Software analysis paralysis - Help!!

[Olly B]

I would be so grateful for views and/or suggestions as to the fix I have got myself into over post processing software! Essentially I want to simplify my workflow as although I don't mind doing a bit of post processesing, I don't want it to be an overly complex process, I really want a streamlined fairly simple process, I seem totally unable to come to a definitive decision as to how to process my photos!

I am a hobbyist, and shoot mainly outdoor stuff, landscapes, seascapes, some minimalist stuff and occasionally some wildlife if it conveniently presents itself to me! I currently use an Olympus omd em1 mkiii with a couple of good lenses and work on a MacBook Pro which I recently updated to Monterey (more on that later!).

I currently have:- Capture One Pro (from my Fuji days), DXO PL4 (from my previous Olympus days) and On1 Photo Raw 2022 (from??), I also have Affinity lurking in the background should I ever feel the need to undertake something a bit more complex. Oh, and I also have iQuimage (?) for printing, should I have the desire to do so.

My difficulty is that I have too much choice, I need to settle on a workflow and properly get to grips with the software, but I find myself jumping from one to another and never ever really getting to grips with anything. The situation is as follows:

For final raw edits, I prefer DXO for my Olympus files, with Capture One coming second and On1 third;
For access to additional bits and bobs (which I rarely use), On1 comes out first, followed by Capture one and DXO third;
For Import and culling and organisation, On1 comes out first, followed by Capture One and DXO last.

Basically I would like a workflow which allows me to get the best of all worlds, primarily a good importing and organisation system and then a good editing suite for my Oly raw files, I am not so concerned with the printing aspect or additional bits and bobs like sky replacement etc. (By the way, in DXO since updating to Monterey, I can't seem to get the preview when using Deep Prime, but it looks as if that is something they are working on). I would consider a DAM (?) software for the importing, culling etc to pair with DXO, but would welcome suggestions re this. ( I have the Olympus Workspace, but it seems unbelievably slow on my Mac, forgot to mention that software!). I think in setting all this out, I realise I really like DXO, but need a good organisation/import/culling setup to complement it.

Bit of a long ramble, but I would be grateful for your thoughts, particularly in respect of Olympus ORF files.

Many Thanks for reading this!!

 

[tijuana taxi]

Why not try Lightroom, its gives you all the organisation and editing capabilities you need.
You can also export straight from Deep Prime into Lightroom, that's my usual workflow for Olympus and Panasonic raw files.

 

[garryknight]

Some processing software integrates into Photo Raw. If DXO does this, it will appear on a menu as "Edit in DXO". So you could use Photo Raw for digital asset management, send the photo to DXO, then the edited result will appear back in Photo Raw.

 

[Olly B]

Thanks Rich and Gary for your suggestions, I currently don’t have the Adobe suite, so in a bid not to spend more time and money will probably pass on the LR option, though having given up my subscription I can see how it would streamline things!! As well as DXO Prime not showing up now I have upgraded to Monterey on my Mac, Capture One now just shows up as a question mark!!

 

[Olly B]

Just tried to see if I can marry up photo raw and dxo, but it seems they do not talk to each other, shame as your suggestion would have been a good workflow, oh well, i may see if Capture One and dxo/photo raw will communicate?

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

I find Gimp photo editing software really good and quite fast to use ( once I got used to it) its a Free program and while it can be very complex if you want it to be it can also be used in Keep it simple stupid mode. I'm not a real fan of spending lots of time in front of a computer with regards to photography so it suits me well. I generally alter saturation ( sometimes all the way to Black and white) and play a little with contrast and highlights and shadows.

 

[Olly B]

many thanks, I’ll have a look at Gimp, I will veer towards simplicity regarding its organisational options!!

 

[myotis]

Thanks Rich and Gary for your suggestions, I currently don’t have the Adobe suite, so in a bid not to spend more time and money will probably pass on the LR option, though having given up my subscription I can see how it would streamline things!! As well as DXO Prime not showing up now I have upgraded to Monterey on my Mac, Capture One now just shows up as a question mark!!

Assuming you get C1 and DXO on Monterey sorted, you can round trip from C1 to DXO, ie use the Open with option in C1 to send the raw to DXO, and set up DXO to save as a DNG in the same folder as the original raw. With C1 sessions, the saved DNG will automagically appear in the C1 session, with C1 catalogs you will probably need to sync the folder for the DNG to appear in C1.

This is how I used DXO when I only used it to get access to the Prime noise reduction tools.

As an aside, although I use Photo Mechanic for ingest, keywording, culling and general file management, I find the C1 tools for selecting the best images to take forward for editing to be the best I've used. I also like the fexibility of C1 to work as a browser, in sessions, with a referenced database, or a managed database (not that I have ever used the latter).

I gave up trying to reduce the number of programs I use, and just worked out a way of getting them to working together.

Photo Mechanic plus Fast Raw Viewer for ingestion file management, captioning and keywording and technical assessment, and, as of PM Plus, cataloging.

Then I use C1 sessions for raw editing and I can round trip from C1 to Photoshop or Topaz for denoising, but in practice I tend to round trip to PS (using Edit with rather than Open with, and then use Topaz in a layers in PS. I've also round tripped to Affinity Photo for the same reasons. Using Edit With automagically adds the PS edited file into C1 whether you are using catalogues or sessions.

I've had several attempts at cutting back on the number of programs especially using LR instead of C1 (to save the costs of the extortionate C1 upgrade prices) but I always end up feeling I'm missing too much, and revert back to multiple programs.

I still use Neofinder, and Lightroom as DAMs, because the PM+ catalog still isn't good enough to fully replace them and Lightroom and Neofinder both offer distinctive advantages over each other.

I fully support the ideas of streamlining the number of programs, I wish I could, but I've probably wasted more time trying to streamline the number of programs I use than any extra time I may have spent on using multiple programs.

In fact I'm not sure that I do waste time by using multiple programs, because I feel that each different program is the "best" available at what it does and saves me time while I am using it for the task I use it for.

 

[Olly B]

That’s really helpful, thanks Graham, I will certainly look into the option of round tripping between Capture 1 and dxo. I do agree re the upgrade costs of Capture 1, it comes out as more expensive than Adobe, that is if you choose to take up every upgrade, though the coming upgrade looks pretty good.

 

[Olly B]

To round off my thoughts regarding the software choices I have, I have just taken a snap of an autumn leaf in the garden, nothing special and used my oly 12-40 f2.8, with the aperture wide open, so a lot of detail in the leaf and a nicely blurred background. I then imported it via Olympus Workspace, doing nothing to it, other than importing it onto my hard drive. I then opened the image in the three software programmes I have, Capture One, DXo and On1 and merely exported the image back to my desktop and compared all three. What was interesting is that DXO rendered the image the sharpest of all, with the best background blur, but it was a close run thing with On1 (the 2022 version seems to be much better than the 2021 with Orf files), with Capture One, trailing slightly. I then opened the same image back into DXO and On1 and run both of their noise reduction settings, leaving them untouched, and the resultant images in terms of sharpness and noise reduction were very very close, with On1 perhaps giving a slightly warmer tone to the finished image than DXO.

Not scientific at all, but interesting to me nevertheless and does bring On1 2022 to the fore in terms or organising images, editing them and when necessary using the noise reduction.

Just thought this very unscientific test might be of interest to others. I should have posted the images with this, and only just thought about that, but I have already deleted them, so you will have to take my word!! There probably aren't any bad software programmes, but it would seem some suit some camera makes better than others, when I was briefly in the Fuji camp, Capture One was in my opinion the best and I had thought DXO was similarly the one to beat in respect of Olympus files, but it would seem, again, in my opinion that On1 Photo Raw (2022) is equally as good!!

 

[myotis]

To round off my thoughts regarding the software choices I have, I have just taken a snap of an autumn leaf in the garden, nothing special and used my oly 12-40 f2.8, with the aperture wide open, so a lot of detail in the leaf and a nicely blurred background. I then imported it via Olympus Workspace, doing nothing to it, other than importing it onto my hard drive. I then opened the image in the three software programmes I have, Capture One, DXo and On1 and merely exported the image back to my desktop and compared all three. What was interesting is that DXO rendered the image the sharpest of all, with the best background blur, but it was a close run thing with On1 (the 2022 version seems to be much better than the 2021 with Orf files), with Capture One, trailing slightly. I then opened the same image back into DXO and On1 and run both of their noise reduction settings, leaving them untouched, and the resultant images in terms of sharpness and noise reduction were very very close, with On1 perhaps giving a slightly warmer tone to the finished image than DXO.

In terms of sharpness, how did you sharpen in C1?

C1 separates capture sharpening and output sharpening. Basic capture sharpening is added automatically, but you need switch on diffraction correction if you want it. To get output sharpening you need to set this up in the output recipe. It defaults to no sharpening, and then gives choices for web sharpening or print sharpening, both of which I find for too harsh at C1s default. But, then I also found DXOs sharpening far too harsh and when comparing used to dial down the sharpening in DXO and add sharpening in C1.

I have done two big comparisons in the past comparing C1, DXO and LR, where I took ten photographs and tried to make matching prints for all ten photographs from all three programs. This was iterative so I would choose the best of the three, and then try and match the other two to this best choice.

Once I had done this, I then assessed the three prints again, and again chose the best one, or the best aspect (the barn colour is best with DXO, but the lawn is best with LR) and tried to match the prints. Eventually I got three prints for each subject that were very close matches and asked 10 people to pick which prints they liked best.

I thought all the prints were equally good, but with subtle differences, however, C1 won on every print with every person, with the exception of one person preferring one print from LR. no one chose the DXO prints. I also preferred the C1 prints, and it began my move away from LR.

This was too long ago to be of any direct relevance, but what I think is still relevant, is how difficult it is to make any "best" choices, when it comes to raw processors/editors, because so much depends on how you use them. Noise is a bit different, as at high ISOs I think DXO, Topaz etc have definite advantages.

Edit: I'm not sure why I persist in doing this, as I've got it wrong before. It wasn't ten photographs it was five. I think I had it in my head to do ten, but given how much work was involved, I gave up at five, with the "ten" still stuck in my addled brain.

 

[Olly B]

Thanks Graham, I turned of all the sharpening etc to try and just get an idea as to how each of the programmes dealt with Orf files, however I totally agree that trying to find the ‘’best’ is a very subjective endeavour, and what I deduced was that there was very little difference in actuality, so I will probably end up using a combination of programmes until I reach a point of finding one works the ‘best ‘ for my pretty amateurish workflow! Thanks again for your input, thought provoking and helpful.

 

[jh2]

I process like this (doesn't matter camera) it was Lightroom, now it's Capture 1 (as have a Fuji now) I start from a RAW file (much more room for change) and edit as you had the picture in yr mind (b&w, hot, cold, dark moody or light and happy etc. You know what you had in your mind) If it's not quite there I then edit in Luminar (Tiff, srgb) as it's very good to tweak the mood or add a little more atmosphere. Then save as fullsize so I can either print or scale for a photo club competition. I also save the edited files in with the raw files in a folder called 'touched up' as the. I always know where to go for the files. Good luck

 

[ancient_mariner]

Some years back I did a comparison on here between lightroom, dxo optics pro (as it was then) and On1 photo suite (again as it was) just processing as felt natural, rather than matching. IIRC On1 did well, with just a few preferring dxo and LR. At the time I had also tried capture one, but didn't feel it was as good as the others.

I still use LR 6, but plan a migration to On1 photo raw soon.

 

[myotis]

Some years back I did a comparison on here between lightroom, dxo optics pro (as it was then) and On1 photo suite (again as it was) just processing as felt natural, rather than matching. IIRC On1 did well, with just a few preferring dxo and LR. At the time I had also tried capture one, but didn't feel it was as good as the others.

I still use LR 6, but plan a migration to On1 photo raw soon.

Interesting, if this was in response to my post, my comparison was with LR6, DXO optics (can't remember which version) and C1 (again I can't remember which version).

The reason I went to so much trouble was because I "felt" C1 gave better results than LR and DXO, but as I had already paid for LR and DXO I was struggling to convince myself to spend the money on C1.

In my case it was A4 prints being used for comparison, rather than on screen. They were made with an adequate but not the highest quality photo printer. The viewers were a mix of photographers and people I worked with. Comments from the non-photographers on why they preferred the C1 prints included "more natural", "more realistic" and "looked more 3d". And this reflected what I liked about the C1 prints as well.

I still use Lightroom (CC) but gave up on DXO after I upgraded to Photolab 1 or 2 (I can't remember). I haven't used the new ON1 raw.

I would like to just use LR, as I'm already paying the sub for PS, and I still make some simple comparisons every so often with C1, which always convinces me to stay with C1. Probably as much to do with the workflow as it is to do with image quality. Although I think C1 has a slight quality edge over the competition, (not from just from my tests but also based on comments from high end retouchers, who seem to use and recommend a C1+PS combination) I'm not at all sure how much it really matters for everyday photographers.

ON1 Raw certainly seems to get good reviews, and I'v watched some of the tutorials, but I feel very locked into C1 and PS now.

 

[droj]

As a LR6 user, I had thoughts about breaking out of the forward-developing subscription mould. And LR had its own clunkiness aspects. So I cast the net.

All these apps are a form of engineering, and cast their mould on the user to some extent. I tried Photolab, and am keeping it, not least because it doesn't require an import regime - you can dive in to process a single image from scratch, quickly.

So to C1. The expense is relative - but what did you spend on hardware? It has shortcomings, reluctantly forgivable given that they can't have an Adobe budget. My main focus is on colour and tone. C1 output seems organically the best, emotionally, and quicker to that end.

I have a reserve about the pricing, but could easily become an addict ...

Engineering can be important, but what about heart?

 

[ancient_mariner]

As a LR6 user, I had thoughts about breaking out of the forward-developing subscription mould.

As do I. The ONLY thing that makes me wish to move from LR6 is the lack of compatibility with more recent camera bodies, and if I could just import files from the A7III without having to go through ACR first then I'd never want to change.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Interesting, if this was in response to my post, my comparison was with LR6, DXO optics (can't remember which version) and C1 (again I can't remember which version).

The reason I went to so much trouble was because I "felt" C1 gave better results than LR and DXO, but as I had already paid for LR and DXO I was struggling to convince myself to spend the money on C1.

In my case it was A4 prints being used for comparison, rather than on screen. They were made with an adequate but not the highest quality photo printer. The viewers were a mix of photographers and people I worked with. Comments from the non-photographers on why they preferred the C1 prints included "more natural", "more realistic" and "looked more 3d". And this reflected what I liked about the C1 prints as well.

I still use Lightroom (CC) but gave up on DXO after I upgraded to Photolab 1 or 2 (I can't remember). I haven't used the new ON1 raw.

I would like to just use LR, as I'm already paying the sub for PS, and I still make some simple comparisons every so often with C1, which always convinces me to stay with C1. Probably as much to do with the workflow as it is to do with image quality. Although I think C1 has a slight quality edge over the competition, (not from just from my tests but also based on comments from high end retouchers, who seem to use and recommend a C1+PS combination) I'm not at all sure how much it really matters for everyday photographers.

ON1 Raw certainly seems to get good reviews, and I'v watched some of the tutorials, but I feel very locked into C1 and PS now.

I went digging - my memory wasn't quite right, but this was the thread from 2017 https://talkphotography.co.uk/threads/alternatives-to-lightroom-image-comparison.668832/

 

[myotis]

I went digging - my memory wasn't quite right, but this was the thread from 2017 https://talkphotography.co.uk/threads/alternatives-to-lightroom-image-comparison.668832/

I've had a quick skim, and the big difference (apart from being prints) was that I had actively tried to get rid of the differences between the processed images, so colours and contrast much more similar than your example, even if I couldn't get them absolutely identical.

The big problem with any of these comparisons is that rely on equal levels of expertise across the software, and that each program seems to its have individual strengths.

I've found all of them need a lot of learning to produce results I'm happy with, and one day I hope to have learned them well enough to do it.

 

[myotis]

All these apps are a form of engineering, and cast their mould on the user to some extent. I tried Photolab, and am keeping it, not least because it doesn't require an import regime - you can dive in to process a single image from scratch, quickly.

So to C1. The expense is relative - but what did you spend on hardware? It has shortcomings, reluctantly forgivable given that they can't have an Adobe budget. My main focus is on colour and tone. C1 output seems organically the best, emotionally, and quicker to that end.

I assume that your organic comment is probably reflected in my testers comments of the C1 prints seeming "more natural", "more realistic" and "looked more 3d" than the prints from the other programs.

As an aside, are you aware that you don't need to import files into C1 to work on them. You can use C1 as a browser. Create a session called anything you like (mine is C1_Viewer) and store it anywhere.

When you open the new session, ignore the import tools and scroll down under the library tool tab, until you find your system folders listed and then open the folder or file you want to work on. C1 then stores all the previews, edits, metadata etc associated with that file inside the same folder as the raw is stored in. You get a single "Captureone" sub-folder per system folder to store this C1 data in.

If you move a raw into another folder, using C1, it moves the associated processing data with the raw and creates a new captureone subfolder to store it in if needed.

I use this approach with Photo Mechanic, because I can just drag a thumbnail from PM into my C1_Viewer session and start editing.

I also use "proper" C1 sessions, a session per project, but I am aware many people only ever use this C1 browser capability. It's a little clunky, and takes a little time to get your head around what "exactly" is going on, e.g. how do favourites work or how does the "capture" folder work with a session that isn't really a session, but it does save importing anything.

 

[droj]

Sessions I haven't yet explored. I'm favouring C1 for its colour rendition - working on the same file, as a very rough comparison I could say that C1 is Kodachrome and LR is Agfachrome.

The LR look is more 'technical'. But it seems to be better at highlight recovery, and far better at the correction of CA / fringing for unspecified lenses.

 

[myotis]

Sessions I haven't yet explored. I'm favouring C1 for its colour rendition - working on the same file, as a very rough comparison I could say that C1 is Kodachrome and LR is Agfachrome.

The LR look is more 'technical'. But it seems to be better at highlight recovery, and far better at the correction of CA / fringing for unspecified lenses.

I like the colour capability in C1 as well, and its interesting to note that it seems to be getting commoner amongst professional retouchers, to not only use C1 for raw conversion, but also come back from PS into C1 for final colour grading.

I agree with the purple fringing not working as well as LR, but not sure about CA.

I know that several people talk about highlight recovery being better in LR, but on the images I have tried, all that LR did was to fill in burnt out highlights with a tone, and not actually recover any detail.

With C1 I default to using the linear tone curve, which requires more work to bring colour and contrast back, but it also provides a starting point with maximum highlight detail. I've also done that with LR now for a year or so, and prefer this as a starting point with LR as well.

Raw Therapee leaves both C1 and LR in the dust when it comes to highlight recovery, but i just can't get the colour right with it.

As an aside, although I almost exclusively used Kodachrome 25 Professional with 35mm, I always preferred the Agfa 50 colours.

 

[droj]

on the images I have tried, all that LR did was to fill in burnt out highlights with a tone

Well yes, that must happen with any converter - it can't manufacture information that isn't present.

 

[myotis]

Well yes, that must happen with any converter - it can't manufacture information that isn't present.

Indeed, but unless you use a true linear tone curve, the standard tone curves used by raw processors are likely to clip the highlights, even when the detail is in the raw.

In terms of pulling this detail back, I felt LR was no better than C1, and if you looked at the detail, rather than the clipping warnings, C1 was probably better than LR.

But LR would reach the point of indicating there was no clipping before C1 did, because it started to add an artificial fill before C1 did.

I confess I haven't looked at this for while, but that is how I remember it. Maybe I should look again.

Edit: Of course the demosaicing algorithms make a difference to how much highlight detail is available in the raw to recover, that's where raw therapy scores as you can choose from a rang of algorithms.

 

[Olly B]

Just to completely round this off from my perspective, I had a very damp bike ride today, but it did allow me the headspace to think about all the choices I have given myself and the end results, this is a first world problem I know! It occurred to me whilst peddling that for me it is a head and heart debate, by which I mean, if I follow my head but not my heart, I have not always decided on the most comfortable option for me. To explain, in February this year, I decided to change my camera system and went from Olympus to Fuji (xt4). It is without doubt that the Fuji is a truly excellent camera and from a head perspective, made a lot of sense, but…. I never felt ‘at one’ with it, and started to really regret my swap. Eventually I traded in the Fuji gear and went back to Olympus and to be prosaic, it felt like ‘coming home’, my heart won out and i felt much happier.

it occurred to me that I have been going through the same process with software, I know that dxo is an excellent system for Olympus files and On1 offers a complete package, but I really like capture one, and although from my highly unscientific test above, my head was suggesting that dxo was possibly the best editing option, I have decided to ‘follow my heart’ and stick with capture one. In addition I have found that my Apple Mac has an inbuilt image importer which allows me to quickly cull and then import to a chosen destination, I can then use capture one and it’s system to refine any management needed. In addition I can use the on1 no noise option should I need that.

Happy days, I have found a system that works for me…..finally!!! As an aside I decided to clean up my computer or redundant stuff and was astonished at how much Adobe stuff was embedded in the library and utilities!!!

now to spend hours properly learning Capture One!!!!!

 

[myotis]

In addition I have found that my Apple Mac has an inbuilt image importer which allows me to quickly cull and then import to a chosen destination, I can then use capture one and it’s system to refine any management needed. In addition I can use the on1 no noise option should I need that.

Being happy with what you have is an important place to be

Out of interest, why don't you like the C1 importer, you can import the files to any destination, you can selectively import, add metadata, apply templates etc, From the reports I have seen, especially after the recent overhaul, the C1 importer is very good. Or are you not using. C1 catalogue?

I've posted this (see below) before, but there may be somethings of interest here:

Capture One help and support from within C1 Help menu​

Resource Hub: News, tutorials for specific tools, webinars and links to support.

Online user guide (including PDF download)

Tips produces overlays to explain what different parts of C1 are called.

Direct link to support

Youtube videos​

Official Capture One site​

Capture One Pro

Behind the scenes videos with our favourite photographers, tutorials, tips and guides to Whether you are a beginner or an expert, prepare yourself for a dose...

www.youtube.com

An obvious place to go (I suspect it duplicates the videos on the resource hub)

Most are done by David Grover (C1 staff), but occasionally he has guests on. Overall tends to repeat introductory material for each new version, but a solid introduction (especially for beginners) and has many videos on specific topics. David seems to have a background in sales and training, first with Hasselblad and then with Phase One.

Paul Reiffer​

Paul Reiffer - Photographer

Paul Reiffer - Landscape, cityscape and commercial photographer. Exploring the world around us, with fine art limited edition prints, photography workshops a...

www.youtube.com

This is a series of Paul (professional commercial and landscape photographer) editing viewers photographs using C1. I find these very good as he explains in more detail how things work and why he uses particular approaches. He also has some “pro-tips videos” on specific topics, which are good for beginners.

Kasia Zmokla​

Kasia Zmokla

Welcome to my channel! Like you, I’m an artist. I’m passionate about creating personal, meaningful and captivating artwork. I love the freedom of the medium,...

www.youtube.com

Kasia has a degree in arts and design plus a Masters in Fine Arts and compared to the above brings a different approach both in terms of how she wants her photographs to look and in the way she uses C1. A good range of videos for beginners as well as more advanced topics. Good for colour grading.

Timo Buske​

BLIT PHOTO TUTORIALS - By Timo Buske

www.youtube.com

No new videos here for 10 months, but like Kasia, he has a different approach to the standard C1 approach to using C1, while still producing “normal” looking photographs.

Tim Fitzgerald​

thomas fitzgerald

Videos from Photographer & Motion Graphics Artist, Thomas Fitzgerald. Thomas is a professional fine art photographer and writer specialising in photography r...

www.youtube.com

Covers a lot more than just C1 as he seems a bit of software junkie but he does give some very useful tips on working around C1 bugs as well as simple but helpful usability tips.

Richard Boutwell​

Richard Boutwell Photography

Dedicated to Elevating the Art and Craft of Digital Black and White Photography. This channel focuses on techniques for editing and printing black and white ...

www.youtube.com

Not many videos here, but he has a background as a black and white printer (from the film days) for high end photographers and brings some useful insights into using C1 from the view of making high quality black and white prints.

Paul Steunebrink​

Blog • Image Alchemist

Read blogs here with tutorials, reviews and opinions about Capture One Pro

imagealchemist.net

Very useful blog with blog entries covering individual C1 tasks and over views. He is a regular contributor to C1 forums.

Alex Svet​

http://alexonraw.com/capture-one-free-guide–1/

Useful web site and webinars, but of most use is his free downloadable guide to C1 on the link above, a very good overview and introduction for beginners.

Nils Christoffersen​

Photographer's Guide to Capture One 20

Note: Photographer's Guide to Capture One 21 has now been released. Please go here if you would rather buy the new version that covers Capture One 21:https://gumroad.com/l/captureone21guideWith the Photographer's Guide to Capture One 20 eBook, you will become an expert of Capture One, speeding...

gumroad.com

This link is to the sales page of the “Photographers Guide to Capture One”

Nils apparently worked for Phase One (Capture One) at one time and is “still involved in its development” whatever that means. But it’s the “only” up to date book available and most people find it useful.

Scott Detweiler​

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9kC4zCxE-i-g4GnB3KhWpA/videos

This is portrait/fantasy/glamour photography that combines using C1 with Photoshop. Not my kind of photography, but it’s useful to see how he integrates the two programs. Most people will need a pixel editor in addition to C1, (Photoshop or Affinity Photo) and C1 offers good integration.

 

[Olly B]

Wow, many thanks Graham, those are such useful links and I will work my way through them. I will look at just using Capture One to import, thanks. As I started this thread, i am looking for a fairly simple streamlined workflow, so just using Capture One makes sense. I have looked at Thomas Fitzgerald before and he has some useful videos particularly in respect of moving from Capture One to Affinity should the need arise. I look forward to looking at the others you have suggested. Again many thanks for the resources.