On my laptop LR/PS handles the GFX 100S files(16 bit) with no sweat. C1 21 on the other hand is maxing out the CPU and lagging badly while editing the 100S files.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Final word on Lightroom vs Capture One for GFX 100s?
- Thread starter darinb
- Start date
Henrik Helmers
Forum Enthusiast
This is a liability, and a reason to investigate other options. Adobe was close to sunsetting Lightroom Classic a few years ago. It remains on life support, presumably until the cloud version is deemed good enough.
Last edited:
Rob de Loe
Veteran Member
All software will end. I can't read my Lotus WordPro documents anymore, but it was the best word processor available to me (in my view) at the time. I couldn't stand Word Perfect (and it didn't survive either). I use whatever tool I think is best for me at the moment.
If Adobe goes belly-up today, you will still have full access to all the images in your Lightroom catalogue. You just won't be able to edit them. This is what happens if you stop paying for the subscription.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Henrik, I don't understand what you are talking about. What does where the files are stored have to do with what we are talking about?
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
Greg Johnson’s albums | Flickr
www.flickr.com
Canadianguy
Veteran Member
I would agree and add that the choice isn't really between LR vs Capture One - its really between LR + Photoshop or Capture One as your LR subscription comes with Photoshop included.
I guess if you don't use Photoshop - it wouldn't matter but once you use Photoshop - it doesn't make sense to use Capture One for raw conversion than output to Photoshop to finish and have LR included as part of your Photoshop subscription. Unless you have an old copy of PS6 flowing around but they have added a lot of improvements to PS since the PS6 days.
Tethering would be the only reason I see for me to use Capture One. I believe it was designed for that kind of workflow from their medium format roots.
Henrik Helmers
Forum Enthusiast
I am trying to argue against choosing Lightroom Classic as your DAM, since it has an uncertain future. If Lightroom CC meets your needs then it doesn't matter, it should be an easy migration at any time.
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Henrik Helmers
Forum Enthusiast
I don't have any proof to offer either (presuming you are talking about the uncertain future, not ease of migration). If I had proof the future would be certain! ;-)
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Hi,
My guess is that Adobe will deliver the products customers are willing to be paying for.
So, if a huge majority of customers want their images on the cloud, Adobe may lay down CC classic. But, if customers prefer the local storage centric aspect of Lightroom Classic, Adobe will pay support those customers.
Just to say, no product is guaranteed to be around for a few hundred years. But, Adobe has a pretty steady foot in the graphics business and I think they try to keep their positions.
Best regards
Erik
Can anybody comment on the current (June 2023) effectiveness / output of RAW workflow in Lightroom Classic vs Capture One?
I asked Fujifilm about tethered support for the GFX100S with Lightroom and received a reply that confirmed they haven't updated their Adobe plugin since Lightroom 9 and don't intend to because CaptureOne is (quote) "...better engineered to get the best out of the camera's sensor." Is that true or just a convenient answer?
I happen to use Adobe for my digital workflow with a few different types of camera RAW files and it works for me. I'm not an Adobe evangelist by any means but I've never questioned its effectiveness at processing the RAW files from the GFX. However, I've not compared them to anything else. CaptureOne is undoubtedly very good and if I was starting from scratch I might well choose it - but I happened to choose the Adobe solution about seventeen years ago and broadly, it has developed and evolved to keep meeting my requirements since.
It really irks me that if I want to use my GFX100S for 'proper' tethered shooting (ie not just auto import with a monitored folder), I have to subscribe to another software solution at €18 a month (or shell out €349 for a perpetual licence of their current version..) because Fujifilm has decided to only develop this function with CaptureOne...
I asked Fujifilm about tethered support for the GFX100S with Lightroom and received a reply that confirmed they haven't updated their Adobe plugin since Lightroom 9 and don't intend to because CaptureOne is (quote) "...better engineered to get the best out of the camera's sensor." Is that true or just a convenient answer?
I happen to use Adobe for my digital workflow with a few different types of camera RAW files and it works for me. I'm not an Adobe evangelist by any means but I've never questioned its effectiveness at processing the RAW files from the GFX. However, I've not compared them to anything else. CaptureOne is undoubtedly very good and if I was starting from scratch I might well choose it - but I happened to choose the Adobe solution about seventeen years ago and broadly, it has developed and evolved to keep meeting my requirements since.
It really irks me that if I want to use my GFX100S for 'proper' tethered shooting (ie not just auto import with a monitored folder), I have to subscribe to another software solution at €18 a month (or shell out €349 for a perpetual licence of their current version..) because Fujifilm has decided to only develop this function with CaptureOne...
M
MattPointZero
Guest
This should be pinned for the many times the question will be answered, as it is the best and simplest summary.
So many will proselytise over each, and historically there were bigger differences - but these days it really is about a wash, once you have learned the system.
I actually use both at the moment because I use (and love) the Capture One Live service, but once I have client choices I export the original files into Lightroom for the editing. When the new major C1 version comes out and mine is not up to date, I think they prevent me using the Live service add on, so I guess then I will need to find a third party for proofing galleries, and C1will no longer be part of my workflow.
No one anywhere will be able to tell.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Jim and Matt,
I used to post and opine a lot about the superiority of LR over C1. But then someone asked me if I have ever used C1.
I used to post and opine a lot about the superiority of LR over C1. But then someone asked me if I have ever used C1.
M
MattPointZero
Guest
I don't think you are alone in such things, my friend! :-DJim and Matt,
I used to post and opine a lot about the superiority of LR over C1. But then someone asked me if I have ever used C1.
paulraphael
Senior Member
Lightroom had me locked in for this reason, even back when I suspected C1 might have some image quality advantages. I doubt those advantages still exist. But this situation has me a little nervous.
I think we all need to pay attention to archiving, and have some kind of long-term disaster plan for if Adobe ever goes under, or abandons LR, or does something crazy.
History shows it's a dangerous gamble to be fully invested in the proprietary format of a corporation.
I'm not saying i have a plan here. But if anyone does, please share.
Rob de Loe
Veteran Member
According to the Lightroom Queen (an impeccable source on these matters!), if you cancel your subscription, you can continue to use Lightroom Classic -- just not the Develop module, Map module and mobile sync. That means you could export your edited images to TIFF or DNG, for example.
What happens to my photos if I cancel my Adobe subscription? | The Lightroom Queen
Now, if your subscription or trial version expires, you can continue to use Lightroom with the exception of the Develop module, Map module and mobile sync.
www.lightroomqueen.com
The same would be true, I presume, if Adobe disappears. I do not own a crystal ball, but my sense is that if Adobe disappears overnight, that won't be top 10 on the list of bad things that happened. And if it fails gradually, given how deeply embedded it is in so many peoples' work lives, I suspect we'll have plenty of advanced notice.
I know that some people export finished images to TIFF just to be safe. I honestly can't be bothered. It's not that I'm happy go lucky. My backup system has multiple layers of redundancy; it just doesn't include making TIFFs.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
I agree Rob. I back up my raw files and their sidecar files with the edits. If Abobe fails then I have the raw and the edit instructions, plus the catalogue. No way I convert hundreds of thousands of raw to TIFF because I'm worried about Adobe failing.
Thomas Guenther
Senior Member
That's a great idea.
But: What do you do if a "successor" of LR can't understand your metadata?
Cause a lot is e.g Adobe only assigned?
And: Instructions from any SW can't be assumed to be applied with other pieces of SW, even if they are named or indicated "the same"?
I Use C1 from version 3.7 for all of my different raw formats of camera systems I owned over the decades. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Leica DNG.
Having an annual catalogue the "physical use" = raw data of pictures is not a problems and pictures from 2004, or even earlier are processed w/o a problem.
BUT: Adjustments I have done, let's say 10 years ago, using C1 and are present within the catalogue, aren't really usable today because at least 3 times the graphics engine was exchanged and other changes/improvements made improvements done a decade ago obsolete because those that have had to been manually at this time are now "embedded" to automatics residing within the engine. Adjustments done at that age are often inferior or not usable anymore to just the simple raw rendition nowadays.
For being save the best in C1 is still to have an organized bunch of catalogues, e. g. annually (regarding size and load). If then C1 will cross the River Jordan, at least the metadata are present to that catalogue, stored in an easy to read, manipulate, transform, etc. database file that can be opened at no cost using proofed open source software at no personal cost.
--
some lenses - some bodies
Last edited:
TransientEye
Well-known member
I have been testing LR (Classic) with a view to switching back from Capture One. I started out using LR from the original V1, but jumped to Capture One eight years ago.
I am now at the point of switching back, driven largely by the combination of Capture One's huge price hikes coupled with bugs (macOS memory leaks!) and annual 'feature updates' that are pretty much irrelevant unless you are a wedding photographer and which are failing to keep the raw processing engine competitive.
Comparing GFX files, I can not see any meaningful image quality difference. RAW colour profiles are obviously different, but if you use any of the Fujifilm profiles the colours are identical between the two applications.
In both cases, the raw processing speed is about the same (Apple M1 Max 32GB), but the Adobe catalogue feels a zillion times faster once you have more than a few thousand images.
Frequently, I feel that Capture One allows has slightly more 'refined' editing tools, with more control over curves (Luma) and colour than LR. However, I struggled to find anything that I absolutely could not live without. LR now has much better masking tools and better NR. Overall, it is hard to pick one as better than the other.
The one thing that CO has that is glaringly missing from LR is a highly configurable UI and workspace, where you can rebind keyboard mappings and the editing panel layout. Capture One is IMO also by far the best software if you want to see/edit multiple images open side by side.
I am still not completely sure if I will jump or not - it is such a pain to change UIs. But for sure Adobe is now much better value, with a subscription with both LR and PS costing 30% less than Capture One desktop alone.
I am now at the point of switching back, driven largely by the combination of Capture One's huge price hikes coupled with bugs (macOS memory leaks!) and annual 'feature updates' that are pretty much irrelevant unless you are a wedding photographer and which are failing to keep the raw processing engine competitive.
Comparing GFX files, I can not see any meaningful image quality difference. RAW colour profiles are obviously different, but if you use any of the Fujifilm profiles the colours are identical between the two applications.
In both cases, the raw processing speed is about the same (Apple M1 Max 32GB), but the Adobe catalogue feels a zillion times faster once you have more than a few thousand images.
Frequently, I feel that Capture One allows has slightly more 'refined' editing tools, with more control over curves (Luma) and colour than LR. However, I struggled to find anything that I absolutely could not live without. LR now has much better masking tools and better NR. Overall, it is hard to pick one as better than the other.
The one thing that CO has that is glaringly missing from LR is a highly configurable UI and workspace, where you can rebind keyboard mappings and the editing panel layout. Capture One is IMO also by far the best software if you want to see/edit multiple images open side by side.
I am still not completely sure if I will jump or not - it is such a pain to change UIs. But for sure Adobe is now much better value, with a subscription with both LR and PS costing 30% less than Capture One desktop alone.
Rob de Loe
Veteran Member
Can you edit two images simultaneous side-by-side in Capture One? In Lightroom I can edit one image will having another image for reference beside it, but I can't edit them both at the same time. I use this feature often when I'm comparing two editing options for the same file.
I rely on Lightroom's "Compare" functionality, but I would like to have the option to put up multiple files and compare them all at once (as one can do in Photoshop).
I would love to see native keyboard mapping functionality in Lightroom. However, AutoHotKey works so well that the absence of native keyboard mapping tools is not an issue for me now.
Switching from Lightroom to anything else would be a tremendous pain for me. To make this worthwhile, Adobe would have to destroy Lightroom somehow. I can't imagine what else would make it worth the time and effort it would take for me make a switch.
Thankfully the improvements that keep coming to Lightroom Classic make sticking with it easy.
TransientEye
Well-known member
Yes, although as always it is not completely obvious how to make it work.
Capture One has the ability to select multiple images, with one as a kind of 'primary'. By default the edits will affect only the primary, but there is an 'Edit Selected' option which in theory allows the edits to affect all the selected images. In practice this does not always work as you might expect, but each editor panel (Exposure, White Balance, etc) has a set of icons and shift-clicking one of these copies the settings from the primary to all other selected images.
What I find particularly useful is that I am not restricted to only two images. Imagine if you have (say) 5 images which were bracketed for focus. You can select and edit all five images side-by-side, and zoom-and-pan synchronously to pick the best image. I find it really useful sometimes when culling images. It can also be useful when trying to match style over several photographs together, where you can synchronise (eg) colour but keep individual (eg) exposure.
I think that for any software that you use there will be some features like this that you use a lot and which become ingrained in an implicit workflow. An example of such a feature in LR that has no COP alternative is the simple 'pick'/'reject' flag (in COP I have a workaround that uses colour tags and smart albums to achieve the same, but then you can not use colour tags for anything else).
Yes. To give an example, I perhaps foolishly mapped CMD-Enter on Capture One to show/hide the equivalent of grid-view on Lightroom. Unfortunately, when I now try to use Lightroom I keep catching myself accidentally launching the slide-show module :-(
I wish that I could say the same for Capture One, but since they have been controlled by venture capital their marketing and strategy has been a disaster, wasting resources on half-baked mobile apps and new features that are only of interest to a tiny fraction of users or which have only a minimal implementation that seems more designed for press headlines rather than actual users. IMO, an overstretched and poorly directed engineering combined with huge price hikes which arrived without any corresponding new features is not a good sign for the future.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum