Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Actions & Plugins support
Workflow Guidelines

FM Forums \| Post-processing & Printing \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2010 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

slrl0ver
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

All,

I've recently asked a few questions about post processing and received some good feedback, links to useful tutorials and book suggestions all of which I am following up on.

One thing puzzles me though. I see people gush about Capture One 5 being an amazing RAW processor. But knowing there are a LOT of different workflows, what makes C1 THAT good for you? Do you just use it for de-Bayering and find its color fidelity & de-Bayer results superior to anything else, or do you also like its adjustments, highlight recovery, noise reduction, sharpening, etc?

Knowing that you can probably adjust brightness/colors/sharpening in a myriad of other programs like Lightroom or CS4 or GIMP, my intuition tells me its the core algorithms that are the strength, but maybe I'm over looking something.

I apologize if this seems like a redundant question based on what I've asked before, but I am contemplating the purchase of C1 or DxO and would appreciate understanding what makes C1 so special (i.e. algorithms or controls or both).

- slrl0ver

Mar 03, 2010 at 08:07 PM

parsons
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/832284
may be of use,
i switched based on this article, and love it!

s

Mar 03, 2010 at 09:47 PM

Gil_W
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

I find this a hard question to go over bit by bit, adjustment to adjustment. I have said in past posts that the images just look better as soon as you open them in C1. I also can say that high ISO low light images have more detail in them. I always use LR to bring my images in and use it to print from. I also use it for everyday snaps and use PSCS4 when needed. I have had DxO for many version but probably do not use it as much as I should, it really has improved a lot over the years.
While C1 is not as easy to learn as LR or DxO a study of the manual helps. The latest version comes with a training flick I have yet to watch.
I think if you download a 30 day trial version of C1 and DxO and make the comparison to whatever you are now using you can make a better judgement for yourself. At first I was not crazy about it but I think it is an excellent converter now after using it for some time. From what I gather it is not for everyone, but the results are very good.

Mar 03, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

C1 has a fairly steep, but mercifully short, initial learning curve just to find your way around the interface. After that it's like learning any deep and complex app. And yes it's worth it.

I skipped v4 because I couldn't get past the interface changes from v3.7.x. But I've been forced to move to v5 due to purchase of a 1D Mark IV. After the brief initial pain of transition, I am absolutely in love with it. I'm able to work even faster than I could with 3.7.x (I typically process about 150-200 images per session), and the results are just wonderful.

Nill

p.s. To see how and how much I use it, see my RAW workflow from sports photographers (which I need to update with some enthusiastically favorable comments about v5).

Mar 03, 2010 at 10:45 PM

slrl0ver
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

Thanks for your responses.

Right now I have no real workflow to speak of, I'm just starting to work with RAWs. So, my confusion comes from people who like C1 but don't shed much detail on what it does better for them compared to the rest. That said, I'm trying to improve my RAW workflow knowledge and have ordered books and printed many tutorials, so hopefully I will take up the slack.

parsons's link / Dan Martin's testing shows C1 has better details and more pleasing colours (at least for the camera tested). So if I make a sweeping conclusion it sounds like C1's principle advantage is better de-Bayering & nice colors. DxO seems exciting to me purely for its rich set of lens corrections that can be applied automatically (CA, distortion, sharpness fall-off, vignetting, etc); if I could get the lens correction of DxO and combine it with another RAW processor (DPP, C1) I think I would. But DxO wants to be the first program to touch the RAW...

My concern with using demos and reading manuals (both of which I have done for DxO & C1) if you don't have the appropriate background knowledge or sufficient skill-set, its hard to judge if lack of results is the fault of the program or the user.

Nill, I read your workflow details, that was very helpful. Now that you're shooting with the Mark IV, what have you done about color profiles? Your post mentioned using "Magne Nilsen's Hi-Sat profiles".

Thanks!
- slrl0ver

Mar 04, 2010 at 05:37 AM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

The noise reduction and sharpening are also excellent in C1, as are its range of tools. I just discovered the shadow and highlight recovery tools last night, and they're simply amazing.

But just as good, and as important to me, is its workflow. I can process multiple RAWs as fast or faster in C1 than I can tifs in PS. I usually do about 200 images in a session, and C1 lets me pretty much blow right through them.

Not sure what to do about profiles. My old Magne profiles will work in v5, but he's not producing them anymore so I can't get one for the Mark IV. The one that comes with C1 is very good, but not as good as his.

Nill

Mar 04, 2010 at 01:59 PM

WAYCOOL
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

I guess I'm working in the stone-age but with my 1dmkII I'm using C1 3.7 with a profile from Magne.

When I started using raw with this camera I found I could get the best detail overall and especially in the shadows and the best color with this combo. I like the work flow this way also. Very easy to go through a shoot pick out the shots to work with and convert, If you convert each shot while working on the next by the time your done and open Photoshop all conversions are done.

Mar 04, 2010 at 06:34 PM

DennisC
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

Nill

Are you using the PRO version?

Mar 04, 2010 at 08:34 PM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

Dennis... yes.

Waycool... I didn't make the jump from 3.7.9 until I was forced to by the purchase of a Mark IV. The learning curve was not as steep as I feared, now I can actually work faster in v5 than in 3.7.x, and the results and tools are fantastic. Also, I'm told but have not personally confirmed that our v3.7.x Magne profiles will work fine in v5.x. Just wish I could get a Magne profile for my Mark IV.

And speaking of detail in the shadows... the shadow recovery tool alone is a revelation, and the highlight recovery tool is maybe even better. (These were first added in v4, but I skipped that version.)

Nill

Mar 04, 2010 at 08:39 PM

slrl0ver
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

Nill,

Can you post a small crop showing what effect Magne's color profile has for you (i.e. default C1 and wtih his profile)? I don't own any of the cameras his profile support, so I'm at a disadvantage is seeing the benefits.

Thanks,
slrl0ver.

Mar 05, 2010 at 07:27 AM

Kolor-Pikker
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

Personally, having used C1 for a while, I'd say it's the retoucher's RAW conveter.
It makes really under-cooked and neutral-looking conversions, compared to some others, particularly at default settings, and the resulting conversions handle photoshop torture pretty well. This is to be expected though, as it is originally meant for medium format.

I actually did something of a comparison between a choice of popular Raw converters a while ago (Link) though I think I could have done it better as I forgot to pay better attention to sharpening settings, the default C1 settings are a little strong and bring out the noise too much.

The short of my findings at the time was that C1 v5 is very good at rendering fine detail without taking a right turn into moire city (it actually has a moire reduction control, again expected of a MF converter), and is very good at rendering foliage... grass, leaves, bushes, ect. it just has a crisp but not over-shapened look to it.

DPP, as one would expect of a free program, is positively horrible in interface and noise reduction is blotchy and doesn't work... detail is pretty good though.

Mar 05, 2010 at 08:40 AM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

Positive as that comment is, I think it sells C1 short. I rarely take a file to PS, and most often go straight from C1 to web or print. Or by "really under-cooked and neutral-looking" did you mean "just right?" ;-)

Nill

Mar 05, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Gil_W
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

Nill Toulme wrote:
Positive as that comment is, I think it sells C1 short. I rarely take a file to PS, and most often go straight from C1 to web or print. Or by "really under-cooked and neutral-looking" did you mean "just right?" ;-)

Nill

I agree with Nill here. Perhaps the poster means not over processed. C1 output to me has a nice look to it sure not under cooked or neutral.

Mar 05, 2010 at 01:08 PM

jamie123
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

I've asked myself the same question recently but the best way to find out is to just download it from Phase One's website and use the free 30 day trial.

Mar 06, 2010 at 10:51 PM

danrhiggins
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

BTW, on the learning curve. It helps to read the downloadable manual. I downloaded the 5.1 trial back in January and played with it a bit but it didn't support the Mark IV so I abandoned it until last week. Downloaded the 5.2 trial and threw in some raw images from my Mark IV. Gasp! They all had green blotches all over them. What is this I wondered? I put the same raw files in Aperture. No green blotches. I got on the forums looking for someone having a problem with green blotches.

Finally as a last resort I downloaded the user guide and read it. Doh! The green blotches were actually the focus tool areas! I evidently had played with the focus tool back in January and it remembered my settings. Or maybe it is on by default. In any case I had quite a laugh. Of course my wife of 30 years just rolled her eyes at her "I don't need no stinkin' directions" husband.

Mar 07, 2010 at 02:58 AM

15Bit
Online
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

I didn't find too many problems with C1's learning curve (though i am on the standard, not Pro version). I also find the output to be better than other converters i've tried - it does a nice job at colour transitions like green/brown foliage against a blue sky, not bleeding colours like i found LR/PS to.

However, for me such pixel level detail is not all that important as i don't print large. What i like about C1 is just the default "look", which seems to retain detail and pop whilst retaining a natural look to the picture. From what i can tell this seems to be related to C1 using a less aggressive contrast curve in the darks and midtones. I've tried to reproduce the setting in LR but with limited success.

Mar 07, 2010 at 07:45 AM

Kolor-Pikker
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

Positive as that comment is, I think it sells C1 short. I rarely take a file to PS, and most often go straight from C1 to web or print. Or by "really under-cooked and neutral-looking" did you mean "just right?" ;-)

I agree with Nill here. Perhaps the poster means not over processed. C1 output to me has a nice look to it sure not under cooked or neutral.

Haha, yeah, that's what I meant. Since I like having a clean slate to start from, my choice of RAW converter was in part chosen by how much it doesn't mess around with the image unless I wanted it too.
For photos that you just want to look good, realistic isn't always better than believable or even just pleasing, but since I do copy work, that's just the way I am.

As for the learning curve... there isn't one. well, there wasn't one for me anyway, I found everthing "just right"

Mar 07, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Nill Toulme
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

You know, now that you mention it, I bet the learning curve is not nearly as steep coming fresh to v5. I was mostly irritated that they had moved all the furniture around from v3.7.x, which I knew by heart and could move around very quickly with my eyes closed. I have to admit though that the new furniture arrangement is much nicer, and very probably easier to learn from the beginning.

Dan, that's very funny about the green blotches. I get a similar reaction every time my wife walks by a shot with a lot of red blown highlight warning on it. "What's that?" she will say, every time. ;-)

Nill

Mar 07, 2010 at 02:16 PM

Kolor-Pikker
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

Ditto on the focus and clipping masks - something to avoid having people see as they instamatically think "sumthing's rong with yer photo" and then I roll my eyes and turn them off to show nothing's wrong, even worse is it's often the same person pointing it out.

Similar to how I over-do an effect on an adjustment layer that I'm about to turn down in opacity or mask it, and people go "whoa, that looks way over-blahIdon'tcareblah"

And very important, avoid double clicking on the image while the person who's portrait you are currently working on is around, lest they see their face at 100% before photoshop. People are always amazed at the 21mp resolution of my 5D2 until that happens

Mar 07, 2010 at 07:26 PM

philtax
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Is C1 THAT good, and how much do you use it for?

Does V5 have reduce the "banding" visible in some underexposed 5D II shots?

Thanks,

Phil

Mar 08, 2010 at 01:44 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Post-processing & Printing \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end