manipulation tools akin to what Photoshop can do (say, layers).
Personally, about 1 out of 50 images are further edited in an external image editor. The other 49 never see Photoshop/SilverEfex but are exported either to web-friendly JPEG or print-ready TIFF when needed.
The edits you do in Capture One are recorded in a small sidecar file, a couple of Kilobytes large. This also means that you can have multiple variants of your original file with a very small disk space foot-print. Black-and-white version next to the full-colour version, and three different crops and aspect ratios? An additional 4x7 KB rather than either 5x 16 Bit TIFF or one more or less layer-bloated PSD file. This might be relevant if you use SSDs as your main work drives or process data from MF digital backs, i.e. Phase One’s apparent primary target group.
Edit: John mentioned another advantage of doing as much of your work as possible inside Capture One: You can copy/paste your edits easily, and they will always work on the original RAW data. I often take great pains in processing the best shot of a sequence, but then just apply the “recipe†to the rest of the photos. This is especially useful, as John has said, regarding dust spots. I also enjoy this feature in regards to pre-sharpening, dealing with noise, or just making sure all images of a sequence have a similar look.[quote="NN160897UL1" wrote:
So, in my opinion there is no difference in the bit depth between the internal format in C1 and a 16 bit TIFF file, generated from that internal format.
If my assumption is right (and I hope it is not), it makes no difference if a certain image-adjustment is made inside C1, e.g. a curves adjustment, or the adjustment is made in Curves, after the 16 bit TIFF file has been transferred to Photoshop, regarding bit depth and robustness of the image-data.
This has been wildly discussed when Adobe released Lightroom. For many (if not most) situations your observations/thoughts are correct, but when you start stacking up editing steps, working with the original RAW data may be preferable, especially if it’s multiple edits to the image’s gradation curve. Depending on the image editor you use, you might see banding much earlier than when doing such edits exclusively inside Capture One (or, again, Lightroom).
This is all my personal view of things; I’m affiliated neither with Phase One nor Adobe. Just a customer.
Cheers,
-Sascha0 -
John and Sasha said it very well.
The answer for me comes down to quality and efficiency of workflow. I can't imagine now doing without being able to "copy and paste" all the processing adjustments onto similar photos, and doubling up the files without variants. This is why a lot of people use Lightroom as their processing software before they use PS.
Your real comparison should be CO vs LR.
I am a lot like Sascha :
"Personally, about 1 out of 50 images are further edited in an external image editor. The other 49 never see Photoshop/SilverEfex but are exported either to web-friendly JPEG or print-ready TIFF when needed."
One difference for me is noise reduction. If I am going to print a noisy high ISO file, I generally take it into PS Elements and operate on it with Topaz deNoise. Otherwise, I am good to go with CO.0 -
John and Sasha,
I am convinced.. have almost seen the light…!
Thank you, both, for good explanations.
Only one thing is nagging. Why is this principle - temporary proxies finally baked together with the RAW file into a final output, leaving the original untouched - not used as a primary sales argument?
(My question is rhetorical, as I am not expecting you to know.)
I think it is an important message to bring.
If the User Guide began with a drawing of this principle, and an equally good explanation as Sasha’s I would have perceived the principle right away. Maybe it has been mentioned in this or that video, but I am not an audio-learner, and English is not my primary language.
So, PhaseOne, please make a drawing.
I will try to stay in C1 a little longer.0 -
Only one thing is nagging. Why is this principle - temporary proxies finally baked together with the RAW file into a final output, leaving the original untouched - not used as a primary sales argument?
(My question is rhetorical, as I am not expecting you to know.)
I suspect it is because it is taken as a known, since most all RAW processing programs have had the same claim for some time now.
They all claim to be non destructive to original RAW. 😊0 -
Hi Steve,
Yes, but a claim is a claim - not an explanation. It could be about more than one single principle.
I think an introduction to the principle used for for C1, could be of value in the User Guide - page 1.
If you know it all in advance - good for you. If you don't and you get a proper introduction, you could be a new customer.
Just a hint.
Sorry I didn't knew the details.0 -
Yes, Steve, Scott Kelby is a great entertainer. From his on-line courses I learned how a 2 minutes topic is “squeezed†into a 7 minutes video.
---
Steve: “They all claim to be non destructive to original RAW.â€
Yes, thinking about it, I would count on that. Otherwise, I would work on a copy.
Maybe the non destructive claim means: You can take any number of adjustments and attach them to any other raw file without degrading anything.
But at a certain point an output file must be created.
When that happens, be it a TIFF or a JPG file, I imagine that the proxies from the sidecar have to be merged together with the raw file into an output file. This can’t be non destructive.
I work in Photoshop on 16 bit TIFFs generated from C1. The internal format in PS seems to be a TIFF-similar format, as the file size doesn’t change from a direct save to a PSD file.
So far, the image has only “suffered†from the inevitable loss in being generated from C1.
My adjustments in PS are all made on separate layers. I see them as analogs to proxies.
Destructive actions are: Necessary cloning (in separate layers - and merging), possible perspective corrections, warping of edges, cropping, and of course the final flattening to output a TIFF or JPG.
Noise reduction and output sharpening produce extra copies of the background and are “destructive†to a permissible extend. These adjustments are made on the output when needed.
The final flattening - in my opinion - represents the same problem as in C1. This is the second time - I know, but is it worth the risk..?
At any time in PS I can save a “snapshot†of the history or reverse the history without degrading anything. If in any way I had doubts, regarding the resulting damage, I could choose to work on a Duplicate. But why should I. I can always go back to my TIFF file or generate a new from C1 if something was lost.
The following has largely been my raw-converting work-flow since 2008:
1. Remove Spot tool: I just learned that the spot-removing-pattern from the first adjustment can be copied to the remaining files. Nice time saver. I also found out that automatic healing of spots covering image details with high local contrast in the following images can cause unwanted results. This consideration reduces the time saved, if the image contents within the batch differ much.
2. Color panel: Normally the “shot†WB is correct.
3. Lens panel: I adjust for Chromatic Aberration. This is - to me - one of the more persuasive features in C1. Sometimes I use the Light Falloff option for “secret†HDR adjustments.
4. Details Panel: Pre sharpening 1, Noise reduction 0. I have difficulties to “see†how the noise-sliders affect the image. The Alt-Return option updates extremely slowly and “jumps†the image.
5. Exposure Panel: Usually I accept the Automatic exposure and high dynamic range adjustments proposals. In Levels I adjust each color manually and use the RGB sliders to reach my values for shadows and highlights. This panel is the core of C1 to me. I can copy a recorded adjustment to very similar takes, but they never match 100 percent.
6. Output Panel: A 16 bit TIFF is generated, no compression.
---
To day I tried to stay in C1 and extend the 6 actions above through a series of typical adjustments analogous to what I would do in PS:
Further noise reduction in C1 is not tempting as it can't be done selectively.
Again, it’s difficult to see what is happening without an instant and image stabil on-off switch. I usually work in Dfine 2.0. This plug-in lets me select and handle areas of different colors, and inspect the masks for separate areas in my image. Typically the sky needs a different noise reduction than the rest of the image.
Output sharpening is not tempting either, as the Local Adjustment masking is the only way to do it selectively. In Nik’s Output Sharpener I can sharpen on colors and by 3-4 parameters, and in Topaz’ InFocus I can even deconvolute. On the plug-in created layer in PS I can further introduce a mask and/or reduce the all over sharpening by changing the opacity.
I use masking a lot for separate areas and details along with the many layer adjustment options in PS. The masking option in PS is an instant, smoothly working tool which can further be trimmed through edge-refinements and by varying density and layer opacity. Complex masks can easily be created through Color selection. Knowing this, it is beyond my patience to operate the masking tool in C1. For example the usual Shift-cursor action is missing making precise masking along straight edges very time consuming - to express it kindly.
Conclusion regarding my personal work-flow:
I gain a lot more flexibility by using Photoshop after “6.†and in accepting a small - and quite invisible - amount of degrading. Nothing to talk about compared to what happens, when the image is converted into a JPG file.0 -
[quote="NN160897UL1" wrote:
When that happens, be it a TIFF or a JPG file, I imagine that the proxies from the sidecar have to be merged together with the raw file into an output file. This can’t be non destructive.
Ah! I think my posting above was a tad unclear in this respect.
The Proxies are only representations of the current state of your settings on the image. You could call them a snapshot, or – as Lightroom calls them – a preview of the final rendering of your RAW file into a “real†image file. The Proxies are mostly there for performance reasons. Think of them as Cache files. That’s why they reside in Capture One’s Cache folder, after all.
You mentioned in Point 4) of your workflow example that it takes ages for noise reduction settings to show results. Imagine the same speed with every single setting while working – as C1 would have to completely develop the whole RAW file each and every move of each and every slider, continuously. Hence, proxies as cache files to speed up working.
But: The final output is generated from your settings – what I called the recipe –, using the RAW data, in one go. There are no intermediate copies merged or the like; the settings you made during experimenting/developing are combined into a single recipe. Example: If during working on the image you changed the tone curve using the Exposure slider first, in another step by employing another camera profile, then pushing shadows and so on, Capture One won’t do these steps sequentially but calculate what the final tone curve will look like, combined, and use these calculations on the original RAW data.
Drastic example: If during post you at one point added +1EV, in a latter removed 1EV, your image will not be pushed by 1EV first, then pulled again. C1 (and any other RAW processor that works similarly) “sees†there’s zero total change to exposure so no compensation is applied during the final export.
Hope this helps,
-Sascha0 -
Hi Sascha,
Right, I perceived the proxies as preliminary ‘lines’ in the recipe.
From what you explain now, I understand that the proxies are just cached stages of the ongoing changes and the net changing for each image is residing in the cache folder from session to session.
When I finally decide to generate an output file, the recipe is derived from the content of the cached net changing (?).
Then the recipe is used to bake the output file by indicating the necessary changes to the copied raw data before it is converted to another file format - leaving the original raw file untouched.
And this “baking†- is it non destructive regarding image information - even after a severe keystone-adjustment?0 -
[quote="NN160897UL1" wrote:
Maybe the non destructive claim means: You can take any number of adjustments and attach them to any other raw file without degrading anything.
"Non-destructive", in the context of RAW conversion, simply - and always - means that the changes are not written back to the Raw file but to the tiff or jpeg "development", and to the sidecar file or database that converter uses to store the change information.
The point being that the Raw file itself is unchanged by these adjustments.0 -
Hi Keith,
It sounds like pure logic. Can it really be the point in arguing for “non-destructive†handling?
Real bad coding would be to write changes back into a unique source - or even to a copy as you would loose track of the single updates.
But I know nothing about the raw-converter evolution.
To me it would make sense if the argument stood for a minimal loss of image information during the translation of raw data and adjustments into the output file format.0 -
[quote="NN160897UL1" wrote:
Hi Keith,
..... “non-destructive†handling?
Real bad coding would be to write changes back into a unique source - or even to a copy as you would loose track of the single updates. ...
Think of it another way. You open a file that is in some native camera maker's format - the raw file. Call it filename.raw
After you process as little or as much as you like, you save the results - but into a jpeg or a tiff file format; eg, output filename.tiff.
You never do a "save" or a "save as" into a file that is of the same format as the raw - you never see a filename.raw as an process output option. The original raw file is untouched. It has been read, but not written over. This is non-destructive processing; filename.raw remains untouched for you to process it again and again.0 -
[quote="NN160897UL1" wrote:
To my best knowledge Photoshop’s internal format is close to TIFF though finally saved as PSD, and my guess is that C1 is also creating an internal format (e.g. TIFF), as it would be infeasible to work directly on each existing RAW format.
why we are talking about PS and not ACR vs C1 ? apple to apple -> raw conversion part is done by ACR and ACR always generates (once upon opening a raw file) internal data as ProPhoto RGB w/ linear gamma and all changes that you do though ACR's UI are done on that data... that is before the results of the raw conversion are passed to PS.0 -
Hi Jim,
I have got the picture. “Non-destructive†means that you don’t corrupt original data (the raw file). I would expect any developer of software to be non-destructive in this respect, it’s a basic rule.
What I find interesting is, if the “baking†(generating of output format) is non-destructive too. If for example you have made several adjustments including an extensive keystone correction, how distorted/missing is the original image information? How robust is the TIFF I generate from C1? How much “editing space†is left for my adjustments in Photoshop?0 -
Hi deejjjaaaa,
As my work-flow is C1-> Photoshop, I have compared the tools in C1 to the tools in PS and asked the question: What is the gain by staying a little longer in C1 (and work on rigid non-destructive tools) versus leaving C1 after my item 6. and have all the possibilities with sharp tools in PS?
(I have chosen C1 for ACR. It’s a matter of interfaces, taste and feeling. ACR is similar rigid when it comes to masking, for example.)
Still, an interesting question is how lossless the raw-converters are, if you compare the “baked†output to the inputted image information? I guess it’s an impossible question to answer unless you are an insider bit-nerd.0 -
Hi,
just a short notice to the point at the beginning of this thread. In the user guide of version 5 there is a description of what is RAW and what is beneath the surface. This old description can be found here:
See chapter 3.
In newer user guides (version 6 and 7) I cannot find anymore this information.
Joachim0 -
Hi Joachim,
Thanks, I remember the work-flow diagram to the left on page 41.
And I guess that this is as far as the explanation gets from PhaseOne:
Once the process button is pressed, RAW data is processed using the
settings file. At this point the true pixel-based image is formed and
output to specific dimensions.
I think this is the point, where the destruction begins. One can only guess about the amount.
So, still - will it be LESS harmful to the final picture file if I f.e. make a keystone correction inside C1 - or later in Photoshop? That's the question.
(We already know, that neither will harm the raw.. but how interesting is that compared to the output.)0 -
As a small aside while most RAW processing software does not change the RAW file at all, others do change the RAW file, but do not change the RAW image data. Instead the software adds or change edit parameters and saves them as part of the RAW file. The later may be considered 'destructive', but it does not cause any loss or change to the original captured image data. Of course any software that modifies the original RAW file could increase the chance of an error that corrupts the original file. 0 -
[quote="NN160897UL1" wrote:
Hi Joachim,
Thanks, I remember the work-flow diagram to the left on page 41.
And I guess that this is as far as the explanation gets from PhaseOne:
Once the process button is pressed, RAW data is processed using the
settings file. At this point the true pixel-based image is formed and
output to specific dimensions.
I think this is the point, where the destruction begins. One can only guess about the amount.
So, still - will it be LESS harmful to the final picture file if I f.e. make a keystone correction inside C1 - or later in Photoshop? That's the question.
(We already know, that neither will harm the raw.. but how interesting is that compared to the output.)
Perhaps we have an issue of what you and I mean by "destruction".
When I ask C1 to make a change to a raw file, then to output it as a tiff, I don't think of it as destroying the original data. I think of it as a controlled manipulation of the photo. If I simply increase the brightness of the red pixels, I have changed the data, but in a controlled way. I have not destroyed the photo.
I can make those changes in a variety of programs, including C1 and PS. In principle, they both do the same thing. I just prefer how C1 does the manipulation of the data. But in both cases, the files output by C1 and PS are different from the original raw file. Both files can be manipulated further by other software. It is the users choice to decide which, if any, he likes better.0 -
Theoretically making adjustments (keystone, color, etc.) will be better quality if made from the RAW file when developed/processed into tiff (or other final output format) instead of making those same adjustments on the processed file.
This assumes that the algorithms are equal or better in the RAW conversion SW and also that the user interface is equal or better so the user can make the optimum adjustments and get what they expect.0 -
Jim,
I think that Alex answered a part of my question.
Repeating my initial reference to the PhaseOne expert who said:
When working with the Curve Tool in Capture One, you work directly on the RAW data in full bit depth so you can do much more dramatic changes before the image data starts to break up compared to working on the data later in Photoshop.
.. my understanding of “destruction†is what he calls the “data break upâ€, a gradually degrading of the original information due to editing.
I still find it interesting to find out, if the gain in LESSER degrading by using C1’s rather limited tools compared to the (maybe very small) INCREASED degrading by using the unlimited tools in Photoshop in stead - makes it worth staying in C1 risking to develop a madness from fumbling with small windows and slow updating?
Maybe with 16 bit TIFFs the net loss is the same!0 -
My conclusion is, that no-one - including this user - has yet observed a visual difference in image quality caused by “premature jumping†from C1 to Photoshop.
I compare generated output files to be used directly from C1 - to further layer-adjusted versions from Photoshop - all 16 bit TIFFs. I stress “layer-adjusted“, as this method is claimed to be “non-destructive†too.
My personal observation is based on a lot of very diverse 24 Mpx images of which many were heavily layer-adjusted in Photoshop after the conversion from RAW in C1.
I was hoping for a theoretical argumentation for staying in C1.
E.g. a radical keystone correction in C1 means severe interpolation, and, at the latest when the output file format is “baked†in C1, the changes have to be merged together. Will C1 do this in a less harmful way than the corresponding action in Photoshop?
I think Alex1111 is right in this - it’s a matter of algorithms.
We users don’t know them - we can only judge from what we can see.
No doubt that C1 is handy for multi-treatment of fairly consistent scenes. In this area I believe that only 1 out of 50 shots need further adjustments out of C1.
My photographs are mainly nature, and I don’t shoot long series of each scene.
So I’ll still leave C1 after my item “6.†above. But so far (including 6) C1 is serving me well.0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
23 Kommentare