Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Aperture to Lightroom to Capture One Pro - some milestones a

BobRockefeller
I've been writing up my thoughts about Capture One Pro vs. Lightroom and Aperture for a while now on my blog. I've moved from Aperture to Lightroom and now I'm trying my best to get transitioned to Capture One Pro.

Here's my latest reflection:

http://www.bobrockefeller.com/blog/capt ... -pro-again

I'd appreciate any comments, guidance or discoveries on that same path you may have.

Cross-posted to the LuLa CO forum.
0

Comments

3 comments

Date Votes
  • Grant Kernan
    I have been running COP since version 4. Unfortunately there is no one software to do it all.
    I choose to use the very best where it counts. Capture One does some of what I need to do at world class IQ levels. True, I need to manage colour outside of COP to make accurate ICC profiles. I wouldn't use COP for printing. PS is better here for very accurate and repeatable controls.
    And I do not need COP for DAM. So I use sessions and then archive the raw files...white card and Digital SG charts for possibly reworking the images at a later date. I never used aperture. I tried Lightroom. Didn't like it much. DXO I sometimes use. I also have tried Perfect Photo Suite and only because a bridge camera that I have is not supported by COP. I will continue to use COP as long as I can purchase the licences.
    0
  • Peter Sidell
    I have felt C1 has had image quality advantages for a while. I first began using it as it was an early supporter of the Sony RAW (arw) format. As time has gone on it appears that Sony and C1/Phase One have a close working relationship. As a Sony camera user that has reinforced my interest in using C1 pro.
    I remain unsure what is the best DAM solution, but C1 is certainly improving - in many ways close to Aperture. Still no stacking, and when changing disk drives it has a harder time reconnecting even when folder structure is mirrored.
    My point/question is whether the IQ advantage over Lightroom depends on sensor manufacturer and camera manufacturer (since RAW format is done by each camera manufacturer as I understand it.)
    0
  • NN635770922769309595UL
    Bob

    Had a look at your blog and felt very at one with what you wrote. I was an Aperture user for many years, loved the DAM functionality and found the RAW engine and the editing capabilities adequate - and they could always be extended by a reasonable range of plugins and calling one or more external editors.

    Photo editing is like a lot of things, where one tends to get set in ways and I never felt a great need to change anything - and I was especially happy with Aperture + Affinity Photo (AP). Until Apple pulled the plug on Aperture support. My initial reaction was to future-proof myself by keeping a copy of Aperture and the latest version of OS X that would run it, on a dedicated drive or partition and tell Apple to keep its Photo app where the sun don't shine. That was followed by a feeling of stuff you, Apple, and your iOS-ification of OS X. I have an iPhone and an iPad and they are good for what they do, but they are not Macs and the relentless drive for "harmonisation" means compromises that I'm not prepared to put up with, so I decided to be done with Aperture.

    The search for a replacement was not a happy time. I explored free trials of everything I could find (including CO 7) and they all fell down somewhere, critically none of them was any good at importing my library. However, a fellow AP user persuaded me to look again at CO, which was by then at v8. I really liked it and was able to import the Aperture library in a way that preserved my probably less than optimal structure. I did find myself calling on AP quite a lot, but ...

    The comment "one tends to get set in ways of doing things with time " plus the continuing development of CO now means I am a very happy camper. CO isn't Photoshop or Aperture or LR or anything else - it is Capture One. Many of the things that looked like shortcomings in the early days have vanished with familiarity. For example, at first I found the masking capability of the Local Adjustments tool to be crude and basic compared to that of AP; then I found out how to use it and wondered why use anything else.

    Is it an Aperture replacement in that it is a functional clone? No of course not and if that is what anyone wants then stick with Aperture! Is it an excellent RAW processor and editor? You bet it is! Is it a great DAM? No, but it's more than adequate and the keyword/indexing enhancements in v9 takes it from adequate to pretty darn good.

    The caveat "YMMV" applies to all of this but for all newcomers, if CO is not doing it quite the way you'd like, then change the way you do things (you did change your underwear to day, didn't you?) and be prepared to be pleased.

    OK. a bit of a personal ramble - but you did ask for comment Bob!

    Regards

    Bill
    0

Post is closed for comments.