dko22

Lives in St. Andrews (SCOT) & Stuttgart (GER)
Joined on Feb 14, 2006

Comments

Total: 47, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Phase One Capture One 20 software review (418 comments in total)
In reply to:

Herco: Moved from LR to first C1 Express for Fuji and later to the C1 full package. Never looked back. For Fujifilm cameras with the x-trans sensors, C1 is vastly superior. Less artefacts, better shadow recovery, great color editor and B&W conversion and way better film simulation profiles... Highly recommended. BTW, also great support so well worth the higher price. For more budget-minded Fujifilm shooters, also consider ON1 Photo Raw 2020.

I switched also to C1 v11 for Fuji and found the processing in many areas to be better than LR, esp. with detail and fine control over colour. The film presets were also very good. Layers treatment is much better. But the cataloguing often drove me crazy (easy to corrupt) and certain Lightroom features like dehaze I somewhat missed.

I did upgrade to v12 but when I switched system to Nikon Z6 a year ago, I was less impressed by Capture One. The Nikon default colours were usually too garish and although you can use the Fuji simulations with Nikon as well, I found that LR held its own and I finally went down the subscription route as I thought it did no harm to have PS as well. I do still look at the more important images in C1 but more often now process in LR and as an overall integrated package, I prefer it

For Fuji though, Capture One is a strong recommendation. ON1 is still too buggy imo -- potentially great but in the end had to return it. Too unpolished and unfocussed.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2020 at 09:04 UTC
In reply to:

shnsea: I really like the 2019 software. However, I would strongly urge anyone who is thinking of the 2019.5 version to wait a few weeks. The latest version has repeatedly been crashing, has random slow downs, and a bunch of bugs. As an example, it screwed up reading the dates on my photos and now sorts them incorrectly in the catalog. I imagine they will get enough complaints to fix the bugs in a short while (like they did with their earlier releases of 2019), but this version is unstable.

unfortunately every version of ON1 is full of bugs. That's the main (though not the only reason) I was forced to ask for a refund after jumping in and buying it a bit too early. I want to like the software but I'm not convinced it will ever be stable enough or free of any number of little maddening quirks and inconsistencies, some of which can take a while to discover.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2019 at 19:21 UTC

I joined CC just over a week ago after deciding to upgrade to a Nikon Z6. For my previous Fuji system, Capture One was better but I like the results and ease of use of LR with the Z6. I hate the clumsy and unintuitive cataloguing side of C1 but IF Adobe really double the price and IF C1 don't continue with their huge price hikes as well and/or go subscription only, I won't be renewing next year. I hardly ever use PS.

Like many, I'd prefer a cheap, simple Lightroom Classic only package and would then get Affinity for the rare occasions I needed PS-like features.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2019 at 06:53 UTC as 184th comment
On article Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 S sample gallery (245 comments in total)

the barrel distortions are the main weakness of the S zooms it seems. With the 24-70, some of my images were virtually unusable until corrected when using Capture One - fortunately that lens is now fully supported. Best thing I've found with C1 and this 14-30 seems to be the F mount 16-35 profile, though Lightroom is still better corrected.

It's true that LR can make a real mess of edges and corners in its autocorrections, however I have not found much smudging so far to be honest with the Z6 -- indeed C1's (uncorrected) output is not flawless in this regard. I agree that the required software corrections are rather high for the prices asked in the Z system but if they work, I won't moan too much.

To be honest, Capture NX-D probably does the best corrections but both C1 and LR most often (though not always) produce better output overall

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2019 at 16:57 UTC as 48th comment | 1 reply
On article Minolta DiMAGE V hands-on review (285 comments in total)

I had a 5 mp Dimage for four years and nearly re-bought it a few years after selling until I realised it was basically pretty crap. To this day though, I owned this camera longer than any other digital so it can't have been that dreadful --as long as you weren't mad enough to try and go higher than ISO 200.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2019 at 18:50 UTC as 100th comment
In reply to:

Jon555: The U.K. upgrade price is £149, or about £12 per month as there's a new one each year. Alas while you can get show discounts on the full version I don't think that's possible with the upgrade...

10% discount does apply to upgrades - already tested it.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2018 at 22:04 UTC

so many of these featured competitions have a high proportion of duds but I don't think anyone'll be saying that about this outstanding crop!

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2018 at 13:16 UTC as 58th comment
On article Fujifilm X-T3 Review (2480 comments in total)
In reply to:

dual12: I've never shot anything at ISO 51,200 and never will. Moreover, even if I did, I wouldn't blow it up to 100%. This analysis is beyond silly.

just reading the commentary here made me think -- hang on 51k is unusable anyway so what are dpr thinking about in going on about it! At 25k, using the dark scene which is much more useful for getting a representative result, I do (using C1 11.3 Pro) see a bit more grain but the X-T3 is both brighter, more contrasty and detailed which is probably more valuable overall. Up to 12.8k the T3 seems to me better overall and the value of having a backlit sensor is clearly shown.

Although there's no actual harm perhaps in mentioning the fact that the X-T3 loses its marbles at the highest extended setting, such a comparison should really come with a health warning that this is in fact irrelevant in the real world. Perhaps this setting can be used in black and white but in that case, the extra grain might even be seen as a bonus.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2018 at 19:22 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T3 added to studio test scene comparison (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

Causio: Since everybody mentions Rawtherapee, I decided to give it a try and compare XT3 with XT2, both at ISO 3200. Here's the result:
http://lucianomorpurgo.com/pub/rawComparison.jpg
It's easy to notice both look incredibly better than Adobe RC, in terms of detail and noise (I made sure I disabled everything in both conversions), and that XT3 is slightly more detailed and less noisy than XT2. One thing, also visible here: the red colors in the XT3 are way off, that's no red at all. I guess we should wait for a proper update in both converters.
Anyway, at a first glance I must say Rawtherapee is kinda "clinical", very slow, very technical, not so photographer friendly, and it doesn't have the fuji color profiles (unless they're available somewhere to download). You get the best results in terms of detail but at cost, so maybe it would make sense to use it in certain cases but not as the main workflow software.

spot on, Causio --- I did a similar comparison with both normal and dark lighting at ISO12800. Raw Therapee clearly shows an edge for the X-T3 but it's only really noticeable in the shadows and more so in the dark lighting.

As you say, colours are weird though you can get something closer to normality with a saturation boost and WB sliders. There are Fuji colour profiles to download, for instance here https://blog.sowerby.me/fuji-film-simulation-profiles/ if you want to try them out. However, I would say that detail rather than colour is the main strength of RT and it's more geek than photographer friendly.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2018 at 10:48 UTC
In reply to:

OBI656: ... is there a support for two monitors? Anyone knows?

support for dual monitors is to be included as a free update to 2018 according to their Tech Support

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 08:56 UTC
In reply to:

Grahame Jenkins: Installed it, started to try and use it - crashed after less than a minute and before I did any actual image processing. Tried again, crashed (even quicker this time). In today's world I have never experienced a program crash in years so, clearly, the program is 'well dodgy' - shame as it looked like a nice package to use as a 'one stop solution' for my processing needs in lieu of CS6/LR/Google Collection/Meta Raw/etc.

It's quite clear that I'm not the only one who finds it too unstable to be useable --several hard restarts required after it crashed the video card which no other photo software seems to have any problem with. I still have some vague hopes for Luminar which is out in a few days but ON1 I can forget on that basis alone. Pity perhaps because the RAW processing does seem better.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 11:51 UTC
In reply to:

ebarak71: I have to say that the Stutgart library photos is nice but I've seen many like it. What is special is the architecture not the photography.
As an architect myself this is a problem I have with photographing modern architecture. In most cases most of the credit for the photographs belongs to the architect.
And what about the big yacht in the Kowloon photo? nothing was said to relate to it.

If I'd known, I would have submitted my own similar but less clinically lit photo of the Stuttgart library which I prefer and, as ebarak71 says, there are plenty like it. Those of us who live in Stuttgart tend to take the library for granted! Incidentally, some hideous new structure has now been built behind it so you can no longer get a proper view when coming into the railway station as the shifting colour of the lighting of the building's exterior is probably as much photographed as the interior.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 12:58 UTC
On article Fujifilm updates X-mount lens roadmap (57 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): what kind of UWA zoom would they put out? They already have a 10-24/4

rumours suggest an 8-16 f2.8 which would complete Fuji's "holy trinity" (I see at least one other has the same view)

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 14:02 UTC
On article 2016 DPReview Readers' Best Shots: People (93 comments in total)

no. 4 is full of character -- just don't see why it needed to be over-sharpened that much? 5 has the most beautiful lighting even if the composition inevitably isn't quite ideal

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 09:28 UTC as 6th comment
On article 2016 DPReview Readers' Best Shots: Places (121 comments in total)

no. 2 is a very striking photo -- easily the best in my book. I also like the Yosemite one which managed to avoid the usual cliches and has a much more personal atmosphere than usual.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2017 at 09:21 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

Marc Rogoff: Good to see a bit of competition for Adobe who seem to be getting very complacent. They have allowed Lightroom to diminish in performance and continue charging more for it than any other competitors. Corel need a little more development of this product but it is a pretty good first try and hopefully will get better....

CA removal is regarded as one of the best. The more common purple fringing removal is OK but a bit more effective in Lightroom. Moire may be better also in LR but I so rarely see it --guess it depends on what you shoot! The main strengths of SP are the colour and detail demosaicing with Fuji as well as high ISO noise reduction.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 17:03 UTC
In reply to:

Marc Rogoff: Good to see a bit of competition for Adobe who seem to be getting very complacent. They have allowed Lightroom to diminish in performance and continue charging more for it than any other competitors. Corel need a little more development of this product but it is a pretty good first try and hopefully will get better....

yes, you're technically right but the thing is, there's nearly always some sort of a deal on with SP and there have always been preferential updates for the likes of Fuji or Panasonic shooters among others so that's what I was basing my pricing on, not the official full price. So we're both right in a way!

I myself bought it a few months ago for €115 and find the software excellent in most respects for Fuji XTrans cameras. The "Studio" version incidentally removes relatively few features and is pretty good value in my book though I preferred to pay the extra.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

TorsteinH: I have tried Aftershot PRO2 and would have stayed with it, but the support for new cameras are slow or not existing at all.

no support for the X-Pro2 for a start, unlike virtually everything else out there. But the product is a joke. The "improved" highlight recovery is still almost non-existent, shadow pushing is often ghastly, and almost anything which requires any sort of correction or has difficult just falls flat. It is still fairly fast but you might as well shoot JPEG to save time rather than use this.

Many years ago, Bibble had a competitive product which I indeed used for a while. ASP 3 is a non-starter --indeed ACDSee in a fairly similar price band is a good deal better.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 15:24 UTC
In reply to:

Marc Rogoff: Good to see a bit of competition for Adobe who seem to be getting very complacent. They have allowed Lightroom to diminish in performance and continue charging more for it than any other competitors. Corel need a little more development of this product but it is a pretty good first try and hopefully will get better....

the european price is €119 assuming that you have a product from one of the qualifying manufacturers --which most folk interested in this software will have. If not it's €159. Lightroom costs around €130 from Adobe. Where the twice the price comes from is rather a mystery!

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

Marc Rogoff: Good to see a bit of competition for Adobe who seem to be getting very complacent. They have allowed Lightroom to diminish in performance and continue charging more for it than any other competitors. Corel need a little more development of this product but it is a pretty good first try and hopefully will get better....

Capture One is usually the most expensive. SP7 is a similar price to Lightroom, depending on what particular deal is going at the time of purchase.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 12:52 UTC
Total: 47, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »