C1 pro or Lightroom?
I'm finding Lightroom overly complex and fussy. Seems to me that C1 4 caught things up and gives nice files. Anyone else have good comparison? (Not sure what advantages are in #5, except that one needs to wait until the shakedown is over.)
Thanks for opinions.
SK
Thanks for opinions.
SK
0
-
Sean,
I tried trial versions of Lightroom and Aperture at the same time as an early version of C1-4 and chose C1 without hesitation. I did not like the confusing array of sliders in Lightroom that seemed to go on forever. Plus limited color temperature adjustment by scale, not temperature and the restrictions on curves adjustment that left me with the impression that 'Mother Adobe Knows Best'. I could go on, but you get the idea. Aperture did not impress me either. C1 did impress me with a workflow I quickly learned and best of all my images simply look better than in any other RAW processor. I just started using C1-5 Pro and I shoot with a 5DII and use a MacBook Pro. I read a lot of criticisms of C1-4 and a few on 5 on this forum, and I've had a few gripes too, but I wouldn't switch.0 -
This is helpful (in the sense that it confirms my thoughts...which can also be tricky, yes?) 0 -
Hi,
I'd like to share some of my thoughts as well. I would be curious as to the advantages of the Workflow aspect of Capture vs. Lightroom.
I began with Capture 1 v2 as Lightroom did not exist. Currently I am shooting with Canons: 5D Mark II, 40d, and 1Ds Mark II.
It is my opinion that both products produce wonderful jpgs/tiffs, but at this time, I think that Capture is better in the final render in terms of curves and noise reduction.
However I feel that Lightoom is much FASTER in TERMS of sorting and tagging images.
Here's how:
When tagging "reject" images in Lightroom, you can quickly "x" an image and it will "disappear" from the thumbnail view below the Main Viewer. They are not being trashed only tagged to a "reject" group.
At any time you can "View the reject images" only only SEE THOSE IMAGES that have automatically been segregated, so if you want to remover them from the catalogue you can or delete them off the disk completely.
In Capture you can tag the "reject" images either rating them by color or star. However, if you want to view those tagged images you must got to View/Selected tagged images and they are still mixed in with all images with only the border around them. You have to scroll through the thumbs in order to see all tagged images because they are mixed in with all the others. Sure, you can then move them into a new folder or album, but that is an extra step.
Another advantage that Lightroom has had since its inception is that the user can drag and drop the thumbnails to create a custom order. Capture only sorts by presets in the Sorting Menu. The ability to drag and drop the thumbs to create a custom order has fallen on deaf ears related to the development team at Phase One. This feature has been completely ignored from day one.
However a great advantage that C1 has is the cool ability to select up to 12 images and zoom and pan all of them at the same time to compare.
So bottom line, there is no perfect product out there, but I do feel that Adobe takes a wish list of the users more to heart than Phase One.
I think both are great products and would like to say Capture winds hands down, but our studios really need the ability to sort the thumbnails in a custom order.
Regards,
Michael0 -
I have looked hard at Lightroom as I have been having major issues since C1 pro v4 and v5 went backwards from thast (5.0.1 seems to get me back to the 4.8.3 state).
From a basic adjusting and controlling the RAW conversion I find C1 the best product by far (and I have tried them all since v5 was released) but then I am not shooting large image numbers at weddings, or the like, several times per week. At the end of the day all the major players produce sound results - not just me saying that,one of the Photoshop gurus made that comment in a UK pro magazine recently.
My issue is with the IPTC data handling which is FAR BETTER in LR especially if you add the data to the RAW file as I do. To me there seems to be a general issue around robustness and quality of testing.0 -
I'll list my personal can't-live-without features of Lightroom that are not present in C1:
- View filtering, as Michael mentioned; you don't know how handy this is until you become accustomed to using it and then are stuck without it. Makes editing a hundred times quicker and more straightforward.
- Ability to intuitively set a style preset and have it auto-apply to automatically or manually imported captures; C1 5 falls short on the first count by the fact that I literally had to dig through the (broken English) manual to figure out how to set a new style preset (there are a thousand other places such a thing should be accessible through), and it is entirely unable to auto-apply a preset when manually importing images from a CF card, for instance.
- Ability to retain the existing filename sequence number, and flexibility in general when renaming or auto-naming files; the LR custom name editor makes C1s look like an utter joke.
- Doesn't crash when processing. Or much at all, compared to C1. This issue has plagued me incessantly..
- Hierarchical image counts next to the folder names within the folder tree, as well as the ability to see an aggregate of all the photos within subfolders beneath the directory you're currently viewing (with an option to include photos from subfolders or not).
- Powerful metadata editing/syncing, and ABILITY TO SAVE METADATA/IMAGE ADJUSTMENTS/RATINGS AND LABELLINGS TO A STANDARD XMP FILE!
- Better caching/advantage to using a database-driven catalog: don't have to wait for the images to load every time you look in a different folder.
Anyway, I can go on. But those are the major reasons I simply can't fathom using C1 over Lightroom.0 -
I chose CO 4 for its superior image quality.
Especially skin tones. I don't know Lightroom 2, but Lightroom 1.41 sucked big time in RAW processing quality. Skin tones were plasticky.
I worked with 4.1.1 for a year. The current version is impossible to work with, as it takes a second or two to redraw an image. I'll be going back to an older version that doesn't do that.
One feature I particularly like on CO is the levels tool. I don't think Lightroom does have this. You can do a parametric adjustment to the luminosity levels and save some quality degradation over doing it in Photoshop.
The problem with CO is that the current versions are unusable, because they are so sluggish. I can't have an image go out of focus when I adjust tonal and color values.
Where Lightroom scores big time is workflow. The database and view filtering is very valuable and saves time. Also: the web galleries look much better than the fuzzy stuff from CO, which I cannot use (still importing Jpegs from CO into Lightroom, give them a bit more sharpening).
I will probably try Lightroom 3 for skin tones. If that sluggishness of CO doesn't go away, and if I get stressed out with the buggy, older versions, I might reconsider my choice of RAW processor.0 -
There is another issue: the database.
I bought CO 4 with Expression Media, but Microsoft stopped supporting Expression Media.
Even though color management does not work for TIFFs, there have been no upgrades.0 -
Wonderful response, NN68422
Unfortunately, maybe due to the fact the C1 is basically written and developed outside of North America, our requests fall secondary...
I've had requests since C1 v3 and have never had any one of them discussed upon on a serious level by the developers even though several users agreed and commented upon them.
Michael0 -
I just went back from 4.8.3 to 4.1.1
The extremely sluggish performance of 4.8.3 is just nothing I want to deal with.
A 1 to 2 second black-out when adjusting image tones is impractical.
This sluggishness needs to be fixed. Also, the quality of the image in the viewer has decreases in 4.8.3 over 4.1.1
The others aren't sleeping. If Capture One isn't on its toes to improve the practicability of its software, it could see itself overtaken by DxO or even Camera Raw.
Quality Advantages (like skin tones) cannot be held forever. The competition is always improving.
I also see a certain arrogance in Capture One's attitude. That issue with people having to pay for an upgrade only two weeks after buying C1... this leaves a bad impression.0 -
During the short time I'm using C1 Pro v5, I have to admit that this software is the best solution to get wonderful image rendering.
With LR2/3 you have to work more on image to get the best result, with C1 the result is obtained very quickly and amazing; so it's right, with LR2/3 you need more time, although the image manipulation is quite good, resulting render is not on C1 level. But some features like 'spot removal' and others is well done with LR2.
Regards.0 -
I ifind that the intuitiveness and speed in LR is great, but the color rendition with adobes color engine is so crappy. Once LR renders the image, it looks terrible at default, colors are so nuclear and off and blacks are all clogged up. Sure you can tweak and calm it down, but in comparison, C1 does a far superior job right out of the gate, its just that c1 isnt as fast. If I need to blast through an edit quick for somethign not color critical, i use LR, for images Im really swinging for the fences on, I use C1 0 -
For those of you unhappy with default color interpretation in LR, you might not be aware of the custom camera profiles they implemented starting with LR2. Check out the Calibrate panel at the bottom of the image adjustment controls in develop mode; they've included several custom color profiles for every supported camera out there, which provides a pretty great way to get a different, hopefully more appealing starting point color-wise for your images.
For incredible color accuracy in Lightroom/ACR, you should also check out the Xrite Colorchecker Passport and the plugin they created for Lightroom:
http://www.xritephoto.com/ph_product_ov ... 7&catid=28
(check out the video on the right hand side at the 3:00 mark to see the plugin in action)
Basically you take a shot of the cleverly designed checker, run it through their software (takes literally seconds) and based on the color targets it automatically creates a new, custom camera profile right alongside the others within the Calibrate panel. It's worked pretty amazingly for me so far.0 -
Hello,
After testing both LR2.6 and C1pro (trial), here are a few things i noticed (some that have already been mentioned).
First Lightroom :
-----------------
So far LR2 workflow is way beyond C1.
It's so easy to pick up - reject / rate / compare, then create your collection, sort files the way you want yet keeping the sorting ability (label, tag, colors...). the keywords tagging feature is so natural.
The overall workflow process is fairly clear : 1.sort, 2.develop, 3.export.
You have a fairly important set of correction tools that will prevent you from using another application to finish the job (i.e photoshop). it's a very good all in one application.
The real strength of this application remains in the interface. Some tools make you really feel like you're in control like :
Fullscreen 'F' (i mean Fullscreen), use tab to clear the interface, 'L' dims the interface to let you concentrate on the image (great when you know your shortcuts).
I know you can customize C1pro's interface, but in Lightroom you don't feel like you need to change anything on that matter. Because it's efficient by default.
There are a few things i don't like tho :
- Crappy ACR / crappy camera profiles (even for high end cameras).
- Default black set to 5... (i know you can change it, but why...)
- Ugly curve tool, very frustrating.
- Export tools are weak or look like gadgets (web / slideshow), nothing really useful there IMHO.
C1pro :
-------
Now we're talking raw conversion! C1 really produces way better images, the grain looks much more subtle. The handling of noise looks superior. The tools provided make easier to achieve the desired end result. I've felt that it took me less time to correct an image the way i wanted to, there's a more professional approach here.
You don't have as many options as LR but you don't need to, everything does what it's meant to and does it correctly (LR you can sometimes end up circling around features a little bit).
The default profile of the camera produces very good results from the start.
Great moire tool.
It really emphasize on the image quality and seems the best option so far on a mac for that matter.
(i've also tested Dxo 5.3, aperture 1.5)
It's also Very print and color profile friendly.
Overall :
It seems that's it's the choice of comfort VS quality.
LR is fast and efficient, everything falls into place where C1 asks a little bit more care and patience but produces great results (one after the other).
Now what keeps me away from adopting C1 is LR3.
i've checked the beta, they really get closer in term of image quality. Extended white balance is still missing, and a few other things, but the pure raw quality has drastically improved. They said they've worked on it, they didn't lie.
One last thing :
One thing that is great in Aperture, is the lightbox: You can sort you pictures by size, work a bit more the layout. It gives you a very clear overview of your work in an intuitive/creative way.0 -
[quote="dogmatheque" wrote:
Hello,
After testing both LR2.6 and C1pro (trial), here are a few things i noticed (some that have already been mentioned).........
.............
Hi, dogmatheque:
That was a fair and good evaluation of LR, C1, and a little on Aperture on each one's capability and feature. Thanks for a good summary. It helped me in concluding on my workflow. I tried all three myself and I had similar findings. I agreed that C1 5 Pro has the best raw processing image. As I need to process Phase One back images, I had no choice but to use C1. This is not the main reason. Its raw processing gives very pleasing result than others.
As others commented above that LR gives the best workflow and I agreed too that it is the easiest Photo Asset Management tool. Aperture certainly great when comes to being creative on organizing and publishing your valuable photos.
So I have to use C1 for the raw processing and then pass images to LR2 for the management side of the workflow. It is cumbersome but if one wants to leverage on the strength of each product, that's all we can do for now until all three (C1, LR, Ap) got together and pool their strength together. Unfortunately we are not living in an ideal world!
P.S. I have not checked LR3 beta so i don't know what they have to offer. Or may be Aperture 3 someday? I still believe whoever is the design of the digital camera and/or back, they should be the best one who has all the knowledge to do the raw processing and do it right, isn't it? One needs to squeeze the best out of a raw file before any post production work can be done! I am not sure how one can get a good image from a mediocre processed raw image file. No post production work can make it better than what it is!0 -
I have upgraded to C1 pro V5 a few days ago and I have considered LR,Aperture,Bibble.
The reason why I stuck with C1 Pro.
- I like the approach of all settings are kept in a folder inside the image folder. This a excellent way to organise and all the settings are not burried inside a Database.
- excellent RAW conversion. No other software came close
- C1 is easiest to use and I am way quicker in C1 then any other RAW converter
- no plugins. I love it to work with a reduces toolset. Tons of plugins and options don´t make my images better. distracting and inconsistent ui of different plugins
- I don´t need metadata management in a raw converter. All the metadata options in LR and Aperture are toys compared to a professional solution. I use Canto Cumulus for organising all images.
- Phase One is specialised in what they are doing. All the other competitors are doing all kinds of software + a RAW converter.
Things that could improve:
- speed
- much faster batch renaming. this should take seconds not minutes0 -
Did you ever try to get a CMYK image out of LR ? Necessary if you want to optimize your output for a certain output process and your images contain a lot of neutral grays.
C1 Pro lets you edit your pictures in CMYK and is able to directly generate CMYK files for an output device. LR IS RGB ONLY.
Perhaps you customer needs ECI-RGB v2 to archive your pictures ? C1 Pro lets you edit and export in any RGB color space. LR forces you to either sRGB, ProPhoto or AdobeRGB (at least last time I tried LR v2).
LR is very good at selecting ONE picture, optimizing it and process it for further work in Photoshop. C1 is very good at optimizing and processing a whole SESSION of pictures.
Regarding the issues mentioned before - there are several ways (often overlooked) to avoid them:
- Stability: I did not have any crashes since C1 5.0.1. I had some problems before with my Mac and decided to do a fresh install of 10.5.x instead of migrating from an older installation. It took some time, but it clearly was worth the effort. Stability issues are mostly related to the way Mac OS X is installed.
- Speed: I just upgraded to 10.6.2 (again a fresh install). I didn't know my Mac could be that fast 😊
- Workflow: If you use the old C1 4.x sessions I have to agree, your workflow is limited.- - But in C1 5.x you can use the Mac file system to organize your pictures. Just create a folder hierarchy to suite your needs. Need some picts to be hidden ? Create a subfolder and move them. It's a matter of 2 clicks to view or hide them.
- - C1 5.x lets you customize the interface. You can optimize what is on screen for various tasks, i.e. image manipulation, image sorting & overview, IPTC-tag editing etc. Don't stay with the standard setup - it is good, but can be dramatically improved by yourself.
- - C1 5.x has a lot of shortcuts in the interface. Example: Select a couple of images, edit the first one, then click the small up & down arrow right at the top of the tool - you can apply these changes to all selected images in one step, without touching any other parameters.
Spending a day or two to learn about the interface and optimizing it is strongly recommended. While C1 5.x is not a Photo Asset Management tool, customizing and rethinking of workflows will create a very satisfying and highly productive work environment.0 -
As a new user of Capture One 5 Pro, I would like to add my thoughts. I am still struggling a bit with the the program's organization and workflow, but I believe that I am beginning to reach the point where I can use it fairly comfortably. I have spent a good deal of time doing head to head comparisons with Lightroom 3 Beta. I have been using Lightroom since early version 1, so I have considerable experience with it.
There is no question that LR comes out on top in terms of file management and workflow. As an amateur enthusiast, I really have no need for powerful cataloging functions, but I can see how professionals as well as more compulsive amateurs might. C1-5 is also a bit buggy, by which I mean that it has a tendency to freeze or quit at inopportune times. It is also sluggish in loading large image folders. All of these issues have to do with ease of use.
In terms of image quality, C1 is superior, and that, to me is the decisive factor. I much prefer how it renders images--the clarity, the depth, the smoothness--in a way that LR cannot equal. Somewhat to my surprise, I can sometimes get more fine shadow detail from LR, but that does not alter the fact that I prefer the overall look of the C1 images (which simply proves that pixel peeping is not the proper way to judge IQ.)
In terms of adjustment tools, both programs have their strong points. I like LR's Tonal Curve sliders, but C1 has a Levels tool that is much more useful. The C1-5 Pro tool that I like the most and cannot live without is the Clarity tool. It is almost magical how it brings images to life. LR's Clarity tool is junk in comparison. C1's sharpening is also vastly superior.
So, to summarize, despite its shortcomings, I prefer Capture One 5 Pro, because I like the way it renders images. If I were a professional with huge DAM needs, I might be willing to sacrifice a bit in the IQ department and choose LR or Aperture. There are also stand-alone DAM programs that can be used for file management, but I have no experience with them. I find it somewhat surprising that Phase One, which clearly targets professional photographers, has not developed a more sophisticated DAM component for C1 or at least partnered with another software developer who can. If it had more sophisticated file management capabilities, I am quite confident that there would be a sizable movement of users coming from Lightroom and Aperture.
Rob0 -
I agreed with Rob's assessment. C1 Pro 5.x image quality is much superior than all others, especially with this latest Ver 5.x. It can tackle most of my needs for image processing and in a straight forward and simple manner. Only occasionally I need to rely on PS to do further work on the images.
Phase One needs to work on the DAM side of this software so that one can have one complete workflow rather than going to a different software. By the way the user manual need to be improved.0 -
[quote="fwlun" wrote:
By the way the user manual need to be improved.
Now that is an understatement. The C1-5 user's manual is as uninformative and unhelpful as any that I have ever seen. One almost wonders why Phase One even bothered with it. It must have taken 2 or 3 hours of someone's valuable time. 😜
Rob0 -
I've done countless comparisons, I'm constantly tempted by lightroom. I make my living shooting, and several things about it are very appealing. Keeping everything in one program, local edits, decent file management, etc. But the image quality of C1 just kills it, even LR3 beta. So, here's what I do: Aperture is my librarian (better DAM than LR) and it's where everything is organized, backed up, and stored. I import into Aperture, make my selections, then export the RAWs onto a folder on my desktop. I edit those in C1, do whatever I need to do in Photoshop, and then bring the final files back into Aperture when I'm done. For me, this is the best compromise of image quality and file management. I love it. 0 -
What format do you use to bring the image back into Aperture. I tried .tif earlier today i.e. NEF->C1Pro->.tif->aperture. First the .tif would not show up on the import panel for Aperture (Aperture 3) so I had to drag (& drop) the file. Second the WB balance setting came across as 5K. When in fact I adjusted the white balance to 3400, from the as shot of 4800. So it would seem that .tif is not retaining any of the settings. DNG is not supported very well by Aperture, and the net consensus, would seem to be that C1 does not save any of its settings to a file saved as DNG. PSD's with layers and alpha layers seem to create havoc inside of Aperture. So I am very interested to hear how you do this.
thanks.
Aperture 3.0
C1Pro 5.1.10
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
21 comments