Rip off is it just me
Gents
tell me am I missing something or what whet the heck is such a big game changer from Co9 to Co 10
the catalog is still slow and poor
And where is things like tool dehaze and export of slids.
please tell me I am wrong I most admit instead of fixing old bugs like filter geotagged photos more just have been added
should it not have been 9.4 instead 10.0
Henrik
tell me am I missing something or what whet the heck is such a big game changer from Co9 to Co 10
the catalog is still slow and poor
And where is things like tool dehaze and export of slids.
please tell me I am wrong I most admit instead of fixing old bugs like filter geotagged photos more just have been added
should it not have been 9.4 instead 10.0
Henrik
0
-
That's why I stay with CO9. Despite that one of the major changes is the sharpening (now like PS). Catalog handling is still aweful. And I still hate to not see my cropped images in the filmstrip. I guess I will never find out what the advantage should be of this (it's not a bug it's a feature). 0 -
It seems that C1 are pumping out major releases, i.e. you have to pay, each December. So there is the subscription purchasing model or the "subscription" purchasing model 😂
Still, if you think you need the new stuff, and some of it is interesting, its probably OK. The software does not write itself!0 -
I hoped that they would make the folder handling more like Aperture where smart folders can be saved inside the folder itself since
well i guess hope is the first step to disappointment0 -
[quote="Lorenzen" wrote:
the catalog is still slow and poor
And where is things like tool dehaze and export of slids.
Henrik
If what you need is a good catalog, a dehaze tool, and an export of slide shows, Lightroom is your friend !!
I switched 2 years ago from Adobe, and I won't never go back.0 -
Well lightroom and i will never be friends !!!!! 0 -
There are a lot of other RAW converters. If you're not satisfied with CO, you can try them out. 0 -
Yep - and some of us realised a long time ago that none of them do everything, and run a number of converters, using whichever one satisfies our needs at the time.
Including Lightroom...0 -
The best cure when i'm frustrated with Capture One is to think about Adobe Lightroom....after that i always find a workaround in Capture One to solve my problem... 😊 0 -
JMT
good one ha ha
well i just have to carry one 😊0 -
The color rendition on Lightroom is not WYSIWIG like on C1. When I shoot something and bring it into C1 it closely matches my visual memory of the scene. LR skin tones are nowhere near C1.
I run C1 on macbook pro at home with 16gb as well as a Macbook 12 to process 36megapixel files and C1 runs great on Sierra on both machines.
C1 makes me money and the return on investment is amazing. It gives me an edge in a my field where everyone uses Lightroom. The difference is real and allows my images to stand out from the rest.0 -
Yes C9 or 10 are much better when it comes to editing but my problem is
the DAM it is very poor the rest is fantastic0 -
Why is the DAM worse than Lightroom?
I use photo mechanic to edit and caption images and then transfer to C1. Did this with LR before switching.[quote="Lorenzen" wrote:
Yes C9 or 10 are much better when it comes to editing but my problem is
the DAM it is very poor the rest is fantastic0 -
[quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
The color rendition on Lightroom is not WYSIWIG like on C1.
It is on my machine...0 -
I've done a lot of tests with C1 vs LR. Noticed skin tones and colors are more pleasing and more in line with C1. I have used LR from v2-6 and don't use it anymore. I am not the only one who has noticed the difference. Many colleagues I work with notice the difference but are stuck on Lightroom. [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
The color rendition on Lightroom is not WYSIWIG like on C1.
It is on my machine...0 -
[quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
Noticed skin tones and colors are more pleasing and more in line with C1.
...Is not the same thing as:The color rendition on Lightroom is not WYSIWIG like on C1
0 -
[quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
Why is the DAM worse than Lightroom?
I use photo mechanic to edit and caption images and then transfer to C1. Did this with LR before switching.[quote="Lorenzen" wrote:
Yes C9 or 10 are much better when it comes to editing but my problem is
the DAM it is very poor the rest is fantastic
I guess you don't know what DAM does otherwise you wouldn't ask. And besides, PM has nothing to do with DAM.0 -
[quote="NN635299624516976000UL" wrote:
[quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
Why is the DAM worse than Lightroom?
I use photo mechanic to edit and caption images and then transfer to C1. Did this with LR before switching.[quote="Lorenzen" wrote:
Yes C9 or 10 are much better when it comes to editing but my problem is
the DAM it is very poor the rest is fantastic
I guess you don't know what DAM does otherwise you wouldn't ask. And besides, PM has nothing to do with DAM.
maybe tyhis helps you a bit Digital asset management (DAM)0 -
I know PM has nothing to do with DAM. I use it for selecting images, tagging, rating and captioning. I only send specific images to C1 because PM is way faster at image selection.
Due to mobile workflow and usage of different hard drives on the road and at home, I have problem with Lightroom/C1 catalogs keeping track of all the folders and edits on different drives.
SSD space on laptop is limited and I cannot keep an entire year's assignments of 36megapixel images on the SSD.
When I get back home from an assignment I Chronosync images to 12 TB Raid as well as two separate individual backups.
I will sometimes have to process images on my laptop to send preliminary images to clients and finish off the work at home.
Problem for me is how to sync image edits between catalogs on your laptop and home computer. Is there a delta backup method where I can sync edits from laptop catalog to catalog on home machine?
Peter Krogh's DAM book is great btw.[quote="NN635299624516976000UL" wrote:
[quote="NNN635507439502082957" wrote:
Why is the DAM worse than Lightroom?
I use photo mechanic to edit and caption images and then transfer to C1. Did this with LR before switching.[quote="Lorenzen" wrote:
Yes C9 or 10 are much better when it comes to editing but my problem is
the DAM it is very poor the rest is fantastic
I guess you don't know what DAM does otherwise you wouldn't ask. And besides, PM has nothing to do with DAM.0 -
[quote="Lorenzen" wrote:
I hoped that they would make the folder handling more like Aperture where smart folders can be saved inside the folder itself since
well i guess hope is the first step to disappointment
Actually, you can, but the trick is to use projects instead of folders/groups. Smart folders inside a project only look at the pictures in that project and not outside of it.
Cheers,
Peter.0 -
It's very easy to fix Lightroom's default color rendering. Just switch from their default profile, "Adobe Neutral" to anyone of the others you like. You can make a per camera default if you like. Almost no one does this but it provides a starting point for your editing that is more appealing. I start with "Camera Neutral" and sometimes try others. Nearly all popular models of cameras have camera-specific profiles.
Adobe has a philosophy, which no one has to agree with, that pictures should begin "unenhanced" and a conscious photographer or photo editor should intentionally make the enhancements. As a practical matter, this means Lightoom tends to default to a very flat looking image. Personally, I think Adobe is overdoing this "purism". A more lively profile rarely pushes pixel values out of bounds or overly restricts the edit-ability of images. Good news is that it is easy to change the default profile.
As for other features, there are reasons to prefer C1, most especially local edits.
But, the failed catalog and the awkwardness of using C1 with other catalogs (chiefly lack of accurate preview unless you make a jpeg dupe of every photo you edit) makes C1 unusable for me.0 -
[quote="lewisl" wrote:
It's very easy to fix Lightroom's default color rendering. Just switch from their default profile, "Adobe Neutral" to anyone of the others you like. You can make a per camera default if you like. Almost no one does this but it provides a starting point for your editing that is more appealing. I start with "Camera Neutral" and sometimes try others. Nearly all popular models of cameras have camera-specific profiles.
Adobe has a philosophy, which no one has to agree with, that pictures should begin "unenhanced" and a conscious photographer or photo editor should intentionally make the enhancements. As a practical matter, this means Lightoom tends to default to a very flat looking image. Personally, I think Adobe is overdoing this "purism". A more lively profile rarely pushes pixel values out of bounds or overly restricts the edit-ability of images. Good news is that it is easy to change the default profile.
Are you speaking about Adobe Lightroom or about Capture One ? 😄0 -
Apart from Adobe's Camera Raw engineer Eric Chan's beta profiles back in 2010, most of their camera profiles were off IMO.
I used Lightroom since v2 and read many books on it. I could get good results but not the kind I remember seeing. Colors were just off.
I switched to C1 fulltime when I got the D4. LR rendition of d4 files back then were just off. I tried different 3rd party profiles but with no luck. Then I tried a demo of C1 and was blown away. The veil was lifted. I could see again on screen what I saw on scene.[quote="lewisl" wrote:
It's very easy to fix Lightroom's default color rendering. Just switch from their default profile, "Adobe Neutral" to anyone of the others you like. You can make a per camera default if you like. Almost no one does this but it provides a starting point for your editing that is more appealing. I start with "Camera Neutral" and sometimes try others. Nearly all popular models of cameras have camera-specific profiles.
Adobe has a philosophy, which no one has to agree with, that pictures should begin "unenhanced" and a conscious photographer or photo editor should intentionally make the enhancements. As a practical matter, this means Lightoom tends to default to a very flat looking image. Personally, I think Adobe is overdoing this "purism". A more lively profile rarely pushes pixel values out of bounds or overly restricts the edit-ability of images. Good news is that it is easy to change the default profile.
As for other features, there are reasons to prefer C1, most especially local edits.
But, the failed catalog and the awkwardness of using C1 with other catalogs (chiefly lack of accurate preview unless you make a jpeg dupe of every photo you edit) makes C1 unusable for me.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
22 comments