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⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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

Will Lightroom4 drop Capture One 6 out?

Alexander Kiselev
Hello people, here is LightRoom 4 coming out soon, what are your thoughts?
I think people want wo do more things now directly in RAW converter and then have little fun in Photoshop.
Please tell me your thoughts, will you switch to LightRoom 4, or will stay with Capture One6?

I'm so lost...please i need your points, thank you...
0

Comments

60 comments

Date Votes
  • jd-photography
    Hi Alexander,

    Lightroom 4 does, according to my own testings, a very good job. Adobe was able to raise the output quality and comes now close to C1. I do now not want to begin again a discussion whether a dedicated RAW converter as C1 is better or worse than a complete DAM software as Lightroom. That depends too much on personal preferences.

    In fact, Adobe delivers now a very good package with LR 4. The biggest advantage from my point of view is the automatic lens correction, which C1 does not offer for DSLR users. Adobe seems to have an ear directly on the customers voice and therefore has developed a very good piece of software, which works despite being just a beta without any problems on my systems (C1 6 is not a beta, but stops working very often). I will stay with C1 because I like the intuitive workflow and the great colors. It is just a great tool for photo session in the studio because it is blazing fast and with the iPhone app offers some other advantages.

    Nobody is able to tell you what right tool for your individual needs is. Capture One as well as Lightroom are very good tools that will support you to get the most out of your RAW files. But, to be true, the difference in color quality has become very small.

    Regards,
    Joerg
    0
  • Alexander Kiselev
    I do not need PhotoBooks or Maps or SlideShows...
    I'am a photographer and want to deliver best quality spending less time.
    C1 is very good, i really like it, but i think that developers should LISTEN to customeres like Adobe does...

    Anyone else has any point of view, because i do promote C1 in Russia, made 12 tutorials with 50 000 views on youtube, but if people will trust LightRoom 4 more, i will lose my audience as instructor. I don not get paid for tutorials, but i want to be current with software...
    Hm...It's really killing my mind.
    Thank you for your answer.
    0
  • Jim MSP
    [quote="Alexander Kiselev" wrote:
    Hello people, here is LightRoom 4 coming out soon, what are your thoughts?
    ....
    Please tell me your thoughts, will you switch to LightRoom 4, or will stay with Capture One6?....


    I am not a pro; I consider myself an "advanced amateur" and I shoot a Canon 60D. I shoot a very wide range of subjects, inside and outside, from people, to landscapes, to sports, to nature, including "birds in flight". I am never in a studio with well controlled lighting. I use Media Pro as my DAM.

    To start with, I use both CO and LR. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. I try to use them for their strengths. Today, I probably use CO 80% of the time for my raw conversions. I prefer the converted color, color controls, and control I have on skin tones, as well as the fine keystone correction. CO lacks the lens correction, and more importantly, the noise reduction capabilities of LR for the high ISO shots I take. I prefer the workflow of CO. All shots that I print currently pass through CO. If I print the final image, I send it on to PS Elements for cloning out junk and using Topaz deNoise for the best noise reduction.

    I have also been trying the new LR 4 beta. They have made some pretty good improvements in it that I like. I especially like the ability to modify the white balance and the noise reduction in selective areas. They have also improved the color conversion from raw; though I still prefer the workflow and control in CO.

    I can only guess at my future use of each. But since you asked, I can guess the following:
    1. Low noise Images taken in good light - CO only
    2. Images taken at high ISO (poor light, or v high speed) for general web use - LR4
    3. Images taken at high ISO (poor light, or v high speed) for small prints - LR4 + Topaz deNoise
    4. Images taken at high ISO (poor light, or v high speed) for large prints CO + LR + Topaz

    My current 80/20 may end up 50/50.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Alexander Kiselev" wrote:
    Please tell me your thoughts, will you switch to LightRoom 4, or will stay with Capture One6?

    No, I'll use them both, each where they will provide the best results - much like Jim's post outlines: Cap One is still waaay down the image quality pecking order when dealing with high ISO files.

    And while I've had cause to complain about this aspect of Cap One 6's image quality in the past, there's no doubt that for files in good light, at moderate (1600 and under, say) ISOs, Cap One's overall IQ is by far the most appealing to me of all the converters I use - and I'm a bit of a converter collector, so I use lots of them.

    It gets said a lot, but there's just something about Cap One's colours; and because by definition, my best images are usually taken in the best light (I'm a bird photographer, incidentally), Cap One is responsible by default for most of the pictures I'm happiest with.

    C1 is very good, i really like it, but i think that developers should LISTEN to customers like Adobe does...

    Alexander, just because Capture One might happen not to have exactly the feature-set that you think it should have, that isn't "proof" that Phase One doesn't listen to its customers - and incidentally, it has pretty much exactly the feature-set for me.

    I'd say that Phase One is as responsive to its customers as we can reasonably expect, but it can't do everything for everyone.
    0
  • SFA
    For what it's worth for most of my RAW files, especially those from the more recent model cameras I own, I don't have any problem at all with the the way C1 handles noise.

    Should I be more critical?


    Grant
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    What ISOs and which cameras, Grant?

    And what's the subject matter? Noise simply doesn't wash in bird photography, but is not considered a problem in other genres.
    0
  • Jim MSP
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    For what it's worth for most of my RAW files, especially those from the more recent model cameras I own, I don't have any problem at all with the the way C1 handles noise.
    Should I be more critical?
    Grant


    As Keith says, bird photos should be clean of noise. I also don't like it on faces of people, especially children. I sometimes shoot kids in the evening with no flash under low light at ISOs of 1600-3200, and sporting events in poor light at ISO of even 6400 where I am trying to stop the action. CO fails me in these cases.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    What ISOs and which cameras, Grant?

    And what's the subject matter? Noise simply doesn't wash in bird photography, but is not considered a problem in other genres.



    Mainly Canon 1D3 at up to 3200 ISO.

    Volume subjects are typically motorsport related. The ISO setting may leave the sharpness a little ragged, especially in marginal light, but the noise aspect seems well controlled.

    Recently acquired G11 and S90 seem pretty solid as well.

    All shooting in RAW of course.

    My elderly 400D also comes out quite well although I expect less of it when pushed.

    The default settings for Luminance can be a tad low but normally things are OK.

    I tend to process to keep detail. If I feel the shot will work with more agressive sharpening - and probably set for 'a dose of 'surface' in the advanced tab - I'll try it. The subject matter often looks powerful that way but it's a rather commonly used look. I prefer to stay more natural usually.

    I can understand the problems with birds though. Awkward things, feathers.

    I was looking at someone else's shot of a Heron the other day (Canon D60 and Tamron 28-300 iirc). A somewhat challenging capture overall. The moiré adjustment looked like it might offer something for the feathers but I think the image was just off sharp at key points and it was difficult to make a decision about what was happening as one adjusted stuff.


    Grant
    0
  • jd-photography
    For HighISO pictures I often use a preset from Capture Integration which was built for exactly this subject. The results are from my perspective really exciting!

    Regards,
    Joerg
    0
  • nggalai
    Short answer: I’ll stick with CaptureOne.

    Longish answer:

    I switched from Lightroom 3 to C1 Pro 6 a while ago. Reasons were varied, starting with feeling uncomfortable with LR’s All-in-One approach. This one took a couple of years to really annoy me, but I found it awkward to stack RAW originals and TIF versions processed with other software (say, SilverEfex) inside Lightroom, not to mention I prefer using other software for geotagging or uploading to web galleries etc.

    Another reason was image quality with M9 DNG files. Lightroom’s Process 2010 worked well for my µ43 cameras, but with the M9? Capture One won me over, hard. It’s not only the C1 colours for me, it’s the way the camera profiles (Standard, Extra Shadow, High Contrast, Linear) deliver better results for the images I take. More shadow detail when needed and a certain 3D-ish, solid look I missed in LR3. Hence I switched.

    But still, I’m test-driving Lightroom 4 Beta. Process 2012 seems much improved for my M9 files; colours are less off and need less tweaking (especially skin), shadow detail is easier recovered, and overall gradation with the M9 DNG profile is more akin to what C1 does for me, sometimes even better.

    There’s little argument noise control is much better in Lightroom, has been since LR 3. But as both my subject matter and style mostly are of the grittier sort this is a non-bonus for me. For ISO > 800 files, I by far prefer the look produced by using Fine Grain and Surface in Capture One over LR4’s “cleaned it!†results. But then, I also still shoot film (and no birds and only little fur), so this is totally down to preference for me. I’m sure with a bit of work you’ll achieve a less “digital†look in LR4, too. But I get it from CaptureOne by default.

    In the end, it’s a question of workflow I guess. For me, using additional programs and tools, having a dedicated RAW processor cum session manager wins against Lightroom’s approach. I find developing RAW in C1 easier and quicker, mostly due to the UI (floating panels when you need them, keyboard control etc.). Lightroom 4 has improved rendering quality and probably is on par with CaptureOne by now (depending on what camera you use perhaps surpasses C1) – but LR4 tries to be the to-end-all, integrated, lock-in photo processing and publishing solution. With a kitchen sink or two.

    Cheers,
    -Sascha
    0
  • Dave R
    I use both Lightroom and Capture One and can't make up my mind which is best. For DAM I use Lightroom and so all my photos are loaded onto my computer using that application, I arrange things in a file hierarchy so it is easy then to find them when using Capture One. I prefer the colours that I get with Capture One and it still has one huge advantage over Lightroom and that is the way it supports for multiple monitors and the flexibility in organising the workspace.
    0
  • ronaldnztan
    Just you wait...people are going to abuse the new look of the Clarity tool. I am still sticking with C1PRO just because as a portraitist and men's fashion shooter, I am enamored with how C1PRO renders skin just right out of the box. I like C1PRO's Color Editor tool.

    To be fair, I think you should compare the latest generation software with each other. LR 3/C1PRO 6, LR 4/C1PRO 7.

    Competition is good. 😊
    0
  • Neil421
    Don't forget to consider After Shot by Corel.
    Corel have bought what was (and is) Bibble and have released it as After Shot, it uses the extremely fast Bibble raw processing engine, it's multi platform and is extremely capable. It's not perfect, but people are saying good things about it.

    www.corel.com/aftershotpro

    Bibble has had its final release, which is a shame, but it lives on as After Shot
    http://www.bibblelabs.com/

    There are some very clever users who have created some very neat plug-ins for Bibble, these are being re-worked for After Shot. These plug-ins made a massive difference to the capabilities of the software.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    Bibble/ASP plugins are just a way for its developers to have dodged their responsibility to provide a useful, functional piece of software - relying instead on users providing free (to Bibble Labs) solutions to problems they should have fixed or functionality they should have provided.

    And - especially if you're a Canon user - Bibble's demosaicing is truly abysmal.

    Oh yeah - if you wanted fully-functioning NR in Bibble, you have to pay extra for a Noise Ninja Licence too. And then you have to deal with a (4 year old, often deal-breaking) bug whereby activating NN would cause long, random, pixel-wide "white space" along the edges of the image.

    I'm a registered Bibble user since 2006, and the truth is that there's a great deal to dislike about that software.

    ASP is better: at long last it lives up to the "fastest converter" posturing that used to be claimed for Bibble (Cap One has always been significantly faster on my well-specced machine than Bibble 5, although that's doubtless partly due to to the number of plugins, noise reduction and demosaicing kludges I needed to invoke to get barely tolerable IQ - and none of them fixed the ghastly dark-to-light transitions posterisation problem caused by their colour/profile engine), but in a real sense it's just a glorified bug fix for many of the issues (like the NN edge pixels bug and the dark-light transitions mess, which are finally fettled) that Bibble should have sorted out years ago.

    The only reason I've bought ASP is because as a licenced Bibble user I got it for £15 - and I only mention that so that Phase One can see that offering generous upgrade pricing might get them customers, come Cap One 7, that they might otherwise lose...
    0
  • Neil421
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    Bibble/ASP plugins are just a way for its developers to have dodged their responsibility to provide a useful, functional piece of software - relying instead on users providing free (to Bibble Labs) solutions to problems they should have fixed or functionality they should have provided.


    Or looking at it another way... the ability for 3rd parties to use the existing Bibble processing engines to create interesting film/paper/developer simulations. The ability to add borders to output images (just like someone here was asking for). Provide a mechanism to apply novel mathematical image processing algorithms to images etc etc. The plug-ins tend to complement the application rather than fix things for the developers, or take the application in novel directions that don't fit with the developers commercial vision.

    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:

    And - especially if you're a Canon user - Bibble's demosaicing is truly abysmal.


    I don't know about that, I'm not a Canon user.

    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    Oh yeah - if you wanted fully-functioning NR in Bibble, you have to pay extra for a Noise Ninja Licence too. And then you have to deal with a (4 year old, often deal-breaking) bug whereby activating NN would cause long, random, pixel-wide "white space" along the edges of the image.


    I never activated NN on my copies of Bibble.

    I'm a long time Bibble user too, but choose CO as my weapon of choice.

    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    The only reason I've bought ASP is because as a licenced Bibble user I got it for £15 - and I only mention that so that Phase One can see that offering generous upgrade pricing might get them customers, come Cap One 7, that they might otherwise lose...


    I'm surprised you bothered with the great value for money £15 cost for ASP as you don't have much good to say about Bibble, or the improved ASP 😄

    Maybe, if CO gets sold to another company, their upgrade price might be equally great value for money..... 😊
    0
  • LadyRainbows
    I like that CO is from a company that actually makes cameras. Skin tones on CO are unmatched, noise reduction it good enough for today's cameras. I like how can customize CO to your liking or at least get darn close.

    I just wish CO would add lens correction on import and fix the dang bug where I can't delete images after import.
    0
  • Jim MSP
    [quote="ben43456" wrote:
    Skin tones on CO are unmatched,.


    I think we all agree on this point

    [quote="ben43456" wrote:
    CO .... noise reduction it good enough for today's cameras.


    Here, I think it depends on the light, speed and ISO that you shoot.
    What camera do you use, and what is the largest ISO you often or either sometimes shoot at?
    0
  • Alexander Kiselev
    So it seem like C1 is loosing position...We should compare CURRENT softawre...So we have now C1 6 and LR4....
    Anybody knows about C1 7 plans? Do they work on it?

    C1 will be really perfect peace of software if it will have some little fixes...Like add grain-noise module
    http://alexanderkiselev.ru/images/stories/journal/notes/2012/lightroom4-effects.jpg
    , rejected photos + delete photos permanently function and of course new content aware highlight slider like in LR4.......
    http://alexanderkiselev.ru/images/stories/journal/notes/2012/shadows-highlights.jpg
    Gradients probably should be developed to, it's simple brush form...and i really want normal curves...
    http://alexanderkiselev.ru/images/stories/journal/notes/2012/lightroom4-curves.jpg
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Neil421" wrote:
    I'm surprised you bothered with the great value for money £15 cost for ASP as you don't have much good to say about Bibble, or the improved ASP

    Because:

    a) I'm an optimist;
    b) I want some continued return on the investment I made in a Noise Ninja licence;
    c) it's only £15;
    d) if - rarely - I'm shooting in undemanding, controllable, well-lit, easy circumstances, ASP's speed has something to recommend it.
    0
  • jd-photography
    [quote="Alexander Kiselev" wrote:

    C1 will be really perfect peace of software if it will have some little fixes...Like add grain-noise module
    http://alexanderkiselev.ru/images/stories/journal/notes/2012/lightroom4-effects.jpg


    It really depends on your individual workflow whether you need an add grain module within your raw converter or not. From my point of view (and my own workflow), I can not see any advantages adding grain with C1. Of course, if you want to add some without switching to Photoshop this is a disadvantage. A raw converter is for me not something to add effects, but to enhance the tonal range, colors etc.

    [quote="Alexander Kiselev" wrote:

    , rejected photos + delete photos permanently function and of course new content aware highlight slider like in LR4.......
    http://alexanderkiselev.ru/images/stories/journal/notes/2012/shadows-highlights.jpg


    C1 offers three folders: Selects, Output, Trash. I use them heavily and again can not see any disadvantages for my own workflow. Never forget that C1 is a raw-converter, you are currently talking about features of the Library-Module in Lightroom, which you should compare to Media Pro.

    Regarding highlight-slider: It is one thing to implement a function (or slider), but the most important thing is the quality. LR3 has for example a fill light slider, which tends to create terrible colors and results. The same slider in C1 brings impressive results...

    [quote="Alexander Kiselev" wrote:

    Gradients probably should be developed to, it's simple brush form...and i really want normal curves...
    http://alexanderkiselev.ru/images/stories/journal/notes/2012/lightroom4-curves.jpg


    What do yo mean with "normal curves"? Until LR4 beta it was LR that never had a normal curves tool! With C1 Pro you can control the curves for each single color channel. You also have a picker tool which enables you to click to the desired value within the image. So, where do you see advantages here from LR?

    Regards,
    Joerg
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Alexander Kiselev" wrote:
    So it seem like C1 is losing position...
    There's no basis whatsoever for that conclusion, Alexander.

    C1 will be really perfect piece of software if it will have some little fixes... Like add grain-noise module
    A post-processing gimmick with no place in a Raw converter, as far as I'm concerned.

    of course new content aware highlight slider like in LR4....
    Better highlight recovery in Cap One would be welcome, but Lr 3 was already better than Cap One here.

    Gradients probably should be developed too, it's simple brush form...
    Again, gradients are a post processing function that don't sit at all well in a Raw converter, to my mind.

    and i really want normal curves...
    What will "normal curves" (whatever they are) give you that Cap One's current Curves adjustment fails to do?
    0
  • SFA
    Highlight recovery works well in C1 in my opinion. Extreme highlight recovery, if the camera has anything more to offer in the file, may be possible with a local adjustment. But then of course I suppose we should be asking why it is so necessary to require extreme recovery.

    Now we all know that from time to time the options may be to recover or bin the shot but really that should not be a factor for regular use in most situations. So specific approaches using special techniques or reverting to alternative software could well be the best way forward. A 'problem' file has already placed itself outside 'normal' processing functions for ultimate photo quality results. However it may, through other processing, still result in a great photographically based 'image'.

    All just my opinion of course.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Highlight recovery works well in C1 in my opinion.

    Oh, it's OK most of the time but - really - I think to call it "recovery" is a bit of a misnomer: other converters' highlight recovery really does pull back detail that seems to be lost (one way of doing this is to extrapolate detail information from data left in any of the colour channels that aren't blown, and it's a technique that can work very well if the highlights aren't quite at 255, 255, 255), whereas Cap One's highlight tool looks to be a curve/white point adjustment rather than a recovery tool per se.

    I shoot stuff like this, which was in pretty good light (the light being behind me and directly on the bird), and sometimes Cap One struggles to deal with the whites in these situations.

    An important point to bring out in response to this question:
    But then of course I suppose we should be asking why it is so necessary to require extreme recovery.
    is that I have no control over the light I shoot in, and no control over the subjects I shoot, so I'm frequently working in far from ideal circumstances as far as the starting point of the image is concerned    .

    Cap One's highlight tool is not a problem, because I'll just fire up another converter if Cap One can't pull the highlights and detail back, but then I lose Cap One's colour rendition: so ideally, I'd like more recovery from Cap One's highlight tool, but it's not a deal-breaker.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="ben43456" wrote:
    I like that CO is from a company that actually makes cameras. Skin tones on CO are unmatched, noise reduction it good enough for today's cameras. I like how can customize CO to your liking or at least get darn close.

    I just wish CO would add lens correction on import and fix the dang bug where I can't delete images after import.


    Ben,

    You can, according to my installation, apply lens correction on import. However I rarely shoot anything for which lens correction on import seems necessary so I don't recall ever trying it.

    As far as I can tell it's not (at least for non Phase product users) a 'smart' system that assesses any Exif data available and picks a correction where it can. However the Import function does allow the candidate files to be sorted by Lens or Focal Length or ISO (to pick some representative options) so, at least in theory and assuming it all works as advertised, there is potential to apply a range of 'standard' adjustments (also beyond just lens corrections if desired) at the point of import.

    Does this help at all?
    0
  • Alexander Kiselev
    LightRoom 4 is really really god...I'm waiting for new release of C1 7)
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    Highlight recovery works well in C1 in my opinion.

    Oh, it's OK most of the time but - really - I think to call it "recovery" is a bit of a misnomer: other converters' highlight recovery really does pull back detail that seems to be lost (one way of doing this is to extrapolate detail information from data left in any of the colour channels that aren't blown, and it's a technique that can work very well if the highlights aren't quite at 255, 255, 255), whereas Cap One's highlight tool looks to be a curve/white point adjustment rather than a recovery tool per se.

    I shoot stuff like this, which was in pretty good light (the light being behind me and directly on the bird), and sometimes Cap One struggles to deal with the whites in these situations.

    An important point to bring out in response to this question:
    But then of course I suppose we should be asking why it is so necessary to require extreme recovery.
    is that I have no control over the light I shoot in, and no control over the subjects I shoot, so I'm frequently working in far from ideal circumstances as far as the starting point of the image is concerned    .

    Cap One's highlight tool is not a problem, because I'll just fire up another converter if Cap One can't pull the highlights and detail back, but then I lose Cap One's colour rendition: so ideally, I'd like more recovery from Cap One's highlight tool, but it's not a deal-breaker.



    Keith,

    Sorry, missed your response previously - probably you posted while I was composing the next post and so I have only just seen it.

    I understand what you are saying and often have just about exactly the same sort of probolem as you - you have to deal with the light you have available to capture the shot. Different subject matter but the same problems, more or less.

    My point really was that it would be nice if the cameras could extend their DR and the RAW interpreters could deal with them totally. There are cameras around that, as part of a system, offer about 26 stops DR. It seems that some ae better in that respect than others. Nikon may have a touch of extra latitude compared to Canon for example.

    That said I find that I can get smooth results from C1 quite readily in many cases. Other apps may provide a greater recovery facility (camera and file dependent I suspect) but not neccessarily as readily available.

    Sometimes, bit not always, there is just enough on what loos like a blown area - especially clouds - to apply several levels of adjustment, both HDR recovery and exposure, and find a lot of initially unavailable detail. Sometimes.

    Which really does beg the question about why it is not 'discovered' and offered by the first pass of processing for those who might set a preference to see it.

    But in the end, as you say, there's no harm in using an alternative tool to extract the information required when required.

    Grant Perkins
    0
  • Sheldon
    I get the feeling that Phase One operates in a bubble oblivious to what goes on around them. if one takes the time to go back over the forum in the past years you would see a similar theme of Phase One being somewhat aloof in their handling of customers. Communication, imo, has always been lackluster. They do have a great product that could use some changes. When they purchased Media Pro I had had great hopes for an integrated product like Lightroom. I used LR but in reality the only thing that I used was their cataloging portion. I don't have a great interest in the other modules though I will admit to being interested in their maps thing. I haven't tried LR4 yet as I keep hoping that we would see something from Phase One. I often wonder if Phase One views their software side of things as a necessary evil and will only support it the bare minimum that they can. We never hear about any plans on what they are thinking. It would be nice to have one if their camera systems but my business is not yet in that category. I probably won't leave for LR but I am sure there will be many that will and this does concern me. in reality all I would like to know is that we have something on the horizon that will better serve our needs. Sometimes I think it could be the differences in corporate cultures between europe and north America. Are Europeans more apt to accept this kind of corporate behavior. I don't mean that as a slight to my european friends, a genuine question.

    I say all of this as a concern for the product that many of us hold near and dear. I want to be able to continue to support C1 but if we don't see some sort of communication that C1 is going to be improved then customers will be going to what offers them the best possible results and as someone above said Adobe is getting closer and closer to C1's output.
    0
  • NNN634350876987273186
    ^
    Exactly this is the reason for which I didn't buy Capture One. I don't like the lack of responsiveness from them. I also don't like the way this product (while it's great in colors and for studio work, everyone knows it's strengths) was not brought to more contemporary times with noise reduction algorithm, local adjustments limits, crashes, speed and enough other aspects.
    I tried it and I liked it, but it's in so many (important for me) points inferior to LR that I simply can't use it for my workflow. And I surely won't like to have issues like many other C1 users here and get next to no answers from PhaseOne reps.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Sheldon" wrote:
    Are Europeans more apt to accept this kind of corporate behavior? I don't mean that as a slight to my european friends, a genuine question.


    In the same spirit, my answer is that - generally - we don't get so bent out of shape over every little thing that isn't "perfect" to us as individuals, and then feel we have the right to expect the company that's responsible for the offending product to be at our every beck and call over it.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="NNN634350876987273186" wrote:
    ^
    Exactly this is the reason for which I didn't buy Capture One. I don't like the lack of responsiveness from them.


    Don't ever buy Bibble 5/After Shot Pro, then - you'll think you've turned invisible.
    0

Post is closed for comments.