JadedWriter wrote:
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.
Does that catalog the meta data as well? For example, if I want to view all the pictures taken from a particular lens or camera?
I honestly have never even tried. Most of my stuff is in some sort of gigantic import folder list, but I don't know how to even look at that info. I have found it and god damn at the numbers I have logged on my cameras... ajamils wrote:
Does that catalog the meta data as well? For example, if I want to view all the pictures taken from a particular lens or camera?
stevesanacore wrote:
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.
Right: but C1s default is not just higher NR but also higher (possibly adaptive) sharpening.
If you just raise the NR in LR, it'll look softer.
So to make them match, you'll need to raise the NR in LR, then raise the sharpening (ideally previewing and adjusting the NR mask as well to ensure that areas of no detail aren't sharpened - that just brings back noise)
The point is that while there are some subtle differences in the demosaicing of C1 and ACR/LR they are very subtle and don't go to issues of noise or sharpness: these are default processing differences.
C1 and LR are both great choices depending on workflow etc. But I guess I think your C1 > Lightroom workflow is a bad idea compared to fine tuning the LR defaults for noise and sharpening to your liking, because it defeats the point of programs like LR and Lightroom, which is to have non-destructive recipes that are easily changeable on the underlying RAW file, not a demosaiced file which is what you will end up with in LR with your suggested workflow (sorry, I now am not sure if I'm replying to the OP but that was their solution)
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.
I find C1 easier, perhaps cause i was not fully used to lightroom way of importat but more importantly, lightroom does stuff with catalogueing in weird maps and if you mob, or re-arrange image taken maps it's a mess, that almost cannot be fixed. With C1 that is (imo) much easier. What i do is this:
You click the import arrow top left. Make sure it's in a good map. Your map structure (imo) is your 'catalogue' structure. I go like this: Image, submaps of camera's (D800, d810, Sony A7RIII, soon Sony A7RIV). In each i create year maps, then, i create maps with best explanation possible of what the import took images off. Those names are also used when opening the images.
For the sessions and catalogues i still have to get a little used. But usually you can go to 'recent imports' and all images are there, very easy to navigate. Finally found a good way to name exported files (while doing more then one), and that shortened workflow tremendously (and still keeps good covering of what each image is and where it came from). Camera model, date picture (good for sorting), then image name (again good for sorting, and also to know where it came from (wich raw file, wich same name).
Highly recommend C1 over LR, especially if you ever intend to tether your camera. I would rather shoot to card than tether via the kludgy and buggy LR tethering interface. Much prefer the skintones out of C1 as well. In my opinion well worth it, even if you don't plan on abandoning LR.
ajamils wrote:
Does that catalog the meta data as well? For example, if I want to view all the pictures taken from a particular lens or camera?
Capture One absolutely does all that metadata stuff that Lightroom does. You can filter by lens, camera, serial number, pretty much anything you can think of very easily in CO.
DavidBM wrote:
Right: but C1s default is not just higher NR but also higher (possibly adaptive) sharpening.
If you just raise the NR in LR, it'll look softer.
So to make them match, you'll need to raise the NR in LR, then raise the sharpening (ideally previewing and adjusting the NR mask as well to ensure that areas of no detail aren't sharpened - that just brings back noise)
The point is that while there are some subtle differences in the demosaicing of C1 and ACR/LR they are very subtle and don't go to issues of noise or sharpness: these are default processing differences.
C1 and LR are both great choices depending on workflow etc. But I guess I think your C1 > Lightroom workflow is a bad idea compared to fine tuning the LR defaults for noise and sharpening to your liking, because it defeats the point of programs like LR and Lightroom, which is to have non-destructive recipes that are easily changeable on the underlying RAW file, not a demosaiced file which is what you will end up with in LR with your suggested workflow (sorry, I now am not sure if I'm replying to the OP but that was their solution)...Show more →
Well when I find the time, I'll try and do more experimenting with fine tuning the settings and keep comparing. But it's not just noise that I'm seeing in LR, it a texture I see that has been bothering me for a while. And I don't think the noise just should be there at all at 100 ISO as much as it is.
Thank you for your insight though, I appreciate it.
DavidBM wrote:
Right: but C1s default is not just higher NR but also higher (possibly adaptive) sharpening.
If you just raise the NR in LR, it'll look softer.
So to make them match, you'll need to raise the NR in LR, then raise the sharpening (ideally previewing and adjusting the NR mask as well to ensure that areas of no detail aren't sharpened - that just brings back noise)
The point is that while there are some subtle differences in the demosaicing of C1 and ACR/LR they are very subtle and don't go to issues of noise or sharpness: these are default processing differences.
C1 and LR are both great choices depending on workflow etc. But I guess I think your C1 > Lightroom workflow is a bad idea compared to fine tuning the LR defaults for noise and sharpening to your liking, because it defeats the point of programs like LR and Lightroom, which is to have non-destructive recipes that are easily changeable on the underlying RAW file, not a demosaiced file which is what you will end up with in LR with your suggested workflow (sorry, I now am not sure if I'm replying to the OP but that was their solution)...Show more →
This article agrees with you, and provides side-by-side comparisons plus settings to get the same look
Good article, thanks! Exactly matches how it seemed to me when I tried out C1 against LR - and the formula they give to make images match seems about right.
One thing to bear in mind if you *do* use C1 together with photoshop: if you send C1 developed images to PS or some other editor, you should significantly *reduce* the sharpening, (and I'd be tempted to reduce contrast as well) first. Otherwise you'll be editing sharpened images, which is - beyond a little capture sharpening- and a bad idea. The bulk of the sharpening should be the final stage, before display or printing and you'll over sharpen at this stage if they are edited with C1 levels of sharpening.
Capture One has much better secondary monitor support than Lightroom.
With C1 you can display the image full screen on the secondary monitor and work directly on it with all the C1 tools, which are permanently displayed on the primary monitor along with the browser/grid thumbnails.
With LR you can display the image full screen on the second monitor but none of the LR tools will actually work on that screen. All you can do is watch the effect of the tools as you use them on the primary monitor. Quite a waste of screen real estate.
(If someone knows otherwise please let me know)
ytwong wrote:
I have both, but haven't upgrade C1 to 20 from 12 yet since I mainly use LR and seems a bit expensive to upgrade so frequently for a tool I don't use quite often (I have purchase a style pack too, and the UI is so disappointing and haven't really used it).
Both are good but the look is quite different and it's hard to mimic each other. C1 default seems more punchy but sometimes a bit harsh, and so far I *feel* that LR seems doesn't handle A7Rm4 files very well..
For me it's hard to dropped LR because
1. LR has much better dust/spot removal (C1 spot removal is just bad)
2. no tools to do timelapse with C1(I have LRTimelapse, can't find equivalent for C1, although I don't do that very often since that's very time consuming)
3. LR better than C1 as DAM tool (that's subjective)
4. LR can do Pano and HDR (I have Autopano but the company is now dead.. not sure if I want to buy another dedicated Pano software)...Show more →
While I do enjoy C1....this is a good list of opportunities for C1.
#1 - So true. This needs to be improved.
#2 - Dunno. I don't do time lapses.
#3 - Generally agree, though I'm wondering if its me just getting used to it after years of LR.
#4 - Agreed, the integrated HDR/Pano in LR is a nice addition. I don't use HDR enough to really matter but its nice to just have it in the primary software.
ytwong wrote:
I have both, but haven't upgrade C1 to 20 from 12 yet since I mainly use LR and seems a bit expensive to upgrade so frequently for a tool I don't use quite often (I have purchase a style pack too, and the UI is so disappointing and haven't really used it).
Both are good but the look is quite different and it's hard to mimic each other. C1 default seems more punchy but sometimes a bit harsh, and so far I *feel* that LR seems doesn't handle A7Rm4 files very well..
For me it's hard to dropped LR because
1. LR has much better dust/spot removal (C1 spot removal is just bad)
2. no tools to do timelapse with C1(I have LRTimelapse, can't find equivalent for C1, although I don't do that very often since that's very time consuming)
3. LR better than C1 as DAM tool (that's subjective)
4. LR can do Pano and HDR (I have Autopano but the company is now dead.. not sure if I want to buy another dedicated Pano software)...Show more →
1) Yeah, LR spot removal with content aware fill is much much better and it do an outstanding job in that regard.
3) LR as a DAM is almost unbeatable. Even though I use C1 quite a time but I don't like their implementation. I am currently looking for an alternative and consider Photo Mechanic as a DAM replacement. Probably a good solution to kill two birds with one stone because Photo Mechanic as a quick review tool for the large A7R RAW files to find the keepers and delete the rest. After the filtering process import it into C1.
4) Exactly! Also missing those two little tools. Quite handy to have the panorama and HDR function at hand in one solution.
