DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Capture One 4
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 9 of 9, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/28/2008 11:20:24 AM · #1
I know Aperture and Lightroom are the hot topics in RAW processing these days, but I'm curious if anybody is using, or has used, Capture One 4.

I had some problems with the handling of RAW files from by 40D in Aperture, so I tried Lightroom as an alternative. Lightroom was better, but Canon's DPP still managed to squeeze better results from the files than Adobe. (this really is specific to the 40D) I have always avoided Capture One software because the prices were so high, but Capture One 4 is only $99 so I decided to give it a try. I am completely shocked, in a good way, with the qualify of images it produces. I'm wondering if this is some kind of secret or if maybe people find that the features in Aperture and Lightroom are just as important as absolute image quality.

Now this isn't intended to start a war over which is best, I'm just curious about the experiences of others with the Capture One product. My requirements with RAW conversion is simply that a well exposed image should look great and have nice 'film like' characteristics as the base starting point and then provide good tools for adjusting as necessary. My final editing is always done in photoshop and I don't see that changing.

Thanks!
 08/28/2008 01:13:19 PM · #2
I use nikon, but have noticed the same thing. I actually did tests of IQ and found capture one pro to be the very best IQ wise. They really know how to read Nikon RAW. Almost as good as Nikon themselves.

I will post the test shots later today, if your interested.

In the end I chose to use Nikons software to convert to Tif and then import into PS. That way i could keep the colors and IQ but still edit is PS. I tested the pro edition as its more feature rich, but also cost more. Hope this helps.
 08/28/2008 02:12:01 PM · #3
Originally posted by onesaint:
I use nikon, but have noticed the same thing. I actually did tests of IQ and found capture one pro to be the very best IQ wise. They really know how to read Nikon RAW. Almost as good as Nikon themselves.

I will post the test shots later today, if your interested.

In the end I chose to use Nikons software to convert to Tif and then import into PS. That way i could keep the colors and IQ but still edit is PS. I tested the pro edition as its more feature rich, but also cost more. Hope this helps.

I would definitely be interested in seeing results despite the fact that it's a different camera/platform. I don't shoot with Nikon now, but I would like to have a workflow that isn't specific to brand.

Message edited by author 2008-08-28 14:12:27.
 08/28/2008 03:49:25 PM · #4
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I had some problems with the handling of RAW files from by 40D in Aperture, so I tried Lightroom as an alternative. Lightroom was better, but Canon's DPP still managed to squeeze better results from the files than Adobe.


Which version of Lightroom did you try? In Lightroom 2, you can edit the camera camera profile to something other than ACR 4.4, which gives results that are much more in-line with Canon's DPP or Nikon's Capture NX.
 08/28/2008 04:19:30 PM · #5
My tests were against LR 1.2 I think. Version 2 had not come out at that point.
 08/28/2008 05:53:03 PM · #6
Originally posted by geoffb:
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I had some problems with the handling of RAW files from by 40D in Aperture, so I tried Lightroom as an alternative. Lightroom was better, but Canon's DPP still managed to squeeze better results from the files than Adobe.


Which version of Lightroom did you try? In Lightroom 2, you can edit the camera camera profile to something other than ACR 4.4, which gives results that are much more in-line with Canon's DPP or Nikon's Capture NX.


I was testing with Lightroom 2 and had loaded the new 'beta' camera profiles that are a closer match to DPP. The results were good, much better than Aperture in this situation, and I was about to settle on Lightroom as my choice for RAW conversion. I grabbed Capture One 4 on a whim and the quality of the results caught me completely off guard. It's not just the color and contrast, it's the quality of the transitions and the textures that caught my eye. Some things don't quantify well, the tone warmth in the tone of a great guitar or the plunk when a string in struck in a great piano are good examples. In this case I just look at the image and say WOW.

The images that started this are of a model in a deep red dress shot in very warm evening light. Aperture turn the dress a soft red almost magenta color. ACR/Lightroom got the colors right but the highlights in the dress are somewhat abrupt. Capture One 4 makes it look wonderful, with the transitions I would expect from film. I brought it up here because I was so surprised. The workflow is quirky, but I'm having a hard time telling myself to use something more feature rich when the image results are so good.
 08/28/2008 06:48:23 PM · #7
This image, i shot and opened with Nikon ViewNX which just allows me to catalog images. i then opened the image and a copy, one with Adobe Camera Raw and the other with Phaseone Capture One. they both have the same settings, white balance taken from same place on the image, same temp, and what have you. i just thought it was interesting to see the color difference between adobe and other software. i guess Nikon Capture NX provides the best interpretation of NEF files, Capture One being second and Adobe third.



ETA: Ill have to see if i have the LR/C1 images at home. This was taken from an email I sent to a friend.

Message edited by author 2008-08-28 18:50:47.
 08/28/2008 07:56:44 PM · #8
I just downloaded the trial...this looks like a hidden gem. I wonder what their processing secret is? There's a noticable IQ difference between this and (admittedly free) ACR. Anyone?
 08/28/2008 08:43:55 PM · #9
Originally posted by david_c:
I just downloaded the trial...this looks like a hidden gem. I wonder what their processing secret is? There's a noticable IQ difference between this and (admittedly free) ACR. Anyone?


For starters I know they use a wide colorspace like lightroom does. something close to Prophoto. After that its just really good reverse engineering of Nikon & Canon RAW. Afaik, just rewritten uncompressed tif files.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/27/2025 05:37:27 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/27/2025 05:37:27 PM EST.