#1 Reason to Switch from LR
Curious - For those who have made the switch from LR to C1, what is your top three reasons for doing so.
0
-
[quote="SteveGlass" wrote:
Curious - For those who have made the switch from LR to C1, what is your top three reasons for doing so.
1/ Quality of RAW conversion
2/ Color-editing tools
3/ Customizable interface0 -
[quote="SteveGlass" wrote:
Curious - For those who have made the switch from LR to C1, what is your top three reasons for doing so.
1. Better default conversion
2. Color Editor
3. Slightly better GUI0 -
Actually I wanted to escape LR's catalog system, where the edits are stored in a massive monolithic database file. But I soon realized that C1 was better in many ways. And Adobe is relentlessly herding users to subscriptions. 0 -
1. Colour Editor / Colour Fidelity (Lightroom always has a kind of "warmth" that I always had trouble of getting rid of)
2. Details are always mushy in Lightroom and much better sharpened in CaptureOne
3. Switching from "Browsing" to "Editing" in Lightroom is very tedious.
4. The storage of RAW edits isn't as "centralised" in CaptureOne so you're not forced to use one large database and you can quickly transfer whole sessions to external devices without having to change anything! And when one session file gets corrupted you can simply create a new one instead of losing every edit.0 -
Layers.
You can get almost the same results from either software, but C1 is easier to work with once you get past the different user interface. It's worth while taking the time to customise it.
But the killer difference is layers.0 -
Yes, layers are currently the killer feature for me. Absolutely could not give them up. 0 -
Speed, RAW conversion, Better layout of controls 0 -
Because Adobe stopped offering stand alone licensing.
I came for the better business practices and stayed for layers and an overall better editing experience.0 -
Both programs are quite capable and generally speaking I don't find the image output of one any better than the other but do have preferences depending on the work I'm doing. For my personal work I'll generally keep it in a large Lightroom catalog which can be slow at times but overall is quite stable. For professional work, specifically tethered shooting, Capture One sessions work best. 0 -
1) Faster performance
2) Better raw conversion
3) Customisable UI0 -
While the program has its issues for sure, and the pricing is pushing it to say the least (with a fast one-year cycle). As a Fuji user on Windows, there is simply no alternative that gets as much detail out of my images as Capture One. (Having turned off noise reduction, and dialed down the color noise reduction.) 0 -
Never owned Lightroom but used it at a customer, and always was disappointed.
Recovery of highlights is much better than Lightroom:
Try an image with blown out highlights which you cannot recover in Lightroom you will be surprised!
Colour editor is much better than the Controls in Lightroom.
Option to buy the program instead of a perpetual subscription.0 -
[quote="SteveGlass" wrote:
Curious - For those who have made the switch from LR to C1, what is your top three reasons for doing so.
I made the transition several years ago, I don't know how LR has developed to be. But for me, I like the color control, skin tone function and layer of C1. The new lumina layer function is very useful.
I also like that C1 makes good use of my GPU for OpenCL acceleration, image preview is refreshed instantaneously when any adjustment is made. That makes the whole workflow satisfactorily smooth.0 -
[quote="DavidBleeker" wrote:
Recovery of highlights is much better than Lightroom:
Try an image with blown out highlights which you cannot recover in Lightroom you will be surprised!
That's demonstrably untrue.
Capture One has significantly upped its game over the years, and will occasionally outperform LightRoom on a particular file, but over many years of using each - and being particularly concerned about highlight recovery - I still see LightRoom as the clear frontrunner, and by a significant margin.0 -
Capture One got me to my desired raw development goals much faster. So, I switched a couple of years ago, but have recently returned to Lightroom (never stopped using Photoshop, because there is no way to replace it with Capture) given the great advances made to the ‘auto-tone’ module as a starting point plus the up-spiraling upgrade prices for Capture One.
Equally excellent results can be obtained with Capture One or Lightroom, in my experience. It’s up to the user.0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="DavidBleeker" wrote:
Recovery of highlights is much better than Lightroom:
Try an image with blown out highlights which you cannot recover in Lightroom you will be surprised!
That's demonstrably untrue.
What do you have to demonstrate? I have is my feeling when I am editing in C1 and a Snowy Egret print hanging on my wall. I made the first one using LR where you can still see spots on its head and wing fronts where there is no feather detail if you look close enough. I entered a competition with that. The one I have hanging on my wall now I edited with C1 where I can see every feather I care to look at. I wish I had entered that one into the competition 😊
I suppose I could have double and tripled up on the local adjustments in LR and perhaps I could have go the same quality. Maybe. But in C1 I created one layer for the bird for its overall exposure and one for the nearly blown hightlights and one tweak of the hightlights slider was all it took. C1 is demonstrably better, at least for my use.0 -
[quote="SteveGlass" wrote:
For those who have made the switch from LR to C1, what is your top three reasons for doing so.- Avoiding a subscription model.
- Avoiding adaptive editing controls (introduced in LR 4.0) which make automated decisions for the user, making it harder to make certain adjustments and/or making adjustments less predictable.
- Leaving Adobe's shoddy quality control.
Bonus reasons:- Much better colour editing controls.
- Customisable user interface.
0 -
I am using COP on a Mac and use catalogs, but presume the basic file structure is similar. One thing cannot be overemphasized is the under the hood structure of CO. Most of the data (thumbnails, previews, adjustments, image files) in CO is stored in individual files outside the database. The database itself is easy to backup and the backup can rapidly be copied to replace a corrupted database. Since the database is a relatively small part of the entire catalog, it can be backed up quite quickly. When the software is structured as a monolithic database, it is much easier to have an unrecoverable catastrophic failure. 0 -
Well I'm in the process of trying to switch now, mainly because of Adobe's ransomware licensing policy, but I can't say I'm finding the switch very easy.
C1 takes forever to do anything - constantly thrashing hard drives to generate or re-generate support files, even on catalogs smaller than 10k in size. This really isn't Pro performance IMO.
I'm also struggling to even see some of the metadata, as the description box is ridiculously small. Most newspaper photographers would use this field for captions, sometimes including description and many names, how on earth can you make use of this information when the metadata display only lets you see four or five words at a time - maybe I'm missing something here?
As far as large catalogs are concerned I think I'm going to have to stick with Lightroom - I'm still experimenting though0 -
[quote="keithwalter" wrote:
Well I'm in the process of trying to switch now, mainly because of Adobe's ransomware licensing policy, but I can't say I'm finding the switch very easy.
C1 takes forever to do anything - constantly thrashing hard drives to generate or re-generate support files, even on catalogs smaller than 10k in size. This really isn't Pro performance IMO.
I'm also struggling to even see some of the metadata, as the description box is ridiculously small. Most newspaper photographers would use this field for captions, sometimes including description and many names, how on earth can you make use of this information when the metadata display only lets you see four or five words at a time - maybe I'm missing something here?
As far as large catalogs are concerned I think I'm going to have to stick with Lightroom - I'm still experimenting though
The way that C1 works does imply quite a lot of 'ground up' processing may be required depending on your settings and what you are doing and how you are doing it. However you description of performance sounds like there may well be some things to be tried to improve things since it does not sound typical. That said the forum is full of comments like "much slower than X" AND "much faster than X" so one does wonder why there seems to be so much discrepancy in experiences.
If you loaded a large catalogue from another system did you firstly make sure the data to be imported was as ordered and tidied as possible and secondly give C1 time, post import, to create some thumbnails and preview files before either shutting down or starting to work with it?
Bear in mind that quite often what appears to be generation and re-generation of files is in fact loading and unloading of memory in an attempt to make available, instantly, what you maybe need to look at next. Thus there can be several factors that affect the immediate display whilst others work is passed off to background processes that may 'spin' disks and use CPU but are less likely to be affecting screen handling performance - no matter what the mechanical 'signs' from your system may be suggesting. It may be worth creating a Support Case (taking into account the time of year) and having someone from the support team take a look at your log files to see if there are any evident issues or bottlenecks being reported.
The metadata entry field displays, where text fileds, will expand with the width of the sidebar and wrap to more lines as information is entered. I believe the fields may be of variable length to fit with the standards used for EXIF and IPTC data field sizes but it's been a while since I cross checked that.
Once entered and saved the entire contents of the field are accessible simply by hovering the cursor over the text box.
Alternatively one could float the metadata tool or have a second tool displayed and make that a much larger window in order to show the entire contents of all large fields. This would likely work best with a second screen or when a very high resolution screen is available to provide additional screen real estate. That said if one was to create a Workspace tailored to just to the tools required for metadata admin work it should be quite easy to come up with something usable on even a relatively low resolution screen.
HTH.
Grant0 -
If you loaded a large catalogue from another system did you firstly make sure the data to be imported was as ordered and tidied as possible and secondly give C1 time, post import, to create some thumbnails and preview files before either shutting down or starting to work with it?
Yep, did all of that. Catalogs made as small as possible - tried both import LR catalog and import direct, left them all to finish generating previews ETC (sometimes for hours) but afterwards, selecting say a particular year, the system would start generating files over again. I tried making previews smaller - didn't make any significant improvement, but as I said I'm still experimenting.
I tried expanding the 'Details' metadata box by stretching the screen display sideways, but even then would only display over a few lines. Generating a floating custom box was next on my list to try, but I haven't figured out quite how to do that yet
Why do searches/filters take so long? I just tried filtering on the year 2018 and gave up, as the system was taking forever
I'm sure someone's going to ask - my computer has an 8th generation i7 processor, 16GB very fast memory, an Nvidia 1080 very fast graphics card and system software on SSD - so it's not my system0 -
Hi Keith,
A quick observation on your first and last points to start with.
The usual recommendation is to set the default preview size to the native resolution of your screen. That will usually be the least process heavy activity and a good starting point for loading images into working memory making the instantly accessible (relatively speaking).
What happens after that, in memory, depends a lot on what you are doing in the editing activity you are performing and how many images you are currently selecting.
I work mainly with sessions so the numbers of files are different but can often head towards 4 or 5000 images and once the cache memory has been loaded for a newly opened session I don't think I have any significant delays working in images. Whilst loading I can usually get to a file I want to work with before the working memory has been fully populated but even a full load does not take so long that it would be a problem to wait a short while.
I'm not entirely sure that individual system spec items count for much in all cases without considering the rest of the components. My Notebook if 6 years old, runs an i7 processor from that era (3820), has 24GB ram, a very unexciting Nvidia Quadra mobile GPU and a decent 512Gb SSD from its build era (system drive and data) plus a 1Tb mSATA SSD from about 3 years ago. Maybe 4 years now (data only).
So long as I make sure that the SSDs are not down to their last 10 GB of free space it seems to run well. Slower, sometimes in some ways, if I am dragging files off external USB3 drives or my NAS (WI-Fi networked but still usable so long as it deos not decided to take a time out for its own purposes.)
As it's a Pro workstation I suspect that the internal sundry components are well chosen to ensure that the headline components can communicate and operate together very well. On other machines I have had I have not always been convinced of that.
To "Float" a tool either click and drag on the top row of the tool wind to detach it from its tab location or use the Window Menu > Create Floating tool and then select the one you want from the list.
Once you have it floating you can grab an edge and resize horizontally or vertically. Or grab a corner and stretch both at the same time. Some tools are logically limited in size to which they can be stretched (or at least I thing some still are constrained) but many can be made significantly larger. The Metadata tool, for example, seems to be unbounded on my screen.
I can't really comment on search filters in catalogues because I use sessions.
Once a session is loaded and referenced files continued existence and additions have been checked the searches and filters work quickly, IMO.
HTH
Grant0 -
I seem to be having more luck with smaller catalogs. I've exported a catalog from Lightroom of only 1300 pictures and this does seem more manageable, however this wouldn't help me overall, as I'd expect to have the majority of my pictures in a single catalog.
One other problem I've just found is that after importing a subset of my catalog, a couple of scanned B&W Tiff files now need rotating, but the rotate tool doesn't seem to work on them - works OK on all my other pictures - strange.
I've also noticed that the display above the thumbnails showing the number of files and those selected goes out of whack sometimes. It's shown there are more pictures in the catalog than there really are, but then ten minutes later, look again and it's correct - strange
I'll continue with the experimentation, but it's looking like I'm going to have to keep the majority of my DAM work within Lightroom. I'm retired now, so generating far fewer pictures, hopefully C1 will be adequate for future work - we'll see0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
23 comments