p.1 #1 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
The other day i said I would post some screen grabs of the differences between the default previews which Capture One and Adobe LightRoom 2 come up with for RAW images when I first insert my memory card. So, here they are:
These are screen grabs using SnapzPro on a dual monitor Mac Pro. And then scaled down to fit here.
After scaling I dunno if you can really see the difference in sharpness or not but the CO4 display is much sharper as well.
p.1 #2 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
I've just been introduced to using C1 and I've found a similar result. I think it's possible to get good results out of images in LR-- I've been using it for two years now. But I think it's easier in C1.
p.1 #3 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
Yeah. I tend to agree with that. And easier is great when there's 300 image you have to go through. At just a minute per image that would be 5 hours of work saved.
p.1 #4 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
This is exactly why I've been using CaptureOne for the last seven years. The Adobe people really haven't understood workflow yet. In addition, C1 files have less shadow noise and slightly higher sharpness in unsharpened files than the same in LR or ACR. The speed at what you get what you want is what it's all about. I often plow through 1000-2000 images at a time, and this is where C1 rocks.
p.1 #5 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
Just a quick question: did you use any of the new profiles in LR? I think they're a huge step forward. Try the same conversion with the Adobe Standard profile and see if there's a difference. The ACR 3.x (and now 4.x) profiles were lame indeed, but things have changed...
p.1 #6 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
Yes, I've always used the profiles. Currently it's at Beta 2 with camera specific profiles. Gone already are the days of the ACR profiles. No more updates on that one. At least so says Adobe. I thin it's 4.4 was the last one. Now they're called AS for Adobe Standard. (Currently ASb2)
Edit:
BTW, the camera maker engine specific profiles also means that if you didn't shoot it with a camera that contains that specific engine then you get NOTHING but a little different ACR-like profile. None of the cool options (which try to mimic the camera's engine presets) are available. So even tho I have a Vivid setting and 4 or 5 others in-camera all I have in the Adobe menus is ASb2 plain.
p.1 #8 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
Bif,
Thanks for posting the comparison, it's an eye opener. Cannot say I ever really looked into CO. Started with Elements years ago then went on to PS and LR but never looked around really.
p.1 #9 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
The Adobe Camera Raw beta profiles do have the different settings - Standard, Faithfull, Landscape, Neutral & Portrait.
C1 is doing adjustments to your files without your knowledge or intention. If thats what you like - that's perfectly fine.
In Lightroom - Once you have a preset that makes your images look the way you want - it takes less than 1 minute to apply that preset to hundreds or even thousands of images all at once. Actually - you can have it apply the preset to every image on import and it takes you no time.
While I can see that if you made no adjustments at all - the C1 photos look better above - it's just not really relevant unless you can't come up with a preset that you like or that one minute or less that it takes to apply it to your whole batch of images is that important to you.
p.1 #10 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
MidMadn wrote:
The Adobe Camera Raw beta profiles do have the different settings - Standard, Faithfull, Landscape, Neutral & Portrait.
ONLY IF the camera you shot it on has "Standard, Faithfull, Landscape, Neutral & Portrait etc" AND your camera has a recognized engine. I think currently ASb2 only contains 2 engine mimics.
While I can see that if you made no adjustments at all - the C1 photos look better above - it's just not really relevant unless you can't come up with a preset that you like or that one minute or less that it takes to apply it to your whole batch of images is that important to you.
Jack
Nah, that doesn't work. I do that. I have about 50 presets that I made. Guess what happens when I shoot at a different location or even pointed in a different direction? Yup, gotta make a whole new preset cuz none of the previous ones do what you want. Maybe if you took 100 product shots all with the same lighting then, yeah.
p.1 #11 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
These are "default" results. If one only wants to rely on factory default, why bother with RAW processing, at all? Besides, one can change default to whatever parameters best suit them and save those settings as default in almost all of the programs. It's like comparing the jpg results from one camera that has the default settings strong and one that has the default settings at neutral.
The workflow that best suits ones individual preferences are far more important in my book.
p.1 #12 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
Gil_W wrote:
Bif,
Thanks for posting the comparison, it's an eye opener. Cannot say I ever really looked into CO. Started with Elements years ago then went on to PS and LR but never looked around really.
Gil
NP Gil!
Here's DxO Optics Pro Elite vrs. LightRoom 2. DxO is always on the left here. All settings for DxO are automatic and it recognized the camera and lenses used and did all the things DxO is supposed to do. Read the website to get an understanding of the design concept behind DxO.
These are all 100% crops so there's no scaling or anything in this set.
I may do some more too... I dunno... Time for a nap.
All of these shots are of course with no editing of any kind.
BTW, I don't hate LR2 or have an axe to grind with Adobe or anything. I'm just into being educational.
p.1 #13 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
ohenry wrote:
These are "default" results. If one only wants to rely on factory default, why bother with RAW processing, at all?
There's just less to do is all. The reason for RAW is mostly lossless 16bit. If cameras saved lossless JPeg2000 files @16bit it wouldn't take long before no one used RAW any longer. The purpose of RAW isn't to cause us all a bunch of extra work I hope.
I think what we're seeing here is apps that have some image analysis built in and LR2 which doesn't. For sure this is the case with DxO. I haven't read the CaptureONE blurbs but it seems like that's the case with CapONE too.
Besides, one can change default to whatever parameters best suit them and save those settings as default in almost all of the programs.
But it's different for EVERY photograph and CO4 always starts you off in a better position with lots and lots less to do. Sure, it only takes a minute. But that's the point here and all I'm saying.
It's like comparing the jpg results from one camera that has the default settings strong and one that has the default settings at neutral.
Actually I think it's more like comparing the two JPegs from different cameras but with the same "neutral" setting.
The workflow that best suits ones individual preferences are far more important in my book.
I agree but I use all these apps and the workflow across all of them is identical. It's like the dev teams of all these apps attended the SAME meetings or something. I've never seen such uniformity! It's scary. So, all that's left to compare really is quality, stability, and speed.
I just realized that I disagreed with everything you just said. Sorry about that. I'm trying to be disagreeable. Honest.
p.1 #14 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
I will admit to having DxO, but use it mainly for lens corrections and sometimes just to see a different version of the RAW. I also have Lightzone and SilkyPix but they are mainly for Ricoh, other P&S cameras plus specific image adjustments. LR and PS are to the point now where I really do not need to use them much any more.
I don't think any of the three with the exception of possibly DxO has a work flow one would want to use on a day to day basis. However they are very good at what they do but time consuming to use. I noticed a lot of LX3 people who got their camera with SilkyPix included do not care for it, but once you learn it, it is quite good, especially with Ricoh RAW images.
I think the most telling image that was posted was the one at 300% using LR and CO. Whether the raw processor is applying NR and other corrections is irrelevant if the artifacts that showed up in the LR image are there. True, 300% is REALLY pixel peeking, but in that case, it does show artifacts that should not be there if the RAW processor is doing it's job correctly.
p.1 #15 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
I also have used all of these apps. My point is that the default settings are just that -- default...and we generally tweak from there ..otherwise, we might just as well shoot JPG and accept what our camera's processor offers. I can set Lightroom to import photos with my personal default settings that are appropriate for my camera and get results close to where I want everytime. I was just pointing out that comparing default settings isn't always a good measurement. If it works well for you, that's great. Keep on using it and enjoy it. That you get good results with a positive workflow and you are happy is all that matters in the end.
Perhaps the newer DxO is better than the version I used, but the processing time with the old one was unbearable to me. I refused to upgrade it and no longer use it. I also owned Capture One, which I did like. Push come to shove, I use Photoshop (and now Lightroom in additon to PS) because I prefer the overall workflow from import to output and I can achieve the results I'm looking for with a workflow that works well for me. Your mileage may vary
And disagreement is a good thing (as long as it remains on a civil level, of course)
p.1 #16 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
I'm processing some high-ISO shots at the moment from a DJ club event held last Friday, using both LR and C1.
C1 is better from the start. C1 is the only one that gets the highlights close to perfect - LR is a total wash re. the highlights in quite a few of the images. LR is way better with hot pixels: C1 introduces loads of white pixels in most images, whereas LR's results are smooth; alas C1 doesn't feature a clone tool to get rid of the nasty white pixels. None of the two programs is particularly good at noise reduction: LR introduces a 'digital' look by lack of a better description while C1 smears a bit too soon applying color noise reduction.
Conclusion: neither are perfect. LR has more features (printing module, clone tool, local adjustments); C1 has a better raw engine as far as I'm concerned but stuck pixels are a problem. To get a more film-like look I have to run LR's results through PS; to get rid of dust spots etc. I have to run C1's results through PS. I think I'll revert to shooting jpg ;-)
p.1 #17 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
I have to say I much prefer the LR results you posted in comparison with the DxO. That may be because I prefer some noise in the shots than the fake smooth look that DxO is turning out, preference of course.
Also, I've noticed that in camera raw the preview is not very sharp, while the C1 preview you posted looks pretty darn sharp - is C1 doing sharpening here, or is the preview just sharpened for viewing? I'd prefer to handle my own sharpening at the end of the processing, but if C1 is just sharpening the preview just for looks, that's cool.. makes it look nice
I'll agree with Emile that camera raw isn't too impressive when it comes to highlights, it'd be nice if it were.. then maybe I wouldn't have to do so much blending..
p.1 #18 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
ohenry wrote:
I also have used all of these apps. My point is that the default settings are just that -- default...and we generally tweak from there ..otherwise, we might just as well shoot JPG and accept what our camera's processor offers.
I still disagree. Or maybe I'm not understanding. All these apps can tweak. They all have a starting point we call "defaults". They all allow the defaults to be adjusted, and they all allow presets for a library of "defaults" if you will. If one app's starting point is closer to my target (ending point) it just means less work for me. \(@.@)/ YAY! Less work!!! Hehe...
I can set Lightroom to import photos with my personal default settings that are appropriate for my camera and get results close to where I want everytime.
Really? I can't. In any of these apps. And I think I'm a very talented "user" - even if I don't always apply myself. So far however, CO4 seems to put me closer to the target faster and with less work. DxO is just weird OTOH. Sometimes it nails it and sometimes it's so far off I'm not feeling "what do I have to do to improve this image" but rather "What do I have to undo to fix THIS". Aperture is middle ground but if you actually move more than 5 or 6 sliders it becomes so dirty-dog slow that after about 4 or 5 image edits I'm ready break my mouse and smash my keyboard. LightRoom? I think it's 100% identical to ACR and PS. I use it anyway but I sometimes question the validity of it's very existence. Probably, I guess, about, 40% of my editing is PS+ACR, 10% is Bridge+PS+ACR, 25% is CO4+PS, 20% is LR2+PS, and the other 5% is just whatever... trying new stuff or using something for a particular feature I learned about in another app.
And those percentages are distributed over quite allot of image editing. Here's just a little over two months worth - all over 90% full - all DVDs - a little over 100 discs:
I was just pointing out that comparing default settings isn't always a good measurement.
What's a better way? I can't think of anything that doesn't bias the process by user ability and personal taste. This is just a comment about where these apps start off with your photos and the IQ they present you with on-screen. I think this is important because editing is a taoistic endeavor. Tao says you're HERE, make your next move, your options are A, B, and C. If you choose C for example you're HERE, and the process starts over again. Hehehe... Taoism for n00bs.
Perhaps the newer DxO is better than the version I used, but the processing time with the old one was unbearable to me. I refused to upgrade it and no longer use it. I also owned Capture One, which I did like. Push come to shove, I use Photoshop (and now Lightroom in additon to PS) because I prefer the overall workflow from import to output and I can achieve the results I'm looking for with a workflow that works well for me. Your mileage may vary
Yeah, it's still a little slow. And really it does have one slight altercation in the workflow uniformity I mentioned earlier. You tweak 10 or 20 images (or whatever) and then press the process button. From there it batches the group with the tweaks you made for each. The GUI is fast and all but the processing can take about 10 or 15 seconds per image. If there were 20 images that's 5 minutes you're waiting. 20 minutes for 100 images and so on.
And disagreement is a good thing (as long as it remains on a civil level, of course)
Kewl! Wait, damn! Now I have to go back through this post and add some choice expletives.
p.1 #19 · Other Editors Vrs. LightRoom 2 (Default Preview)
Here's Aperture compared to LR2. Newest versions of each. As I said in an earlier post I think Aperture's IQ and abilities fall in between CaptureONE and LR2 but after about 5 or 6 slider moves in any particular image it becomes unbearably slow. I hate slow, so although I own it I almost never use it. On the other hand if you like to tag and sort your images I think it may be the best app. At least MANY others seem to think so. Personally for sorting I like GraphicConverter. Man, that thing ROCKS! But no go for editing RAW as there's no 16 bit support yet. It will load, display, and sort 16bit tho. Here's a shot of the $35 GraphicsConverter and the URL:
At just a minute per image that would be 5 hours of work saved. 
Hehe...
So far however, CO4 seems to put me closer to the target faster and with less work. DxO is just weird OTOH. Sometimes it nails it and sometimes it's so far off I'm not feeling "what do I have to do to improve this image" but rather "What do I have to undo to fix THIS". 
LightRoom? I think it's 100% identical to ACR and PS. I use it anyway but I sometimes question the validity of it's very existence. Probably, I guess, about, 40% of my editing is PS+ACR, 10% is Bridge+PS+ACR, 25% is CO4+PS, 20% is LR2+PS, and the other 5% is just whatever... trying new stuff or using something for a particular feature I learned about in another app.
