Understanding C1 from a Lightroom perspective
Hi. Long time Lightroom user here. having trouble understanding C1 Pro 9. Well, I actually "understand" it, but have always had a problem relating the LR tone controls to C1. Biggest issue is Highlights, Shadows, Whites, Blacks and their corresponding controls in C1.
For example: I have a raw file that has "blown" highlights. Lots of red. In LR I would use the Highlights and the Whites sliders to make the red go away. In C1, I start with the Highlights slider in the HDR panel, but you don't want to slide that too far, or you will get a flat "HDR" image. Yet the reds are still there. I guess I could go to Levels or Curves and bring down the input value, but I could also do that in LR's Curves. In either case, I feel like I am leaving something of the image on the table, so to speak.
I like C1, and have been a long time owner, but have always felt limited in the tonality control. Would love to see a Lightroom C1 "A to B" demo, or at least a better demo of C1's tonal range controls...
For example: I have a raw file that has "blown" highlights. Lots of red. In LR I would use the Highlights and the Whites sliders to make the red go away. In C1, I start with the Highlights slider in the HDR panel, but you don't want to slide that too far, or you will get a flat "HDR" image. Yet the reds are still there. I guess I could go to Levels or Curves and bring down the input value, but I could also do that in LR's Curves. In either case, I feel like I am leaving something of the image on the table, so to speak.
I like C1, and have been a long time owner, but have always felt limited in the tonality control. Would love to see a Lightroom C1 "A to B" demo, or at least a better demo of C1's tonal range controls...
0
-
You need to remember that no app can restore blown highlights if they are a long way blown because there is nothing there for it to work with. But I would work with the HDR tool's highlights and shadows sliders. Conversely to get blacker blacks or brighter highlights you can pull in the lower markers on the levels tool. I think you need not worry too much about an artificial HDR look. You should find that the latest version of the HDR tool is much better targeted to just the highlights and just the shadows and won't have much impact on the mid tones. (In previous versions of C1 it used to affect them rather more.)
Ian0 -
Can you illustrate with an example?
Shadow/Highlight recovery is purely a luminance tool, and will/should never remove colors, as it does not operate in seperate RGB-channels.0 -
OK. I am trying to get to grips with a Zeiss 1.4/35 zf.2 lens on my D810. It seems to overexpose - either the camera, the lens, or both. I am also shooting in harsh daylight, so that aggravates the problem.
So I have a raw file that shows the white blobs in LR when you hold down the option key, either with the whites or highlights slider. By manipulating both I can eliminate these blobs, which represent spikes at the end of the curve. And it really does not have to be a radical correction. And it shows there was detail there, in the highlights.
Open the same image in C1Pro 9, and there is a sea of red. Even moving the Highlights slider in the HDR tool all the way to the right does not totally fix this. Almost, but not complete.The only way to completely "fix" it is to move the top of the right side Levels control to the left, which, I believe, is merely reducing the input range of the file, thus limiting output.
At this point the appearance of the image is not the issue to me. It is the feeling that I do not have as much control of the tonality in C1Pro 9, or I don't know what I am doing. I have always felt this way about CaptureOne, and it has precluded me from moving to it full time. Too bad, as I really like the color controls and other features.
I think David does a fine job with his tutorials, but this area seems to be somewhat superficially addressed...0 -
Take the overall exposure down first to uncover any detail to be found in the apparently almost blown highlight.
You can see what may be happening by looking at the Histogram tool.
HTH.
Grant0 -
Can you post the image here ?
That would allow others to help you better.0 -
I would be happy to post here, but, since this is a raw file from a D810, I don't see how to do it effeciently. Also, I certainly know I could reduce exposure in C1, but that is not my question, as I could do that in LR as well â€" but don't have to (my point.)
In looking at this, I believe I have discovered something else. As an experiment, I opened a file in LR, did nothing to it save set the white point and exposure, and exported as a tiff file. Then I set about making the normal adjustments, finished with them and save that file as a tiff. I opened both in Photoshop, and made the same adjustments, using the Camera Raw filter, on the first, unadjusted file. The images looked pretty much the same when I was done. So I wonder, what does raw really offer vs a tiff (not jpeg) file? I know all of the claims, and I have shot raw for years, and plan to continue, but this is interesting.
What it means to me is that you can convert your raw file in the program of your choice and then have the tonality and other editing tools available in Photoshop. Works for me, as I use PS for dodge/burn, color cast, cropping, sharpening, and all output.0 -
NN164022UL1 wrote:
I would be happy to post here, but, since this is a raw file from a D810, I don't see how to do it effeciently. Also, I certainly know I could reduce exposure in C1, but that is not my question, as I could do that in LR as well â€" but don't have to (my point.)
Bear in mind that a RAW converter is doing its own thing with the RAW data according to how the designers choose to interpret it.
LR may attempt to dig something more out out of the apparently highly exposed sections of the data as part of the design approach (although in the past I have read suggestions that they might assume people will want to find something there, can take a guess at what would look about right for expectations and can add that during interpretation. It sounds feasible given other smart adjustments that are available - like the healing tool - but I have no idea it they do something as a matter of course.)
With C1 (and other applications) I find that usually, if there is a significant about of detail to be discovered, the strangest starting point is to access it by changing the overall exposure first. The HDR tool, for example, does not so far as I am aware go back into the RAW data already de-mosaiced to try to find anything more. So if you want to check just how much you can find, adjust the exposure first. I guess it is also possible that LR has already done that without being asked.
You could of course simply set a automatic default to lower the exposure when opening files from that camera.
There is no wrong and right here - just tools that work in teir own ways.
Making a file available can be done my hosting it at a web file hosting location - such as Dropbox or one of many others - and then sharing a link to that file in a post. It's something that is used quite often if people are prepared to share files and are not themselves constrained by internet connection speeds that would affect the upload times.
HTH.'
Grant0 -
Grant,
Thanks. So you are saying that the HDR tools really act on pixels, yes? Would not make a difference if it were a raw file or a tiff file?
I guess what I am trying to understand now is what specifically a raw converter does control in a raw vs tiff file. Exposure and white balance to be sure. Lens corrections, I think. All else can be adjusted in C1 or LR if you had brought in the same file as a converted tiff?
For some reason I thought highlight/shadow recovery was a benefit of shooting raw. Really confused now!0 -
NN164022UL1 wrote:
Grant,
For some reason I thought highlight/shadow recovery was a benefit of shooting raw. Really confused now!
Compared to a processed jpg file - yes it is.
For a TIFF or DNG (form a RAW process) file the contents will depend on how the original raw has been previously interpreted by a converter or, potentially for DNG, in camera. Or by a scanner it we consider other sources.
The tools do what they do.
There have been some suggestions, especially since the availability of "healing" tools a few years back, that some "recovery" activity may be more akin to adding "intelligent" texture to an area that lacks it. To do so would sort of make sense since the lack of "data" means that there can be no proof of what might have been there so any concerns about authenticity are rather irrelevant.
Moreover with so many widely used images (in advertising for example) being heavily post processed the idea of "fixing" blown areas by patching in data or blending images with different exposures is somewhat mainstream these days so I suppose anyone providing a remarkable "helper" tool is just doing whatever will be done later in the process.
Bear in mind we are not dealing with an "image" here - we are discussing what data might be available to be manipulated in such a way as to make visible something that would not ordinarily be visible according to the "standard" processes applied to it. If it was a noise source that was above the frequency that we can hear the same effect would be achieved by reducing the frequency and,perhaps, increasing the volume for that frequency level until the noise becomes audible.
HTH.
Grant0 -
I agree. I love C1 in many ways but hands down miss the Black and Whites where you hold down the Option key and slide the whites and blacks seeing as they appear. I miss the HSL tool were you can click on a color and drag immediately shift the hue, saturation or luminance is a time saver.
I do use the level instead of the white and black but I still miss it.NN164022UL1 wrote:
Hi. Long time Lightroom user here. having trouble understanding C1 Pro 9. Well, I actually "understand" it, but have always had a problem relating the LR tone controls to C1. Biggest issue is Highlights, Shadows, Whites, Blacks and their corresponding controls in C1.
For example: I have a raw file that has "blown" highlights. Lots of red. In LR I would use the Highlights and the Whites sliders to make the red go away. In C1, I start with the Highlights slider in the HDR panel, but you don't want to slide that too far, or you will get a flat "HDR" image. Yet the reds are still there. I guess I could go to Levels or Curves and bring down the input value, but I could also do that in LR's Curves. In either case, I feel like I am leaving something of the image on the table, so to speak.
I like C1, and have been a long time owner, but have always felt limited in the tonality control. Would love to see a Lightroom C1 "A to B" demo, or at least a better demo of C1's tonal range controls...0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
10 comments