Lightroom has upped its masking game.
Will Capture One do the same?
I have been reading threads in various forums claiming that LR's new masking tools are a huge step upward for that program. In particular, a number of people compare Capture One's current masking capabilities very unfavorably. I know that we got the Magic Brush in C1-21, but I hope that further masking enhancements will be forthcoming in C1-22 sometime next year. Surely, Capture One's developers are well aware of the ever changing playing field.
-
What exactly should be better in LR than in C1?
I would like to see a parameterized mask regarding color, not only luminance (Color Range). Other than that (and maybe performance / memory consumption for the Luma Range when doing copy/apply) I don't have other things I miss in C1 regarding masking.
1 -
@BeO. Understand that I do not use Lightroom and thus cannot compare its masking capability to Capture One’s. I was reporting the opinions of some users of both programs that LR does it better. Personally, I have found the Magic Brush to be a bit inaccurate and fiddly at times.
0 -
I saw the marketing "demo" of LR's forthcoming automasking, and it looked pretty nice. Except that the images they chose weren't challenging at all. Nice, though, that LR users are going to get some intelligent masking capabilities.
With Auto Mask, the mask's precision can be adjusted by changing the brush size and zooming in to be sure you select exactly the color range you want. Repeatedly, when I find that the mask is pretty sloppy/imprecise for me, I just zoom in, reduce the brush size (sometimes to be very small) and carefully select the area I want masked. This works perfectly for me most of the time. And when it doesn't, it's usually because the color(s) I'm trying to mask bleed into areas I don't want masked, in which case I go back and either erase what should be unmasked, or mask by hand. I'm finding that selecting the "best" brush size is a learned skill, as is using most of the other C1 tools.
1 -
@Robert, Thanks.
@Abbott,
What I mean is a Color Range like the Luma Range...
0 -
What I don't know is the compared performances between the new LR masks and the C1 Magic Brush. Otherwise, the new LR masks look the same as the C1 layers and masks.
0 -
I use both LR and C1 (and am an expert in neither!) I've been playing around with the new masking in LR and am very impressed. Automated masking of the sky and subject may sound like a gimmick, but seems to work surprisingly well and is a real time saver.
The new masking abilities and profiles for the Canon R5 and RF lenses (still notably absent in C1) have caused me to rethink purchase of the annual C1 upgrade. All of my images live in a LR database and I've been using C1 to process many of my final images as I really like the color masking and selection tools, but at this point I am seriously considering moving all of my image processing back to LR. It is so much more convenient to do everything in a single tool (with the occasional trip to Photoshop) and I find the adjustment sliders to be more responsive in LR.
0 -
there is no magic with the magic brush and in my view it is a mistake a color range tool would have been the far better option.
the new layer tool in LR is a completely different game compared to c1 as it allows the combination of different type of mask, color and luminance based masks, painted masks and gradients in the same way as an image editor like PS or AP, this is really big step ! c1 is amateurish and limited in comparison. to my own surprise the AI selection tool works also very well even with complex subjects including hair !
in my view often working with complex masks and layers for my retouching jobs this is totally fantastic. dxo is not a bigmouth like c1 so they under sell their new version and the impressiv new control line tool everybody who likes viveza should have a look.
0 -
Permanently deleted userdxo is not a bigmouth like c1
Is there any point in me asking you - again - to GROW UP?
0 -
a color range tool would have been the far better option.
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by a color range tool. I can use the advanced tab of the existing Color Editor tool and select multiple color ranges. When happy with my selection I can then turn it into a masked layer from the "..." menu. Is that not a color range tool?
0 -
@Marco
Yes, this feature is not bad, especially if you want to create a static and pixel-based (rasterized?) mask.
The color range tool however is a parameterized tool which work on existing masks (be it pixel masks or even gradients) which you can alter later in the process, should you think that's necessary or desired.
As an extra bonus, when using it with a linear or radial gradient, it works without a comask file (which has been proven to me as unstable a couple of different times on different scenarios). And I tend to use radial gradients more often as it is quick, it somehow works a little bit like the control point technology from Nik/dxo, which oftentimes suffice my masking needs (better: local adjustment needs), especially if coupled with Luma Range plus Color Range (with that, the "local adjustment" becomes a real "masked local adjustment"), would the latter (Color range) exist.
0 -
@Marco
a tool similar to the luminance range tool but for a selected color. such a tool is available in LR/ARC for ever and dxo added this feature for viveza and now PL this year. the benefit of this approch is that you can visually control the range how many neighbouring colors are effected and combine it with additional masks. for many user such a level of control is properly not need and the "magic brush " will do the job but for me it is great as I can straightforward solve otherwise difficult to correct problems. but it is not just an improvement when you work with raw images it is also an improvement for retouching in general as you can use it with ARC and smart object in PS too.
ps.: the question is why did they not add such a tool instead of the limited magic brush as it would have been a logical improvement ? my guess is because they are on a path to make c1 easier to use for novices, same reason as for the change in export options or layer handling but from a technical standpoint totally stupid.
0 -
Thank you, gentlemen.
0 -
the difference between c1 and adobe / dxo goes beyond functionality. it takes not only much more steps to accomplish comparable results with c1 but I also see that c1 color selections seem always less smooth compared to the adobe generated masks. even considering differences with profiles and tonality the c1 result is really off in a strange way, applying refine mask does not improve things also.0 -
@CSP
Making Capture One more attractive to novices is a good business move, but we all know that C1 has always tried to appeal to sophisticated, high level users. It has marketed its product as the premium raw processor/editor. I see no reason why it cannot pursue both ends at the same time, and I certainly don't expect them to allow Adobe's new masking feature to go unchallenged. My guess is that C1 will provide upgraded masking features sometime in 2022. They're probably working on that already (I hope).
1 -
@Robert Goldstein
hm, no I would be very surprised when they can come up with something which is close to what adobe has accomplished even when you exclude the AI stuff which really works great btw ! watch this video and you will better understand why. the more I use this new masking tool the more I understand what big step this is not only because you can add dozens of mask without any sign of slowdown !!!
0 -
@CSP
As the old saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Maybe Capture One's developers will come up with a different approach to masking that will achieve excellent results in its own way. I don't know much about what technology might be involved, but I don't rule out the possibility. Or maybe masking is one area where Lightroom will remain superior. If so, that fact won't be crucial to my own work and won't induce me to switch programs.
0 -
in my view c1 would have been the predetermined software to come up with such extensive and complex masking capabilities also because c1 had already some disadvantage in masking compared to adobe but they did not address it. there is also a different approach to masking already on the market elegant and effective it is called photolab 5.
for me this is just another field where c1 is now inferior to other solutions, the mistake to slow down development or focus on gimmicks in the last years becomes more and more visible. for many user this will not play a big roll but for loyal advanced user pro or amateurs alike this is very sad and disappointing development.
0 -
@CSP
I appreciate your point of view. I am a fairly advanced amateur photographer, but my style of photography rarely calls for masking. Perhaps I would do more of it, if the tools at hand were more effective. As I see it, Capture One has no other choice but to at least match the competition or risk losing many of their valued high level photographers and retouchers.
0 -
new tools new opportunities I see myself doing even more selective corrections at the raw stage but i´m used to work with a lot of layers.
what this development also indicates is that c1 needs to start sharing a rough roadmap with their user to keep them loyal. when they announced they will add HDR and pano features because this are the most requested improvements I really had to laugh, when 2010 ? this attitude will have no future. it is also totally funny how many c1 fanboys predicted the end of development of adobe software after they moved to rent and c1 is the only saviour.....
0 -
Better late than never, as long as they provide the tools that you need, but I get your point that they are late to the game in some respects.
0 -
BTW, Lightroom has been around how long, and they only just now developed this new masking feature? Maybe it’s easier to imagine than it is to execute.
0 -
sure, but you know most of the now improved functions have been already available but you could not combine them which is the big step. but considering that c1 is longer on the market i wonder why so many parts of this software still look like just fixed together without any care about usability. masking is a prime example for this bad software design, it is missing simple features like an eyedropper for luminance range , it is spread out and overcomplicated but all those sliders and extra steps do not help to get better results, maybe they better start here.....
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2021/09/28/from-the-acr-team-masking-reimagined.html
0 -
How many pro photographers / retouchers / composites creators do complex masking and editing in C1P rather than photoshop? I certainly wouldn’t mind AI based masking in C1, but building the machine learning training set is likely not trivial. For images that need a lot of correction, I end up going into PS anyway and can use these AI masking tools there. I am not a pro though, just speculating that real pros may prefer PS post C1 raw conversion, and that automatic “sky replacement” is actually more of an amateur feature than a pro feature. Just my 2cents.
0 -
I use mostly C1 but also LR for other cameras and the new LR masking tools are a big step up as described by others above, but the tool that I only find in Photoshop is their object selection tool and that is fabulous. I would love it if version 22 has something like that. It's great for portraits, it seems really accurate and for area masking and layer creation, there's really no comparison in either C1 or Lightroom, but that probably has to do with the fact that PS is destructive where as neither C1 or Lightroom effect the original image. Yes, an accurate object selector tool would be awesome for C1. But as said by Richard Richard.marcellus if there's a lot of correction to do it ends up in photoshop anyways.
0 -
most operations a "raw" converter performs are actually not applied to the raw data but they offer a convenient way to apply the same settings to more than one image. if you like you can work with ps or affinity no-destructive too when you have no problem with big files. I very much think c1 is clearly on a way to please amateurs while adobe is more dedicated to professional production and here object selection is a super timesaver but I do not believe for a majority of c1 amateur user this would be really important.
0 -
Is there a commonly accepted definition of what a professional photographer is?
Seriously, everybody who takes images with a digital camera, processes raw files and creates files for web, magazine or print must use Photoshop in order to be a professional? Otherwise he cannot take money from a client, sell his work or just get a salary and must call himself an amateur?
Imo, there are not many professions which are such heterogeneous as people working in the photography sector behind the camera and in front of a computer, and so are their requirements.
-1 -
It is claimed, I think by Adobe and probably accurately if one excludes phone photos, that 90% of images involved Adobe image processing products in some way during their creation.
They certainly have a large "on system" software presence no matter whether the system owners use all (or indeed any) of the products installed.
"photoshop", as with "hoover" and other brand names before it, has become the household word used for "image editing" and, more recently, "image manipulation".
Adobe achieved most of its pre-eminence via acquisition - either to obtain new technology or, maybe, eliminate a growing competitor. It is the way these things work. Until, eventually, the product niche drifts into obsolescence and the company either changes into something different, is bought by a business wanting access to its customer base or simply fades away - assuming it has not failed before that.
As with any industry, there are amateurs who can be extremely skilled and competent (but the work is not their primary source of income) and professionals, some of whom are far less competent than many amateurs. The world is like that.
For corporate software the delineation is clear. Home use stuff is relatively cheap, corporate use is a lot more expensive per license "seat". Unless the market is huge and mostly dominant - in which case different rules can be applied with subscription seemingly the preferred way forward - see Adobe, Microsoft, et al and, to a large extent, Apple although they manage and present the concept differently.
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
28 comments