Capture 1

[Richard Coombs]

Anybody using Capture 1 in preference to Adobe LR/PS, or combination of?

 

Being a Sony user I found that LR wasn't doing a good job on RAW conversion. After some research, Capture 1 came up as the best solution. I downloaded the free "Express" version which definitely helped. Having used that for 18 months or so I took the plunge and bought the full C1 Sony version. I wish I'd stayed with the Express, free version!!!

 

The thing is a nightmare!

 

On opening files the free version did a good job, the full version can only be described with words that will get me thrown out of the forum!

 

The catalogue system is an over complicated disaster!

[John Mitchell]

Sorry to hear about your difficulties. The free Capture 1 Express for Sony continues to work well for me, so no plans to shell out for the full version. I haven't made much use of the catalogue, but it seems OK if a bit awkward. Perhaps there are some worthwhile tutorials out there.

[Brian Yarvin]

I've been using the full version of Capture 1 for a very long time with Sony, Canon, and Olympus cameras. Even after all these years, it's still tough to use. Forget it if you're in a hurry, but it outputs beautiful flies. If you aspire to high-end publication, it should be part of your arsenal. 

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Brian Yarvin said:

I've been using the full version of Capture 1 for a very long time with Sony, Canon, and Olympus cameras. Even after all these years, it's still tough to use. Forget it if you're in a hurry, but it outputs beautiful flies. If you aspire to high-end publication, it should be part of your arsenal. 

 

There doesn't seem to be a big difference between Sony Express and the full version of Capture 1 in the basic adjustment tools. Sony Express also outputs very nice files.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by John Mitchell

[sb photos]

4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

There doesn't seem to be a big difference between Sony Express and the full version of Capture 1 in the basic adjustment tools. Sony Express also outputs very nice files.

 

 

That’s interesting if Sony Express is the free version I’ve  previously downloaded but not used yet. I originally intended to trial it with a 2016 MacBook 12” Retina and my RX100 VII as a light weight travel kit. I still haven’t  got around to it, so not sure if the MacBook will be up to it.

[Allan Bell]

13 hours ago, Richard Coombs said:

Anybody using Capture 1 in preference to Adobe LR/PS, or combination of?

 

Being a Sony user I found that LR wasn't doing a good job on RAW conversion. After some research, Capture 1 came up as the best solution. I downloaded the free "Express" version which definitely helped. Having used that for 18 months or so I took the plunge and bought the full C1 Sony version. I wish I'd stayed with the Express, free version!!!

 

The thing is a nightmare!

 

On opening files the free version did a good job, the full version can only be described with words that will get me thrown out of the forum!

 

The catalogue system is an over complicated disaster!

 

Re the catalogue system I totally agree and that is why I dumped it a few years ago. I do have the Sony express version but hardly use it as I prefer LRC.

 

Allan

 

[Jon Lewis]

8 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

I've been using the full version of Capture 1 for a very long time with Sony, Canon, and Olympus cameras. Even after all these years, it's still tough to use. Forget it if you're in a hurry, but it outputs beautiful flies. If you aspire to high-end publication, it should be part of your arsenal. 

Yes agree been using phase software since 87 great results . You wouldn't expect to learn French overnight so why is software different.

[wilkopix]

I use Capture One Pro for Nikon and have been using their software for many years .. I use it mainly for my commercial tethered studio work as it is very stable and has a lot of features that clients quite like (overlays, page mock up etc), however I still prefer to use Lightroom and Photoshop for everything else. I think Lightroom has recently caught up with C1 and with a little bit of tweaking can give comparable raw conversions.

Lightroom is probably a little easier to learn too. Hope my ramblings help!

[John Mitchell]

This is a bit off-topic, but does anyone know if the Capture 1 "style packs" work with the free versions of the program?

[wilkopix]

17 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

This is a bit off-topic, but does anyone know if the Capture 1 "style packs" work with the free versions of the program?

I'm not sure but I doubt that they will as some tools and functions are simply unavailable in the free version that they use in the Pro version.

[John Mitchell]

6 hours ago, wilkopix said:

I'm not sure but I doubt that they will as some tools and functions are simply unavailable in the free version that they use in the Pro version.

 

That makes sense. The 'Express for Sony' does have a quite a few built-in styles and presets. I've found them quite useful with some images. The full versions of Capture 1 no doubt offer a lot more.

[FocusUno]

statements have been made here

that Capture does better job of

processing Sony RAW files** than

does Photoshop (2021 IMC)

please if possible demonstrate

in what way that is true.  TIA.

**RX10 IV in my case

Edited October 21, 2021 by FocusUno

[wilkopix]

10 hours ago, FocusUno said:

statements have been made here

that Capture does better job of

processing Sony RAW files** than

does Photoshop (2021 IMC)

please if possible demonstrate

in what way that is true.  TIA.

**RX10 IV in my case

These days I doub't there is very much difference. If you just want an 'auto' conversion then I'd try both and see which one works best for you and your own colour preferences etc. With a little bit of tweaking both will be capable of very similar results. The latest ACR / Lightroom is now as good as Capture One (but then I'm using Nikon so it might be different for Sony). They all have their pros and cons .. go with what works best for you and your workflow, any differences are so slight.

[FocusUno]

except that I'm not a pixel peeping expert;

statements have been made in this thread;

who dares to back them up with evidence??!!

 😲  😲  😲  😲  😲 

[John Mitchell]

I guess it comes down to what you're happy with. I've never used LR, so can't compare results. Also, I don't have a high-end monitor suitable for advanced pixel-peeping, etc.. Capture 1 Express for Sony is free, so one could just download it and do some experimenting. Apparently, it has the same basic "architecture" as the C1 pro version, just fewer features.

[Brian Yarvin]

2 hours ago, FocusUno said:

except that I'm not a pixel peeping expert;

statements have been made in this thread;

who dares to back them up with evidence??!!

 😲  😲  😲  😲  😲 

 

Jeff:

 

This isn't a court that requires evidence or a testing lab. A quick search turned up dozens of actual testing sites and their results/opinions. The one I respect the most is DP Review. Here's their latest comparison: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3278896840/head-to-head-adobe-lightroom-classic-vs-capture-one-21

 

Most of us are so experienced with Photoshop that we forget that there are other packages out there. 

 

What I would like to see is your evaluation of various raw processors and how you see them in your (unique) workflow. 

 

[meanderingemu]

9 hours ago, wilkopix said:

These days I doub't there is very much difference. If you just want an 'auto' conversion then I'd try both and see which one works best for you and your own colour preferences etc. With a little bit of tweaking both will be capable of very similar results. The latest ACR / Lightroom is now as good as Capture One (but then I'm using Nikon so it might be different for Sony). They all have their pros and cons .. go with what works best for you and your workflow, any differences are so slight.

 

 

the conversion issue is still a fact for Fuji x-Trans files, but LR has improved and reduced gap.  

[Allan Bell]

13 hours ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Jeff:

 

This isn't a court that requires evidence or a testing lab. A quick search turned up dozens of actual testing sites and their results/opinions. The one I respect the most is DP Review. Here's their latest comparison: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3278896840/head-to-head-adobe-lightroom-classic-vs-capture-one-21

 

Most of us are so experienced with Photoshop that we forget that there are other packages out there. 

 

What I would like to see is your evaluation of various raw processors and how you see them in your (unique) workflow. 

 

 

Me too.

 

Allan

 

[John Mitchell]

On 18/10/2021 at 12:55, Richard Coombs said:

Anybody using Capture 1 in preference to Adobe LR/PS, or combination of?

 

Being a Sony user I found that LR wasn't doing a good job on RAW conversion. After some research, Capture 1 came up as the best solution. I downloaded the free "Express" version which definitely helped. Having used that for 18 months or so I took the plunge and bought the full C1 Sony version. I wish I'd stayed with the Express, free version!!!

 

The thing is a nightmare!

 

On opening files the free version did a good job, the full version can only be described with words that will get me thrown out of the forum!

 

The catalogue system is an over complicated disaster!

 

I find that Affinity Photo complements the free C1 Express for Sony well. There was a 50% off sale awhile back, and I think I paid $25 for Affinity. I do my basic RAW processing in Express and then switch to Affinity for any further adjustments (using 16-bit tiffs) that I might like to make. I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to this kind of stuff, so I find learning how to use Affinity to be challenging. However, it's an excellent program IMO. You can also process RAW files in Affinity, but Express does a much better job.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by John Mitchell

[M.Chapman]

12 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

You can also process RAW files in Affinity, but Express does a much better job.

+1

 

I've got Affinity too and struggle to get the same level of detail from a RAW file that LR or C1 Express can extract, but it's a great value package with quite a few useful features.

 

Mark

[John Mitchell]

11 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

+1

 

I've got Affinity too and struggle to get the same level of detail from a RAW file that LR or C1 Express can extract, but it's a great value package with quite a few useful features.

 

Mark

 

Affinity definitely is not great for RAW conversion. Otherwise it has more adjustment features than I'll ever need or be able to figure out. It's an amazing bargain IMO.

[Harry Harrison]

27 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

Affinity definitely is not great for RAW conversion.

Just out of interest is it the colour, the detail, the tonality, none of the above? I've always thought that for any new image processing software it must be a tremendous burden/challenge to keep producing RAW conversions for every digital camera, I suppose that inevitably some may be better than others. On the other hand I think Lightroom had to give their conversions more pizazz to compete with Capture One by changing the defaults somewhat.

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Just out of interest is it the colour, the detail, the tonality, none of the above? I've always thought that for any new image processing software it must be a tremendous burden/challenge to keep producing RAW conversions for every digital camera, I suppose that inevitably some may be better than others. On the other hand I think Lightroom had to give their conversions more pizazz to compete with Capture One by changing the defaults somewhat.

 

I haven't really compared results. I find Affinity's RAW conversion controls limited and clunky compared to those of C1 Express for Sony, which is very easy to use.

[M.Chapman]

11 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Just out of interest is it the colour, the detail, the tonality, none of the above? I've always thought that for any new image processing software it must be a tremendous burden/challenge to keep producing RAW conversions for every digital camera, I suppose that inevitably some may be better than others. On the other hand I think Lightroom had to give their conversions more pizazz to compete with Capture One by changing the defaults somewhat.

The colour is different, but that's adjustable. What I find is that foliage (especially green grass and brown scrub) isn't resolved as well using Affinity's RAW converter default settings as it is by LR or C1 and just looks more "mushy" and I struggle* to find a combination of slider settings in Affinity that can match what LR/ACR gives by default. One thing that Affinity has, which I like, is a more "accurate" (i.e. linear) exposure correction. Adobe have their own exposure "recipe" which rolls off the highlight adjustment (ie. reduces contrast) to avoid blowing highlights. If an accurate exposure adjustment is needed in LR/ACR then I adjust the white level in curves instead. Both have their uses, but I find the more accurate (linear) correction useful when processing digitised Velvia slides and sometimes prefer the contrast it retains in the mid-tones in regular DSLR landscape images.

 

*Update - I just tried again using the latest version of Affinity, and after some effort, I can get very similar results in Affinity RAW conversion to LR/ACR, but it took a lot longer fiddling with sliders. That could be overcome by saving some presets. But LR/ACR does a better job on detail by default and with one click (on "Auto") gives a tonal result I like. 

 

Mark

Edited October 24, 2021 by M.Chapman

[Harry Harrison]

20 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

The colour is different, but that's adjustable. What I find is that foliage (especially green grass and brown scrub) just isn't resolved as well by Affinity's RAW converter as it is by LR or C1 and just looks more "mushy" and I've been unable to find a combination of slider settings in Affinity that can match what LR/ACR gives by default. One thing that Affinity has, which I like, is a more "accurate" (i.e. linear) exposure correction. Adobe have their own exposure "recipe" which rolls off the highlight adjustment (ie. reduces contrast) to avoid blowing highlights. If an accurate exposure adjustment is needed in LR/ACR then I adjust the white level in curves instead. Both have their uses, but I find the more accurate (linear) correction useful when processing digitised Velvia slides and sometimes prefer the contrast it retains in the mid-tones in regular DSLR landscape images..

Thanks Mark, very interesting regarding the linear exposure adjustment. The problems regarding green grass and blown scrub sound very much like the issues that my version of Lightroom has with Fuji files, now seemingly addressed with the 'Enhanced detail' option. On problem files, usually landscapes with distant foliage or crops, I use the excellent Iridient X-Transformer.