Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Need to switch drugs. LOL
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Interesting LR vs C1 difference
- Thread starter tashley
- Start date
I am on a 12 step LR withdrawal program.
The first step was that I had to acknowledge that I was addicted to the damn thing.
I began to notice a compulsive tendency to add metadata for location and other sorts of things that I was SURE that I would want to select-on in the future.
I spent more time tweaking metadata than processing images.
I discovered that I tended to file my images by year/month/date-location(or event)
I also discovered that spotlight on the mac, or even finder search was pretty good at searching for date and/or location (or filename for that matter).
Being inherently thick-skulled and stubborn, I played around with C1 and NX2, but tied my hands to LR, then LR2.
I have played with dng profiles(beta) from adobe, and yes, you need those to get reasonable colors from LR, although the D3 files looked fine, oh, except for sharpening, that only looked ok with NX2, unless I screwed around with it a lot in post-post.
So I played around more with c1 since LR didn't understand the phase metadata (iso 50 files looked 1 stop under-exposed and so forth, wrong pixel dimentions, bad color, and no way to profile since the profiler assumes a raw dng, and c1 exports a cooked dng, and the adobe dng converter had the same problems as LR), but anyway, tiffs converted from C1 were better than "half-bad", so then I aim C1 at some of my Leica originals, and holy S**T, they get a whole lot better.
What I care most about is the finished result. One of the reasons I sold my D3 was that the AA filter almost killed me. I found that without NX2, I had to do a "sharpening gone wild" routine. The hell with it.
So where does that leave me.
C1 gave me good files with both my M8 and the P45+, LR couldn't handle the Phase files, I tried the mess that Microsoft turned iView Media into, and threw it out, and settled on directory structure and naming convention as the best way to organize my files. I decided that it really wasn't that important to be able to search for files taken with a specific lens, which didn't work with 8 files since the data isn't present in a LR or iView compatible way.
I used to search for good pieces of wood from which to craft my furniture. The commercial planes somehow just weren't right, so I made my own from Japanese blades and pear wood and cocobolla. I could but don't have the patience to roll my own raw converter, life is just too short.
So I have ended up using C1 with Leica and P45 files, and finder as my file organization mechanism.
Don't get me wrong.... C1 is a miserably unstable piece of software all around the fringes. I crashes if you re-name a directory listed in favorites, or almost any other, withing or without the program, it displays 8 minutes of exposure in exif data as 8 seconds, it is very sensitive to database corruption, so session files must be routinely deleted which peeves me since the open source database they use is designed for transactional integrity, and if a second import is attempted, and should it fail for any reason, bye-bye session integrity. So it is a far from perfect solution, but it does give me good results.
So I am dragging LR into the trash where it belongs along with NX2 and Microsoft expression media.
-bob
The first step was that I had to acknowledge that I was addicted to the damn thing.
I began to notice a compulsive tendency to add metadata for location and other sorts of things that I was SURE that I would want to select-on in the future.
I spent more time tweaking metadata than processing images.
I discovered that I tended to file my images by year/month/date-location(or event)
I also discovered that spotlight on the mac, or even finder search was pretty good at searching for date and/or location (or filename for that matter).
Being inherently thick-skulled and stubborn, I played around with C1 and NX2, but tied my hands to LR, then LR2.
I have played with dng profiles(beta) from adobe, and yes, you need those to get reasonable colors from LR, although the D3 files looked fine, oh, except for sharpening, that only looked ok with NX2, unless I screwed around with it a lot in post-post.
So I played around more with c1 since LR didn't understand the phase metadata (iso 50 files looked 1 stop under-exposed and so forth, wrong pixel dimentions, bad color, and no way to profile since the profiler assumes a raw dng, and c1 exports a cooked dng, and the adobe dng converter had the same problems as LR), but anyway, tiffs converted from C1 were better than "half-bad", so then I aim C1 at some of my Leica originals, and holy S**T, they get a whole lot better.
What I care most about is the finished result. One of the reasons I sold my D3 was that the AA filter almost killed me. I found that without NX2, I had to do a "sharpening gone wild" routine. The hell with it.
So where does that leave me.
C1 gave me good files with both my M8 and the P45+, LR couldn't handle the Phase files, I tried the mess that Microsoft turned iView Media into, and threw it out, and settled on directory structure and naming convention as the best way to organize my files. I decided that it really wasn't that important to be able to search for files taken with a specific lens, which didn't work with 8 files since the data isn't present in a LR or iView compatible way.
I used to search for good pieces of wood from which to craft my furniture. The commercial planes somehow just weren't right, so I made my own from Japanese blades and pear wood and cocobolla. I could but don't have the patience to roll my own raw converter, life is just too short.
So I have ended up using C1 with Leica and P45 files, and finder as my file organization mechanism.
Don't get me wrong.... C1 is a miserably unstable piece of software all around the fringes. I crashes if you re-name a directory listed in favorites, or almost any other, withing or without the program, it displays 8 minutes of exposure in exif data as 8 seconds, it is very sensitive to database corruption, so session files must be routinely deleted which peeves me since the open source database they use is designed for transactional integrity, and if a second import is attempted, and should it fail for any reason, bye-bye session integrity. So it is a far from perfect solution, but it does give me good results.
So I am dragging LR into the trash where it belongs along with NX2 and Microsoft expression media.
-bob
Bill_Green
Member
I'm a little torn, but first let me post my biases: I love LR in theory, just not in practice. The baseline conversions that I get in C1 are vastly better than what I get in LR with the best file being raw conversion in C1, global color tweaks in LR2 on the tiff, export to Photoshop for local adjustments. Now I have not played with CS4 much, but that may make LR unnecessary. I have not purchased LR2, I just don't see enough need to purchase it and Bridge CS4 is surprisingly decent so far and may handle my DAM needs. It is much, much better than CS2/CS3.
Now one area that LR beats Photoshop hands down is uprezzing a file. Not sure how C1 does yet. I was able to make very nice 30x40" prints from a D2x raw file from LR2. They were far cleaner and more detailed than an image uprezzed in CS2 using 110% jumps with bicubic smoother. The difference was just jarring between the two methods.
Now I have not made the time to really learn to use C1 and I find the program unacceptably clunky and unstable, and I don't like the workflow or the way you have to got through several tabs to adjust an image, or the way it handles adjustments to multiple images, or really anything else about it. But, and this is a big BUT, I get higher quality conversions on the vast majority of images faster than any other raw converter/workflow I have tried.
Now one area that LR beats Photoshop hands down is uprezzing a file. Not sure how C1 does yet. I was able to make very nice 30x40" prints from a D2x raw file from LR2. They were far cleaner and more detailed than an image uprezzed in CS2 using 110% jumps with bicubic smoother. The difference was just jarring between the two methods.
Now I have not made the time to really learn to use C1 and I find the program unacceptably clunky and unstable, and I don't like the workflow or the way you have to got through several tabs to adjust an image, or the way it handles adjustments to multiple images, or really anything else about it. But, and this is a big BUT, I get higher quality conversions on the vast majority of images faster than any other raw converter/workflow I have tried.
Last edited:
Dale Allyn
New member
Bill,
You might like to try uprezzing via CS(3 or 4) by simply choosing the required end size and resolution, use bicubic smoother as before, but skip the 110% steps. The newest version of PS have new algorithms which no longer benefit from the 110% process which may even do more harm than good now.
That said, uprezzing may be better handled by a separate app (several available now), but I still us PS and bicubic smoother. I've been intending to try the various alternate options but haven't gotten to it yet.
You might like to try uprezzing via CS(3 or 4) by simply choosing the required end size and resolution, use bicubic smoother as before, but skip the 110% steps. The newest version of PS have new algorithms which no longer benefit from the 110% process which may even do more harm than good now.
That said, uprezzing may be better handled by a separate app (several available now), but I still us PS and bicubic smoother. I've been intending to try the various alternate options but haven't gotten to it yet.
Bill_Green
Member
Dale, thanks for the thoughts, I definitely will give that a try. I'm not up on all the current upressing software, but LR beats any I used in the past. I know that this is because LR handles interpolation differently than previous versions of photoshop. Perhaps someone with intimate knowledge of the two apps (e.g. you are under NDA or socially lubricate someone with one) can confirm that CS4 uses the same method as LR.
For any old timers who have not tried this, I would say the look is vaguely similar to Genuine Fractals, and careful application of PK Sharpener yields breathtaking results.
Dale Allyn
New member
Bill, I can't remember for sure, but I was thinking that LR and the newest versions of CS are using a similar approach to uprezzing (I think that's what I recall Schewe saying). If so, maybe that will simplify your process.
I have a few of the third party options bookmarked and I should run the demos for some comparisons.
I have a few of the third party options bookmarked and I should run the demos for some comparisons.
LR got the new uprez algorithms prior to CS3, which were improved over CS2. So in effect, they are identical.
However, I still feel the best uprez technique is to go to 120% of you final intended size using smoother, then downrez to target size using sharper. Works like a champ
However, I still feel the best uprez technique is to go to 120% of you final intended size using smoother, then downrez to target size using sharper. Works like a champ
PeterA
Well-known member
Bob - this was an incredibly useful note thank you. :thumbup:
I hesitiate to report software 'glitches' - because everyone's system is set up differently etc etc etc
Capture One has been crashing on my work computer ( which is exactly the same as my home computer in every way - which doesnt crash ) I think importing routines are not as stable as they should/could be..this mornign I tried a simple CF card import and teh programme just decided to not recognise teh subfolder and crash on me abotu 5 times..I gave up ..
that being said - I totally agree on Capture One delivering far superiror IQ than anythign from Adobe. Which is the reason I will stick with C1 Pro for raw processing
Fortunately Phocus for my other system - does not display any instability issues - so far * and fingers crossed.
Pete
Dale Allyn
New member
Jack,LR got the new uprez algorithms prior to CS3, which were improved over CS2. So in effect, they are identical.
However, I still feel the best uprez technique is to go to 120% of you final intended size using smoother, then downrez to target size using sharper. Works like a champ
Thanks for the reminder of this process. Yes, yes, this it what has worked best for me. I believe I first read of it on Uwe's site and should have mentioned it (heck, maybe it's your article there - don't recall), but I spaced it. That's why you're the boss.
Edit to clarify: yes, it was Jack's article at Digital Outback Photo, Workflow Technique #60: http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html
Last edited: