I’m still using LR. I’ve tried C1 but am no expert. At least for me, the main advantage of C1 is that you can create layers that allow you to utilize all of C1’s controls on each layer. In LR, you can make local adjustments but they cannot contain curves or hsl adjustments for example. IMO that is a serious advantage. There are plenty of times that I would like to make changes to the reds and oranges but spare the skin tones. On the other hand, I love the calibration tab in LR for grading, I can do everything faster due to more familiarity with the program, the range masking is very intuitive, and I send all my LR edits to PS as smart objects so I can very easily modify my raw developments as in Camera Raw as well as stack and blend different settings. I keep thinking I should switch to C1 but if LR incorporated layers I would feel much differently. I’m just not fast enough in C1 for it to be worth the switch yet.
In my experience C1 renders cleaner images. Not sure why even the latest LR can't produce an image as clean as C1 does from my A7R4. Just today I was processing a shoot and noticed more noise that I would like, took the trouble to run C1 and compare. No question the image from C1 has no noise at all. I've been noticing quite a bit of texture in my images in LR which is just no there when using C1. I know LR very well and depend on it for efficient production but I'm going to be using C1 to output 16bit PSD flies and then import them into LR from now on. I think I'm done with Adobe raw converters on my Sony's until they improve. In my experience.
stevesanacore wrote:
In my experience C1 renders cleaner images. Not sure why even the latest LR can't produce an image as clean as C1 does from my A7R4. Just today I was processing a shoot and noticed more noise that I would like, took the trouble to run C1 and compare. No question the image from C1 has no noise at all. I've been noticing quite a bit of texture in my images in LR which is just no there when using C1. I know LR very well and depend on it for efficient production but I'm going to be using C1 to output 16bit PSD flies and then import them into LR from now on. I think I'm done with Adobe raw converters on my Sony's until they improve. In my experience....Show more →
C1 is definitely more aggressive with noise reduction, sharpening and saturation by default. Personally I prefer a more moderate default, but you can change the default on LR with an import profile. I would however like to be able to have curves added to brushes in LR, but it’s not a dealbreaker for me.
Lightroom may apply a lens profile against your will, with the only recourse to doctor the RAW file in a separate program, or to tape the lens electrical contacts. This is a dealbreaker for me.
DavidBM wrote:
C1 is definitely more aggressive with noise reduction, sharpening and saturation by default. Personally I prefer a more moderate default, but you can change the default on LR with an import profile. I would however like to be able to have curves added to brushes in LR, but it’s not a dealbreaker for me.
Capture One default values on import can be changed per camera. That way you can automatically set your preferred settings depending on the body used. I find that way more convenient than making an import profile and selecting it each time.
I use Lightroom since v2 and I am still using the very last LR version with perpetual license.
When Adobe gave us no option than "switch to subscription for the newest features & camera RAW version" I bought C1 Pro v12.
C1 Pro is great the only issues I had was the sharpening and noise reduction module.
The default settings in the sharpening module was extreme I had to turn it down a lot.
The noise reduction has never gave me the great results of LR v6.x.
Yesterday I upgraded to C1 Pro v20. In a quick test the behaviour of the sharpening module is much better. Over the weekend I will test the noise reduction module. I hope the results are as promised as they market it.
Membler wrote:
I use Capture One and dropped the Adobe subscription a long time ago. I also have Affinity Photo for Photoshop type needs. I can't see me ever going back to Lightroom as I really love C1.
DavidBM wrote:
C1 is definitely more aggressive with noise reduction, sharpening and saturation by default. Personally I prefer a more moderate default, but you can change the default on LR with an import profile. I would however like to be able to have curves added to brushes in LR, but it’s not a dealbreaker for me.
It could be that but I don't notice the softening of detail from noise reduction like I see in LR. I use LR noise reduction quite a bit and am always disappointed in the loss of sharpness that goes along with it so I live with more noise than I'd like.
You can automate import profiles down to the camera level in Lightroom too.
omarccx wrote:
Capture One default values on import can be changed per camera. That way you can automatically set your preferred settings depending on the body used. I find that way more convenient than making an import profile and selecting it each time.
This is simply Adobe dealing with the fact that modern lens designs increasingly are using software to correct problems behind the scenes, in the camera, rather than through optics. The uncorrected file you're interested in may have huge amounts of vignetting and distortion, among other problems.
As the years go by, I expect every major RAW development tool is going to do what Adobe does: automatically apply the corrections to RAW files that the lens manufacturer intended be applied.
vdo1 wrote:
Lightroom may apply a lens profile against your will, with the only recourse to doctor the RAW file in a separate program, or to tape the lens electrical contacts. This is a dealbreaker for me.
Lightroom (and Adobe Camera Raw) can apply settings on import based on camera model, serial number and/or ISO rating. http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lr2_camera/lr2-camera-defaults.htm (Note that this link takes you to a tutorial for LR Version 3, but not much has changed in the current versions.)
We're fortunate to have good choices that meet our every need. I don't use C1 but it sounds like it's become more and more powerful and capable.
mawz wrote:
IIRC C1 goes a bit lower (per-serial vs per-model), but I could be wrong there on the LR side.
But yes, both are very powerful on Import. It's Exporting where the difference shows up (LR better at print/PS, C1 better at file)
What about DxO, in this mix? I use mostly LR but have had some good results with DxO. I tried C1 but found it difficult to get the results I wanted. Maybe I just didn't get to know it well enough.
rdeloe wrote:
This is simply Adobe dealing with the fact that modern lens designs increasingly are using software to correct problems behind the scenes, in the camera, rather than through optics. The uncorrected file you're interested in may have huge amounts of vignetting and distortion, among other problems.
As the years go by, I expect every major RAW development tool is going to do what Adobe does: automatically apply the corrections to RAW files that the lens manufacturer intended be applied.
C1 does this as well, but allows you to fully override if desired. Adobe limits what you can override.
As to DXO, I used it quite a bit a few years ago with the OMD-EM1 and found it produced much cleaner, sharper files than Lightroom using the "prime" noise reduction (I think that's what they called it).
Since getting the A7RIII and now the A7RIV, I've been using exclusively Capture One for a year or so.
About a month ago, I purchased the newest DXO software after trying a few images. . . . However, I'm finding that using initial sharpening noise reduction in Capture One 20 and then Topaz AI Denoise (auto settings for the most part), generally produces a better, and much quicker, result than DXO.
DXO may still be of use, I haven't used it enough yet because the lens profiles don't work with the A7RIV with some of the lenses. I've been going back and forth with DXO's customer support on this. They've fixed some of them, but not yet the Sony 55mm f1.8 or 35mm f2.8 profiles.
DXO produces different results than Capture One. It's very difficult to make them identical.
Overally, I much prefer Capture One 20, once you get used to it. It's also very fast and has tremendous flexibility/tools, with layers, etc. I feel like I've only scratched the surface thus far with Capture One.
RoamingScott wrote:
I find it interesting that most people that have moved away from Lightroom haven’t used it since version 6, indicating a dissatisfaction with cloud subscriptions rather than Lightroom itself.
I think you described the Lightroom situation perfectly here.
I know I really want stand alone non subscription software. You know like PS CS6 and LR 6.......too bad Adobe doesn't want to do that anymore.....
I went from lightroom 4 to DXO photolabs to capture one (still own DXo and C1).
I havent used latest lightrooms, but from what i hear they arent that much better then the old ones. Photosohp i don't care, it's a 'step to far' for usually photography imo, and should be only used on like 1/100 pictures, not enough for me to care to get it 'for free '( it isn't). Plus i HATE subscriptions: it's blackmail. I didn't upgrade Dxo: Well it STILL works. Would that be case with photoshop? nope. This year i didn't upgrade to Capture One V20, I think i will skip a year. Pleasant heh? Adobe photoshop skipping subscription? nope.
Also i see waaaaaaaaaay to much USA (and USA only discounts) being listed as 'wooooow lightroom is only 90 dollar a year'. Yeah good for you (pro USA user without tax), with tax it would already be more, and... In europe even more... In belgium, THE most. 145,08 euro to be exact (no option for any discount or year discount). DxO (especially with 30% frequent discount, and even more so with recent 50% discount pales much cheaper in comparison).
Then there is Capture One. it is NOT cheap and i dislike the push to subscription from them, they added another 10 euro to the yearly upgrade. But they do discounts, adobe doesnt, they allowed for 2 year waits (to upgrade), adobe doesn't. You keep the current bought version permanently no MATTER what, not case with adobe. You have not to put images in cloud (adobe pushes you to do so, and pay more). So even with the push for more money from Capture one, adobe is still the biggest money pusher in Belgium. Mind you last year i payed 120 euro for yearly upgrade. That is 24 euro cheaper then Adobe (would be much more if i skipped a year like i do now, the difference), and i keep the current version permanently (not case with adobe).
now about editing: DXO, LR and C1 are both easy to learn (if you commit for a while, wich usually requires letting loose of your favorite one for a while otherwise you simply don't learn). Colour editer for me C1 wins by big margins (but DXO 3 has something new for that - i'm curious if i would like it). Hightlight and shadow recovery: a wash. Only thing i miss is the midtones slider in lightroom but i found some ways around it. DXO has a optimized slider function (forgot the name). It works very well on a lot of stuff, but sometimes you neeed more, and then you feel the limits of software, you will still punch it out, but C1 is better. Layers brought me a lot of joy in C1. I even use them to fix the 'midtones slider' not being there.
The colour editer is amazing, never had this results in either lightroom or DxO. Maybe the newest Dxo tool closes the gap.
For people who have moved from LR to C1, what do you do for cataloging? I find LR to be a lot easier to import, catalog and find older pictures. I'm struggling with C1 in that regards.
I pretty much just create a folder with the day and purpose/location of the shoot, put my raws in there and import to the raw converter from that folder. Usually as long as I don't change the name of the folder it's usually not much of a problem. Worked with LR for years and seems to be working with C1. ajamils wrote:
For people who have moved from LR to C1, what do you do for cataloging? I find LR to be a lot easier to import, catalog and find older pictures. I'm struggling with C1 in that regards.
