Now....CaptureOne. Getting tired of doing these comparisons....

sgoldswo wrote:

Let's not fall out over use of English and who has read what. Everything posted on an internet forum is more or less anecdotal and I'm probably a wee bit sensitive to the number of trollish comments I read here with little substantiation myself. This isn't applicable to you but it's particularly irritating when the people concerned don't even seem to own Fuji cameras at all (so why are they here?).

However, I did think your blog post was damning C1 with faint praise, though I confess I'm being unduly dismissive of your efforts to consider the differences between C1 and other RAW converters, having focused solely on C1 and the Fuji jpegs.

Let's ignore the foliage for a second and look at the detail in your first example shot. Do you not think the rendering of the tree branches is a good bit more impressive in the C1 shot than the jpeg? Turning to the foliage, I agree that it's hard to see the difference in the darker greens, but in the lighter greens it looks a bit more detailed in C1.

My own impression/opinion of the results that you've posted and my own experiences of Capture 1 (which included running some E-M5 and M9 files through it) is that it picks up a small but material increase in the level of detail over ACR/LR in all of the cameras. It's shadow recovery is almost as good as ACR but not quite (though, that isn't so much of an issue for Fuji RAW files compared to the other two cameras I mentioned). However, C1's weakest point is its rendering of dark greens, which isn't that much better than (or is similar to) the jpegs. However, the overall image is more aesthetically pleasing in its totality than the jpegs and can be made to look (through further processing) far more pleasing than the OOC jpegs without introducing watercolouring or colour bleeding. That's what sold it to me, together with the intuitive and adaptable user interface.

--
http://sgoldswoblog.wordpress.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgoldswo/