Reading mode: Light Dark

Capture One 5 vs Lightroom 2/3

Go to last post
D

deednets

Forum Pro
Messages
15,736
Solutions
1
Reaction score
13,592
Location
NZ
I am using Capture One version 5 (the trial lety you chose at startup whether you want the Standard or the Pro version). I noticed that the controls regarding "recovery" (in LR) and High Dynamic Range (in Capture One) work very differently: Capture One seems to "pull" more from shadows and highlights than LR, without the nasty dark shado artifacts. have played with a number of shots, then decided that the controls in LR are quite coarse versus the seemingly more defined controls on Capture. Am I imagining things or is there an entirely different algorithm at work in Capture One?

And: Yes, I have used Capture NX as well, but find the software mildly on the bizzarre end. The control points seem to be a nice idea, but curves in Capture One or he selective brush tools in LR are superior I find.
Any thoughts?
Cheers
Deed
 
I know, but still find the programme awkward to use. My question was regarding the Capture One vs Lightroom.

Thanks for your comment!
Cheers
Deed
Rickard Hansson said:
The control points can be used together with the brush (+ or -) in Capture NX as well for selective effects.

--
Rickard Hansson
Sweden
Click to expand...
 
not sure if I would bet against Adobe :)

They are improving Lightroom with "every" new release.

Do you honestly think there will be "any" important feature that Adobe will not eventually have in LR?

or that they will continue to agressivly update LR? or support there user Forum.

I am impressed so far with there progress with LR ... they are on the move with this program. and there support of Nikon D700/D3 seems pretty good imho

Any important weakness expressed by Users ... seem to be agressivly addressed.

NR, Tether and Lens distortion comes to mind on v3

and Brushes are only going to get better and better on faster and faster systems.
As will Plug-ins. (or should I say Moduals) :)

HG
deednets said:
I am using Capture One version 5 (the trial lety you chose at startup whether you want the Standard or the Pro version). I noticed that the controls regarding "recovery" (in LR) and High Dynamic Range (in Capture One) work very differently: Capture One seems to "pull" more from shadows and highlights than LR, without the nasty dark shado artifacts. have played with a number of shots, then decided that the controls in LR are quite coarse versus the seemingly more defined controls on Capture. Am I imagining things or is there an entirely different algorithm at work in Capture One?

And: Yes, I have used Capture NX as well, but find the software mildly on the bizzarre end. The control points seem to be a nice idea, but curves in Capture One or he selective brush tools in LR are superior I find.
Any thoughts?
Cheers
Deed
Click to expand...
--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots' :)
 
Have used LR 3 Beta version 2 and found lens corrections nowhere near the lens correction tool of PS5. Noise reduction on Capture One 5 is indeed at this stage much, much better than LR, even the Beta 3 and sharpening is better too!

Thanks!
Hawaii-geek said:
They are improving Lightroom with "every" new release.

Do you honestly think there will be "any" important feature that Adobe will not eventually have in LR?

or that they will continue to agressivly update LR? or support there user Forum.

I am impressed so far with there progress with LR ... they are on the move with this program. and there support of Nikon D700/D3 seems pretty good imho

Any important weakness expressed by Users ... seem to be agressivly addressed.

NR, Tether and Lens distortion comes to mind on v3

and Brushes are only going to get better and better on faster and faster systems.
As will Plug-ins. (or should I say Moduals) :)

HG
deednets said:
I am using Capture One version 5 (the trial lety you chose at startup whether you want the Standard or the Pro version). I noticed that the controls regarding "recovery" (in LR) and High Dynamic Range (in Capture One) work very differently: Capture One seems to "pull" more from shadows and highlights than LR, without the nasty dark shado artifacts. have played with a number of shots, then decided that the controls in LR are quite coarse versus the seemingly more defined controls on Capture. Am I imagining things or is there an entirely different algorithm at work in Capture One?

And: Yes, I have used Capture NX as well, but find the software mildly on the bizzarre end. The control points seem to be a nice idea, but curves in Capture One or he selective brush tools in LR are superior I find.
Any thoughts?
Cheers
Deed
Click to expand...
--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots' :)
Click to expand...
 
Deed,

the main advantage og LR over C1 is the ability to work also as photo browser - organiser, as you can fully visualise processing effects without having to "convert" the raw file into a jpeg or tiff (and that is a big plus particularly with Mac OS, which lacks efficient browsers), while C1 is a standard "raw converter".

Actually, LR is where C1 would had standed today if Phase One were able to keep staff together (LR is the commercial evolution of Rawshooters, a raw converter developed by Phase One "fugitives" which eventually sold their company to Adobe and now represent the core developing team of LR).

I use LR and C1 on Leica M9 dng files, and I have to say that respective strengths and weaknesses just balance out. As you point out, C1 has better shadows / hiughlights recovery latitude, true levels and improved sharpness and noise reduction algorithms; LR has masking (even if badly implemented in LR2), easier and nicer individual color channels controls and the browsing / comparing / management features (which C1 plainly lacks).

Overall, I can say that peeping over conversions did not allow me to pick a clear winner: both LR and C1 are basically in the same ballpark and show the same weaknesses on greens (not a surprise, given the shared "roots" of programmers"). LR seems to have a better control over highlights, though.

On Nikon Nef's, NX2 just runs circles around LR, C1 and all other raw converters I tried. But I admit it is too slow and clunky. I suspect that NX3 will be released alongside LR3 and hope will bring at least code and interface improvements.

At the end of the day, my ranking is still the same: NX2 for critical conversions and large prints, LR for standard browsing and converting - at least for Nikon nef's.

C1 as a converter is as good if not better than LE, but lacks flexibility (you have to convert to make proper comparisons) and does not work acceptably as a browser.

But that's just my preference, yours might differ.

Best regards,

M
deednets said:
I am using Capture One version 5 (the trial lety you chose at startup whether you want the Standard or the Pro version). I noticed that the controls regarding "recovery" (in LR) and High Dynamic Range (in Capture One) work very differently: Capture One seems to "pull" more from shadows and highlights than LR, without the nasty dark shado artifacts. have played with a number of shots, then decided that the controls in LR are quite coarse versus the seemingly more defined controls on Capture. Am I imagining things or is there an entirely different algorithm at work in Capture One?

And: Yes, I have used Capture NX as well, but find the software mildly on the bizzarre end. The control points seem to be a nice idea, but curves in Capture One or he selective brush tools in LR are superior I find.
Any thoughts?
Cheers
Deed
Click to expand...
--
Mauro

http://www.maurobenphoto.com
 
How does Capture One now compare to LR with regards a quick workflow.

The thing I like the most about LR3 is the continous filmstrip along the bottom of the screen and the ability to do "on the fly" adjustments very quickily.

Although, even on a fast(ish) rig it is still slow to review images where bridge is very speedy.

I always found CaptureOne to be much less streamlined in comparison when I have used it in the past.

Anyone know of a good CaptureOne workflow tutorial or is prepared to share?
 
fyi: LRv3 will have PS5 Lens correction.

many PROs are slowly making the move to LR

and I personally like it. for me the workflow is fast.

I don't need it be the best at everthing ... I just need it to have the plug-in support of the best. and I think that's going to happen.

HG
deednets said:
Have used LR 3 Beta version 2 and found lens corrections nowhere near the lens correction tool of PS5. Noise reduction on Capture One 5 is indeed at this stage much, much better than LR, even the Beta 3 and sharpening is better too!

Thanks!
Hawaii-geek said:
They are improving Lightroom with "every" new release.

Do you honestly think there will be "any" important feature that Adobe will not eventually have in LR?

or that they will continue to agressivly update LR? or support there user Forum.

I am impressed so far with there progress with LR ... they are on the move with this program. and there support of Nikon D700/D3 seems pretty good imho

Any important weakness expressed by Users ... seem to be agressivly addressed.

NR, Tether and Lens distortion comes to mind on v3

and Brushes are only going to get better and better on faster and faster systems.
As will Plug-ins. (or should I say Moduals) :)

HG
deednets said:
I am using Capture One version 5 (the trial lety you chose at startup whether you want the Standard or the Pro version). I noticed that the controls regarding "recovery" (in LR) and High Dynamic Range (in Capture One) work very differently: Capture One seems to "pull" more from shadows and highlights than LR, without the nasty dark shado artifacts. have played with a number of shots, then decided that the controls in LR are quite coarse versus the seemingly more defined controls on Capture. Am I imagining things or is there an entirely different algorithm at work in Capture One?

And: Yes, I have used Capture NX as well, but find the software mildly on the bizzarre end. The control points seem to be a nice idea, but curves in Capture One or he selective brush tools in LR are superior I find.
Any thoughts?
Cheers
Deed
Click to expand...
--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots' :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots' :)
 
I have tried a half dozen different RAW converters.
I own Nikon NX2, Aperture 3, Lightroom 2 and beta 3, Photoshop CS5.

I have tried most of the free downloads, including Capture 1, Bibble, Irident RAW
Developer, and DxO.

They all work well.
None is head and shoulders above the others.
Each has its enthusiasts.
People who find one better have probably learned to
use that one better.
Famous Pros use a variety of different products.
(John Shaw uses Lightroom, for example).

Capture NX gives a good looking image right out
of the starting blocks, because of more saturation,
contrast and sharpness. Its not for the others
to catch up with a little tweaking.

Non-Destructive editing is essential to me, as is
image cataloging. That's why I like Lightroom or Aperture.

I have 500,000 digital images in my collection.
TIFFs from D3X RAW files are huge.
These days the last thing I want to do is make
TIFFs of these processed images; too much storage!

My recommendation is go with Lightroom or Aperture.

maljo
 
I have both LR3 beta and C1 pro version 5. C1 seems to have better raw processing but it has bugs. What I mean is that I save my images on an external hard drice which C1 doesnt appreciate. In fact, after about 12k images, it starts to crash. However, LR 3 beta is rock solid. Food for thought.
--

http://catatac.zenfolio.com
 
I am using LR3 beta and it has lens correction but only a very coarse tool, not as sophisticated as PS5 with lens profiles being auto detected e.g. ZEISS 21MM with its quircky mid range "wobble" being automatically corrected in PS5, in LR, from what I can see there is only a lens correction tool letting you pincushion in or out ...
Hawaii-geek said:
fyi: LRv3 will have PS5 Lens correction.

many PROs are slowly making the move to LR

and I personally like it. for me the workflow is fast.

I don't need it be the best at everthing ... I just need it to have the plug-in support of the best. and I think that's going to happen.

HG
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for your extensive answer, much appreciated! I remember too the olden days of Rawshooter, which I thought at the time wasn't as elegant in converting images as Capture One, then 3.7 was ...

Will see whether I can find a posting website to publish a couple of shots, so you can see what I mean regarding sharpenss and noise control.

BTW: Capture One 5 has a reasonably decent phot browser eitehr at the bottom, like in LR or over the screen in gridview.

Regards
Deed
Mauro.B said:
Deed,

the main advantage og LR over C1 is the ability to work also as photo browser - organiser, as you can fully visualise processing effects without having to "convert" the raw file into a jpeg or tiff (and that is a big plus particularly with Mac OS, which lacks efficient browsers), while C1 is a standard "raw converter".

Actually, LR is where C1 would had standed today if Phase One were able to keep staff together (LR is the commercial evolution of Rawshooters, a raw converter developed by Phase One "fugitives" which eventually sold their company to Adobe and now represent the core developing team of LR).

I use LR and C1 on Leica M9 dng files, and I have to say that respective strengths and weaknesses just balance out. As you point out, C1 has better shadows / hiughlights recovery latitude, true levels and improved sharpness and noise reduction algorithms; LR has masking (even if badly implemented in LR2), easier and nicer individual color channels controls and the browsing / comparing / management features (which C1 plainly lacks).

Overall, I can say that peeping over conversions did not allow me to pick a clear winner: both LR and C1 are basically in the same ballpark and show the same weaknesses on greens (not a surprise, given the shared "roots" of programmers"). LR seems to have a better control over highlights, though.

On Nikon Nef's, NX2 just runs circles around LR, C1 and all other raw converters I tried. But I admit it is too slow and clunky. I suspect that NX3 will be released alongside LR3 and hope will bring at least code and interface improvements.

At the end of the day, my ranking is still the same: NX2 for critical conversions and large prints, LR for standard browsing and converting - at least for Nikon nef's.

C1 as a converter is as good if not better than LE, but lacks flexibility (you have to convert to make proper comparisons) and does not work acceptably as a browser.

But that's just my preference, yours might differ.

Best regards,

M
Click to expand...
 
Hello Maljo,
[email protected] said:
Capture NX gives a good looking image right out
of the starting blocks, because of more saturation,
contrast and sharpness. Its not for the others
to catch up with a little tweaking.
Click to expand...
Upoint in my opinion represents 60% of NX advantage over competition, superior details rendering the balance 40% (I did not try LR3, though). Effortless and more efficient masking through control points is really a major plus, from which I personally see no way back.
[email protected] said:
Non-Destructive editing is essential to me, as is
image cataloging. That's why I like Lightroom or Aperture.

I have 500,000 digital images in my collection.
TIFFs from D3X RAW files are huge.
These days the last thing I want to do is make
TIFFs of these processed images; too much storage!
Click to expand...
I fully agree with you on the above, and hope "virtual conversions" will sooner or later become the industry standard. On the other hand, I had to distribute my images collection over a dozen "Lightroom Catalogs", the main one size exceeding 25 gb: that's the hidden LR cost.

Best regards,

M

--
Mauro

http://www.maurobenphoto.com
 
I did some testing too (C1, LR, DxO, RawTherapee, Silkypix, Canon DPP) and found that ideal converter doesn't exist. Difficult to make a conclusion, every on of them has its strengths and weaknesses, but I would put LR, C1 and DxO on the top.
--
http://www.martinkozak.com
 
Im using C1 and Im please with the v5. The performance, stability and bugs are solved in this version (but not much feature improvments like LR3).
Im fedup with these version updates and improvments of differant products.
I want to have one solution and use only that.

I was thinking that C1 v5 was my solution but now with the LR3 coming, I start to doubt that.

Mainly LR2 was not my choice because the lack of theeterd shooting function and I think C1 is a better converter(sharper & better DR results).
But LR it is a good tool for archiving too.

C1 is not for archiving. Its only a raw converter. I use C1 to shoot in it or import from cards. I process the raws and switch to PS for further editing and use Bridge for archiving of processed tiffs. So I really dont have a solution for archiving the raws which are not converted.
LR can be the solution.

But still I love C1 conversions. I think its the best choice as only a raw converter.
Hard decision to make.

Now I have to sit and wait for C1 v6 and hope that phaseone starts to think about their software as both an archiving tool and a converter.
(and then LR4 will come. Omg. I think Im going crazy thinking these...)
 
It's highly unlikely you catalog reached the quoted size. I'll bet what you are seeing is the size of the previews file ( .lrdata).
 
Really happy with Capture One Pro v.5. Used to believe that Nx2 gave the best conversions for nefs. After getting to know C1 Pro better, I can get better conversions from it as compared to NX2 almost always. Tried the previous version of Lightroom. That definitely does not match-up to quality of C1 conversions. That was the old version though. Have not bothered trying the new version.
--
joeyv
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top