メインコンテンツへスキップ

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

コメント

3件のコメント

日付 投票
  • Keith Reeder
    It's an interesting read, but for God's sake don't base any decisions on it - it's clueless, subjective and baised, and clearly driven by prejudice against (and ignorance of) Adobe's Creative Cloud.

    When he says:
    It seems that Adobe’s engineering effort is expended to maximise customer lock-in rather than to produce the best possible experience for the customer. For example, maintaining the current non-subscription version of Lightroom with fewer features than the CC version actually requires more development cost than simply making them the same. This is bad for users, and something that only a company with a pseudo-monopoly can effectively get away with.

    He clearly has no idea: Phase One uses exactly the same approach with Capture One: like it, Lightroom/6/CC is one piece of software, with functionality switched on or off as dictated by the licence.

    Exactly the same.

    He gives Capture One's default rendering the nod (fair enough), but this "experienced Lr user" completely ignores the fact that Lr's default render can be drastically influenced (before getting to creating bespoke defaults) simply by using one of the built-in "Camera" profiles (which emulate the manufacturer "looks"), which profiles completely address any lack of punch and flatter colours that he complains about.

    And yet, he simply dismisses the "default" lack of detail in the Capture One renderings - just as big an issue as any other default rendering issue - but "OK" because it's a failing on Capture One's part....

    I find it downright funny that he raves over Capture One's comprehensive colour editing capabilities: it surely brings more to the table there than Lightroom, but some of us might be forgiven for suggesting that if Capture One's profiles weren't so (let's be kind) garish, and were more usable out of the box, Capture One wouldn't need such a comprehensive colour toolbox...

    And again, while pointing out Capture One's supposed "superiority" with colour editing, he waves away Lightroom's far more capable sharpening tools, and ignores completely the invaluable masking slider, the lack of which in Capture one is a glaring omission.

    It's a biased hatchet-job clearly motivated by dislike (and lack of understanding) of Adobe CC. There's a lot to like Capture One for (as there a lot to like Lightroom for) but there's a clear bias in favour of Capture One in this article which isn't backed up by the facts or by experience of using both programs comprehensively over a long period of time...
    0
  • Marcin Pazio
    While some may argue, my own experience is, that taking three raw processors I'm familiar with (Nikon Capture CNX2, LR4/ACR_cs6, CO7/8) I have to say that LR delivers worst results of the three. I got some ugliest results ever with my D700 in studio with lr4, even with use of CC Passport, that turned to be fancy toy (little better with Adobe profile creator, much worse with Xrite software).
    Unfortunatelly, at the time I was using it extensively, it did not offered reasonable workflow for huge sets of images.
    Then I switched to lr, spent some time to adopt it, then I came to the conclusion, that I can't accept results and (which was valid reason) combination of upcoming licensing and locking work in a database.
    My experiences with C1p were similar to CNX in terms of iq and in terms of workflow close to lr.
    No fiddling with fancy color targets, no ugly tonal transitions, images that looks fine from the start, and further editing can improve them (hence color editing tools, that were available in CNX too).
    In ACR/lr opening the image was the beginning, and sometimes it did not delivered acceptable results.
    0
  • ChrisM
    I think it is a pretty balanced review, and I agree with much that he says.
    Including his remarks about the default ("film standard curve") setting crushing the shadows.
    After reading up on the CO1 supplied curves, it has become more clear to me what the standard film curve is based on, and also why I have not been able to get optimal results out of CO1 with any of the supplied curves. The "extra shadow" curve seems to be essentially a standard film curve without most of the shadow crushing, but it retains the strong compression of the highlights, which still gives bright images the overly contrasty look.
    The linear curve seems best, but needs an auto exposure correction to get off to a good start, and then you need to develop some curves yourself to get the desired contrast, and some saturation correction.
    It will depend on the camera, but with the Sony A7r, the results with the linear curve lead to a better end result, with much more detail in e.g. blue skies, but also an overall look that is relieved from the "garish" stamp that most CO1 color critics here on this forum resent.
    The way images are developed is personal, but modern cameras like the Sony A7r have a wide dynamic range, and the standard film curve (that seems to want to resemble techniques used in the analog film days) does not do justice to the amnount of detail and tonality that such modern digital cameras can produce.

    The reviewer indicates that CO1 can produce superior results in the sense of color detail and richness, and I agree with him. But it takes some work to get to a routine that does justice to modern high resolution, highr DR digital cameras.
    The standard settings don't cut it i.m.o.

    Chris
    0

投稿コメントは受け付けていません。