Reading mode: Light Dark

C1 DSLR... *wow!*

Go to last post
I've been shooting RAW for a long time but recently switched to C1 and the difference is amazing. I love being able to preview changes in real time. Another HUGE benefit is being able to do most exposure adjustments prior to "development", which means most of the time I don't need to bother dealing with 16-bit files.

At first I hated the UI but I soon got used to it. I still prefer BreezeBrowser for sorting through folders and files quickly but for actual RAW development C1 is the cat's meow.

c
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
Well, I finally bit the bullet and bought CaptureOne DSLR LE. After
a bit of playing with it, all I can say is WOW! The control it
gives, the easy with which it gives it, and the quality of the
result is really sump'n else.

Almost makes me regret not shooting RAW until late last year. The
guys who made it really knew what they were doing -- both from a
usability/user interface design POV, and an engineering POV.
Click to expand...
I won a copy of C1 in a contest last year. :-) It is good stuff indeed. To be honest, with Photoshop CS I'm using Adobe Camera RAW most of the time. But C1 does a better job of handling tonal gradation in bright areas, whereas ACR can posterize such tones if you're not careful. And C1's batch processing is more straightforward than ACR's. I'm glad I have both!

-Dave-
 
If you are just starting to use Capture One with the 10D there is a now-buried posting on the PictureFlow site (maintained by Michael Tapes, who interfaces we poor users with the Phase One folks) that addresses the problematic 10D profile used by C1.

He has "fixed" the generic 10D profile which has a distinct blue channel bias.

The ability of C1 to produce beautiful neutral tones is well known. The mess that the generic profile makes of these tones is not so well known.

Here's the link to a zipped "correction" file. Just use this one instead of the generic.
http://www.pictureflow.com/CaptureOne/Dist/Profiles/EOS10DGeneric1.1b1.zip

Although you really owe it to yourself to get a custom profile like the one offered by Magne Nilsen. You won't be sorry.
Petteri Sulonen said:
Well, I finally bit the bullet and bought CaptureOne DSLR LE. After
a bit of playing with it, all I can say is WOW! The control it
gives, the easy with which it gives it, and the quality of the
result is really sump'n else.

Almost makes me regret not shooting RAW until late last year. The
guys who made it really knew what they were doing -- both from a
usability/user interface design POV, and an engineering POV.

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
Click to expand...
 
Never really thought anybody actually did anything I suggested. I'm glad it helps you.

Keep truckin' John,

"Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by,
that here, obedient to their laws we lie."---King Leonidas
Chief said:
If I did this for a living and shot thousands of pics a week, would
probably use C1 as you can set the white balance, contrast, white
point, exposure, and sharpening and output the result as a 16 bit
file in batch mode. In my testing, I found that PS CS Raw
converter produced more accurate colors using Al Pacheo's
recommended settings as a starting point:

Exposure +0.05
Shadows 0
Brightness 50
Contrast +42
Saturation +18

And under the Calibrate Tab, changed only...
Red Saturation -10
Green Saturation -15

--
MOLON LABE!

Regards,
John
Click to expand...
 
The ability to use custom profiles, including b&w. Future versions will probably include the input profile as another per-image parameter, so the possibilities for tweaking images grows exponentially....

Dan
Al Pacheco said:
He has "fixed" the generic 10D profile which has a distinct blue
channel bias.
The ability of C1 to produce beautiful neutral tones is well known.
The mess that the generic profile makes of these tones is not so
well known.
Here's the link to a zipped "correction" file. Just use this one
instead of the generic.
http://www.pictureflow.com/CaptureOne/Dist/Profiles/EOS10DGeneric1.1b1.zip

Although you really owe it to yourself to get a custom profile like
the one offered by Magne Nilsen. You won't be sorry.
Petteri Sulonen said:
Well, I finally bit the bullet and bought CaptureOne DSLR LE. After
a bit of playing with it, all I can say is WOW! The control it
gives, the easy with which it gives it, and the quality of the
result is really sump'n else.

Almost makes me regret not shooting RAW until late last year. The
guys who made it really knew what they were doing -- both from a
usability/user interface design POV, and an engineering POV.

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ron mcmillan said:
One option is to go for PS CS for its RAW processing capabilities
-- have you used CS, and if so, how does C1 compare, and if C1 is
better, in what way? Workflow? Controls?
ron
Click to expand...
I use CS, but today only after C1 conversion.
Here's the reason:

I had a feeling that CS ads some scratches in conversion and took a test.
This is orginal image (ISO1600):



This is a crop from PS CS converted image:



This is a crop from Canon FVU converted image:



Here is cropped and NeatImage fixed samples (PSCS on the left):



There is no way to fix that problem by PSCS converter settings. Believe me I've tried. Compare is done with CFVU just because it's free. Today I use C1 and I think it does the best quality.

If you use greycard when adjusting, C1 is the converter for you. What a beautiful workflow.

C1 is the best converter, but Photoshop CS is the best image manipulation software. With these together I think you have the best tools available.

Tomi Toivonen
 
I've used almost similar settings and that's the best setting for CS.

By default, when you just start to use C1 PS you will get better results with CS. But arfter getting to know both, it's inevitable that C1 will do it better. And after image to an image.

I've used PS since version 4, for years now. I started to use PS raw converter (with PS7) at the beginning of 2003. With a variable results.

I got C1 at beginning of december and it took whole month to really understand and create a "bulletproof" workflow. Now I'm really satified.
Quality is much more stable and also more predictable.

There is another IQ problem with PSCS, see my previous post "See the CS problem..."

Tomi Toivonen
Al Pacheco said:
Keep truckin' John,

"Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by,
that here, obedient to their laws we lie."---King Leonidas
Chief said:
If I did this for a living and shot thousands of pics a week, would
probably use C1 as you can set the white balance, contrast, white
point, exposure, and sharpening and output the result as a 16 bit
file in batch mode. In my testing, I found that PS CS Raw
converter produced more accurate colors using Al Pacheo's
recommended settings as a starting point:

Exposure +0.05
Shadows 0
Brightness 50
Contrast +42
Saturation +18

And under the Calibrate Tab, changed only...
Red Saturation -10
Green Saturation -15

--
MOLON LABE!

Regards,
John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
C1 uses Windows profiles.
So, just drop it to \WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color (in WinXP).

Or if you have some other OS, just search files and folders to find where .icm files are located.
C1 will then find the profile automaticly. This might reguire C1 restart.

Tomi Toivonen
Petteri Sulonen said:
Al Pacheco wrote:

[snip]

http://www.pictureflow.com/CaptureOne/Dist/Profiles/EOS10DGeneric1.1b1.zip

Sorry for such a simple question, but... where do I drop it? There
doesn't appear to be a directory under the C1 programi files, and
it doesn't show up if I put it in the Windows Color directory
(where the rest of the profiles are).

[snip]

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
Click to expand...
 
Toivonen said:
C1 uses Windows profiles.
So, just drop it to \WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color (in WinXP).
Or if you have some other OS, just search files and folders to find
where .icm files are located.
C1 will then find the profile automaticly. This might reguire C1
restart.
Click to expand...
I did, but it didn't appear to find them (even after restart). I'll reboot the system and see what happens. Thanks.

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
 
Toivonen said:
Toivonen said:
One option is to go for PS CS for its RAW processing capabilities
-- have you used CS, and if so, how does C1 compare, and if C1 is
better, in what way? Workflow? Controls?
ron
Click to expand...
I use CS, but today only after C1 conversion.
Here's the reason:

I had a feeling that CS ads some scratches in conversion and took a
test.

There is no way to fix that problem by PSCS converter settings.
Believe me I've tried. Compare is done with CFVU just because it's
free. Today I use C1 and I think it does the best quality.
If you use greycard when adjusting, C1 is the converter for you.
What a beautiful workflow.

C1 is the best converter, but Photoshop CS is the best image
manipulation software. With these together I think you have the
best tools available.

Tomi Toivonen
Click to expand...
I have done very, very little in RAW, so can you explain what you mean be using a greycard in conversion? Thanks.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
 
David Martin said:
I have done very, very little in RAW, so can you explain what you
mean be using a greycard in conversion? Thanks.
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
Click to expand...
I use manual White Balance when shooting, but also I take the first shot to Kodak greyscale (Q-13). You can use any other too, even just one color greycard.

With that greyscale image I adjust greybalance in C1. Then what's the easiest way is just select all the images and select "Apply this grey balance to current selection of captures".

I found out that if you take image of card only, then C1 auto greybalance will do it almost 100%.

Works in any situation also with flash.

Tomi Toivonen
 
I find that a conversion from Adobe Camera Raw can take an almost unbelievable amount of post processing sharpening without falling apart. Canon's conversion hits a limit fairly early and C1 will show problems also. But this is not usually done in practical situations. I've only tested this at low ISO values like 200 so perhaps you are seeing the problem at higher values only.
I'll have to keep that in mind.

C1 surely has a superior workflow. And the support for custom camera profiling is a great feature.
Toivonen said:
There is another IQ problem with PSCS, see my previous post "See
the CS problem..."

Tomi Toivonen
Al Pacheco said:
Keep truckin' John,

"Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by,
that here, obedient to their laws we lie."---King Leonidas
Chief said:
If I did this for a living and shot thousands of pics a week, would
probably use C1 as you can set the white balance, contrast, white
point, exposure, and sharpening and output the result as a 16 bit
file in batch mode. In my testing, I found that PS CS Raw
converter produced more accurate colors using Al Pacheo's
recommended settings as a starting point:

Exposure +0.05
Shadows 0
Brightness 50
Contrast +42
Saturation +18

And under the Calibrate Tab, changed only...
Red Saturation -10
Green Saturation -15

--
MOLON LABE!

Regards,
John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Al Pacheco said:
I find that a conversion from Adobe Camera Raw can take an almost
unbelievable amount of post processing sharpening without falling
apart. Canon's conversion hits a limit fairly early and C1 will
show problems also. But this is not usually done in practical
situations. I've only tested this at low ISO values like 200 so
perhaps you are seeing the problem at higher values only.
I'll have to keep that in mind.
C1 surely has a superior workflow. And the support for custom
camera profiling is a great feature.
Click to expand...
PSCS is a really good software. Raw converter is working great. But like you said on low ISO.

I know people who are using PS7 with ARC 1.0 just because it does not have this problem.

And if you are using Nikon or new Sony for example, you have much higher rate of noise in low ISO's. I believe (not tested) that you will see this kind of problems at ISO800 or even ISO400. And ISO400 is something you should be able to use in everyday photography.

As far as I know Adobe is aware of this problem and hopefully they will have an upgrade to fix this soon. (And for free I hope ;))

With C1 you can use ISO100-800 with almost no noise at all. And ISO1600 with totally acceptable amount. Specially if you are using some sofware like NeatImage.

Tomi Toivonen
 
Thanks, I installed it and I see no difference when switching between "10D generic" and "Generic 1.1b"... Is it that just difference is too small, or it shows up only in prints or what?
 
Juha Halvari said:
Reason for that could be that C1 has noise reduction in every
situation, it cannot be deactivated.
Click to expand...
I hear you. You are probably right.

But PSCS will "destroy" image witch has some noise, so that even NeatImage cannot fix it anymore.
And the result is the only thing that counts... right?

Tomi Toivonen
 
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