What you DON'T know about RAW image files :: Lightroom vs Capture One
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- One image, 2 editors… why does are the resulting images different? I've compared the calibration algorithms in Adobe Lightroom and Capture One and the results are extremely interesting. To understand the resulting photos, you have to understand a few things about RAW format and how it is interpreted.
Adobe Lightroom has been the market leading software for image editing for what seems like forever. But we are entering a time where we actually have choices and depending on your priorities as a photographer you can choose what image editor works best for the photography you make.
Get your Art of Photography T-Shirt! aop.threadless...
Music from Epidemic Sound: goo.gl/v5wWKr
Make your next move with Squarespace
Visit squarespace.com... for a free trial and use offer code AOP on checkout to save 10% on your order
Subscribe for more videos!
www.youtube.com...
Watch More Videos:
YOU CAN DO THIS WITH AN INSTAGRAM PHOTO?!?
• You can do THIS with a...
THE ONE SECRET LIGHTROOM FEATURE EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER SHOULD BE USING
• THE ONE SECRET Lightro...
MEDIUM FORMAT LENSES AND THE HASSELBLAD X1D
Thanks for watching - if you like this video, remember to share it with your friends!
Ted Forbes
The Art of Photography
2830 S. Hulen, Studio 133
Fort Worth, TX 76109
USA
My name is Ted Forbes and I make videos about photography. I’ve been making photographs most of my life and I have a tremendously deep passion for photography that I want to share with you on CZcams.
The Art of Photography is my channel and I produce photography videos to provide a 360 degree look into the world of making images. We all want to get better so lets do this together!
I make videos covering famous photographers, photography techniques, composition, the history of photography, philosophy and much more.
I also have a strong community of photographers who watch the show and we frequently do social media challenges for photographers to submit their own work. I feature the best and most interesting on the show when we do these so come check it out and get involved!
Thank you - very interesting - I'm 78 and just getting back into photography.
I own most raw processors and subscribe to Capture One and Adobe Lightroom. You are correct in regards to files that I shot when digital cameras were just taking their first breaths. I worked for Nikon at that time and I had lots of files from the Nikon D100. I can say for sure that the processing of these files in todays software is quite different, better, than when I processed them years ago. It does not matter what cameras you were using and I have had the good fortune to shoot Olympus, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax and Leica so I have an extensive library to pull from for all those different cameras.
Out of all the post processing software for raw files that I have had and still have and have updated I can say that the files are better. Out of all the software I have which includes, Adobe, Capture One, Polarr, Affinity, Picktorial, Luminar, I can personally say they all do an excellent job. What is interesting and I think you make note of this, is that each software package renders images slightly different from each other. So they look at the data differently.
In the end, at least on my Macs, Capture One 11.0 seems to be the most refined, cleanest, and most accurate out of all the packages I have available to me. That said it is not necessarily the most creative in regards to features. Luminar would take the gold medals for that.
My newest challenge is the IPad Pro 10.5 inch. I have several software packages for that device and just like on the Mac, they all render the raw images just a tiny bit different from each other.
It is quite a journey and I find myself constantly learning but never finish.
I unfortunately don't have the time to check such differences, so I very much appreciate your comments. I'm also not one to 'rent' software, which has stopped me from upgrading my Adobe products, so I'm stuck with Lightroom6 basically, and Photoshop elements, but I am trying to stick to one product now, which are the Skylum products, Aurora & Luminar 4. It seems if you can get good at one software and it's challenges, it might be best to stick to it, so you constantly get better upon understanding the complexities. In saying that, I've always wondered if I should dip my toe into Capture One with my Nikon....so we'll see, after doing some more research on the topics.
Im a recording and mixing engineer and I just got into photography. I can totally appreciate all the tech talk because it’s kind of similar to science of acoustic and frequency analysis. You were talking a different dialect but I’m understanding the foundational principals. Your explanation actually helped me understand a little better. Thanks man!
That's why I use "Raw Therapee" (no, not misspelled). It has a ton of algorithms (and a steep learning curve) to fine tune demosaicing, color, denoising, sharpening. When I developed my old Nikon D70 RAW files I was amazed how much detail and color-tones I could retrieve from the 6MP RAW files. I rendered all my old RAW-files with RT and even started using my old D70 again.
I shoot with a d70, d700 and d750. I just redid a file from 2004 of my dad (rip) shot in 2007 with today's LR CC desktop version and exported a jpg of it. I had the old jpg - SO much better detail in hair, edges of metal frame glasses and tone coloration... I spent 2 days looking at other key files, updating their "version" to "4" and applying new camera profiles and such... the software is much, much better... (RT is a good tool btw).
Excellent synopsis of the two softwares. I switched to C1 about 5 years ago. I did a similar test, but took it a step further with printing. I processed both images to taste in each software. I then printed each image using the same icc profile. The results were dramatic with C1 winning by a landslide. Haven’t looked back since.
Capture One unlocks your cameras hidden deeper pixels.
I switched to Capture One about two years ago and absolutely love it. There's a free version available for Sony camera users also :)
what's missing in that version?
Capture One Express for Sony has most of the features. There's some limitations on installing presets and a few other features that are locked down. But hey it's free and does a great job :) It's a good way to test the waters with Capture One. I eventually upgraded to Capture One Pro for Sony for like $60. Totally worth it :D
Really? I thought it was only a 30 days trial
You can even remote controll the focus, is that right?
The problem at the moment is that it’s not compatible with OSX Mojave, they dont know when it will be and, from past experience, you will need to buy the upgrade to be able to use it on the latest OSX... so if you are on Mojave you need to wait....
As RAW software has improved, the quality of older cameras have gotten better. I looked at Kodak DSC-560 files from 2000. Back then ISO 200 was noisy using Adobe and Kodak software of that era. But today that same RAW file can be rendered with greater detail and with virtually no noise. Even interpolating up from 6mp to 11 yields a surprisingly detailed file
Just coming across this video now, because I keep getting that slight green/yellow cast on my Sony files with Lightroom. I'm constantly trying to work around it. This was extremely informative and I genuinely appreciate the non-biased conversational approach you took to this topic. Thank you
I love your passion when talking about this! I could feel it.
I am a computer engineer and photographer, and your explanation of software interpretation and our photos being in a constant state of development as software improves makes perfect sense. I hadn't thought about different software companies interpreting the RAW files in different ways ("zero" in one software package is not "zero" in another). This makes me more willing to try different editors to see what works best for me. It's also exciting to think some of my earlier photos can be markedly improved simply by updating the profile. I have updated profiles just as a matter of course in the software I use, but I haven't looked closely at how that might improve the image. Now I'll pay closer attention.
Loved how informative this is! I've been using C1 for a few years now and when asked "why do you like C1", I always explained in extremely vague ways--"oh, the colors are nicer" or "I like the workflow and how it sits in between Lightroom and Photoshop in terms of things it can do". Now it's much clearer since I know the technical aspects behind it!
This is something that I spent a lot of time looking at and in the end, it was what caused me to buy Capture One Pro. I am not into the subscription model so Adobe was out of my test group but looking at Affinity, Capture One, native editors from Canon and Olympus, Exposure X5 where what I checked out. The differences where unbelievable. Some images were simply unusable. I processed several images and had my partner look at them and rank them in quality of colour from 1-5 simply based on what they felt looked good/real/pleasing and we discussed it. What I want to point out is that she is not a photographer/colorist/media editor or anything like this. She is your average customer with a good sense of style. She reverted to some of the images as being terrible from one editor and fantastic from another. So the argument "non-photographers will never notice a difference" absolute does not hold up in my opinion. The best results on average came either from the camera's own editor, Olympus Workspace. So in other words how it would have looked if I had just shot a JPEG out of the camera. Or Capture One Pro using all the default settings.
I have given up on lightroom for a while now. Even the default noise reduction is much more appealing in Capture One. I open my image make a small adjustment if necessary and move on. I love that I spent the time to get familiar with C1. Well worth it.
Both solutions are great. I appreciate your comment about revisiting older RAW files. As time goes on, our editing knowledge and software improves. It's a great time to be shooting RAW.
I get better result in Lightroom. The point here is "I", meaning that it has everything to do about how I relate to the software, and very little to do with the engine under the hood. I've been using Lightroom since version 1, I know it intimately and it works the way I think(unfortunate, because I hate Adobe); somebody else might have a completely different experience and relate better to software like Rawtherapee or Capture1 and get better result with those.
The Capture One results are even better since this video was made since they now have ProStandard profiles that are even more accurate. They adjust for the fact that RGB processing typically gets more red in the shadows and more yellow in the highlights. You get better colors, smoother transitions, and better skin tones with the ProStandard profiles in C1. Interestingly, in the pumpkin comparison, the Lightroom version did have better color representation, whereas the C1 version was too red in the shadows and too yellow in the highlights. The Lr version was a smoother orange. Regardless, for my work with a Canon R5, Capture One is vastly better than what I was getting in Lr.
Different software will use different code to process the same image (bits). Think of it as two construction companies trying to build the same structure. The formulas they use in their blueprints will be slightly different, but will produce near identical results.
The demosaic part was just mind-blowing! Tank you for that, as it was an off-topic info and yet IMHO it turned out to be THE most important piece of info we all got here! Amazing! (I'm new to your channel, subscribed it as it is definitely worth it - you're doing a great job!)
I switched from LR to Capture One about two years ago for various reasons.
1. much better when it comes to tethering
2. session workflow
3. layered edits
4. advanced color editor
Plus I have the feeling it has the capability to get more out of my RAW files especially when it comes to save blown out highlights and dark shadows.
I am a big fan of the open source app called darktable. Upon first importing the image into the app, darktable automatically applies a few of the modules, such as sharpening and base curve based on exif info on camera and lens. You can except them right off the bat or tweak them from the non-destructive history.
Great video. I'm glad you were able to clarify for people that all these NDE's are simply interpreting the images and it's an important point to grasp that these "interpretations" improve over time, ultimately resulting in improved image quality.
What I'm not understanding though is why it's such a big deal. This only occurs when shooting RAW first of all, a point that many people may have overseen, but when shooting RAW, the point is to be able to adjust the image according to taste. The default "interpretation" is kind of a moot point. If you like the look of capture one's more saturated and contrasty look you can simply set that as your new default in LR. The more interesting question, to me, is if there are color and other image quality subtleties (highlight recovery/shadow detail) that actually do differ between the programs, one's that cannot be corrected for by simply playing around with a couple sliders.
Thanks again for the informative video.
THIS. EXACTLY.
I always play a little bit with the sliders, so I don't mind any default look, as I don't keep it anyway.
That's a great question. I'd like to know the answer to that.
In short - YES. Every Raw-Converter has his own formula and this influences not only the mood but how you can edit the picture. Just try for yourself. In Lightroom set any raw image to Version 2010 and you will see that the sliders in the Basic Panel will change --- even the name, from Highlight and Shadow to Recovery and Fill Light - and the results are dramatic.
Building on Ted's comment about there being three factors (data, processing, and settings) and comments below about demosaicing, it's important to remember two things: (1) the sensor doesn't capture full-color pixels. If you have a 1000x1000 pixel (i.e., 1 megapixel) sensor, half the pixels are green, a quarter are red, and a quarter are blue. You would think that the commercial raw converters would simply group two greens, one red, and one blue to create a full-color pixel but at a quarter resolution of the sensor. Instead, they have an algorithm (demosaicing) that interpolates at each of the 1 million pixels a full-color value by looking at neighboring pixels. As Ted implied, different processing algorithms and different settings (e.g., how much to weight the pixel one to the left vs two to the left when estimating the full-color value) will yield different results. (2) I'm willing to bet that what sensors capture isn't strictly correct. I.e., that red pixel site isn't precisely on the red wavelength and what was captured isn't exactly the right value. The raw converters, therefore, must make some judgement as to what the true value is.
I've being Lightroom for about 10 years now, so my catalog is pretty solid there. I tried Capture One a couple of years ago, and loved the color rendition, and the way it rendered the final images, but I don't want to lose all the work done I'm going to stick with Lightroom, besides the latter is very friends with different social media or for uploading pictures to SmugMug, or editing on Photoshop. If I had known Capture One from the beginning, maybe I've decided to go that way.
Thanks for the explanation! I recently switched to Capture One and tend to like the way it renders my RAW files better than Lightroom.
30 + years and still learning photography, and this was a very welcome lesson. Thank you so much this was a revelation! I've now chosen a new RAW processor that has changed my workflow immensely. (Hint: It's Capture One)
You're an absolute boon to the photography community Ted. Thank you.
As an alternative, there's a program called Raw Photo Processor 64 (or just RPP) that I think is phenomenal. It doesn't have a ton of features. Essentially it's a starting point. Primarily, you can make exposure, color temperature, and contrast adjustments. It also has some color profiles that resemble film looks. There's even one that replicates Kodachrome 64 (and it's outstanding). It's doesn't necessarily look exactly like Kodachrome, but the colors and tonal gradations it achieves are astonishing. If you need to crop or make localized adjustments you'll have to move the image into Lightroom or Photoshop after, but for the things I mentioned above, it's right at the top (imho). One thing you'll notice is that your images are darker at the start. That's because the other photo processing programs make adjustments before you do anything to the image (as can be seen in this video). And to save the best for last: it's absolutely FREE. You can donate if you'd like (and you should if you like it and use it a lot).
I migrated from Lightroom to Caprure One last year and have no regrets. I prefer the colour rendition, and the work flow in Capture One. Now I have the technical explanation of why there is a differnece. Thank you!
Hello Ted, I love to see that you bring up this topic. Capture One is very underrated in my opinion. I switched my workflow to their software and I am very happy with the results from my Nikon camera. I much prefer phase one's approach to managing color and the fact they have separate profiles for cameras as with lightroom it uses one general. Also in C1 you work in that dedicated camera color space and you are even able to export within this space, so you can basically preserve all possible colors your camera can capture in output tiff file for instance.
Thanks Ted, for bringing this up. I realize that we all have to know about this stuff, but a lot of us are photographers first, not software engineers, and just being aware of these issues is important to us.
Great comparison, the difference is clear. I would love to see how prints from both differ. Will download the demo and test C1.
I've recently been moving over to Capture One and the funny thing is that it has made me a better LR/PS user user.
For me, it was appreciating how Capture One saw color and luminosity workflows. I love being able to adjust the contrast in a scene using the Luma curves to avoid changing saturation. That was my introduction to the Lab color space. I also appreciated the color wheels and making color adjustments - even in Masks. Easier to work with a color wheel when they give you a color wheel.
But ultimately, being able to see the differences - and that they exist, and trying to get two different rendering engines helped me learn more about what the tools do that the LR or Capture One docs just don't tell you.
Great video but this is an unfair comparison, in Capture One it defaults to using the camera manufacturer's profile, in Lightroom it uses 'Adobe Standard' you ALMOST touched on this in the panel but missed it completely. If you go back and change Adobe Standard to the actual in camera profile you will see the colours in Lightroom look dramatically better. Adobe Standard is known to be a very flat profile.
No one's arguing about camera profiles, but C1 does render a raw file in a more natural manner than Lightroom.
I think you need to download C1 demo and try to replicate the default look in Lightroom. It seems simple, but requires a whole lot more work. Profiles and camera calibration have something to do with it, but the default C1 look applied to images does things way differently than Lightroom.
You sure you have 3 color profiles standard, adobe, full.
Each one offers more colors
zagan1 Again, no one is arguing about colour profiles but the way C1 renders Raw and the way Lightroom renders Raw. It's not the same.
I'm pretty sure camera developers do not give away their code so all profiles will just be interpretations of what that profile might do in camera.
I did NOT know this, but you are right! I did as you suggested, and the colors are way more saturated in Lightroom when I use the Camera Standard profile.
Thanks Ted, really interesting. I've always been a committed LR/Adobe user but have recently been experimenting with C1 and I must say I'm really impressed with the results. In particular, the lack of the famous Adobe worms when sharpening is very apparent, which gives my images a noticeably cleaner look. Overall C1 appears to interpret images a lot closer to my idea of a finished edit than LR, therefore I am able to spend less time messing with sliders, and from a personal point of view I would rather dial down a couple of levels in C1 than dial up too many in LR.
I am going to keep LR going because I will miss the cataloguing aspects and I am loathed to discard years of work in that respect. However, from my limited experience as a new C1 user, when it comes to editing those particular images which require careful work I think I will be leaning increasingly toward C1.
This article brought out some good objective discussion, who/what you ultimately decide to use is subjective. In the time frame available it’s not possible to tease out all the nuances of LR versus COP so I think Ted has done a great job of stimulating healthy discourse amongst his viewers on what we prefer. I use Capture One, and have been since version 9, because I preferred the look of its raw processing when viewed in PS. Interestingly I showed a few mates and they preferred the look of the ACR (same raw processing engine as LR) processed image, we’re a product of the environment we’re raised in!!!
Great Video Ted! I tried both software when I started photography back in 2015 and I found out as well that images looks differently in both not only in Camera Calibration, but also in Sharpness and Clarity. I have never been able to replicate the exact look from Capture One to Lightroom as the reading in images is quite distinct in both softwares. Elaborating only on Camera Calibration, in Adobe it is based on Adobe standard color profiles, while in Capture One it is based on Camera Manufacturers color profiles. At this point, i believe it is safe to assume that calibration boards used by Adobe engineers and Camera Manufacturer engineers at Sony, Nikon, Canon and others are different since Capture One always displays a look closer to the image In-Camera (by using calibration boards from camera manufacturers) than the image displayed by Lightroom when compared to the In-Camera version (by using calibration which do not necesarily match camera manufacturers color profiles).
The hardest thing about shooting with my new Fuji is waiting on Adobe to support my camera's RAW files. I've been shooting jpegs in the meantime but I think I'll back up RAW images to a second card for later editing
I just ordered a t-shirt for myself. I've been watching your videos for seven years now. Thank you for the inspiration, information, and community. I'll wear the T with pride.
Hi Ted.
If you want a clear indication of the difference in RAW processors, I suggest you dust off any old Canon Raw files and do a straight comparison between Lightroom and Canon's native Raw processor, CPP.
What I found was a very different way in how Lightroom processed oranges, yellows and greens and the way CPP processed them. Take any picture shot at sunset and you'll notice you get a wider gamut in the oranges and yellows leading to smother gradations in CPP, and also you'll note that Lightroom's camera profiles are somewhat different than the camera profiles in CPP.
Skin tones also take on a different form in CPP and this is most noticeable with African skin tones that take on a bit of an orange hue. It divides opinions but has interesting results.
Try it out, you'll be surprised.
I'm an Engineer and a photographer. Everything Tedd explained is true, all mediums to capture and reproduce photographs are interpretative and there is no objective way to represent images. Even film is a medium where light is recorded with the interpretation provided by the film manufacturer (that is why there are different film stocks).
Very interesting video to watch! I wish I saw this earlier. Last year I started to try out Capture One, and noticed immediately that the color reproduction is largely different than what Adobe Lr does. Despite which one I personally like more, I just feel the Capture One result is closer to what the camera playback is showing. Lr tends to take something off from the image although I don't know how to verbalize that "something" and I hate when it does that. This difference really stimulated my curiosity so I downloaded Sony's official software called Imaging Edge. It's certainly not as powerful or efficient as the other two software, but I think If there is something about engineering, Sony's engineer certainly understands their color approach the best. Thus I assume Imaging Edge will give me what the camera manufacturer intended with their product. Well, the result isn't of any surprise, of course another different rendition, even closer to what my camera screen is showing and I like it. Especially when I shot with picture profiles, only Imaging Edge is able to read this setting from raw files. Capture One or Lr would just drop the profile unless I shot jpeg. So my understanding is: different manufacturer have their different color sciences, but different software have different algorithms too. What combination you use is really going to give you very different results. So before talking about things like Canon skin tone, maybe think about your photo editing software first. Capture One is on Sony's official website and they have one version that's just for Sony users so I bet they have closer partnership with Sony in terms of Color reproduction form raw files. Well, personal opinions only, I could be talking bull shit lol. Again, I loved your video.
Who even shoots RAW anymore anyway?
Jared Polin I heard a rumor that Pros shoot JPEG and beginners shoot Raw?
Ask Tony & Chelsea Northrup... They know JPEG is for pros
#ionlyshootjpeg
😂😂
Amazing
Jared Polin seriously?
Thanks, Ted. I find these types of videos more valuable than the vlogs. I’m glad to know there are actually viable replacements for Lightroom.
2:00 The main difference here is that they use different colour profiles by default, not sure why this dude didn't bother to check, but yeah, now you know.
Same as in audio. If you play the same file, the same CD, you won't ear the same thing depending on your HIFI ... Why sould it be different with photography ?
In somehow, a RAW file is just like a music sheet ! Some musicians are better for classic, other for rock ... and some are just better than others ;-)
A custom camera calibration using a color chart is the best starting point and preferable to a precooked consensus generated by a software company that may look better but is in fact a less accurate representation of what the camera actually captured.
I'm trying Capture One Pro at the moment and I found an unexpected feature which removes almost all hot pixels, which is very useful for me as an astrophotographer and does a lot of low light landscapes using very long exposures. I also think the colours look better, although I feel like my Lightroom preset had more nebulosity showing through in the Milky Way. I will have to tweak the settings in Capture One Pro and see if I can get something nicer. I think I prefer the look of clarity in Lightroom, but it can always be applied in Photoshop through the Camera Raw filter.
Damn good breakdown of how Lightroom and Capture One renders the raw data.
Fascinating and thought provoking video. Especially near the end when talking about going back to older photographs and revisiting them with newer software. Thanks Ted for your easy to understand explanation of what can be complex technical elements. Good job! Keep up the great work.
Love the way you explained all of this ❤️
Ted, Love the T-shirt ordered two for support! Keep doing what your doing....I like the conversation of RAW but more importantly talk about taking OLD RAW files and redo them in the latest versions of CO or LR and then PRINT them. You would love it....the options you have are yummy. This is why I store in RAW. The future might be brighter.
The skintones and the way contrast is handeled in capture one is just too good.This is why all the top photographers perfer capture one.I have been using photoshop from version 2 and i used to be never happy the way the contrast was handelled,when is switched to capture one i was really happy the way the images looked after increasing contrast.Lightroom is like a toyota its gets the job done but capture one is like a luxury car ull know only when you use it.
Lightroom is overated anyway
Nice video as always. I've been using Lightroom for a long time when shooting Nikon and loved it for how it's perfect as a catalog with solid raw conversion, but when I switched to Fujifilm (X-Pro1) I started liking Lightroom less and less, Mostly because the demosaicing on X-Trans sensors was really bad. It has improved over time but still not to the point where I am happy with the images, especially in, for example, grassy areas at the edge of the sharpness. A little while ago I got wind of this software called Iridient and I absolutely LOVE it. It was designed especially for X-trans sensors and it works really well. It renders the images with so much more detail and less "weirdness" in areas with a lot of grass or small branches in trees. If you (still) shoot Fuji give it a try! It feels like I've got a whole new camera!
This is exactly why I love Darktable. You have access to everything, including access to the settings and algorithms for demosaicing and detailed control over all input curves and all input profiles. You can control how colors are rendered that can not be rendered with the current color profile and you can even select different camera system's profiles. So you can load a Fuji raw file, use a Canon color profile, Nikon contrast profile and full Minolta lens profile if you want to. There is no hidden sharpening, denoising, lens correction and so on. You only get what you've ordered in this regard, no manufacturer cheating. That's full control.
With Lightroom and Capture One you only have the manufacturer's Take-It-Or-Leave-It approach to raw import. The automatism works very well in both applications but I still find that rather limiting.
Good information. The great part for me was this ”Zero in settings is not same in other raw Software”. Never before thinked that way the settings. But you are right! Thanx.
Hi Ted, not reading all the comments but I can say as a Fuji GFX user, I can totally use Cap 1 as I did with my D750, but I have two hoops to jump thru first: I convert to DNG and change the EXIF data to show the camera as IQ250. I can leave the camera make as Fuji bc they support their other cameras. I have it set to open with the ICC profile for the X100 but I can play around with that and use any ICC profile I choose. It seems like a pain but it really is only a difference of a few minutes (I'm usually working with about 300 images per shoot, I don't shoot events) and being able to work in Cap 1 is worth it. I absolutely love the program. It's especially great with pulling up shadows, I've found, and as you mentioned, the transitions between close shades are great. It's something I appreciate a lot with the GFX since the tonal range is wonderful and Cap 1 really, well, captures it. Thanks for your channel, I've been exposed to the work of many amazing photographers thru you and purchased several books as a result (so thanks from Amazon too!).
Dana Goldstein • Editorial Photographer I'm interested in checking out your work with the GFX and C1Pro. I'm sometimes wary of converting to DNG as you lose a LOT of metadata that we don't know what might be important in future updates to software, but if this produces great results, I could be swayed...!
This is not an officially supported method and may stop working in future versions, may have bugs, and may have unexpected results; you also don't get tethering, lens corrections, or a bespoke color profile (though the 250 profile does a decent job).
C1 supports a variety of small-format camera, but only P1 medium format cameras are supported.
Yes Douglas I'm aware of this. I don't shoot in studio anymore so tethering is no longer an issue -- it would've been a deal-breaker earlier. While there's no official profile, I've been very happy using the X100 profile with the files. No unexpected results so far and I haven't had any hiccups with it. I think Phase will just have to admit both success and defeat in this one area -- if Cap1 weren't so great, everyone wouldn't be busy finding workarounds due to their intransigence. I think the moment that either Canon or Nikon makes a medium format (and it'll have to happen eventually), Phase will have no choice but to support MF or lose quite a lot of business.
Good to start the conversation on this in the video. I used to use the Olympus Camera Calibration Profile in LR/ACR and choose Natural as the emulated look but the past few weeks, I've noticed that I prefer Adobe Profile Version 4. So things change. Also, I always smile when someone says "It's straight out of the raw editor, no adjustments" which actually is not a function of the camera but a combination of the sofware algorithm x default develop preset - not making a selection means you have made a selection, you have chosen "default" whatever the processing that "default" is for that software.
Totally agree, have been with C1 for 10 plus years - I have tried LR many times but only use it to stitch images together and then use C1 to do final export.
I have used both Lightroom and Capture One, to my eyes the Capture One handles the image perfect for my needs.
I just saw these camera calibrations and the previous versions while using Adobe Camera Raw the other day.
I do enjoy hearing more about the technical end of photography. It's important to know how things work so that I can better understand how to create the art people expect to see from me as I grow as a photographer. Thank you.
I'm a Capture One user. Lightroom never sat well with me, all the adjustments feel too heavy handed and I feel like I'm working with ski gloves on. It's always felt to me like Photoshop-Lite. Capture one has been great for making changes that feel more artistic than technical. I definitely have a lot of those moments where I've made a change and it's not entirely obvious until you review the before and after since it has a light touch (if you want that). One other thing that I love about being a Capture One user is the constant webinars that they produce which are free to participate in and help you learn the product with real examples and you can ask them questions.
That's why I only convert using the cameras own software. You will especially notice a difference in highlights, shadows, and gradient transitions, and of course color.
I follow a lot of CZcamsrs but I'm inspired by your channel more than any other. Keep up the good work.
I have been tempted to try out Capture One for months. Even more now after watching your video.
And this video is why I keep coming back. Loads of value, lots of intelligent discussion and info
I just started to use Capture One about a month ago, and I love it. Have used Adobe for a long long time and switching over was extremely intuitive once you u derstoof how they layers and masking worked. For portraits, I 100% prefer Capture One. For some reason though, if I want a really punchy BW, I like lightroom/Photoshop.
I was so happy to have Lightroom when i started out, Serge Rameli helped me get a grasp of how it worked. But about a year later i tried C1 and half an hour later i bought it. About three months later i cancled my Adobe subscription, since i hadnt opened LR in that time. I now use much less time editing pictures and i am more satisfied with the result. And espessially the new C1 version 11 just rocks.
Working in a hifi store i meet alot of "relegious" people, and i try not to be that myself, right tool for the job is my way. C1 seems to be the right tool for me
I tried Capture One on my Fuji and it definitely handled detail and colour better than what I'm used to: Camera Raw/Photoshop.
Really interesting subject! I liked what you said about being able to open older files and rework them using today's technology. I've been doing just that. Been going through some old shots I took long ago, long before Lightroom, and reworking them in Lightroom. Not all shots can be made better, but some can and it's really fun to mess with.
Love this video, and also have a strong opinion. Recently started using capture one by necessity when I got my Sony a7riii, after using Lightroom for several years. I fell hard for capture one, and am in love with it for several reasons--sessions and layers among them. Regarding how the files come in, you can control it, I reset mine to linear, it comes in flat. The other choices are auto, which makes decisions based on your camera brand, film high contrast, film extra shadow, or film standard. It is under the Base Characteristics panel. The workspace is highly customizable. As I say, I am in love. For context, I am an engineer who did a fair amount of autocad back in the day. I may get a capture one tattoo. I love everything about it. Thanks for listening! Great informative video! PS, CZcams has a ton of videos that make it easy to switch. kthanksbye
As I understand it the Process you select in the dropdown under Camera Calibration in Lightroom sets up the tools that are available to alter the image in the Develop module. For instance if you select Version 2 and then select the Basic tab you will see a Tone section with sliders for Exposure, Recovery, Fill Light, Blacks, Brightness and Contrast. In Version 3 these changed to Exposure Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, and Blacks. Version 4 added support for Range Masks. In the Profile dropdown you can select Adobe Standard OR any of the profiles that the camera manufacturer provided. These are essentially the profiles the camera uses to create jpegs in camera. They are interesting starting points when processing images and I often prefer to start with one of them, rather than the Adobe profile which I find to be somewhat generic.
I wholeheartedly agree that the ability to go back and reprocess images with updated tools (and updated personal skills ;-) ) is an exciting proposition. I have been doing this for some time now and have seen images brought to life that resemble my original intent in taking the photograph that simply did not present when first processed. I love it. Thanks for the good work that you do. Really enjoy your channel.
You and commenters made such a big deal out of it -- I dug into it and discovered profiles and what switching them around does in Lightroom. Absolutely nothing, really, beyond some changes in my colors, contrast, and saturation. I shoot raw and change those anyway. Some software has better noise-handling -- that's something. But getting it mixed up with profiles only mucks up the point.
I just received my T-Shirt and I love it. I will wear it to my next photo club meeting. I hope the shirts help you run your program. It will be fun to see how many shirts I see in my travels. Thanks again Ted for promoting the Art of Photography.
I tested this myself almost a year ago (so probably not the current version). My personal experience was:
1. yes when you first open the file it looks better in Capture One (mostly).
2. When playing with the camera calibration panel in LR you can come pretty close. (like you also said). And you could just auto apply it during import.
3. But I also found that I could not get to the same end-results. And I liked the end-result I was able to produce with LR/PS better. (at least for a bit heavier editing). Not only could I get to the same results. I found the images fell apart a bit earlier in CO.
I have found that I have to use both Lightroom and Capture One for the projects I work on. I use the software that provides me with the best color for the projects we work on. As film photographers we used different films and developers to achieve different results. I look at the software the same way. Thanks for the great info and video.
Super interesting topic. Its funny you said you can go back to old RAW photos you took years ago and improve them. I actually did just that last week! What a time to be alive
I much prefer to use Camera RAW over Lightroom, seems much better, your thoughts on that. Keep up the good work.
The file organisation in Lightroom always seemed to be clunky, importing catalogues and all that stuff. Where as Capture1 was just a mirror of finder and so straightforward to work with.
I assisted here in London for for a about four years and now shoot my own stuff, around 95% of photographers would use Capture1. So I really learnt my craft in Capture1, thus i have stuck to it and I'm always preaching to Lightroom users.
(Although I do use the Lightroom app on my iPhone and it's incredible!)
Like you mentioned Ted, plug a Hasselblad in and it is nothing but errors and re-starts all shoot.
Fantastic video and the best breakdown of Capture1 vs Lightroom I've seen.
I literally played with CaptureOne for 3 hours and right after cancelled my Adobe Subscription. I still have Photoshop CS6 in case I need that, it still works great and is still compatible with the PortraitPro I use as well. I am loving it. The only thing I am having trouble with is redoing presets, "styles" in CaptureOne.
Ted! This was wonderful and you've given me much to think about. I love how you expanded it to the bigger picture with previous work ! Cheers from Canada
I switched fromLR to standalone On1 Photo Raw. Love it! Never going back to LR. It offers all the functionality, catalogs & better initial images, & it’s not a bad price.
I tried capture one about 10 years ago and I thought it did a nice job. I haven't used it in years. I heard that Capture one does a little better on noise at low ISOs while LIghtroom does better at higher ISOs. You can probably get identical results with the right settings. They are just applying different settings to the file on import.
This misses one of the main themes of the video: Image = Raw data + math (software) + settings.
Moving sliders around cannot produce identical results between the two programs. That only changes the settings, not the math. It's like playing the same song with two different instruments; tuning them to the same note does not make them sound identical. Which results you prefer (LR or C1) is, of course, up to you, but the program itself does matter.
I use Capture One software since 2007 - so it's over 10 years right now, and I'm so happy with the results I got that I don't event think about switching. It just works for me, my style, my imaging tendencies. Sometimes I do some fiddling just to know what is happening elsewhere in this RAW image processing world. I tried every piece of software and still do every now and then. But I always find my way back to Capture One. As a graphic designer and photographer I need to know what tools are available - this makes me and my work as good as it can be.
Damian Sliwinski
Okay
For sure - I always say use what works best for you. When people ask me about the Canon/Nikon debate I tell them - I simply use Canon because I'm invested in the system. Cameras/software are so good now that no one is losing jobs over quality. When my 7D died at 5 years old no designers were complaining about the images I was giving them.
I'm not a pro but I absolutely fell in love with the colors that Capture One renders. The photographs look like film pictures. I compared it with 5-6 other development software including Lightroom, but ended up not wanting to comprimise that quality that comes out of Capture One. All the tools like finely tuned, and useful, in contrast with most other software.
Lightroom is great as well, but the images looked more digital to my eyes. I won't hide that the subscription model is another reason I would want to stay away, but the quality alone was enough.
Thanks for elaborating in more detail on why this happens.
the audio quality of your videos is impeccable
It is definitely worth it to go back over old raw files. Doing that now with files from 2006 in Capture One.
With regards to your final thoughts about being able to go back and revisit digital files with new tech, that is indeed possible with film as well. I had a conversation with a film archivist who was converting old films into new 4K video files and he told me that they actually had to dial back the sensitivity on their scanner because it was getting too much detail. The example he gave me was a film where in the new scan you could see crew and equipment in an area that used to be shadow and rendered as just black when projected normally. Pretty amazing stuff.
What an interesting video. From a person who's work is all about software and also loves photography.
This video rings very true for me; for a long time I persevered with Canon's proprietary supplied-with-camera 'DPP' conversion software, because RAW files just looked better to me than Adobe's interpretation. Got sucked into the ease of Lightroom's workflow in the end, but it did impress upon me the fact that there's a lot about RAW conversion that's down to human decisions about the conversion algorithm. The idea of a shot coming 'straight from the camera' doesn't really mean very much; there's always a lot of interpretation going on behind the scenes before an image is rendered.
Such a timely video man - I've been a hardcore Lightroom user since day 1 - but recently - I reluctantly made the switch to Capture One after having LR crash on me this past summer on a shoot. I was tethering in - client standing there and LR crashed 3 times within 15 minutes. Was not good. Thankfully, my 1st assist was capture one certified so we switched to that for the rest of the shoot. As far as tethering - hands down Capture One is superior - but I still prefer the UI of LR - and just this past week - had a client ask me why my images were so yellow/red and contrasty after processing them in Capture One - so yeah, you're video is on the mark. Thanks for taking the time on this man, Jeff.
I'm an X-Pro-2 shooter and the only thing holding me back from C1 is the purported steep learning curve. I want to spend my time with the camera, not sitting at a desk. But now that they have a dedicated Fuji product I'm starting to loose that argument with myself. They also offer a free 30-day trial so I'm also running out of excuses. (FYI, C1 does support the GFX files)
FYI, x100f user, bought Capture One12 on sale for $109. confusuing as heck, I'm thinking of looking at LR despite, to your point ned to be on street not looking at HOURS of videos and I do minimal Post- The camera capture most of how I want the image, just tweak and use Silver Efex for B&W
It doesn't matter where you start, it matters where you end up. I tend to assign a normalized color profile to my images and use one for my monitor and printer.
On the point of running old images through new profiles I've been doing this for a while and the latest batch I've reprocessed were taken in 2006 with a mix of Canon D60 and 20D cameras and there is a significant improvement simply from changing the calibration to the latest versions (you can also do this with the "update to current process" (the lightning bolt symbol under the histogram)). The improvement in skin, eye, and hair details in portraits, as well as textures and edge sharpness in landscapes are all significant compared the original V1 profile they were processed with.
How about the curve that Capture One applies in the Base Characteristics tool -- and the "Auto" vs. "Linear Response" options. What are the pros and cons of each?
I shoot theatre primarily, and I really dislike the CO film curve. I think it is too aggressive on highlights which are already accentuated anyway because of theatre lighting. I've had some success with Linear Response editing, but only after spending lots of time with it.
SilkyPix which you can download from product support page for the fuji x-series cameras also gives you more vibrant images to start with. Although the interface is very dated.
Working with Nikon, I have to say that the best RAW processing is done by their own Capture NX-D software. The difference is very noticeable. Any in-body change will be exactly simulated by the software, as you may perhaps expects since it's from the same company. The colour representation, dynamic range, gradients, details, etc. are second to none. Sadly, NX-D is slow, has no full screen mode, limited editing options, and crashes frequently. It is a shame and Nikon should feel bad about it, just like their useless Nikon Image Space.
I used NX-D to benchmark Lightroom CC 2019 and Capture One Pro 12. Using the Adobe colour profiles, Lightroom underperformed. However, there is a somewhat hidden option to add the "Camera Matching" profiles... which are almost the same as the settings in Capture NX-D or your Nikon camera body. To my eyes, the "Standard" option is the closest you get to the original capture.
In Capture One Pro 12, those options are not there. You have a smaller number of other options, but not portrait - landscape - neutral - standard - ... as you should have. The settings from Capture One Pro 12 however, are better from the bat. I can't get to grips with how their catalogue / sessions work and whether you could transit from one into the other, but I can import a Lightroom folder should I wish to process a batch of images in Capture One Pro. This was quite useful when shooting pictures at a conference, which is a dull event, but crispier pictures made it look better. In terms of speed, I would say both are about equal, but the undo options in Lightroom are much better as you can see the log of changes per picture.
Because of the ridiculous subscription plan, that implies a lifelong lock-in to Adobe, I strongly recommend switching to Capture One Pro. Sadly, my hands are tied to Adobe. Note that I rarely if ever use the other CC suite software.
Don't know about other folks, but the best results that I'm getting, are from native Nikon software (I'm a Nikon shooter, obviously). Don't use it too often though, because the usability is not overwhelming by any measure. Lot's of important features aren't there etc.
Capture One, on another hand is a great piece of software, but their healing brush tool is acting very weirdly, and this is preventing me from leaving the Lightroom camp.
To be more precise, let's say you want to heal a blemish on models face. You can do that with healing layer, but later if you decide to use that healed area as a source to heal other parts of the image, Capture One will use the original data with the blemis , ignoring all the healing that was made previously.