From Aperture to CO Pro 8
Like many Aperture users I am now actively looking for a replacement, Affinity is a possible, but still very much in Beta. I like the look of CO and have watched a few tutorials, it would seem to do the job ok........
For those of you that have made the switch, Aperture to CO, were you glad you did?
For those of you that have made the switch, Aperture to CO, were you glad you did?
0
-
Yes
very happy yes there are room for improvement, but the way you can customize many things makes it easy to move from Aperture to C1
and the Raw conversion is fantastic
Henrik¨0 -
I am switching to C1 from Aperture. My trial is abut to run out and I will buy in when it does.
The image processing engine feels superior to Aperture. I can push the sliders for similar adjustments farther and harder in C1 than in Aperture while retaining detail, color, and contrast. Aperture had layer functionality implied in it but it is much more explicit in C1. I also like the customization possible in C1.
On the downside, C1 does have its quirks and weaknesses. The library management is weaker, the self-collapsing tools is odd, and the auto mask in the brushes has a hard time covering areas. I like the UI in Aperture better but I can get used to C1.
The price is high at $300 and I am hoping the the recent leak of an upcoming LR update will drive a sale. Subscriptions are available for $10/month but that can be considered high too when you compare it to Adobe's offer where you get LR and Photoshop. But, what value is LR if it doesn't jive with you, right? I'm not sure I would even pay $5/month for it.
Overall, I think C1 is a solid program that is worth learning. I hope the company will stick around and support the enthusiast market (unlike Apple).0 -
I agree a lot with the poster above.
Positives:
1. Initial image quality and adjustments such as shadow and highlight recovery, clarity and structure, local adjustments (except color editor - see below)
* These have eliminated the need for round-tripping to NIK in a lot of cases
2. Excellent lens correction and keystone/perspective correction tool
* This has eliminated the need for PTLens (a commonly used plugin for Aperture)
3. Good healing, cloning and spot removal tools
4. Customization of workspace - virtually identical to Aperture after some customization
Negatives:
1. No Flickr or other social media export (although Flickr has recently launched an automated uploader for Mac)
2. No keyboard shortcut to toggle between adjusted and original image
2. No keyboard shortcut to toggle 100% zoom and fit to window (requires two keys in C1)
4. Performance updating the viewer/previews when making adjustments on a 4K display is terribly laggy
5. OpenCL appears to offer no added performance - placebo?
6. Brushes are good, but often laggy and Intuos tablet/pen support is rudimentary and even more laggy
7. Using lens corrections automatically crops your photo unnecessarily requiring an added step to uncrop it
8. They really could benefit from a tone mask selection tool of some kind (Like NIK control points)
9. Color editor is maddening to work with
* The default colors influenced by your selection are way too broad (even using the Advanced tab)
* The pie slice is so tiny in the Advanced editor, it's impossible to isolate just the colors you want to influence
* Basic tasks like darkening or saturating a blue sky seem unreasonably difficult as white clouds are also affected
* You have little latitude in how much you can change a color (hue adjustment is limited)
10. They really should separate the color editor into two separate things...
* Use the mask concept to select a tonal mask by clicking a color and adjusting a few sliders for how broad a tonal range you want (width, saturation, and softness)
* This would allow all local adjustments to be applied to a color like exposure, contrast, clarity, structure,
* Allow a color wheel to be used to select a new color mapping
11. The software has more bugs than I'd like:
* It has issues rendering previews correctly where viewer window > preview size (which is problematic on 4K displays)
* It has an issue where it sometimes thinks the image size = preview size making zoom not work (on 4K displays?)
* The sharpness of the preview in the viewer can vary from sharp to soft depending on viewer window vs preview size
* There is a bug importing TIFFs where the saturation is not maintained in green/yellow tones
12. It is expensive - particularly if photography is just a hobby0 -
I'll largely echo previous comments. When it comes to UI and workflow, Apple really did refine Aperture by v3 to be very quick and slick. In particular, managing the import, metadata and captioning, export, sharing and archiving of masters and versions is largely seamless.
However, while Aperture is still fully functional and there is some promise that Photos for Mac will take things where Aperture leaves off, I have still switched to CO8 for my RAW processing. There is definitely a learning curve because it *isn't Aperture*. Likewise, it isn't Lightroom (which I have always thought had a pretty lousy workflow). So, it's different. Some of the tools are the same, in the same place, and produce similar results. Others aren't and don't.
I acknowledge the frustration that I've seen from others, and I've had my own. So, why switch? It's the results you get. My final images are better quality (I find the adjustment algorithms very good, plus I use some Fujifilm X-Trans cameras for which the RAW processing is significantly better than Aperture or Lightroom/Adobe RAW), and I can now produce them quicker. If there is a cost difference then it's nothing compared to my gear options! And even if you are even just an enthusiastic amateur like me you're probably more concerned about the results. If I wasn't, I would just shoot everything JPEG, not spend time with adjustments, and use iPhoto for free.
It definitely requires an investment in time to get past "this would be easy in Aperture". A common criticism from Aperture switchers is around library management, and I've actually found myself splitting the workflow between the two: CO8 for RAW image processing and referencing the masters on offline drives, but I export full size maximum quality JPEGs of my finished versions to Aperture for everyday use. I would rarely need to revisit a RAW master after that anyway. If you have other Apple devices, the automatic sync side of this to iPhone, iPad, iCloud etc is invaluable. I don't actually see any problem with using two tools. I use a couple of cameras and lenses and they don't work the same, and I've never worried about that before! It's just about picking the right tool for the right job. It's quite possible that a future version of CO will satisfy all my needs but in the meantime I get the best outcome *for me*.
It's great that you can try Capture One before buying, though I think you really have to invest yourself during the trial to make the right decision and that means getting past "it doesn't work" when it's actually just different. These forums have helped me enormously and I'm grateful to both those who raise questions and those that answer them.
And even though I'm happier now with my final images, as it is when you're choosing a camera, everyone is different!
Nick0 -
[quote="6BQ5" wrote:
...
The price is high at $300 and I am hoping the the recent leak of an upcoming LR update will drive a sale.
Try to consult a Phase One Ambassador... 😉0 -
My favourite thing about CO is the unbelievably great tech support! I've sent in around 10 bug reports, feature requests, and questions. I've received answers, full conversations, requests to make screen captures including suggestions for which capture software to use (thanks!...now I have another tool in my belt), and at least 4 answers which were "We see what you see and are informing R&D. This will be fixed for you in the next service release."
Fantastic.
The bugs will be fixed and the RAW conversion is absolutely amazing. Breathtaking really, the first time I compared it to LR and Aperture. I subscribed--$120 a year is OK to me.0 -
The OP mentioned Affinity Photo Beta. I converted to C1 pro a while ago from Aperture and am also messing with Affinity Photo beta. Affinity is a photoshop replacement, not an Aperture replacement. I'm currenly using C1Pro for my catalog, raw development and I "round trip" to CS6 as needed and am messing with Affinity as an alternative to CS6. Affinity is a very strong competitor for Photoshop I believe and would be a good external editor to use with C1Pro. They are improving it weekly.
The other posters covered most of the Aperture -> C1P talking points, but I would add:
Benefits of C1Pro
- brush on white balance (can't do that with Aperture or LR)
- distortion correction is great (none in Aperture at all)
- sharpening. I never liked Aperture's sharpening, C1 is nice.
- styles remain known after the fact (by this I mean, if you apply a style - or preset- six months later you can still see which preset was used to create that look on that image
- download styles from Phaseone. There are dozens that are a wonderful quick way to begin editing.
Regards,
Peter G.0 -
I'm currently still in the evaluation phase of switching to either C1 or LR, but the more time I spend with both tools, the more I realise that C1 will be my future path.
A lot of great points have been raised above. To me, both C1 and LR have disadvantages to Aperture, mainly in the area of DAM functionality (Aperture has been nothing but rock solid for me since 1.0, I never had ANY issues at all) and usability from a GUI standpoint.
My thinking is: IF I will have to adapt and have to say goodbye to some nifty features I got used to since 10 years now, I might as well go with the solution that gives me the overall best image quality. And that is without any doubt C1 (for my Canon RAW files).
I have done some VERY extensive testing and ran some of my best pictures and also some of my most difficult ones through all three converters side by side, spent A LOT of time adjusting all the available sliders to get the maximum IQ out of every one of them, exported full size HQ JPG's and peaked at them for hours.
Result: it's not even close. C1 just gives me perfect colors and mindblowing details that are either just not possible with LR and Aperture or need an enormous amount of juggling with all the sliders up and down until I MAYBE get close to C1. It's really, really excellent. The best part: if I throw DPP 4.0 by Canon into the mix, neither does this one get close to C1. And this is the tool by the manufacturer of the cameras' sensor! I don't know how Phase One pull this off, but they seem to put a lot of effort into their camera profiles and it shows.
Mind you, this may not be the case for every camera body out there. But for me as a Canon shooter, C1 is awesome.
It's at a point where I simply can not go back to Aperture, no matter how great the DAM features there are.0 -
All
Thank you very much for your interesting views, they have helped me no end.
I will end up trialing C1 very soon, at the mo I have just looked at the numerous tutorials that are on the C1 site and elsewhere. As it has been said , C1 is not Aperture, and some work input on my part will be necessary to make the change but from what I have read the resultant improvement in image quality will make it worthwhile.
Regds
Brian
A chilly but clear Norwich UK evening0 -
As I am also testing CO as a replacement for Aperture, and I really do like it. It´s expensive, but maybe we get some easter present from PhaseOne or some "Upgrade" advantage for Aperture Users.
But there is one thing where I do not find a good answer for:
When ever I changed something in Aperture everything was copied (via iTunes) automatically to my iPad and also Apple TV.
Now, when working with CO I only see one way to achieve this: Exporting the images as jpg. But then every image is stored twice on my harddisk which is more then just annoying.
Is there a better solution? I don´t mind about AppleTV, but I really do care about having the latest images on my iPad.0 -
[quote="NN634835726500244472UL" wrote:
Benefits of C1Pro
- brush on white balance (can't do that with Aperture or LR)
- distortion correction is great (none in Aperture at all)
These are actually not or only partially true. Aperture actually has brushed in and out white balance (even longer than C1). Its true that LR doesn't have WB in local adjustments.
There actually IS distortion correction in Aperture: At least for some manufacturers Aperture applies distortion correction based on information saved within the RAW file. I've also tested this by embedding a exaggerated pillow distortion as correction into a Sony RAW file and Aperture did apply this.
What I still miss are:
1) Brushed in/out Curves
Brushing in or out curves is a really mighty technique in Aperture. I would also really like to see the curves adjustment UI get some clean ups (e.g. make it bigger)
2) Multiple sources for Heal/Clone Brushes
The new heal and clone brushes are a big step forward. Sadly there is only one source possible per layer and only 16 layers per photo. In Aperture it is very easy to choose an individual source per brush stroke. This allows for much more flexible retouching.
3) Make applying keywords easier - the interface is still a bit unintuitive for my taste
4) Brushes lag to much
I've compared C1, Aperture and Lightroom on my MacBook Pro Retina 15" with i7. C1 lags the most (even with OpenCL) - this really makes working with a Wacom board for dodge & burn difficult.
5) Skin white balance doesn't work as good as in Aperture
In Aperture it almost always worked the best even in difficult lighting. In C1 it nearly never works at all. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong, but then it would be a usability problem.
Issues unrelated to Aperture:
1) Content Fill / scale
I really wish there would be a software like C1 that does Content Fill and scale. I sometimes use this (using Photoshop) to fill up the borders of a portrait format photo to square or even landscape format. Essentially an 'uncrop'.
2) Mobile App
There is Capture Pilot and I like it. Having worked with the Lightroom App I have to say that it would be really cool if there would be something like that for C1. C1 already has smart previews and perhaps it would be possible to do use those to make some adjustments possible in an iPad app. Regardless of that: Keywording, rating and putting photos in albums are also tasks that could be done in such an App. In an ideal world this App would work without continuous connection to a running Capture One Pro.
3) Capture One Pro Server?
With all those cloud stuff going on - often thought about how this could be done in a way that fits with Capture One. Perhaps some variant of Capture One as a service or even as a on premise installed headless variant would be possible? A Capture One Pro Server which syncs a catalog and is able to be the hub for a mobile App or cloud syncing of photos.
4) Image Formats
Capture One wants me to use TIF when externally editing Photos. If I use Photoshop this is possible and it allows me to save TIF even with layers, smart objects and such stuff. If people use alternative Software like PhotoLine or the coming "Affinity Photo", it is not really possible to save all of the native features of these Apps in a TIF. PhotoLine has an interesting mode in which it automatically saves a PLD (Photoline native format) besides of a TIF or PSD file. If one later opens up the TIF again in PhotoLine it recognizes the PLD file besides it and opens that. It would be nice if there would be some kind of way to integrate new formats in C1. I know that it is difficult to find a really good solution for that. It would even be a good first step if it would be possible to import files like PLDs, show their integrated preview images and allow keywording, rating and "Open In..." - even if C1 adjustments could not be applied.0 -
2. No keyboard shortcut to toggle between adjusted and original image
3. No keyboard shortcut to toggle 100% zoom and fit to window (requires two keys in C1)
Agreed. It's a little thing, but once you have it you notice when it's gone.My favourite thing about CO is the unbelievably great tech support!
100% agreed, especially when compared to Aperture. Apple don't say nothin' to no-one. Adobe is better, but you still don't get access to talk to the developers.The library management is weaker, the self-collapsing tools is odd, and the auto mask in the brushes has a hard time covering areas.
All true, but it's improving all the time. The auto mask in Aperture is really quite great, and C1's is hit and miss.0 -
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
2. No keyboard shortcut to toggle between adjusted and original image
3. No keyboard shortcut to toggle 100% zoom and fit to window (requires two keys in C1)
Agreed. It's a little thing, but once you have it you notice when it's gone.
2. Using Windows I could create a Variant for the unedited original (F7) and then switch between the two with the arrow keys. Is that not adequate? Even better, in my opinion, is that the way it works allows you to toggle between variant edits, not just the original. If you have only 2 variants selected a single arrow key works as a toggle.
3. Double click on the image in the viewer will toggle between fit and 100%. Does it also require a single key to toggle too?
Grant0 -
2. Using Windows I could create a Variant for the unedited original (F7) and then switch between the two with the arrow keys. Is that not adequate? Even better, in my opinion, is that the way it works allows you to toggle between variant edits, not just the original. If you have only 2 variants selected a single arrow key works as a toggle.
Yep, not saying there are not ways to do the same thing, even a more flexible thing, in C1 - but you once you have this toggle, you miss it. You also now have a second variant you need to then clean up. In Aperture you can hit M, shows Original, hit M, shows edited. All in place, and instant, without having to create and delete variants.3. Double click on the image in the viewer will toggle between fit and 100%. Does it also require a single key to toggle too?
In Pan mode, yep, double click and you are at 100%, double-click again and you are back at To Fit. While in any other of the 20+ tools though, you have to either use the keyboard shortcuts, or switch to Pan, double-click then back. Plus, when you use the keyboard shortcuts it zooms to the middle of the image, NOT where the cursor currently is.
In Aperture, hit Z it zooms to 100% *at the cursor*, no matter what tool you are currently in. Hit Z again and it goes back to To Fit. It works really nicely, and it doesn't get in your way or interrupt your current activity.0 -
Actually, you can hold down the Space Bar and double-click and it works in the same way, as a toggle. So I was wrong on that one. C1 is fine there. 😊 0 -
I think the auto-mask functionality in Aperture when brushing in/out is better than C1's. For example, if I try to brush over a dark green surface with a dark grey background then C1 will brush over everything. Aperture would not. 0 -
i also just started testing C1 and have to say the RAW-conversion Quality is a lot better than in Aperture
but there are two things wich i find quite annoying:
-when move my cursor over an image i hear a little clicking sound - it's not happening when i move the cursor over the tool areas - has anyone experienced that too?
-i can't use it with NIK Color FX or Analoge Fx - the open with menu only sends the RAW files , wich both don'T like and the "edit with" menu doesn't allow me to pick these apps (but other tools from the NIK collection are automatically in the list)
edit: i found a way of selecting all apps i like: in the file browser right click on the app you like and choose "overview" - and suddenly you can click on "open" - wich chooses the app you like0 -
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
100% agreed, especially when compared to Aperture. Apple don't say nothin' to no-one. Adobe is better, but you still don't get access to talk to the developers.
I know what you are saying and in general I agree, but for the record and as an anecdote I want to add that I had the opportunity to discuss some issues of Aperture directly with developers in Cupertino (as an end user, not with developer or VIP credentials).
The first case was re. the bad Olympus conversion quality in one of the very early versions (1.0 or 1.5). Somebody contacted me via eMail, I got access to a FTP server at Apple and uploaded a RAW Olympus file and an example JPG showing how I was able to get more out of it (I think even using C1 3.7 as a benchmark then!) compared to Aperture. Boomshakalaka, fast forward and a few months later there was an update and Olympus files made a big jump in Aperture - so all those Olympus Aperture veterans out there know now who to thank for this. 😉
The second case was re. a display bug when switching modes. Again somebody asked me to use my iPhone and record exactly what I was doing and what was going on on my system and sending the .mov file over to them. Also got fixed with the next release.0 -
[quote="6BQ5" wrote:
I think the auto-mask functionality in Aperture when brushing in/out is better than C1's. For example, if I try to brush over a dark green surface with a dark grey background then C1 will brush over everything. Aperture would not.
I know I sound like a broken record on this subject, but NIK has invented a way of doing auto-masks with just a single-click. It works like magic... in fact, it's not dissimilar to the magic wand selection in Photoshop which is one of the oldest tools in their pallet. Why other photo editing apps haven't adopted this amazing tool, is beyond me, which is why I use every opportunity I can to bring it up. A one-click tone mask selection would be AWESOME. Once you've used it, brushing masks seems medieval in comparison.
Here's a video if anyone is interested in how this is a game changer...
http://youtu.be/NdcBY7gO6hc0 -
@Virtualrain
Certainly a nice addition, at least if normal masking brushes are still available0 -
"but NIK has invented"
Pretty sure that is why it isn't in other apps. It's patented.0 -
Nik stuff seems to have a nice UI but on the surface it's not doing anything too different to other products other than maybe the "texture" matching that was mentioned but not expanded upon.
Whether it is doing what it does more successfully I don't know. One could argue that it is simply by being relatively easy to use making it easier for the user to not screw up their image. (No doubt there will be some who argue it takes away some aspect of artistic control too!)
The general colour selection functionality is available in the C1 Advanced Colour Editor tool. Whether it works identically under the hood is another matter and certainly the UI is different. I seem to recall that OnOne (Or on1 as they are now called) have (or had) a similar looking UI for some of their tools though perhaps for different outcomes. Layers without having to define layers. One certainly cannot complain about the user friendliness of their UI approach at this time.
Grant0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Nik stuff seems to have a nice UI but on the surface it's not doing anything too different to other products other than maybe the "texture" matching that was mentioned but not expanded upon.
Whether it is doing what it does more successfully I don't know. One could argue that it is simply by being relatively easy to use making it easier for the user to not screw up their image. (No doubt there will be some who argue it takes away some aspect of artistic control too!)
The general colour selection functionality is available in the C1 Advanced Colour Editor tool. Whether it works identically under the hood is another matter and certainly the UI is different. I seem to recall that OnOne (Or on1 as they are now called) have (or had) a similar looking UI for some of their tools though perhaps for different outcomes. Layers without having to define layers. One certainly cannot complain about the user friendliness of their UI approach at this time.
Grant
The only key advantage NIK has, is their control point solution for creating masks without using brushes. That is an incredible time saver, allowing you to make tons of local adjustments at the same speed you would make global adjustments. There's nothing special about their actual adjustment tools... In fact, I find C1's tools better. But their mask creation with a single click and radius slider is brilliant. As I said, it makes brushing masks seem medieval in comparison.0 -
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
"but NIK has invented"
Pretty sure that is why it isn't in other apps. It's patented.
I don't know if it's patented, but I doubt it, since it's really an adaptation/enhancement of Photoshop's magic wand selection tool which has been around for decades. It's also not dissimilar to the auto mask brush in many apps which can detect tonal or contrast boundaries. The math is pretty simple... When the tone no longer matches the selected point within a user defined margin, end the mask. Thus, selecting the blue sky could be done with just one click rather than painting a tedious mask around clouds, trees,or rooftops. 😄0 -
[quote="VirtualRain" wrote:
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
"but NIK has invented"
Pretty sure that is why it isn't in other apps. It's patented.
I don't know if it's patented, but I doubt it, since it's really an adaptation/enhancement of Photoshop's magic wand selection tool which has been around for decades. It's also not dissimilar to the auto mask brush in many apps which can detect tonal or contrast boundaries. The math is pretty simple... When the tone no longer matches the selected point within a user defined margin, end the mask. Thus, selecting the blue sky could be done with just one click rather than painting a tedious mask around clouds, trees,or rooftops. 😄
The video mentions "texture" as a selection criterion. Great inclusion I reckon if one can work out an under-the-hood full proof way to do the analysis.
So much depends on the individual image OR having some way to manipulate the image on a temporary basis during processing in order to "see" what you are really doing.
For example if you have something like a landscape image where most colours can be found finely spread throughout the image there may be a very specific degree of precision required in colour selection to make the exact changes required.
However in a more "industrial" image the colours are often quite self contained to a particular part of the frame requiring far less precision of colour selection to create the desired result a lot of the time.
It's always fascinated me that I can look at a presentation of how to make easy changes to an image - like the Nik video linked above but by no means restricted to Nik! - and the first similar looking image I pick to try for myself just not respond in the same way having a few "complications" that don't quite work in "easy" mode.
But I agree with you that the UI there is pretty slick and sensibly users are being shielded from whatever is going on behind the scenes (no pun intended).
Grant0 -
I don't know if it's patented, but I doubt it, since it's really an adaptation/enhancement of Photoshop's magic wand selection tool which has been around for decades. It's also not dissimilar to the auto mask brush in many apps which can detect tonal or contrast boundaries. The math is pretty simple
Not the math, the UI and implementation. Just like Adobe has the draggable tab/detab interface patented (hence why C1 has to have Add Tool/Remove Tool, etc, rather than just being able to drag and drop them into floatable toolsets).
Lots of apps do auto-masking, how many do it via control points with adaptable area of influence and local settings available at the point of the control point? Pretty sure it's only Nik tools.
Also, they describe it as "powered by Nik Software's patented U Point technology". 😊0 -
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
I don't know if it's patented, but I doubt it, since it's really an adaptation/enhancement of Photoshop's magic wand selection tool which has been around for decades. It's also not dissimilar to the auto mask brush in many apps which can detect tonal or contrast boundaries. The math is pretty simple
Not the math, the UI and implementation. Just like Adobe has the draggable tab/detab interface patented (hence why C1 has to have Add Tool/Remove Tool, etc, rather than just being able to drag and drop them into floatable toolsets).
Lots of apps do auto-masking, how many do it via control points with adaptable area of influence and local settings available at the point of the control point? Pretty sure it's only Nik tools.
Also, they describe it as "powered by Nik Software's patented U Point technology". 😊
Maybe you're right then... that would suck. I was so unhappy when Google purchased them... it really just means they're in purgatory. Had Adobe, Apple, or Phase One acquired NIK instead, it would have been a game changer.
Anyway, there are other techniques to do what NIK is doing... Perfect Photosuite has a similar concept where you simply brush a small part of the tonal area of interest, and like NIK's control points, all adjacent similar tones are included automatically in the mask. Other techniques could be to incorporate the auto mask detection feature into gradient masks, and add a circular gradient mask with similar auto mask capabilities - the latter is really just a giant brush size with maximum softness 😊... C'mon Phase One it's not that hard!
Bottom line is that developers of these apps need to start thinking outside the box... beyond the brush... to find ways for us to select areas without the tedious brush work that's currently required.0 -
Take that to its logical conclusion and you just want an app that "fixes" the image for you as you want it without any of the tedious editing.
The funny things is that when people are offered something like that (or some my say forced into it) they rise up against it because they have lost control.
What would be ideal is to find a handful of styles you like, auto adjust for things like cropping, rotation and position of horizon and then apply the fixes as a style when importing.
No need to edit anything - you love the results as produced and so does your client/audience.
Job done.
Grant0 -
Hi Guys and Gals.
Having followed this thread, I have a couple of comments.
First off, Capture One is the best Raw convertor out there right now and I have compared the alternatives. Is it a game changer? Debatable if the frustration with the rest of the program (adjustments, DAM, etc.) cause grief and time wasted. You want to shoot, not spend time behind the computer trying to figure out how to do what it is you want to do.
Compare CO8 with Lightroom, Aperture, Photo Ninja or a whatever rendering of your work. You will see differences. But do you post all RAW versions of work for public consumption. Do you present the various versions to your client? Is the difference that significant?
It is a bit like checking out televisions, audio speakers, frying pans, etc. Side by side you will see differences. But do you listen to three stereo systems at the same time or watch three different TV brands at the same time?
CO8 is the best RAW convertor at this time but the rest of the program is like DOS (very archaic) when everyone else has moved on to Windows or OS X.
If I have to spend my time on-line trying to figure out the program works rather than being out in the field shooting, it is not worth the effort. I will not be upgrading for any new update. I understand that Photo Ninja is working on some new stuff and Lightroom 6 is coming out as well...so there may other alternatives.
Phase One, Ya lost One! Perhaps the way my brain works does not correspond to how you think it should but time is precious.
Cheers all!0 -
CO8 is the best RAW convertor at this time but the rest of the program is like DOS (very archaic) when everyone else has moved on to Windows or OS X.
It's not really like that at all, as you'll find when you start looking at the alternatives for an all-in-one solution to RAW processing and DAM. Apple Photos is slick but lacks far too many features. Darktable is interesting, but it's a Linux app through and through, get ready for editing config files in hidden folders. Corel Aftershot Pro is Bibble Pro, made faster, which means it's a very useful app, but far quirkier than C1. DXO has no local adjustments. Irident has no DAM features. Aperture is no longer being developed. Photo Ninja is not quite there yet.
Can C1 occasionally be a time sink because of a particular implementation of a feature? Yes. Very occasionally. And if that overrides the time you save on a regular basis, then move on. Time is valuable. Not sure where you would move on too though, that doesn't have it's own time sinks in various areas.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
38 comments