Comparing different RAW converters
I'm comparing ACR to C1 and I'm having a hard time seeing the advantage of using C1. Don't get me wrong, I've been using C1 since version 3 and I love(d) it but recently I looked at ACR and I don't see how C1 is better in producing better image quality. Maybe I'm doing something wrong during my processing. I just complained that it was noise reduction that was making the image look worse but now comparing two images NR reduction turned off other than color was left in both programs as 25. I don't see what the C1 advantage is any more. Here is an example. C1 producers bigger grain size which looks painterly.
Do you see what I see?
Do you see what I see?
0
-
You cannot compare numerically. 25 in noise reduction will mean different amounts in any program.
You have to adjust visually instead and then ompare.0 -
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
You cannot compare numerically. 25 in noise reduction will mean different amounts in any program.
You have to adjust visually instead and then ompare.
OK, but the point is to achieve better result with one or the other regardless what the sliders are set to. So if I am able to achieve better result with one of them regardless of the settings, does that mean I just haven't used the other program properly? How do I achieve the best results I can with C1? What do I need to learn?0 -
[quote="Maggie12" wrote:
How do I achieve the best results I can with C1? What do I need to learn?
It depends on what you want to achieve? When it comes to RAW processing, "best" result is highly subjective.0 -
[quote="Maggie12" wrote:
I'm comparing ACR to C1 and I'm having a hard time seeing the advantage of using C1. Don't get me wrong, I've been using C1 since version 3 and I love(d) it but recently I looked at ACR and I don't see how C1 is better in producing better image quality. Maybe I'm doing something wrong during my processing. I just complained that it was noise reduction that was making the image look worse but now comparing two images NR reduction turned off other than color was left in both programs as 25. I don't see what the C1 advantage is any more. Here is an example. C1 producers bigger grain size which looks painterly.
Do you see what I see?
The thing you are seeing here is the difference between two types of RAW conversion... The Capture One image looks best when looking at the whole image on screen, and the ACR image looks best when viewed on pixel level 100%... 😕
I have made a referenced library (witch is controlled with Capture One) instead of a managed, so i can access it in both Capture One and Adobe Bridge....but i have now decided to use Capture One, because if you can tame the ruff look when viewed 100%, Capture One can simply draw more out of the RAW file than ACR can do ❗️0 -
If you are more happy with the results you get using ACR then perhaps that is a better fit for you, no? One is not better than the other across the board.
I am a long time user of ACR/LR and any time I've compared edits directly to Capture One edits I feel I can get slightly better results in ACR. This is probably because I've spent more time editing in ACR. Shooting tethered however can be a miserable experience in LR where it seems like its more of an afterthought while shooting tethered in Capture One the camera becomes an extension of the program and it works seamlessly.
Use the best tools that work for you.0 -
Between the two images I see the usual tradeoff between reduction of noise and sharp edges. 1a has more graininess but sharper edges. 1b has more contrast and brightness but less texture detail.
It would be interesting to see the same image section from both RAW converters when the noise/graininess in the dark red area is about the same.0 -
[quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
Between the two images I see the usual tradeoff between reduction of noise and sharp edges. 1a has more graininess but sharper edges. 1b has more contrast and brightness but less texture detail.
It would be interesting to see the same image section from both RAW converters when the noise/graininess in the dark red area is about the same.
Right, but I'm unable remove the grain with C1. Any changes I make in NR in C1 it smudges the image, it gives it painterly look.0 -
[quote="Maggie12" wrote:
[quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
Between the two images I see the usual tradeoff between reduction of noise and sharp edges. 1a has more graininess but sharper edges. 1b has more contrast and brightness but less texture detail.
It would be interesting to see the same image section from both RAW converters when the noise/graininess in the dark red area is about the same.
Right, but I'm unable remove the grain with C1. Any changes I make in NR in C1 it smudges the image, it gives it painterly look.
Hi Maggie, would you consider posting the RAW file?0 -
[quote="Maggie12" wrote:
I just complained that it was noise reduction that was making the image look worse
I am using Sony A7R2 and I always dial NR of any kind (luma & chroma) to zero ... NR kills colors0 -
[quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
[quote="Maggie12" wrote:
[quote="Eric Nepean" wrote:
Between the two images I see the usual tradeoff between reduction of noise and sharp edges. 1a has more graininess but sharper edges. 1b has more contrast and brightness but less texture detail.
It would be interesting to see the same image section from both RAW converters when the noise/graininess in the dark red area is about the same.
Right, but I'm unable remove the grain with C1. Any changes I make in NR in C1 it smudges the image, it gives it painterly look.
Hi Maggie, would you consider posting the RAW file?
Yes, here you go:0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
10 comments