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!
Capture One vs. Leaf Capture vs. Lightroom
- Thread starter Mgreer316
- Start date
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
I'd feel very comfortable teaching a class on any of the three (C1, LR, Aperture), though I only actually teach Capture One classes.
I've spent literally weeks of my life comparing various versions.
I do go through about a half dozen examples of real world raw file differences in our Masters Class. But I'd strongly recommend you do your own testing and comparison. The differences are, IMO, not very subtle. But using someone else's raws only gets you part of the way to analyzing them. The question is really truly not "does program X work better than program Y?"; the question is "does program X or program Y work better for me?".
Some areas to look out for (depending on your subject matter):
- rendition of fine detail and problematic high frequency detail (like textures/patterns/small-print)
- color discrimination (can you see the difference between subtle colors; you can't easily edit colors which are not differentiated from each other)
- detail/tone/color in extreme highlights and shadows (before and after recovery)
- color linearity (does a colored subject matter remain homogenous in color along harsh tonal transitions; like the shadow-to-highlight transition of a side-lit face)
- noise structure (especially in higher ISO images do you find the grain/noise to be pleasant or disruptive)
wentbackward
Member
As a fine-art printer, I've spent a lot of time with both and you can indeed get near C1 quality from LR, with a lot of effort, especially on well controlled, low DR images. It's when you start pushing things that C1 shines. Pulling out shadow detail whilst controlling noise and colour are amazing in C1 and in general if colour is important to you, you'll find C1 better to start with, but also has far better colour tools.
I find LR non-intuitive and also the sharpening and clarity sliders are destructive to images.
The big thing LR has in it's favour is it's digital asset management (DAM) capabilities. Agencies tend to have their taxonomy available in LR format. Maps tab is neat. Forget printing and the other layout stuff from LR, it's a disaster.
I use LR to organise my images. As soon as I find a way to convert my taxonomy to C1, I'll move all my images over and dump LR.
I find LR non-intuitive and also the sharpening and clarity sliders are destructive to images.
The big thing LR has in it's favour is it's digital asset management (DAM) capabilities. Agencies tend to have their taxonomy available in LR format. Maps tab is neat. Forget printing and the other layout stuff from LR, it's a disaster.
I use LR to organise my images. As soon as I find a way to convert my taxonomy to C1, I'll move all my images over and dump LR.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
How do you find the printing from C1? The last time I tried it I was getting weird colors. Technical support pointed out that you shouldn't print from a RAW, but need to render an output file first and print THAT. This may be different in v7, but I haven't experimented.
--Matt
--Matt
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Well-known member
To some extent the decision on using LR vs C1 should be based on the camera you're using. C1 is clearly the best choice for Phase owners - I simply cannot get the same quality output from LR, which really isn't surprising.
My epiphany occurred a few years ago when I was processing a bunch of Canon files in LR, which I knew very well and loved. Sitting next to me was a buddy who'd been shooting the same stuff as I had, using the same gear, but processing with C1. His files looked way better than mine.
So I started using C1 but got very frustrated with its hang-ups and non-intuitive GUI. I stayed with LR as my main processor partly because of familiarity and partly because of cataloguing.
But slowly C1 improved and when I moved to Phase backs it was logical to use their software. I now feel more comfortable with it than LR, and now that Media Pro is fairly well integrated, I've stopped using LR altogether. Just occasionally I'll run a Sony or Leica file through both processors to see how they compare and almost always I prefer the C1 rendering.
And as Wentbackward points out, pulling detail out of shadows is far superior in C1. (Doing it in LR gives that horrid HDR "look").
However, I stop short of saying C1 files are intrinsically better - a lot of rendering is a matter of personal taste. I like dark chocolate better than milk chocolate. I like C1 better than LR.
I don't like printing from C1 at all, though. LR is superior in that respect but I prefer to print from PS anyway.
Actually, we are very fortunate to have several such very good processors available to us, whatever our taste.
My epiphany occurred a few years ago when I was processing a bunch of Canon files in LR, which I knew very well and loved. Sitting next to me was a buddy who'd been shooting the same stuff as I had, using the same gear, but processing with C1. His files looked way better than mine.
So I started using C1 but got very frustrated with its hang-ups and non-intuitive GUI. I stayed with LR as my main processor partly because of familiarity and partly because of cataloguing.
But slowly C1 improved and when I moved to Phase backs it was logical to use their software. I now feel more comfortable with it than LR, and now that Media Pro is fairly well integrated, I've stopped using LR altogether. Just occasionally I'll run a Sony or Leica file through both processors to see how they compare and almost always I prefer the C1 rendering.
And as Wentbackward points out, pulling detail out of shadows is far superior in C1. (Doing it in LR gives that horrid HDR "look").
However, I stop short of saying C1 files are intrinsically better - a lot of rendering is a matter of personal taste. I like dark chocolate better than milk chocolate. I like C1 better than LR.
I don't like printing from C1 at all, though. LR is superior in that respect but I prefer to print from PS anyway.
Actually, we are very fortunate to have several such very good processors available to us, whatever our taste.
wentbackward
Member
Matt, my comment was probably a bit unfair to LR, as indeed it implied printing from C1 is perhaps not a problem. I did have issues printing from C1 and recall odd colours was the problem. It was as if colour profiles were being applied twice.
We only run one type of printer so I've not gone for a RIP. PS + Canon's somewhat confusing drivers get me the results I need.
On that note, I recall LR would only allow me to use perceptual rendering when converting to TIFF, which granted is probably 80% of my work, but those times when I need true colour, it's not acceptable and the only way is to use a different RAW processor such as ACR, C1 or RPP. I don't know if they've fixed it or not.
Time will tell as I reintroduce myself to C1 after a few years of being absent from it. But in general, this is what I've discovered over the years in situations like this.
When the "pro", "boutique", "specialized" thing is compared with the popular/mass market thing, those in the know state reasons why the less known/less popular thing is better. I've found many times this is true depending on what we're talking about. But I've all found that many times it's not true. It's a pure and simple bias.
I love how LR processes Canon RAW files. That's not to say C1 can't at least do equally as well. But I haven't seen any obvious superiority by either over the other. With my Leaf files time will tell. But if it's close in my eyes with my images, LR will win. And not because of cataloging features as I don't use LR for image management. But because I'm use to it and I like the workflow.
I'm a tinkerer by nature. So know I will continuously dabble in C1 and become very fluent in it over time. Then I'll make my production decision. But for right now and the near future, LR is delivering the goods.
When the "pro", "boutique", "specialized" thing is compared with the popular/mass market thing, those in the know state reasons why the less known/less popular thing is better. I've found many times this is true depending on what we're talking about. But I've all found that many times it's not true. It's a pure and simple bias.
I love how LR processes Canon RAW files. That's not to say C1 can't at least do equally as well. But I haven't seen any obvious superiority by either over the other. With my Leaf files time will tell. But if it's close in my eyes with my images, LR will win. And not because of cataloging features as I don't use LR for image management. But because I'm use to it and I like the workflow.
I'm a tinkerer by nature. So know I will continuously dabble in C1 and become very fluent in it over time. Then I'll make my production decision. But for right now and the near future, LR is delivering the goods.
I currently use both LR 5 and C1 7 side-by-side to process my images from an IQ180. Primarily landscapes. I use LR as my "real" catalog, but in order to work on an image in C1 7, I have to go through the motions of importing it into a C1 7 catalog as well, process it into a TIFF, and then reimport into LR. I process a very small number of images over time into TIFFs for prints. I always process one of these images first in LR, and then I may decide to also process it in C1 7. In my experience, some of the images look best coming out of LR, and some out of C1 7. I just don't see in my work the differences in color and tonal rendering in a C1 7 file that make it superior to a LR file. I usually find it easier to get a really good result out of LR because the Shadow and Highlight tools in LR are just better. Those tools in C1 7 are very blunt tools that are not as powerful or constrained in the range of affected tones. If I use a Shadow tool, I don't want it to touch the mid tones and highlights. LR seems to self-mask other tones. I also find local adjustments to be much easier to implement in LR, and there are a lot of tools that just can't be used for local adjustments in C1 7. I also feel that the GUI and overall experience of working in LR is just more enjoyable. It comes way closer to passing the Steve Jobs "test".
Last edited:
And that's right there. You keep hearing about this intrinsic "better" which I don't experience with my files (Canon). If you use a MFD, it's a different story, but to say that C1 is better ... it's an exaggeration. And you don't have to believe me: try to pull highlights from a wedding veil with LR and C1 and then tell me C1 is "better".
As I mentioned many times before: BOTH are good. In certain situation you are able to get a better file out of C1 and in others from LR.
After many years of use of both(I started with C1 but stopped for a while when they introduced v4) I still find LR's workflow better (especially for event work). I only use C1 for portrait work because of it's awkward workflow and (to me) is not as fast (workflow wise) as LR.
In Mike's case, with the Leaf files, I think he will get better output from C1 since was geared towards MFD. But that doesn't mean C1 is "better" or that the files are "better", period. He will probably get better output in THIS PARTICULAR case.
wentbackward
Member
It will take only a moment to open two files side by side in C1 and LR to verify what works for your particular situation.
I've been doing both practically all day today (much to the chagrin of my productivity!). I stand ready to be convinced of C1's superiority. But as of yet I don't see it. Right now I'm getting better output of LR. But I know that's simply because I'm still wrapping my brain around C1. But I'm even pusing myself in LR and using tools I normally don't use. The more I use these "new" tools, the more LR impresses me.
I gotta be honest, while I'm trying to find a significant C1 advantage, I hope I don't find a significant difference. I would prefer not to utilize different workflows. One for my 35mm DSLRs and the other for my MFD stuff. But if I find it, I'll be compelled to do exactly that.
BlinkingEye
New member
Doug Peterson gave great overviews, as usual. Thanks.
I have downloaded and used the latest thirty day trial of Capture One and I love it.
However, for me, and this is likely just for me, one HUGE downfall of Capture One, it there are not "hooks" for third party plug-ins like there is in LR and PS.
Not having this functionality creates a cumbersome, slow clunky workflow.
For the life of me I cannot understand why C1 does not include functionality for third party software. Hello, it is 2013.
If C1 had this functionality I would be there but until then it is ACR/PS workflow for me.
I have downloaded and used the latest thirty day trial of Capture One and I love it.
However, for me, and this is likely just for me, one HUGE downfall of Capture One, it there are not "hooks" for third party plug-ins like there is in LR and PS.
Not having this functionality creates a cumbersome, slow clunky workflow.
For the life of me I cannot understand why C1 does not include functionality for third party software. Hello, it is 2013.
If C1 had this functionality I would be there but until then it is ACR/PS workflow for me.
Pemihan
Well-known member
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Recently I used all 3 - C1Pro, LR5 and Aperture - all latest versions.
I imported all my photos (meanwhile around 70k) in all 3.
LR5 does best compression (lossless DNG) and is great for organizing. Aperture is what I use to import first and actually became my most preferred tool, just because of simplicity (for me), but the library file is much larger than what I have from LR5.
C1Pro I would like most, but it starts screwing up and is very slow with a big catalog. I would like RAW conversion in most cases best, but the program seems to have some issues with Mountain Lion. And the catalog is similar size as Aperture library.
So I still do not have a clear favorite but if Phase One would be able to bring a version from C1Pro which does not hang up itself again and again, I would surely go with C1Pro.
Not sure how long this will take?
I imported all my photos (meanwhile around 70k) in all 3.
LR5 does best compression (lossless DNG) and is great for organizing. Aperture is what I use to import first and actually became my most preferred tool, just because of simplicity (for me), but the library file is much larger than what I have from LR5.
C1Pro I would like most, but it starts screwing up and is very slow with a big catalog. I would like RAW conversion in most cases best, but the program seems to have some issues with Mountain Lion. And the catalog is similar size as Aperture library.
So I still do not have a clear favorite but if Phase One would be able to bring a version from C1Pro which does not hang up itself again and again, I would surely go with C1Pro.
Not sure how long this will take?
I just wish I could use X-rite Color Checker profiles in Capture One.
If so I would probably use C1 for all my product work. Color matters and the Color Checker rocks for accurate color.
Right now I have an old G5 running Leaf Capture so I can save to a hot folder that LR (on a PC) brings in the file and applies the profile.
Unfortunately, the Leaf Valeo 22 back won't work with a PC. Not sure if Capture One on a Mac with see it either.
Ideas anyone?
If so I would probably use C1 for all my product work. Color matters and the Color Checker rocks for accurate color.
Right now I have an old G5 running Leaf Capture so I can save to a hot folder that LR (on a PC) brings in the file and applies the profile.
Unfortunately, the Leaf Valeo 22 back won't work with a PC. Not sure if Capture One on a Mac with see it either.
Ideas anyone?
eleanorbrown
New member
I have a question about Capture One Pro v. 7.1.4...I have been a long time user of both C1 and Lightroom and have used both applications on my various types of files, incl. Phase One (2005 to present), Nikon D800e, Leica M9 and now Sony RX1R. I have been doing testing lately comparing processing on the same RX1R files in both applications to see if I could get where I could possibly just use C1 only. The RX1R has a tremendous dynamic range and I have files that have hugely deep shadows (some way underexposed to make room not to blow out highlights). I can get gorgeous natural looking results on these files in Lightroom with the highlight, shadow, white and black sliders. Wonderful results. Same file in C1 is pretty horrible...doesn't look natural and I think the C1 high dynamic range sliders (highlight and shadow) are a bad joke. No way to naturally pull the blacks onto the histogram as I can do in Lightroom. Help! Does anyone have suggestions? Am I doing something wrong that LR is so much better in handling these problematic and challenging files? I have tried using the local adjustment tools in C1 as an alternative but when the contrast in the image is so high...deep deep areas against very lght skies for example...even local adjustments are a disaster. I have always though C1 has been weak with files I'm describing but they seem to think they are the best! again, any ideas? (I use base iso and when I pull my exposure slider back and fourth I can confirm there is HUGH amounts of high quality information there in the files.) Many many thanks Eleanor
PS...also on chromatic aberration....with a few clicks I can get rid of all of this in LR. There is no way I've found in C1 that will get rid of it all...not even clicking on "analyze" ....any ideas. ?
PS...also on chromatic aberration....with a few clicks I can get rid of all of this in LR. There is no way I've found in C1 that will get rid of it all...not even clicking on "analyze" ....any ideas. ?
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Eleanor, please post raw files and screen grabs comparing the two softwares and illustrating the questions you have.
Without those there isn't much chance for meaningful response.
Without those there isn't much chance for meaningful response.
eleanorbrown
New member
Thanks very much Doug for your help. Right now I'm sending you what I've already done and been working on last night and today...just an image of something I use here in my studio as a testing shot ...so nothing scientific! In this image some of the highlights are blown out but I'm not taking those into consideration here. I'm mainly concerned about how to handle the vastly underexposed areas. base iso of 100 on Sony RX1R. first one a shot of the RAW file with standard curve applied. Second one of the LR file after adjustments (I could handle most of the balancing of tones of using the exposure sliders and it was easy to do). Last is the C1 file and you can see the difference in the way I processed. With the sony file I can get the whole histogram on the chart with ease. I don't know how to do this with C1..I try using the output sliders in levels, etc etc. The tones on LR seem to be truer and smooth plus CR is gone. However I worked really hard to see if I could get the C1 file to match the LR file...thus the difference in processing. I could work with them both more and maybe get closer but the LR sliders seem so easy to use and get the results I want and I really have to struggle with the C1 highlight and shadow sliders. C1 doesn't seem to have the equivalent of the LR white and black sliders in the exposure panel which make controlling the histogram really easy for me)....Please correct me if I'm wrong......I would appreciate any suggestions you have!! thanks! Eleanor
I know your question was addressed to Doug, but I just don't understand why do you want to work more to achieve the same result as LR, when in LR was easier to do (and got the results desired)?
Again, C1 is not better than LR (that time has long been passed). Yes, SOMETIMES, you get better results from C1 and SOMETIMES you get better results from LR. I can't understand the reason for somebody spending time (maybe hours) to achieve the look that you get from another converter. Care to enlighten me?
When I'm not happy with the result, I try the other converter and usually I get the results I'm after. Rarely do I have a file that both converters give me problems.