The Photo Ninja
Senior Member
Opinions?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Ok Fuji users, what do you think of capture one pro?
- Thread starter The Photo Ninja
- Start date
Cream17
Senior Member
Awesome
I have used LR, Photo Ninja, Silkypix, Capture One, and ACDSEE with Fuji raw files, and can achieve better results with C1 than any of the others. Excellent detail, color options, highlight and shadow recovery, and local settings (masks).
nathanmietkiewicz
New member
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 3
Love it! I store all photos in LR. Using the 'Open Directly' LR plugin I can open RAF files directly into capture one and my do initial preprocessing (sharpening, white balance, etc.), auto export back to LR and put the final touches on to finish. The results are fantastic with the addition of capture one into my workflow. Highly recommended!
Bernie Ess
Veteran Member
It is good, but in terms of overall functionality it is not as versatile as Lightroom. It has quite decent color and tonality for almost all supported cameras. If someone looks for his first Raw converter, it is a possible choice (more expensive than Lightroom).
The catalogue function and the presets are much (!) less intuitive and easy to operate than in Lightroom, Lightroom has also a much bigger choice of third party plugins, presets (like VSCO etc), I use the excellent Nik Google collection (Silver Efex etc.).
I'd recommend C1 as a second Raw converter, but not as the first choice.
The catalogue function and the presets are much (!) less intuitive and easy to operate than in Lightroom, Lightroom has also a much bigger choice of third party plugins, presets (like VSCO etc), I use the excellent Nik Google collection (Silver Efex etc.).
I'd recommend C1 as a second Raw converter, but not as the first choice.
JohnLL
Well-known member
I have been using C1 Express v.7 for 16MB RAF conversions (among others) but I rather doubt we will see a version for 24MB RAF files. I like the results but I don't care for the UI.
I use it for all my Fuji RAF files based on the general view that it's better than Lightroom with Fuji RAW files.
UI can initially be confusing. I did a short Lynda.com course to get the most of out the program and now everything's fine.
Just to add, contrary to what a previous poster says, you can send your files to Google's Nik software (such as Silver Efex Pro), Alien Skin, Photoshop CC, etc., from within Capture One Pro.
Last edited:
darylmesa
Leading Member
My new favorite is perfectly clear ( LR or PS plug-in) / Lucid ( for stand alone)
now this is for suick and easy corrections that's almost perfect always in one click!! Like snapseed but for the desktop and much better IMO
now this is for suick and easy corrections that's almost perfect always in one click!! Like snapseed but for the desktop and much better IMO
I think C1's demosaicing for X-trans files is perfectible. It isn't quite the disaster LR is, but it's not quite as good as other programs such as Iridient. The main issue is that it's very susceptible to produce colour aberrations related to demosaicing, and that its moire reduction tool can't handle them well without destroying real colour detail (and therefore forces you to use local adjustments, which defeats the purpose of the supposedly "moire free" X-trans array, and is time-consuming).
Psychedelic masonry.
Ugh.
With C1's moire reduction tool's amount value set around 70, the minimum for the colour aberrations above to disappear. Massive flora extinction.
Without using its moire / CA reduction tool, Irident exhibits the same issue. The difference being that Irident's moire / CA reduction tool can be applied globally to great effects without causing a significant loss of colour details (with X-trans files).
I wouldn't mind better details as well. It's not quite as susceptible as LR's to smearing and ugly green foliage, but I think that it doesn't reach the detail extraction of programs like Irident.
Another issue is that some of C1's features are disabled with X-trans files, such as auto brush, or repair layers.
And, finally, at least on my feeble computer, C1's performance with X-trans files is very poor - particularly when lens distortion correction is activated. In fact it feels snappier with 50mp files from a 5DS R than Fuji's 16mp files.
Otherwise, the positive is, well, everything that C1 usually does very well, regardless of the colour filter array, such as, comparatively to other programs, excellent default profiles, great colour adjustments, and now with C1 9, great tonality adjustment tools as well. I also think that it handles X-trans files pretty well at higher ISOs. These strong points combined make it my favourite converter so far.
Last edited:
The quality is much better than Lightroom and once you get used to the UI it's quite functional.
Where it lacks is file management (can't move folders for example) and additional LR features like HDR, Panorama and publish services.
IF LR caught up on image quality, I think I would go back, but for now, C1 is my choice.
Where it lacks is file management (can't move folders for example) and additional LR features like HDR, Panorama and publish services.
IF LR caught up on image quality, I think I would go back, but for now, C1 is my choice.
I think C1 pro looks awesome when I'm working with the image, but after I'm done and I pixel peep, I have to say the it is not quite as good as OOC jpeg or SilkyPix in terms of sharpness and NR, and it definitely has no interest in even trying to simulate Fuji film profiles, so the colors are off too (though you can find a bunch of user supplied profiles available for free online that get very close). It's a pretty cool GUI though, very professional. Looks like it means serious business.
Last edited:
photofisher
Senior Member
+1
C1 default settings are great and it's probably the most full featured photoeditor within a raw converter. It's also very difficult to make an adjustment that looks bad in C1. But I feel now that I know how to really use Silkypix, I get better results from it.
--
Family Man/Amateur Photographer
cantanima bis
Leading Member
- Messages
- 920
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 431
I purchased CaptureOne Express v. 7, which was the last version of that program for any camera not named Sony. I realize there's a difference b/w Express & Pro, but if memory serves those differences don't apply to what I'll discuss (tethering was a big feature of Pro, not that Fuji users can use that).
The good. At the time, I owned an X10 (compact) and CaptureOne was pretty good at extracting dynamic range from the X10's dual-exposure feature. I later used CaptureOne on some sky photography and it did a better job at reducing noise & preserving detail than the free RawTherapee. Also, RawTherapee still doesn't demosaic the shorter exposure even ten years (or so) after Fuji first released EXR, so the only way to maximize DR with the X10 is to extract both exposures with dcraw as TIFFs, recombine them using some other method, then import into RT.
The bad. I knew it was possible to extract more highlight detail from the X10's images, but CaptureOne's highlights and shadows sliders wouldn't hear of it. Worse, CaptureOne refuses to load TIFFs. It's astounding that a free program (RawTherapee) can do something so simple that a paid program (CaptureOne) cannot.
Worse, the colors when pushing dynamic range in C1 were awful. It imparted a certain nastiness to the image; skin tones especially took on an unbearably plastic look. RawTherapee didn't have this problem; it was more work to demosaic, recombine, then load into RawTherapee, but the end result typically was worth it. (The shadow recovery sliders are a disaster in RawTherapee, or perhaps I just haven't learned to use them correctly, but I've not found them to be as important as highlight recovery.)
The ugly. A few months after I purchased CaptureOne v. 7, they released CaptureOne v. 8, which had a lot of nice tools (such as local adjustments) and claimed to improve some of the nastiness you saw with the dynamic range adjustments in v. 7. I downloaded the demo and it was indeed an improvement.
But, it still didn't read TIFFs, and since I was using the X10 at that time it meant I couldn't exploit it as much as I wanted. In addition, PhaseOne now refuse to sell CaptureOne Express to anyone except Sony customers, a business practice I find distasteful. Paying for the upgrade to CaptureOne Pro costs more than 150% what I'd paid for CaptureOne Express, and I'm basically paying for features I can't use. The value isn't there for me, so I learned to get by with RawTherapee. Roughly a year later, PhaseOne released CaptureOne v. 9, which I find odd, but what would I know.
Anyway, I've now starting using Fuji's X-Trans cameras, and again I find RawTherapee's results more to my liking than CaptureOne 7. RT seems better at highlight recovery, though sharpening & cleaning noise seems quite a bit harder (to me) but I'm willing to make that tradeoff b/c I can then import into the Gimp & sharpen.
Here's an example of what I mean, using the best I could get from RT & CO. I don't think I'll have to tell you which is which.
Incidentally, I welcome any advice on how this could have been processed better. I'm not very good at this. No question I overdid the highlight recovery in the left photo, at least on the hat, but that was in part for the sake of this discussion.
This is a comparison using two older versions of each, by the way. On another computer I have a more recent RawTherapee and if memory serves it handles X-Trans better even than this.
Since then I've looked at Iridient, and its demo looks really good. At some point I'll probably go with that.
The good. At the time, I owned an X10 (compact) and CaptureOne was pretty good at extracting dynamic range from the X10's dual-exposure feature. I later used CaptureOne on some sky photography and it did a better job at reducing noise & preserving detail than the free RawTherapee. Also, RawTherapee still doesn't demosaic the shorter exposure even ten years (or so) after Fuji first released EXR, so the only way to maximize DR with the X10 is to extract both exposures with dcraw as TIFFs, recombine them using some other method, then import into RT.
The bad. I knew it was possible to extract more highlight detail from the X10's images, but CaptureOne's highlights and shadows sliders wouldn't hear of it. Worse, CaptureOne refuses to load TIFFs. It's astounding that a free program (RawTherapee) can do something so simple that a paid program (CaptureOne) cannot.
Worse, the colors when pushing dynamic range in C1 were awful. It imparted a certain nastiness to the image; skin tones especially took on an unbearably plastic look. RawTherapee didn't have this problem; it was more work to demosaic, recombine, then load into RawTherapee, but the end result typically was worth it. (The shadow recovery sliders are a disaster in RawTherapee, or perhaps I just haven't learned to use them correctly, but I've not found them to be as important as highlight recovery.)
The ugly. A few months after I purchased CaptureOne v. 7, they released CaptureOne v. 8, which had a lot of nice tools (such as local adjustments) and claimed to improve some of the nastiness you saw with the dynamic range adjustments in v. 7. I downloaded the demo and it was indeed an improvement.
But, it still didn't read TIFFs, and since I was using the X10 at that time it meant I couldn't exploit it as much as I wanted. In addition, PhaseOne now refuse to sell CaptureOne Express to anyone except Sony customers, a business practice I find distasteful. Paying for the upgrade to CaptureOne Pro costs more than 150% what I'd paid for CaptureOne Express, and I'm basically paying for features I can't use. The value isn't there for me, so I learned to get by with RawTherapee. Roughly a year later, PhaseOne released CaptureOne v. 9, which I find odd, but what would I know.
Anyway, I've now starting using Fuji's X-Trans cameras, and again I find RawTherapee's results more to my liking than CaptureOne 7. RT seems better at highlight recovery, though sharpening & cleaning noise seems quite a bit harder (to me) but I'm willing to make that tradeoff b/c I can then import into the Gimp & sharpen.
Here's an example of what I mean, using the best I could get from RT & CO. I don't think I'll have to tell you which is which.
Incidentally, I welcome any advice on how this could have been processed better. I'm not very good at this. No question I overdid the highlight recovery in the left photo, at least on the hat, but that was in part for the sake of this discussion.
This is a comparison using two older versions of each, by the way. On another computer I have a more recent RawTherapee and if memory serves it handles X-Trans better even than this.
Since then I've looked at Iridient, and its demo looks really good. At some point I'll probably go with that.
Last edited:
Capture One 9 is superior tool for RAW conversions of Fuji xtrans files. It is very similar to the type/style of adjustments of Aperture (now not supported). If you were an Aperture user, you will find the transition easy. With each new version, there has been a steady improvement of overall versatility. IMO when compared to LR you can achieve very similar results, but CO1 is quicker and more sophisticated with the adjustments. Having gone the Aperture - LR - CO1 route, I think CO1 is excellent for my type of photography. Also I am no longer tied to any evil empire.
Interesting you should say that you can't load TIFF??I purchased CaptureOne Express v. 7, which was the last version of that program for any camera not named Sony. I realize there's a difference b/w Express & Pro, but if memory serves those differences don't apply to what I'll discuss (tethering was a big feature of Pro, not that Fuji users can use that).
The good. At the time, I owned an X10 (compact) and CaptureOne was pretty good at extracting dynamic range from the X10's dual-exposure feature. I later used CaptureOne on some sky photography and it did a better job at reducing noise & preserving detail than the free RawTherapee. Also, RawTherapee still doesn't demosaic the shorter exposure even ten years (or so) after Fuji first released EXR, so the only way to maximize DR with the X10 is to extract both exposures with dcraw as TIFFs, recombine them using some other method, then import into RT.
The bad. I knew it was possible to extract more highlight detail from the X10's images, but CaptureOne's highlights and shadows sliders wouldn't hear of it. Worse, CaptureOne refuses to load TIFFs. It's astounding that a free program (RawTherapee) can do something so simple that a paid program (CaptureOne) cannot.
Worse, the colors when pushing dynamic range in C1 were awful. It imparted a certain nastiness to the image; skin tones especially took on an unbearably plastic look. RawTherapee didn't have this problem; it was more work to demosaic, recombine, then load into RawTherapee, but the end result typically was worth it. (The shadow recovery sliders are a disaster in RawTherapee, or perhaps I just haven't learned to use them correctly, but I've not found them to be as important as highlight recovery.)
The ugly. A few months after I purchased CaptureOne v. 7, they released CaptureOne v. 8, which had a lot of nice tools (such as local adjustments) and claimed to improve some of the nastiness you saw with the dynamic range adjustments in v. 7. I downloaded the demo and it was indeed an improvement.
But, it still didn't read TIFFs, and since I was using the X10 at that time it meant I couldn't exploit it as much as I wanted. In addition, PhaseOne now refuse to sell CaptureOne Express to anyone except Sony customers, a business practice I find distasteful. Paying for the upgrade to CaptureOne Pro costs more than 150% what I'd paid for CaptureOne Express, and I'm basically paying for features I can't use. The value isn't there for me, so I learned to get by with RawTherapee. Roughly a year later, PhaseOne released CaptureOne v. 9, which I find odd, but what would I know.
Anyway, I've now starting using Fuji's X-Trans cameras, and again I find RawTherapee's results more to my liking than CaptureOne 7. RT seems better at highlight recovery, though sharpening & cleaning noise seems quite a bit harder (to me) but I'm willing to make that tradeoff b/c I can then import into the Gimp & sharpen.
Here's an example of what I mean, using the best I could get from RT & CO. I don't think I'll have to tell you which is which.
Incidentally, I welcome any advice on how this could have been processed better. I'm not very good at this. No question I overdid the highlight recovery in the left photo, at least on the hat, but that was in part for the sake of this discussion.
This is a comparison using two older versions of each, by the way. On another computer I have a more recent RawTherapee and if memory serves it handles X-Trans better even than this.
Since then I've looked at Iridient, and its demo looks really good. At some point I'll probably go with that.
I regularly attend the webinars by C1 and there was a discussion re the price. It is a small Danish company, which employs 60 software engineers - all on a high income, I believe - so there you have an explanation regarding the price.
When people decide what camera system to chose, there is a lot of hoohaa about M4/3 getting you so much more value etc. but when it comes to the software, people all of a sudden lock up and claim it is not worth it.
georgehudetz
Veteran Member
Really? I have no problem getting better detail out of C1 than I've ever seen from an OOC JPEG.
C1 has better detail than LR, but Rawtherapee and Iridient are even better.
For me, the default color and contrast in C1 are too much and sometimes off. I like the standard colors of LR better: more consistent.
I tried several RAW converters, and no one is perfect. They all have their strong features and quircks.
YMMV.
For me, the default color and contrast in C1 are too much and sometimes off. I like the standard colors of LR better: more consistent.
I tried several RAW converters, and no one is perfect. They all have their strong features and quircks.
YMMV.
Last edited:
Could you show an example of where C1 is "off"?
The C1 colour editor is one of the most powerful colour tools in the industry, have you tried the skin colour editor? You can unify a certain skin tone and fine tune the colour, set the colour scope to apply this to and then have a play with fine tuning the originally chosen colour. To make this easier, pull out the colour tool, magnify the tool - if you like - to the size of the whole screen then select the skin tone, extend the scope and then apply this. Naturally you can do this with any colour, but for skin this makes the most sense as it is often more than complicated to fix a red nose, olive collar bone and whitish sun-lit areas ...
Detail is one part of the equation, but there is of course a lot more to this.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum