G
Gillis Danielsen
Guest
Yes and pro is even more nice
...but hell yeah i'ts my one and only tool for all raw processes...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
C1 DSLR... *wow!*
- Thread starter Petteri Sulonen
- Start date
...but hell yeah i'ts my one and only tool for all raw processes...
Banana Chips™
Leading Member
i'd take the Canon FVU over that any time of the day...
screwed-up shadow details, posterization, and the dreaded "watercolor effect" that CaptureOne never got around with.
lalalalalalala..............
screwed-up shadow details, posterization, and the dreaded "watercolor effect" that CaptureOne never got around with.
lalalalalalala..............
Toivonen
Well-known member
I did upgrade to 1.3 (trial for now) and now IQ sucks!
1.2 did so smooth images with really swell sharpening, but now with 1.3 I have spots and bricks in image. I can't get rid of them.
I have tried without sharpening... bad. With sharpening... horrible!
Totally not acceptable.
I probably have to downgrade back to 1.2
What happened?
Tomi Toivonen
1.2 did so smooth images with really swell sharpening, but now with 1.3 I have spots and bricks in image. I can't get rid of them.
I have tried without sharpening... bad. With sharpening... horrible!
Totally not acceptable.
I probably have to downgrade back to 1.2
What happened?
Tomi Toivonen
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
Care to show some samples of the problems you describe?
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
Petteri Sulonen wrote:
[snip]
Thanks for the tips, everyone. I found that by switching to the Extra Shadow curve, the "red shift" went away: the conversion now matches the extracted JPEG very closely (for color, that is).
However, the preview issue remains -- the C1LE preview looks noticeably bluer than the converted or the JPEG. I have a feeling the issue is with my monitor profile -- I use the canned manufacturer-supplied one, which can't be very accurate. (Photoshop 6 uses its own tool for itself, which I used to calibrate my monitor using the Dr. Petteri's Patented Snake-Eye Oil method, i.e. using a color chart, a photo of the color chart in overcast daylight, and a print-out of the photo as references.)
[sigh]
Next purchase... a Spyder, I guess.
Thanks again, all.
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
[snip]
Thanks for the tips, everyone. I found that by switching to the Extra Shadow curve, the "red shift" went away: the conversion now matches the extracted JPEG very closely (for color, that is).
However, the preview issue remains -- the C1LE preview looks noticeably bluer than the converted or the JPEG. I have a feeling the issue is with my monitor profile -- I use the canned manufacturer-supplied one, which can't be very accurate. (Photoshop 6 uses its own tool for itself, which I used to calibrate my monitor using the Dr. Petteri's Patented Snake-Eye Oil method, i.e. using a color chart, a photo of the color chart in overcast daylight, and a print-out of the photo as references.)
[sigh]
Next purchase... a Spyder, I guess.
Thanks again, all.
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
JRG-Imaging
Leading Member
trolls dont have samples..
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
--Care to show some samples of the problems you describe?
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
Petteri Sulonen
Forum Pro
It's interesting, though, that I'd consider C1 still worth the price even if it didn't add one iota of quality over FVU. The control and convenience of the workflow alone give it a killer advantage.
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
Banana Chips™
Leading Member
i can't post...as i don't have the C1 demo installed in my PC anymore.
but see the post by Jack_DC...it's a clear example of the watercolor effect. it looks like it's "sharper" but look again.
as for the posterization and screwed-up shadow detail, try to convert some images that's been lit with incandescent (yellow) lights and or flash in Av mode (balance flash with ambient lighting) and look at the lower midtones and shadows. that's at least how i get it in the C1 conversion i've tried. see the samples in this photo.net thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006xlA
i really wanted to like C1...but i can't. you're right, in terms of workflow speed/efficiency (multi-threading) it's great, but at the end of the day, it's the quality of the output...and IMHO FVU is still better.
YMMV.
your photos suck.
but see the post by Jack_DC...it's a clear example of the watercolor effect. it looks like it's "sharper" but look again.
as for the posterization and screwed-up shadow detail, try to convert some images that's been lit with incandescent (yellow) lights and or flash in Av mode (balance flash with ambient lighting) and look at the lower midtones and shadows. that's at least how i get it in the C1 conversion i've tried. see the samples in this photo.net thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006xlA
i really wanted to like C1...but i can't. you're right, in terms of workflow speed/efficiency (multi-threading) it's great, but at the end of the day, it's the quality of the output...and IMHO FVU is still better.
YMMV.
--Care to show some samples of the problems you describe?
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
your photos suck.
I can feel what you're talking about, but I can't describe it. I do notice some difference in general, especially when shooting with tungsten or/and flash. But I can't explain it. Please take a look at my samples, you may explain the difference I can only feel. (but I do prefer Canon's software output though...)
Here (Capture One 1.2):
http://kontsevoy.com/albums/2003_thanksgiving/katya_julia_cooking.jpg
http://kontsevoy.com/albums/2003_thanksgiving/turkey.jpg
Similar lighitng (Canon File Browser):
http://kontsevoy.com/albums/2003_alpatov/we_love_cats.jpg
http://kontsevoy.com/albums/2003_alpatov/misha_cat.jpg
Canon images seem to be more... clear, aren't they?
Toivonen
Well-known member
No they're not. They are yellow.
You should do the test with a same image. I C1 in exposure tab use "Film extra shadow" -setting. You have different WB in these images.
I think this shows the basic problem with ppl who like CFVU. They don't bother to adjust WB, but just use auto or worse, as shot.
CFVU will give more saturated result by default. Not correct, but more saturated.
It's hard to say with images taken in differet ambient conditions.
Tomi Toivonen
lisafx
Veteran Member
Chief
Senior Member
Didn't see your model's attire in person, but your picture has orangy reds. Take the picture you posted into Photoshop and go to Window/Info. Then take the eyedropper and run it over your models bra area and look at the RGB numbers. You will see the green is about 15 higher than the blue average. Green and red make yellow, yellow and red make orange. The darker area of your models attire don't have this skew but the bra area certainly does. Numbers don't lie, check it yourself. The Photoshop eyedropper is much more accurate than your eye.
Chief
Senior Member
Petteri,
Before you spend lots of money on a Spyder, try Praxisoft WYSIWYG software to produce your own profile. Works great, and its free. Use it per these directions:
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1B.html#Gamma_wizi
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html has great info on calibrating your own monitor.
You might as well give it a shot, it won't cost anything but a little time.
--
MOLON LABE!
Regards,
John
Before you spend lots of money on a Spyder, try Praxisoft WYSIWYG software to produce your own profile. Works great, and its free. Use it per these directions:
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1B.html#Gamma_wizi
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html has great info on calibrating your own monitor.
You might as well give it a shot, it won't cost anything but a little time.
--
MOLON LABE!
Regards,
John
Chief
Senior Member
Now you justify incorrect colors by saying accurate is boring. Accurate is accurate, and as difficult as color management is in the world of digital photography, folks shouldn't pay to induce more inaccuracies in thier photos. Let's call Magne's profile what it is, his interpretation of how to make 10D portrait shots look pleasing. At this, it works. I use it for portraits as it does make nice skin tones. But I do not use it for landscape or product photos. But if you are buying it for accurate colors, you are making a mistake.
Then you suggest I may have a white balance problem. Wrong again. I use an Expodisc and it is calibrated much better than your eyes will ever see.
--
MOLON LABE!
Regards,
John
JRG-Imaging
Leading Member
semi transparent lingerie cant be true red because the skin color comes through.
here's my sample and my readings FVU vs. C1. a 100% crop unretouched face. a 100% unsharp mask was done to each file in photoshop to show you just how much detail you LOSE using FVU or anything else..why do you lose it? because BB and FVU do a gaussian blur upon file output.
left is FVU, right is C1
my readings: fvu - 162-45-40 c1 - 186-53-43
shot with a CUSTOM WHITE BALANCE as all good shots should be.
so unless you shoot everything red, or only shoot reds, or your entire life is red, is the loss of detail vs. c1 worth having a slightly more accurate red?
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
here's my sample and my readings FVU vs. C1. a 100% crop unretouched face. a 100% unsharp mask was done to each file in photoshop to show you just how much detail you LOSE using FVU or anything else..why do you lose it? because BB and FVU do a gaussian blur upon file output.
left is FVU, right is C1
my readings: fvu - 162-45-40 c1 - 186-53-43
shot with a CUSTOM WHITE BALANCE as all good shots should be.
so unless you shoot everything red, or only shoot reds, or your entire life is red, is the loss of detail vs. c1 worth having a slightly more accurate red?
--
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
JRG-Imaging
Leading Member
i do use an expodisc.
still you havent pointed out any film that has accurate color. nor will you be able to.
even with an expodisc the picture will still be biased by the cameras underlying design to treat specific colors. this is why when i shoot my S2, my d100 and my 10d and my d60 i get 4 different results in a controlled environment all using the same expodisc.
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
still you havent pointed out any film that has accurate color. nor will you be able to.
even with an expodisc the picture will still be biased by the cameras underlying design to treat specific colors. this is why when i shoot my S2, my d100 and my 10d and my d60 i get 4 different results in a controlled environment all using the same expodisc.
--
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
No, they're not yellow if by that you mean WB. That is how scene looked like: I kept the warm Christmas+Fireplace atmosphere in both galleries.
It does not matter. I have different WB on every image there, since I've adjusted colors in PS as well. Actually your advice makes things even worse since extra shadow option would make C1 images even more... muddy (?).
That does not apply here. The fact that I didn't go for "averaged netural appearance" of WB did not mean I didn't tweak it. When things are yellow, I keep them yellow. That has nothing to do with somewhat "washed" look of C1 shots.
I do not agree again. It's not about saturation. Both galleries are full of color, in fact I tried to increase saturation -> didn't help. So you're in my skin now: you see the difference, but can't explain it. ;-)
JRG-Imaging
Leading Member
my samples.
the left is fvu 100% unsharp mask in photoshop.
the right is C1 100% unsharp mask in photoshop
she is not YELLOW. shot with a 550ex and custom white balance using a combination of an expodisc and a white card.
the shot on the right is 100% accurate to her skin tone..although soft due to user error.
there is far more detail evident in any c1 conversion than either an fvu of BB conversion.
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
the left is fvu 100% unsharp mask in photoshop.
the right is C1 100% unsharp mask in photoshop
she is not YELLOW. shot with a 550ex and custom white balance using a combination of an expodisc and a white card.
the shot on the right is 100% accurate to her skin tone..although soft due to user error.
there is far more detail evident in any c1 conversion than either an fvu of BB conversion.
--but see the post by Jack_DC...it's a clear example of the
watercolor effect. it looks like it's "sharper" but look again.
as for the posterization and screwed-up shadow detail, try to
convert some images that's been lit with incandescent (yellow)
lights and or flash in Av mode (balance flash with ambient
lighting) and look at the lower midtones and shadows. that's at
least how i get it in the C1 conversion i've tried. see the
samples in this photo.net thread:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006xlA
i really wanted to like C1...but i can't. you're right, in terms
of workflow speed/efficiency (multi-threading) it's great, but at
the end of the day, it's the quality of the output...and IMHO FVU
is still better.
YMMV.
--Care to show some samples of the problems you describe?
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
your photos suck.
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
JRG-Imaging
Leading Member
left is C1, right is FVU
shot with a 135 f/2. left is my usual settings in C1 with sharpness set to 100%. right is fvu set to highest sharpening, then 100% sharpening in photoshop in lab/lightness.
there is simply more detail and more crispness to a c1 conversion. as well as better tonality and better controls in a LINEAR SPACE
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
shot with a 135 f/2. left is my usual settings in C1 with sharpness set to 100%. right is fvu set to highest sharpening, then 100% sharpening in photoshop in lab/lightness.
there is simply more detail and more crispness to a c1 conversion. as well as better tonality and better controls in a LINEAR SPACE
--the left is fvu 100% unsharp mask in photoshop.
the right is C1 100% unsharp mask in photoshop
she is not YELLOW. shot with a 550ex and custom white balance using
a combination of an expodisc and a white card.
the shot on the right is 100% accurate to her skin tone..although
soft due to user error.
there is far more detail evident in any c1 conversion than either
an fvu of BB conversion.
--but see the post by Jack_DC...it's a clear example of the
watercolor effect. it looks like it's "sharper" but look again.
as for the posterization and screwed-up shadow detail, try to
convert some images that's been lit with incandescent (yellow)
lights and or flash in Av mode (balance flash with ambient
lighting) and look at the lower midtones and shadows. that's at
least how i get it in the C1 conversion i've tried. see the
samples in this photo.net thread:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006xlA
i really wanted to like C1...but i can't. you're right, in terms
of workflow speed/efficiency (multi-threading) it's great, but at
the end of the day, it's the quality of the output...and IMHO FVU
is still better.
YMMV.
--Care to show some samples of the problems you describe?
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
your photos suck.
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian
Peterson
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
JRG-Imaging
Leading Member
here ya go. you use fvu for your landscapes? well here's a wakeup call.
unprocessed straight from the raw. nothing was done besides resizing, converting to srgb and saving for web.
FVU -
C1 -
the c1 is 'accurate', the fvu is 'red'. you like both yes? heh.
shot was taken with a 10d, custom white balance set with an expodisc and a grey card.
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
unprocessed straight from the raw. nothing was done besides resizing, converting to srgb and saving for web.
FVU -
C1 -
the c1 is 'accurate', the fvu is 'red'. you like both yes? heh.
shot was taken with a 10d, custom white balance set with an expodisc and a grey card.
--
http://jrg-imaging.com
'Film is cheap compared to the trauma of a missed shot.' - Brian Peterson
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum