Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

Started 3 months ago | Photos
maltmoose Senior Member • Posts: 2,021
Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

I'm sharing a few photos that ive processed with Art 1.6 and Capture One. ART is a fork of Rawtherapee. The more i use ART the more i like it due to its friendly interface and output and is worth consideration if you dont want to spend loads on subscriptions and expensive software like capture one. I am a capture one user for years and been following rawtherapee/darktable etc for as long as i can remember but ART is an improvement on usability for me.

These arnt works of art and are just for comparison and taken with xe3. I havnt tried to match them its just how they came out with my settings for each.

Capture one is using Astia and ART is using the default auto detected profile. No layers or masks used although i do use them for some of my work.

ART works well on fuji raws but let me know what you think of each and if you have any questions.

lewiedude2
lewiedude2 Senior Member • Posts: 2,034
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

Which is which? Do you have 100% crops where you feel the difference is negligible or even better with ART?

 lewiedude2's gear list:lewiedude2's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR
OP maltmoose Senior Member • Posts: 2,021
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

lewiedude2 wrote:

Which is which? Do you have 100% crops where you feel the difference is negligible or even better with ART?

Capture one is the first photo of each pair.

Best to download the original jpegs and compare them with something like fastStone image viewer and see what you think if you like. I'm not doing 100% crops as you can see differences as they are. Whether it matters to anyone is another matter.

Erik Baumgartner Senior Member • Posts: 3,212
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

To my eye the Capture One versions here are definitely sharper and retain better highlight detail. Whether C1 has any inherent advantage or the differences are just down to development choices is another thing entirely.

 Erik Baumgartner's gear list:Erik Baumgartner's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
lewiedude2
lewiedude2 Senior Member • Posts: 2,034
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison
1

Yep. Doesn’t really matter to me, but you presented your thread is all ...

 lewiedude2's gear list:lewiedude2's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR
JayPhizzt Senior Member • Posts: 1,843
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

To my eye the Capture One versions here are definitely sharper and retain better highlight detail. Whether C1 has any inherent advantage or the differences are just down to development choices is another thing entirely.

Very odd, to my eyes it's the exact opposite. The Art 1.6 photos definitely look more detailed. This is however not surprising to me since RawTherapee has the best X-trans demosaicing I've ever seen.

 JayPhizzt's gear list:JayPhizzt's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 80mm F2.8 Macro +1 more
OP maltmoose Senior Member • Posts: 2,021
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

JayPhizzt wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

To my eye the Capture One versions here are definitely sharper and retain better highlight detail. Whether C1 has any inherent advantage or the differences are just down to development choices is another thing entirely.

Very odd, to my eyes it's the exact opposite. The Art 1.6 photos definitely look more detailed. This is however not surprising to me since RawTherapee has the best X-trans demosaicing I've ever seen.

I should also add that when it comes to sharpness settings all the capture one settings are the same and all the ART sharpness and detail settings are the same.

I've chosen the settings to the best of my ability and they are not defaults.

I would say in general the ART images show more fine detail but the capture one images show a bit more local contrast which kinda gives the illusion of being sharper.

Interestingly though depending on the subject and light one or the other doesnt always look better.

Erik Baumgartner Senior Member • Posts: 3,212
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

JayPhizzt wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

To my eye the Capture One versions here are definitely sharper and retain better highlight detail. Whether C1 has any inherent advantage or the differences are just down to development choices is another thing entirely.

Very odd, to my eyes it's the exact opposite. The Art 1.6 photos definitely look more detailed. This is however not surprising to me since RawTherapee has the best X-trans demosaicing I've ever seen.

Not from where I'm sitting, C1 (left), ART (R). I don't think there's a clear standout amongst the various X-Trans demosaicing options out there, they each shine in different areas, but if I had to pick one, it would be X-Transformer. If the 50 f/2 is anywhere near as sharp as it's supposed to be, I would expect better than these examples using Lightroom w/IXT.

C1 (L), ART (R)

 Erik Baumgartner's gear list:Erik Baumgartner's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
OP maltmoose Senior Member • Posts: 2,021
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

JayPhizzt wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

To my eye the Capture One versions here are definitely sharper and retain better highlight detail. Whether C1 has any inherent advantage or the differences are just down to development choices is another thing entirely.

Very odd, to my eyes it's the exact opposite. The Art 1.6 photos definitely look more detailed. This is however not surprising to me since RawTherapee has the best X-trans demosaicing I've ever seen.

Not from where I'm sitting, C1 (left), ART (R). I don't think there's a clear standout amongst the various X-Trans demosaicing options out there, they each shine in different areas, but if I had to pick one, it would be X-Transformer. If the 50 f/2 is anywhere near as sharp as it's supposed to be, I would expect better than these examples using Lightroom w/IXT.

C1 (L), ART (R)

Check the centre of the same image on the golems? and the ART image looks more detailed, its weird.

JayPhizzt Senior Member • Posts: 1,843
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

JayPhizzt wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

To my eye the Capture One versions here are definitely sharper and retain better highlight detail. Whether C1 has any inherent advantage or the differences are just down to development choices is another thing entirely.

Very odd, to my eyes it's the exact opposite. The Art 1.6 photos definitely look more detailed. This is however not surprising to me since RawTherapee has the best X-trans demosaicing I've ever seen.

Not from where I'm sitting, C1 (left), ART (R). I don't think there's a clear standout amongst the various X-Trans demosaicing options out there, they each shine in different areas, but if I had to pick one, it would be X-Transformer. If the 50 f/2 is anywhere near as sharp as it's supposed to be, I would expect better than these examples using Lightroom w/IXT.

C1 (L), ART (R)

In that particular example the C1 looks better yes, but when viewing the photos at 100% the art-images definitely look more detailed. But like maltmoose mentioned, the C1 photos do look a bit more contrasty so that might make them seem sharper.

And I don't agree that X-transformer is the best, RawTherapee is the best I've tried for X-trans. I really wish C1 used the same demosaicing, that would be a dream combo.

 JayPhizzt's gear list:JayPhizzt's gear list
Fujifilm X-T3 Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 80mm F2.8 Macro +1 more
Erik Baumgartner Senior Member • Posts: 3,212
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

maltmoose wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

JayPhizzt wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

To my eye the Capture One versions here are definitely sharper and retain better highlight detail. Whether C1 has any inherent advantage or the differences are just down to development choices is another thing entirely.

Very odd, to my eyes it's the exact opposite. The Art 1.6 photos definitely look more detailed. This is however not surprising to me since RawTherapee has the best X-trans demosaicing I've ever seen.

Not from where I'm sitting, C1 (left), ART (R). I don't think there's a clear standout amongst the various X-Trans demosaicing options out there, they each shine in different areas, but if I had to pick one, it would be X-Transformer. If the 50 f/2 is anywhere near as sharp as it's supposed to be, I would expect better than these examples using Lightroom w/IXT.

C1 (L), ART (R)

Check the centre of the same image on the golems? and the ART image looks more detailed, its weird.

I don't disagree. it's not uncommon for different demosaicing methods to excel in different areas of the same image. I did say the C1 image looks sharper, not necessarily more detailed, much of that is down to the applied sharpening and not the demosaicing. The C1 image is definitely more contrasty which make a critical comparison somewhat problematic. I don't think C1's demosaicing is better than RAW Therapee"s, but I think C1's sharpening is tuned to affect the fine detail more than ART's is in these examples. If you'd like a LR/IXT version for comparison, I'd be happy to oblige. I really think it comes down to how well the operator knows the intricacies their software. IMO, any of these programs are capable of excellent results.

 Erik Baumgartner's gear list:Erik Baumgartner's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
Erik Baumgartner Senior Member • Posts: 3,212
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

JayPhizzt wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

JayPhizzt wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

To my eye the Capture One versions here are definitely sharper and retain better highlight detail. Whether C1 has any inherent advantage or the differences are just down to development choices is another thing entirely.

Very odd, to my eyes it's the exact opposite. The Art 1.6 photos definitely look more detailed. This is however not surprising to me since RawTherapee has the best X-trans demosaicing I've ever seen.

Not from where I'm sitting, C1 (left), ART (R). I don't think there's a clear standout amongst the various X-Trans demosaicing options out there, they each shine in different areas, but if I had to pick one, it would be X-Transformer. If the 50 f/2 is anywhere near as sharp as it's supposed to be, I would expect better than these examples using Lightroom w/IXT.

C1 (L), ART (R)

In that particular example the C1 looks better yes, but when viewing the photos at 100% the art-images definitely look more detailed.

It depends where you look.

But like maltmoose mentioned, the C1 photos do look a bit more contrasty so that might make them seem sharper.

I agree

And I don't agree that X-transformer is the best, RawTherapee is the best I've tried for X-trans. I really wish C1 used the same demosaicing, that would be a dream combo.

I don't think RAW Therapee is necessarily better or worse than IXT, which does a better job will vary somewhat from image to image. I can't say RT is the most user friendly or comprehensive editor out there which makes the choice easy. They should consider making an X-Therapee plug-in available.

 Erik Baumgartner's gear list:Erik Baumgartner's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
Pixel8888 Regular Member • Posts: 447
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

C1 gives me sometimes cyan in the blue sky that's very hard to correct. It is the strongest with the Velvia simulation. Gets a bit better with Astia. It is the same with XT2 and XT10 raws, mostly with images taken around noon. The combination of Xtrans, and the Velvia simulation rally pushes the greens in blue. I hope they will introduce new Fuji profiles soon. It is a kind of hard to correct a muddy Fuji XTrans sky with C1. Easier with Luminar 4 or Topaz adjust AI.

I have tried raw therapee, but the interface is so different from everything I know. It takes a lot of time, to figure out how to tweak with this tool.

Erik Baumgartner Senior Member • Posts: 3,212
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

Pixel8888 wrote:

C1 gives me sometimes cyan in the blue sky that's very hard to correct. It is the strongest with the Velvia simulation. Gets a bit better with Astia. It is the same with XT2 and XT10 raws, mostly with images taken around noon. The combination of Xtrans, and the Velvia simulation rally pushes the greens in blue. I hope they will introduce new Fuji profiles soon. It is a kind of hard to correct a muddy Fuji XTrans sky with C1. Easier with Luminar 4 or Topaz adjust AI.

I have tried raw therapee, but the interface is so different from everything I know. It takes a lot of time, to figure out how to tweak with this tool.

The color is almost entirely down to the RAW editor/color profile. You can tweak the color and produce custom profiles in Lightroom/ACR, no doubt you can do it in C1 as well.

 Erik Baumgartner's gear list:Erik Baumgartner's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +2 more
Ysarex
Ysarex Senior Member • Posts: 2,770
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison
1

Pixel8888 wrote:

C1 gives me sometimes cyan in the blue sky that's very hard to correct. It is the strongest with the Velvia simulation.

One of the reasons I'm so fond of C1 is that it allows me to easily correct cyan shifts in the blue sky. Use the Skin Tone function in the Color Editor. Mask the sky, click on the sky color you want, expand the range as needed and set the Uniformity value for Hue.

Gets a bit better with Astia. It is the same with XT2 and XT10 raws, mostly with images taken around noon. The combination of Xtrans, and the Velvia simulation rally pushes the greens in blue. I hope they will introduce new Fuji profiles soon. It is a kind of hard to correct a muddy Fuji XTrans sky with C1. Easier with Luminar 4 or Topaz adjust AI.

I have tried raw therapee, but the interface is so different from everything I know. It takes a lot of time, to figure out how to tweak with this tool.

Pixel8888 Regular Member • Posts: 447
Re: Art 1.6 and Capture One comparison

Ysarex wrote:

Pixel8888 wrote:

C1 gives me sometimes cyan in the blue sky that's very hard to correct. It is the strongest with the Velvia simulation.

One of the reasons I'm so fond of C1 is that it allows me to easily correct cyan shifts in the blue sky. Use the Skin Tone function in the Color Editor. Mask the sky, click on the sky color you want, expand the range as needed and set the Uniformity value for Hue.

Gets a bit better with Astia. It is the same with XT2 and XT10 raws, mostly with images taken around noon. The combination of Xtrans, and the Velvia simulation rally pushes the greens in blue. I hope they will introduce new Fuji profiles soon. It is a kind of hard to correct a muddy Fuji XTrans sky with C1. Easier with Luminar 4 or Topaz adjust AI.

I have tried raw therapee, but the interface is so different from everything I know. It takes a lot of time, to figure out how to tweak with this tool.

Thanks to all for their help. I will try the skin tone function.

Played a bit with art too. Impressive tool.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads