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⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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. ⚠️

C1 versus LR5

flashsplash
What is better is C1 or LR ?

I have been for a long time a LR user and about a year ago I moved to C1. The reason that I didn't move earlier was the lack of catalogues in C1.
But let me get back to the point, what is better ? It is always hard to judge things by just looking at pictures, so I decided to start measuring a few things. The first test that I did was to check the Raw processing engine of both in terms of noise removal and resolving power.

The same RAW file (IQ140) was loaded into both applications on the same MAC in two phases:

1.)Both applications were configured NOT to apply any changes to the RAW picture. Sharpness and Noise removal set to 0.
Once completed the noise and line resolving was measured with a tool (imageJ) .

2.)Both applications were configured for 50% sharpening and 50 % Luminance noise suppression/removal (rad 1, detail 50)
Once completed the noise and line resolving was measured with a tool (imageJ)

Pictures were shot at : ISO 50, F11 - ISO 400, F11 - ISO 800, F11 (ambient light)

Noise Results: (Line resolving will be posted later)
Blue dots/crosses is noise that is above the set margin
Top bar is LR, Bottom bar is C1

ISO 50 - F11 No Adjustements
http://flashsplash.smugmug.com/photos/i-vmbs55T/0/L/i-vmbs55T-l.jpg
Notice how LR has more noise in the darks.

ISO 50 - F11 With Adjustements
http://flashsplash.smugmug.com/photos/i-bhtptxt/0/L/i-bhtptxt-L.jpg
Notice how LR has more noise in the darks, LR did not seem to correct much, C1 just a little. That was expected at this low ISO.
--------------------------------------------------
ISO 400 - F11 No Adjustements
http://flashsplash.smugmug.com/photos/i-NSRHwTX/0/L/i-NSRHwTX-L.jpg
The difference between LR and C1 is becoming substantial, where C1 does it much better then LR especially in the darks. However C1 seems to have more noise in the lighter area's.

ISO 400 - F11 With Adjustements
http://flashsplash.smugmug.com/photos/i-QLSR4dm/0/L/i-QLSR4dm-L.jpg
LR is taking a beating, the blacks became even worse. C1 stayed pretty much OK
(Maybe the result of the sharpening scale difference, although both were set to 50%)
--------------------------------------------------
ISO 800 - F11 No Adjustements
http://flashsplash.smugmug.com/photos/i-NSRHwTX/0/L/i-NSRHwTX-L.jpg
The difference between LR and C1 is very substantial, where C1 does it much better then LR especially in the darks. However C1 seems to have more noise in the lighter area's.

ISO 800 - F11 With Adjustements
http://flashsplash.smugmug.com/photos/i-jbzL7Jv/0/L/i-jbzL7Jv-L.jpg
LR is taking a serious beating, the blacks became even worse. C1 stayed pretty much OK
(Maybe the result of the sharpening scale difference, although both were set to 50%)


Off course that is a very simple test, and it might be possible that 50% sharpening in LR is far more destructive then 50% sharpening in C1. Never the less what I notice is that C1 is much better in the removal of noise in the darks then LR . Secondly C1 adjustments (sharpness/noise ) are far less devastating compared to lightroom.

The reason why C1 does better must lay in the fact that the back does black calibration, and embeds that info into the RAW file. Something that LR can not read or knows. That is what I think.
The same test with a DSLR might bring more equal results, however I would have to try it.

My choise is clear, C1 😄 (and yes I know that one test is not covering all the other aspects that can affect a picture)


Regards,


Steve
0

Comments

21 comments

Date Votes
  • PhaseoneUser30154
    Interesting test, but I come at it just the opposite way. Looking at the photos themselves.

    I think it depends upon the equipment (for me it does anyway!)

    With my Canon files, C1 is hands down he best… by quite a wide margin in fact. Color balance, auto sets, highlight recovery as well as shadow detail.

    For my Leica and Sony I first wash in DxO9. Same here as C1 for Canon. Just beautiful with only presets. If I want something to really pop may play around, but not necessary in most cases

    For now I export DNG's to LR5 for storage/reference. I have Media Pro, but am just getting started with it and trying to find the proper saving algorithm that works for me. If I get it down, I'm not sure what I'll use LR for except storing DNG's. I realize I can go TIFF, but those files can get extremely large! (I know, so can DNG's).

    No a big fan of LR anymore and to tell you he truth they scared me with the on-line thing. It is quite possible that they will go too cloud-based for my comfort.

    Further, C1's ability to customize the workspace simply appeals too much to me.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="flashsplash" wrote:
    Sharpness and Noise removal set to 0.

    As far as I know there is no "zero" NR in Capture One - it always applies some noise reduction.

    http://help.phaseone.com/en/CO7/Editing ... ction.aspx
    Please note that Capture One automatically adds an amount of noise reduction based on individual image evaluation.

    Whereas with Lightroom, none means none.

    Not a particularly demonstrative test, in that case - of course Lr's examples will show more noise in the shadows than Capture One - Capture One's using NR.

    And in the versions with NR and sharpening applied, obviously the default amounts applied by Lr and Capture One are different: 50% sharpening in Capture One is not the same as 50% sharpening in Lr. But the Lr Masking slider allows the user to direct sharpening away from parts of the image that won't benefit from it, which tool must be part of the workflow if you want the best out of Lr.

    The Detail sliders work in different ways too - in Lr, "Detail" of 50 or more invokes a completely different sharpening algorithm - a kind of R-L Deconvolution, rather than simple Unsharp Mask. I don't believe that's the case with Capture One - they're not like-for-like in terms of function.

    As to NR: I've never used 50% Luma in my life in Lr - my 3200 ISO Canon 7D files only get something like 30 (and often less).

    Point being - any such test is only remotely valid if you take the time to get the best possible results out of each converter: applying default values prove nothing, applying ostensibly the same values in each converter proves nothing.

    I'm not "bigging up" Lr at the expense of Capture One here - I like and use them both - but I do balk at tests that "prove" the superiority of one converter over another which are based on questionable assumptions and dubious equivalencies.

    In Real World photography (rather than in controlled, arguably unrepresentative tests) I've yet to see the image that only Capture One could give me a desirable version of: and that's just as true of Lightroom. Use either of them well, and you'll be rewarded.

    I sometimes prefer Capture One's conversions (and the recently-documented trick posted here of whacking the "Structure" slider in the Clarity dialogue over to the right has gained it a new lease of life with me), but preferring one over another is also something that's true to say of Lightroom...

    And Photo Ninja.

    And DxO Optics Pro.
    0
  • flashsplash
    [quote="PhaseoneUser30154" wrote:
    Interesting test, but I come at it just the opposite way. Looking at the photos themselves.

    I think it depends upon the equipment (for me it does anyway!)



    Thanks for the comments, maybe I should have stated that the pictures that are placed here have been adjusted.So that the markers would be better visible. So the point is not to look at the quality of the pictures as those are not correct but the amount of noise markers. I should have stated that. 😄

    I can follow your other comments....


    Regards Steve
    0
  • flashsplash
    Hi Keith Reeder,

    Thanks for the additional info. And yes I do agree with you that such as test is not completely accurate. As you stated the initial sharpening and noise reduction of LR and C1 can be different. I have set what can be set at the import stage to zero.
    If the application does have an embedded noise reduction in their algorithm that is not user controllable then I consider this as part of the apps algorithm. That is why I have ignored that part, unless I would have overlooked the internal algorithm noise reduction settings, I am aware that C1 will apply Black Calibration (second picture with shutter closed to be used for noise removal). LR can not read that info and would not know what to do with it anyhow. C1 can . Maybe I should try a DSLR RAW file and see what then the effect is.

    As to the sliders 50% rule, I can only agree with you. However it does show how destructive the LR's 50% settings (noise/sharpness) are versus the C1 50% settings. In fact in C1 the sliders at 100% are not that destructive. Of course that all depends on the algorithms behind it.

    Trying to get the best picture,is indeed another approach. I just didn't wanted to do it as I wanted a "dummy one to one" comparison. Anyhow, the zero corrected/ raw interpretation of both apps is rather clear. The corrected is indeed an area for discussion.

    Noise is just one element, and that is mainly what I looked at. Does it make in the global view C1 better or LR worse that will depend to much on other aspect including user experience.

    In each case I am happy to have made the move.

    Off topic;
    P.S I do have Adobe Cloud for my CC. Indeed that is a bad thing that one depends on the cloud. The good thing is, you always get the latest releases and you can run off-line, but only if you connect at least once per month to the I.N.

    Kind regards

    Steve
    0
  • PhaseoneUser30154
    Keith Reeder,

    Would suggest that virtually ALL testing of programs has a "bug" of sorts and it really breaks down to a sort of "Special Relativity" thing where every test is good for something "within its own frame of reference".

    Sure some are better designed than others, but there is always grumbling since LR and C1 in this instance are not in the same frame

    But that's what keeps these forums churning.. no?
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    I really have no idea what your point is: whether or not "all tests have bugs" but that "this is what keeps forums churning" is entirely irrelevant: if you're going to test software, test it at its best, not in some arbitrary, unrepresentative, mediocre middle ground.

    That's the level of performance we're interested in and are paying for, isn't it?

    How seriously would you take a comparative review of two sports cars which concludes one to be "obviously" better than the other, when neither car was once actually driven like sports cars, to its maximum potential, but to an arbitrary "standard" which - however unintentionally - inherently favoured one over the other?

    Like this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=15818 - a user complaining that Cap One's default "isn't good enough" in how it renders foliage.

    Well clearly, as a default it is good enough for Phase One's purposes and intentions, or it wouldn't be a default: the fact that it might not ideally suit a particular purpose as-is, simply indicates that decisions based on defaults are pointless.

    I'm a wildlife photographer, and I can say with absolute confidence that Capture One has no problem rendering foliage in a detailed and well-resolved way when you use it properly.
    0
  • ---
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    I really have no idea what your point is: whether or not "all tests have bugs" but that "this is what keeps forums churning" is entirely irrelevant: if you're going to test software, test it at its best, not in some arbitrary, unrepresentative, mediocre middle ground.


    +1
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="flashsplash" wrote:
    Sharpness and Noise removal set to 0.

    As far as I know there is no "zero" NR in Capture One - it always applies some noise reduction.



    We can actually 😉

    If "Lum.", "Color" and "Single Px" sliders are put to 0, and the detail slider is put to 100, then the noise reduction step in the pipeline is completely disabled.
    0
  • NNN634578809887629371
    Thanks for that snippet Christian!

    Now, can you cross-post that in the windows forum, since it is non-OS specific? 😎
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NNN634578809887629371" wrote:
    Thanks for that snippet Christian!

    Now, can you cross-post that in the windows forum, since it is non-OS specific? 😎


    Hehe.

    No need. This PC user easily found it here ... 😄



    Grant
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="NNN634578809887629371" wrote:
    Thanks for that snippet Christian!

    Now, can you cross-post that in the windows forum, since it is non-OS specific? 😎


    No problem.

    One note on this is that the de-bayering algorithm "naturally" de-noises the image to some extent, however, with the values stated above, no active NR is applied.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Christian Gr" wrote:
    If "Lum.", "Color" and "Single Px" sliders are put to 0, and the detail slider is put to 100, then the noise reduction step in the pipeline is completely disabled.

    Ah - a "Pro-only" solution, then - but you've confirmed that absent that (rather arcane!) workaround, Capture One does apply NR in all cases, so thanks for that.

    I suppose it might be interesting - to some - to see tests with the NR definitively off in both Lr and Cap One, in the interests of a supposedly level playing field.

    For me though, I'd still want to see tests which max out the capabilities of the software in question: and given how intrinsically subjective such things are, I'll also add that this is exactly why any "converter x vs. converter y" tests are essentially pointless however they're done - there is no level playing field, and "best" is too subjective a measure for anyone but the person doing the test, to rely on.
    0
  • PhaseoneUser30154
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    I really have no idea what your point is: whether or not "all tests have bugs" but that "this is what keeps forums churning" is entirely irrelevant:


    then, Why the Face?
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    I still have no idea what you're getting at.
    0
  • PhaseoneUser30154
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    I still have no idea what you're getting at.


    really???

    I wrote'

    ... suggest that virtually ALL testing of programs has a "bug" of sorts and it really breaks down to a sort of "Special Relativity" thing where every test is good for something "within its own frame of reference".

    Sure some are better designed than others, but there is always grumbling since LR and C1 in this instance are not in the same frame…"

    you write;

    "...I really have no idea what your point is: whether or not "all tests have bugs" but that "this is what keeps forums churning" is entirely irrelevant: if you're going to test software, test it at its best, not in some arbitrary, unrepresentative, mediocre middle ground…"

    Then you write a bit later;

    "...For me though, I'd still want to see tests which max out the capabilities of the software in question: and given how intrinsically subjective such things are, I'll also add that this is exactly why any "converter x vs. converter y" tests are essentially pointless however they're done - there is no level playing field, and "best" is too subjective a measure for anyone but the person doing the test, to rely on…"

    I wrote that due to differences, it's difficult to compare LR and C1 directly. You come up with the "… what's your point.." non-sequitur (my point is exactly what I said)

    then in a later post you seem to agree with me that there is no level playing field and such comparisons are subjective.

    Why did you bother arguing in the first place then? Why bother with the "…I have no idea…" if you agree on the weakness of the comparison as I did?

    Do you just like to disagree? Even when you don't actually disagree….? Did you actually read my entire post? Doesn't seem like it… Even though you're the guy in the Instructional Video you still have to read, sorry. And please try to limit the number of cliche non-seqs, even though you are the "Guy in The Video".
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="PhaseoneUser30154" wrote:
    really???

    Yes, really - because "then, Why the Face?" is utterly meaningless.

    As to the rest - suffice it to say that the insight and clarity you think you're providing with your outpourings really isn't there, and you're clearly missing the point I'm making by a very wide margin.
    0
  • rave81
    this test are meaningless, because most of the clients doesn't care about what software you used to edit their images 😊.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="rave81" wrote:
    this test are meaningless, because most of the clients doesn't care about what software you used to edit their images 😊.

    Even for its target audience - Capture One users - it's meaningless (however well-intentioned) because you don't draw useful conclusions about the capabilities of anything unless you use it properly - and by properly in this context I mean at its best. We need to see what it can do, not what it does simply left to its own devices.

    The glaring - and entirely valid - question which immediately comes from any such comparison test, where settings are left at default or moved to some arbitrary "equivalent" value (which as I've explained above, they will not be) is:

    "Ah, but what if you do this with converter B..?"

    I also play guitar - used to be really serious about it - and I've yet to buy a guitar simply on the basis of walking into a shop, strumming a couple of chords, and then plunking the money down.

    So I play the frets off the thing - and any other guitar that might be on my list - in every style I play, often changing between a number of amplifiers in the process, before making the decision.

    That's how you test. You learn nothing from the middle ground.
    0
  • meanwhile
    I totally forgot how much I missed you from the Bibble forum, Keith. Nice to see you here.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    Ah yes - Bibble, where image quality goes to die, and yet where image quality destroying bugs live forever, regardless of how many times they're raised.

    Funny you should mention Bibble in the context of this discussion: if it (and its dismal successor AfterShot Pro) had been tested anything like competently and thoroughly, it wouldn't have been the steaming pile of dog excrement it proved to be.

    And - incredibly - the same dismally inadequate, half-arsed testing means that AfterShot Pro 2 not only has many of the same IQ-killing bugs and problems that existed way back in 2006; but new problems such as the execrable quality of the Authentec noise reduction - and the "tiling" bug therein - which would never have made it out of the gate if the testing had actually tested the software.

    I found both of the NR-related bugs (imagine: noise "reduction" that actually adds tons of noise - hard to miss), and confirmed the continuing presence of three other old bugs that have been there in one form or another for up to eight years, within twenty minutes of downloading ASP 2.

    Twenty minutes!

    So what in God's name were the beta testers testing?

    Within twenty five minutes of downloading ASP 2, it was gone from my machine, and there's not enough money in the world to persuade me to give it another chance.

    Proper testing matters. It's hardly rocket science...
    0
  • meanwhile
    It's not even computer science.

    You've mellowed in your old age. Yeah, gave up on Bibble/ASP many years ago too. But, still downloaded the latest version to try out recently. I think I just hate myself.
    0

Post is closed for comments.