Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
Majkes
New MemberPosts: 2
Like?
Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
6 months ago

I;ve been reasearching the raw post processing of fuji x files for a long time now, I want to be 100% sure I will get the best files possible when I will finally buy my XT1.

Of all the examples I;ve seen on the internet this one struck me the most

Is Iridient really that good iin comparision to others? C1 are supposed to be much better than LR and frankly, this image looks terrible.

Opinions?

Fujifilm X-T1
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
JimLong
Regular MemberPosts: 265
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to Majkes, 6 months ago

Since you've been researching this for a long time, I'm sure you have downloaded trial versions of all the various raw processors and done your own conversions of downloaded raw files.

What did you find to give the best results?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to Majkes, 6 months ago

Majkes wrote:

I;ve been reasearching the raw post processing of fuji x files for a long time now, I want to be 100% sure I will get the best files possible when I will finally buy my XT1.

Of all the examples I;ve seen on the internet this one struck me the most

Is Iridient really that good iin comparision to others? C1 are supposed to be much better than LR and frankly, this image looks terrible.

Opinions?

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect".  Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here.  They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to Majkes, 6 months ago

Majkes wrote:

I;ve been reasearching the raw post processing of fuji x files for a long time now, I want to be 100% sure I will get the best files possible when I will finally buy my XT1.

Of all the examples I;ve seen on the internet this one struck me the most

Is Iridient really that good iin comparision to others? C1 are supposed to be much better than LR and frankly, this image looks terrible.

Opinions?

That's certainly a big difference. Do you have the source of the image?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 6 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to stimpy, 6 months ago

I'm not sure what this example shows. Are these untouched files with defaults applied?  Even defaults are bound to be different.  Maybe with a bit of work in one or the other they could be made better or worse?  Isn't it all subjective anyway?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to nixda, 6 months ago

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers?  Pull the other one!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim King
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,651Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 6 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

I'm not sure what this example shows. Are these untouched files with defaults applied? Even defaults are bound to be different. Maybe with a bit of work in one or the other they could be made better or worse? Isn't it all subjective anyway?

+1

A good converter can be misused to deliver poor results.

-- hide signature --

Jim King - Retired Colormonger - Suburban Detroit, Michigan, USA; GMT -5h (EST)
Pentaxian for over 50 years.
* * * * *
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey.
- John Ruskin
* * * * *
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
- Sir Winston Churchill
* * * * *
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
- Albert Einstein

 Jim King's gear list:Jim King's gear list
Leica M9 Ricoh GXR S10 24-72mm F2.5-4.4 VC Ricoh GXR Mount A12 Ricoh GXR A16 24-85mm F3.5-5.5 Pentax K-5 IIs +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
khollister
Regular MemberPosts: 139Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to nixda, 6 months ago

Clicking on your example and looking at it, I primarily see a difference in sharpening. I don't think either one looks "terrible" - the C1 version might be slightly over sharpened for my taste.

I have been through this process myself and tried most of the candidate software (I own C1 and LR 5). While the "boutique" apps have things they do well on specific images or scenarios but also do rather poorly in others cases. C1 and LR are still the beat solutions IMHO across a wide range of images. Most of the angst over X-Trans RAW conversion is only apparent in 100% crops, and I believe folks don't necessarily understand how to best use the various controls in many of the apps.

I have yet to run into an image of mine that drove me to try another RAW converter other than LR. I occasionally run an image through C1 to see if I like it better than LR 5, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of images I used C1 for the final image.

I think a lot of this is overblown, but it is a very emotional issue to many around here.

 khollister's gear list:khollister's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E2
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 6 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to nixda, 6 months ago

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ.  So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy?  You think William Klein was lazy?  You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent?  That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams?  I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened.   I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused.  What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 6 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

I should add, since you think (assume) I know nothing about photography, that most of the pictorialists of the late 19th early 20th century spent a lot of time on their prints, but few (Steiglitz maybe being an exception) were aiming for the kind of "perfection" you are talking about, which seems to be more akin to the early Daguerrotypists than anything that came afterwards.  I'm sorry my friend, but the "best" does not always equal "the most detail" or "the least noise".  It often means "the image that you love".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 6 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

Thank you for trying to open my mind. Always welcome.

I checked out your gallery. Wonderful pictures. Looking forward to more.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to nixda, 6 months ago

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

Thank you for trying to open my mind. Always welcome.

I checked out your gallery. Wonderful pictures. Looking forward to more.

I don't post photographs here.  Even if I did it makes no difference to my case, which isn't about me.  It's about the fact that LR = Aperture = Iridient = Photo Ninja = Capture One = X if the photographer isn't good enough.  So, I checked out your gallery and what are you telling me?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 6 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

Thank you for trying to open my mind. Always welcome.

I checked out your gallery. Wonderful pictures. Looking forward to more.

I don't post photographs here. Even if I did it makes no difference to my case, which isn't about me. It's about the fact that LR = Aperture = Iridient = Photo Ninja = Capture One = X if the photographer isn't good enough. So, I checked out your gallery and what are you telling me?

I mean "if the image isn't good enough".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 6 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

I should add, since you think (assume) I know nothing about photography, that most of the pictorialists of the late 19th early 20th century spent a lot of time on their prints, but few (Steiglitz maybe being an exception) were aiming for the kind of "perfection" you are talking about, which seems to be more akin to the early Daguerrotypists than anything that came afterwards. I'm sorry my friend, but the "best" does not always equal "the most detail" or "the least noise". It often means "the image that you love".

Thanks for supporting my point. You stress that 'perfection' or 'best' can mean a lot of different things. To the OP, it seems that the technical aspects of getting high IQ is very important, so why belittle his desire by tossing out views about what you think 'doing photography' means and extrapolating these views to a whole host of others and deriding them? The OP asked a simple question and wanted to get some input on why these two renderings he presented look so different. I don't think he wanted to engage in a philosophical discussion about the deeper aspects of photography or hear blanket statements about people who take pictures.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jan3x5
Senior MemberPosts: 2,485Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 6 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

I'm not sure what this example shows. Are these untouched files with defaults applied? Even defaults are bound to be different. Maybe with a bit of work in one or the other they could be made better or worse? Isn't it all subjective anyway?

Exactly.

btw, in this case "that good" shows better sharpness coupled with much more noise, so...

-- hide signature --
 Jan3x5's gear list:Jan3x5's gear list
Fujifilm X-E2 Samyang 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to nixda, 6 months ago

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

I should add, since you think (assume) I know nothing about photography, that most of the pictorialists of the late 19th early 20th century spent a lot of time on their prints, but few (Steiglitz maybe being an exception) were aiming for the kind of "perfection" you are talking about, which seems to be more akin to the early Daguerrotypists than anything that came afterwards. I'm sorry my friend, but the "best" does not always equal "the most detail" or "the least noise". It often means "the image that you love".

Thanks for supporting my point. You stress that 'perfection' or 'best' can mean a lot of different things. To the OP, it seems that the technical aspects of getting high IQ is very important, so why belittle his desire by tossing out views about what you think 'doing photography' means and extrapolating these views to a whole host of others and deriding them? The OP asked a simple question and wanted to get some input on why these two renderings he presented look so different. I don't think he wanted to engage in a philosophical discussion about the deeper aspects of photography or hear blanket statements about people who take pictures.

I was responding to you, not the OP.  Hope that helps.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nixda
Senior MemberPosts: 1,876Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, 6 months ago

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

I should add, since you think (assume) I know nothing about photography, that most of the pictorialists of the late 19th early 20th century spent a lot of time on their prints, but few (Steiglitz maybe being an exception) were aiming for the kind of "perfection" you are talking about, which seems to be more akin to the early Daguerrotypists than anything that came afterwards. I'm sorry my friend, but the "best" does not always equal "the most detail" or "the least noise". It often means "the image that you love".

Thanks for supporting my point. You stress that 'perfection' or 'best' can mean a lot of different things. To the OP, it seems that the technical aspects of getting high IQ is very important, so why belittle his desire by tossing out views about what you think 'doing photography' means and extrapolating these views to a whole host of others and deriding them? The OP asked a simple question and wanted to get some input on why these two renderings he presented look so different. I don't think he wanted to engage in a philosophical discussion about the deeper aspects of photography or hear blanket statements about people who take pictures.

I was responding to you, not the OP. Hope that helps.

No it doesn't. Read your first post here again, which was a response to the OP. My paragraph above is a response to it.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
masterofdeception
Regular MemberPosts: 264Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to nixda, 6 months ago

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

I should add, since you think (assume) I know nothing about photography, that most of the pictorialists of the late 19th early 20th century spent a lot of time on their prints, but few (Steiglitz maybe being an exception) were aiming for the kind of "perfection" you are talking about, which seems to be more akin to the early Daguerrotypists than anything that came afterwards. I'm sorry my friend, but the "best" does not always equal "the most detail" or "the least noise". It often means "the image that you love".

Thanks for supporting my point. You stress that 'perfection' or 'best' can mean a lot of different things. To the OP, it seems that the technical aspects of getting high IQ is very important, so why belittle his desire by tossing out views about what you think 'doing photography' means and extrapolating these views to a whole host of others and deriding them? The OP asked a simple question and wanted to get some input on why these two renderings he presented look so different. I don't think he wanted to engage in a philosophical discussion about the deeper aspects of photography or hear blanket statements about people who take pictures.

I was responding to you, not the OP. Hope that helps.

No it doesn't. Read your first post here again, which was a response to the OP. My paragraph above is a response to it.

I've read it thanks.  I wrote it and I don't think I need to change it, even if you disagree with it.  It was you who came on with the really constructive "one of the biggest load of BLEEPs etc".  I'm not sure how that helped.  But obviously it's your way of engaging in these forums. If you want more of my views, please see below.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads