Lightroom or Capture one

D

Dave Williams

Messages
19
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I am in the process of upgrading to a newer iMac after getting a Sony A7RII, which also means upgrading my photo editing software from an older version of Lightroom. There seems to be quite a lot of posts on various forums about Lightroom being slow on iMacs so wondered if anyone has any experience of using Capture one? I see from their website that that do what appears to be a Sony specific version.

Thanks, Dave
 
Mac user of Lightroom since version one, switched to Capture One in Dec last year.

Speed wise, there’s nothing significant between them on my late 2014 5K iMac. LR wins in terms of integration across iPads and Mac, Capture One wins in terms of the use of layers and colour editing tools to my mind, but both are very powerful.

The learning curve is quite steep switching, but a day watching the videos on the Capture one learning hub will see to that.
 
Last edited:
I use LR on a Mac 2013 which I had upgraded to an SSD drive with more RAM the year before last so your new mac will probably be even faster. No problems. The slowness for me was my creaking hard drive and I moved my files on to a separate portable drive [which is backed up many times including with my neighbour].
 
Dave Williams said:
I see from their website that that do what appears to be a Sony specific version.
Click to expand...

There is nothing special about the Sony specific version, its just the normal Capture One Pro restricted to only processing Sony raw files. Indeed all the Capture One versions are the same program file, with how it works dictated by the serial number you put into it. But the Sony version comes as a free Express version as well as a paid pro version.

So you could use the free version to do the Raw processing and export as TIFFs or PSDs and continue processing in LR. or indeed maybe use something like Affinity Photo for further editing.

Having said that, I by far prefer the workflow and customisability in C1 to LR, and although LR is obviously capable of excellent quality, whenever I do a comparison, I always find C1 seems to have an edge in quality, that I prefer.

C1 is a bit more like photoshop in its approach (but it's not a pixel editor so still restricted in what it can do) but it means you need a slightly different mind set to using it compared to LR, and it's more complex to get your head around. It's also more expensive than LR/PS (at least the full Pro version is) because its now annual upgrades are more expensive than the Adobe subscription.

The database is more robust in LR, and like many people I don't use the database in C1 at all, preferring the "sessions" option in C1 (not available in the free Sony version)

I would download the free Sony express version and give it a try. There is a good Phase One youtube channel and this week they did an intro into using the Express version of C1 with Sony and Fuji.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqA7JzE7lio
 
Brian G said:
Although it's published on a Photoshop oriented website, you may find the following article of interest:

https://lightroomkillertips.com/brilliant-article-martin-evening-lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro/
Click to expand...
LR has changed its defaults since this article and starts off much closer to the C1 defaults now. Indeed the LR defaults are reputed to now be sharper, contrastier and more saturated than C1, from what I have read. I don't pay too much attention to defaults and haven't made any direct comparisons of them.

As an aside, when that article came out, I followed its advice and still preferred the C1 output in a direct comparison. Without a side by side comparison I can't see many people complaining about the output from either.
 
myotis said:
LR has changed its defaults since this article and starts off much closer to the C1 defaults now. Indeed the LR defaults are reputed to now be sharper, contrastier and more saturated than C1, from what I have read. I don't pay too much attention to defaults and haven't made any direct comparisons of them.

As an aside, when that article came out, I followed its advice and still preferred the C1 output in a direct comparison. Without a side by side comparison I can't see many people complaining about the output from either.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update.
I wasn't aware that Lightroom had changed significantly, although I no longer use it, and I've never used Capture One, although I did try the Sony version out of curiosity (and it was free.)
 
Brian G said:
Thanks for the update.
I wasn't aware that Lightroom had changed significantly, although I no longer use it,
Click to expand...

Rumour has it, that LR changed so it better matched C1, and avoided people deciding C1 was "better", because by default it was sharper and punchier.
 
myotis said:
Rumour has it, that LR changed so it better matched C1, and avoided people deciding C1 was "better", because by default it was sharper and punchier.
Click to expand...
I don't tend to place any credence on rumours, but in the article I linked to, Martin Evening drew the conclusion that, at it's default settings, C1 produced sharper and punchier results than LR, but that LR could be adjusted to match the output from C1.
I've not used LR for a couple of years and never used C1, so I'm not in a position to make a comparison.
I do believe that several of the newer raw developer programs are producing better results than those from Lightroom.
 
Brian G said:
I don't tend to place any credence on rumours, but in the article I linked to, Martin Evening drew the conclusion that, at it's default settings, C1 produced sharper and punchier results than LR,
Click to expand...

It wasn't a rumour that the defaults in LR changed, because they were, the rumour was that the change was in response to the sharper and punchier results from C1.

Many comparisons between LR and C1, especially the "C1 blows LR away" type only seemed to compare them at the defaults. Interestingly, these same type of comparisons now suggest that C1 is a bit flat compared to LR !

I've done a few comparisons (including DXO) including blind testing with other people, and tried Martin Evenings settings, but I never managed to fully match the outputs. The common comments from the blind testing was that the C1 prints, (which with one exception were always the ones people chose) were more realistic and had a 3d look to them. And even in the Evening article, if you look at his C1 images you can get an impression of what people were trying to describe.

I've given up testing now, except for an occasional quick comparison with LR, (I still have a free copy by virtue of the PS subscription) as it just wasted so much time (and money) so I don't really know much about other alternatives to LR/C1, other than reading the occasional review
 
myotis said:
It wasn't a rumour that the defaults in LR changed, because they were, the rumour was that the change was in response to the sharper and punchier results from C1.
Click to expand...

When I compared C1 to LR5 a few years back C1 just simply automatically applied much stronger sharpening, contrast etc willy-nilly to the raw files, while LR imported raws with minimal sharpening and little else - no surprise that images looked sharper in C1 because you were starting with a preset instead of neutral. If that was what I wanted as a Lightroom user then it was easy to apply a similar preset, once created, at import and then all my images would look like they did immediately in C1. DXO Optics Pro was very similar, but with automation applied to exposure and tone, rather than sharpening and contrast.

I can see that if you're a pro who wants to spend minimal time editing then C1 can have advantages, providing you're happy with someone else's preset.
 
ancient_mariner said:
- no surprise that images looked sharper in C1 because you were starting with a preset instead of neutral.

I can see that if you're a pro who wants to spend minimal time editing then C1 can have advantages, providing you're happy with someone else's preset.
Click to expand...

All raw processors need to use some sort of profile to render the preview from the Raw file, and C1 isn't using a preset anymore than LR is, they just have different default profiles. Which, at the time of LR5, was a more neutral profile than the contrastier and sharper profile used by C1. Today, the default profile for LR is now sharper and contrastier than the default C1 profile. Bringing about complaints from some LR users, who now immediately switch back to the old profile, and praise from others, because it gives a LR default with more "pop" than the older profile used to.

C1 develop their profiles using a mix of technical and subjective measures, including producing between 700 and 800 prints and discussions with clients. Although, they have never said this, it has been suggested that because of their origins, and still a major part of their business. is working with tethered cameras, with clients on set looking at images on a computer or iPad as they come out of the camera, the default profiles are designed to look close to a finished image to help clients judge the quality.

I've never really understood this as I can't see many professionals not developing their own profiles (LumaRiver is a program for making C1 profiles) or their own preset to use over the top of the C1 profile. But regardless, it may still save you editing time, not because you are happy with the C1 default profile, but because its a better starting point than LR. The editing tools in C1 is one of its attractions, and no serious user is going to be happy with the C1 default profile. And there is also an obvious assumption from Phase One that many/ most images will end up in Photoshop for final editing.

As I said in another post, I couldn't get LR output to match C1, even when using Evenings instructions, so I don't think its just a case of applying an appropriate preset to LR. And judging from comments made by professional retouchers where C1+PS now seems to be an almost default combination, the inability of LR to fully match the quality of C1 seems to be fairly commonly held belief.

I use home made Lumariver profiles in C1, or the C1 linear profile option (close to raw) that I apply my own presets to, so I rarely see this contrasty/sharp default profile, but I still find C1 processed files easier to edit than LR processed files, and I prefer the results from C1. Even, if I think the difference is marginal and only really noticeable when making a direct comparisons.

Out of interest, what do you now use to process RAWs, as it seems you don't use either C1 or LR. I wasted vast amounts of time and money testing Raw convertors at one time, and I've now given up and just stick to C1 with LR as a back up, which I have anyway as part of the PS sub. I also use DXO occasionally for the prime noise reduction, but don't like it all that much.
 
I stuck with LR 5.7. C1 seemed to do some OK things, but LR was more overall useful at the time, especially compared to the express version, and the price of entry to the full version is substantial.

To me, a basic profile might as well be called a preset, since it makes certain adjustments over baseline and is tweaked by the maker to suit their perceived marketing needs. I watched the video linked above, and the presenter suggested they adjust background settings to suit different equipment to provide a starting point, rather than starting at the same minimal level for everything.

Which is better? Which ever one gives the results you want.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I stuck with LR 5.7. C1 seemed to do some OK things, but LR was more overall useful at the time, especially compared to the express version, and the price of entry to the full version is substantial.
Click to expand...

So you are still on the LR profiles, before they were "jazzed up". Yes the express version was a bit limited, and now only comes in the form of a free version for fuji and sony, which is even more limited than the version you tried. And c1 remains expensive.

I suppose you could call the base profile a preset, and I don't think any raw processor gives a true baseline conversion (ie a linear profile) by default, so they are all adding a preset of some sort. I tend to think of presets as something you can see the settings for and change even after its been added, where as the profile settings are hidden, and you can only edit on top of them.

And I of course agree with your definition of best, because at the end of the day, its whatever is "best for you" that counts, and for me, a big plus for C1 is the workflow which I much prefer to LR, but many others hate it.
 
I've only just got back into landscape photography after a couple of years out, i have Lightroom 4 and tonight they won't open RAW files from my newlt aquired D7200, what is the alternative ? i'm not a fan of paying monthly for something i don't own.
 
I've used LR for years & gave C1 a try when I bought my boy an A6000 on his laptop. That was LR5.7 vs C1 Express - I just couldn't get on with C1 & when I installed & got working LR5 on his laptop a few weeks later he instantly produced better results with LR too even with his only other experience being C1.
 
Graham00 said:
I've only just got back into landscape photography after a couple of years out, i have Lightroom 4 and tonight they won't open RAW files from my newlt aquired D7200, what is the alternative ? i'm not a fan of paying monthly for something i don't own.
Click to expand...
There is a complete list of what cameras are supported by which version of Lightroom on the Adobe website here.
You may find that you need to update to a later version of LR to support raw files from your camera.
Other brands of raw processing software are available.
 
I've tried to get on with Affinity Photo, even though it gets top nod from Practical Photography, bitten the bullet £8.49 p.m for CC it can't be beaten.
 
Graham00 said:
I've only just got back into landscape photography after a couple of years out, i have Lightroom 4 and tonight they won't open RAW files from my newlt aquired D7200, what is the alternative ? i'm not a fan of paying monthly for something i don't own.
Click to expand...
Adobe's DNG converter is free, works quickly, and won't prejudice your files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top