There are often debates in the forums about whether C1 or Adobe LRC + PS provide better results in converting and editing images. But I don't recall seeing competing version of the same images done by skilled users of each software package.
Does anyone have samples of the same images edited with equal technical proficiency by both Adobe and C1?
chiron wrote:
There are often debates in the forums about whether C1 or Adobe LRC + PS provide better results in converting and editing images. But I don't recall seeing competing version of the same images done by skilled users of each software package.
Does anyone have samples of the same images edited with equal technical proficiency by both Adobe and C1?
I think the key here is equal technical proficiency with both products. With both products continually upgrading, I think it would be nearly impossible for someone to stay fully proficient with both platforms.
The only real way to do this is to have the different camps both processes the same raw file and show a full frame final of their version and a 100% crop from the same area. In this you can compare color and demosaicing fidelity along of course with relative processing skills.
I am all in on the C1 side and happy to share my results.
chez wrote:
I think the key here is equal technical proficiency with both products. With both products continually upgrading, I think it would be nearly impossible for someone to stay fully proficient with both platforms.
Yes, I agree that would be a real difficulty. If there were enough interest in doing a real comparison of the virtues of each program package, perhaps different people who are expert in each package could work on the same images. Bu the different users would be a large variable. Or perhaps the same images edited by the same person could be done using only the key basic tools of each program.
People so often toot the horn of the package they favor, but I have never seen anything that actually compares the results that one gets with each package.
chiron wrote:
Yes, I agree that would be a real difficulty. If there were enough interest in doing a real comparison of the virtues of each program package, perhaps different people who are expert in each package could work on the same images. Bu the different users would be a large variable. Or perhaps the same images edited by the same person could be done using only the key basic tools of each program.
People so often toot the horn of the package they favor, but I have never seen anything that actually compares the results that one gets with each package.
Upload a public raw of your choice and let us go at it.
Jack Flesher wrote:
The only real way to do this is to have the different camps both processes the same raw file and show a full frame final of their version and a 100% crop from the same area. In this you can compare color and demosaicing fidelity along of course with relative processing skills.
I am all in on the C1 side and happy to share my results.
I wouldn't be interested so much in excessive crops or pixel-peeping. To be most meaningful, any differences should be visible at viewing size. For example, when i see Topaz AI noise reduction compared to Adobe or DXO noise reduction, I can easily see differences in the final results at viewing size.
chiron wrote:
I wouldn't be interested so much in excessive crops or pixel-peeping. To be most meaningful, any differences should be visible at viewing size. For example, when i see Topaz AI noise reduction compared to Adobe or DXO noise reduction, I can easily see differences in the final results at viewing size.
Well, detailed demosaicing differences aren’t very discernible until you start comparing at 100%. If you don’t care, that’s fine, but others will.
chiron wrote:
I wouldn't be interested so much in excessive crops or pixel-peeping. To be most meaningful, any differences should be visible at viewing size. For example, when i see Topaz AI noise reduction compared to Adobe or DXO noise reduction, I can easily see differences in the final results at viewing size.
I fully understand your lack of interest in excessive cropping. The detrimental effects of cropping are well-understood (although are probably not widely known), yet there are special circumstances when major cropping can be necessary. I think the particular skills of succesfully processing excessively cropped images are valuable in photography. At the very least, this could be an interesting technical challenge/exercise and a useful learning opportunity, if it were attempted on this forum. In general, it would be good to find a raw file that could allow testing several common aspects of post-processing, plus extracting a crop to be processed and upscaled in addition to the full-size image.
If the differences were as stark as some make them out to be, this would be obvious to all.
My hunch is that both are quite powerful programs, and the difference is more in the interface preference of the user than in the actual power of the applications. In other words, a lot of it is Chevy truck versus Ford truck subjectivity.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If the differences were as stark as some make them out to be, this would be obvious to all.
My hunch is that both are quite powerful programs, and the difference is more in the interface preference of the user than in the actual power of the applications. In other words, a lot of it is Chevy truck versus Ford truck subjectivity.
Yes but. What is subjective to some might be objective to another.
That said, I agree with you. The Adobe logic and UI is significantly different from C1’s. Generally speaking Adobe tool selection is leaner and each tool takes a more global approach, while C1 has a plethora of tools where each tends to be more focused. But I can usually get there with either. But then again, I significantly prefer the added control I get from C1. There’s no wrong answer, but there will be preferences between users.
I’m sure DxO has several adherents as well and I know zero about it, so would enjoy seeing similar results from those who use it. End of day this is a question that comes up often enough it will be a good, or at least interesting exercise.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Yes but. What is subjective to some might be objective to another.
That’s not how “subjective” and “objective” work, Jack. ;-)
That said, I agree with you. The Adobe logic and UI is significantly different from C1’s. Generally speaking Adobe tool selection is leaner and each tool takes a more global approach, while C1 has a plethora of tools where each tends to be more focused. But I can usually get there with either…
That last point is key. When it comes to results, I don’t see any solid evidence that one is meaningfully better than the other.
…But then again, I significantly prefer the added control I get from C1. There’s no wrong answer, but there will be preferences between users.
I wonder if you really get “added control,” or if perhaps you either simply prefer the modes of control in one over the other and/or perhaps don’t know how to exercise the same control in the software that you aren’t as fond of. (I’m thinking of a comment I read recently where it was claimed that an advantage in C1 is you could save things as presets… that you can also save as presets in Adobe.)
I’m sure DxO has several adherents as well and I know zero about it, so would enjoy seeing similar results from those who use it. End of day this is a question that comes up often enough it will be a good, or at least interesting exercise.
There’s no harm at all in discussing the capabilities of these programs, and I think it is good that Adobe has some serious competition. However, I think that ultimately this is a bit ike those threads that set out to decide what is “the best camera brand” or “the best lens.”
gdanmitchell wrote:
That’s not how “subjective” and “objective” work, Jack. ;-)
That’s last point is key. When it comes to results, I don’t see any solid evidence that one is necessarily better than the other.
I wonder if you really get “added control,” or if perhaps you either prefer the modes of control in one over the other and/or perhaps don’t know how to exercise the same control in the software that you aren’t as fond of. (I’m thinking of a comment I read recently where it was claimed that an advantage in C1 is you could save things as presets… that you can also save as presets in Adobe.)
There’s no harm at all in discussing the capabilities of these programs, and I think it is good that Adobe has some serious competition. However, I think that ultimately this is a bit ike those threads that set out to decide what is “the best camera brand” or “the best lens.”
Hmmm. Then I will say much of what appears subjective to you because of the small scale remains objective to me because I can see and measure the differences.
When I say “get there” I mean “good enough” but that’s not usually the same as “the best it can be” for me.
Bottom line is we differ in several areas in the processes of both taking and making our images. Neither of us is wrong and we’re both right for us. And neither one of us is likely to influence the other to change anything. But I believe (hope?) our joint desire is for others understand the why’s from our posts and apply them towards what might work better for them.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Hmmm. Then I will say much of what appears subjective to you because of the small scale remains objective to me because I can see and measure the differences.
When I say “get there” I mean “good enough” but that’s not usually the same as “the best it can be” for me.
Bottom line is we differ in several areas in the processes of both taking and making our images. Neither of us is wrong and we’re both right for us. And neither one of us is likely to influence the other to change anything. But I believe (hope?) our joint desire is for others understand the why’s from our posts and apply them towards what might work better for them. ...Show more →
We could all agree that some system is capable of resolving X lines/millimeter. That’s objective. (Though, to dig deeper, that measurement is based on an assumption about how much contrast must be maintained between those line pairs, and that is a decision that is arguably… subjective!)
The question of whether some amount of resolution (or other characteristic) is sufficient and/or is visible is subjective.
And rather than “the best it can be” is also subjective. If no one can see the difference between A and B, the characterization as “best” is subjective. If we can measure a difference between A and B that cannot be seen, there is an objective difference, but believing that is is or is not relevant is a subjective decision.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Well, detailed demosaicing differences aren’t very discernible until you start comparing at 100%. If you don’t care, that’s fine, but others will.
Unless it’s visible either in print or displayed on the screen…who cares. This obsession of looking at images blown up to 100% or more is hilarious. I know if I look at my prints through a magnification loupe I can see individual drops…but when hanging on a wall it’s beautiful…and that’s all that counts.
Looking at charts and looking at individual pixels is a measurbators obsession…nothing to do with photography.
chez wrote:
Unless it’s visible either in print or displayed on the screen…who cares. This obsession of looking at images blown up to 100% or more is hilarious. I know if I look at my prints through a magnification loupe I can see individual drops…but when hanging on a wall it’s beautiful…and that’s all that counts.
Looking at charts and looking at individual pixels is a measurbators obsession…nothing to do with photography.
Well for those that know the distinctions, there’s a difference between tangible and “measurebating.” But given your occasional sophomoric commentary, perhaps you do not understand the distinctions?
chez wrote:
Unless it’s visible either in print or displayed on the screen…who cares. This obsession of looking at images blown up to 100% or more is hilarious. I know if I look at my prints through a magnification loupe I can see individual drops…but when hanging on a wall it’s beautiful…and that’s all that counts.
Looking at charts and looking at individual pixels is a measurbators obsession…nothing to do with photography.
Why would you not look at images at 100% (or even 200% on the high-res displays) in order to see at pixel level? An image may not be perfectly sharp, but one needs to know where it is compared to a personal bar. I'm not going to waste my time on an image that is not up to par. An exception would be like if an alien from outer space landed in the area. I would probably accept slightly out of focus images for the novelty of it.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Well for those that know the distinctions, there’s a difference between tangible and “measurebating.” But given your occasional sophomoric commentary, perhaps you do not understand the distinctions?
EB-1 wrote:
Why would you not look at images at 100% (or even 200% on the high-res displays) in order to see at pixel level? An image may not be perfectly sharp, but one needs to know where it is compared to a personal bar. I'm not going to waste my time on an image that is not up to par. An exception would be like if an alien from outer space landed in the area. I would probably accept slightly out of focus images for the novelty of it.
EBH
Again, if one cannot tell this minutia difference in the final outcome of an image…who cares what it looks like at 200%?
