Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 114

Thread: Capture One or LR6?

  1. #1
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,046
    Post Thanks / Like

    Capture One or LR6?

    Hi,

    Conventional wisdom say that P45+ must be used Capture One. Personally I have a very strong preference for LR6. The one thing I do is that I use my own camera profiles for Lightroom, I have done that from day zero I had the P45+.

    A few months ago I started using DCamProf, a tool developed by Anders Torger, with Lightroom.

    Here are some screendumps from images processed in Capture One and Lightroom. Both pretty much basically processed.

    • Color profiles: Daylight in C1 and DcamProf in LR6
    • Highlight compression: HDR highlight slider in C1 and "higlights" in LR6
    • Shadows: HDR shadows slider in C1 and shadows slider in LR6
    • Colour profiles: Daylight in C1 DCamProf in LR6
    • WB, white balance on same spot on both
    • Sharpening: C1 defaults and my own default for P45+ in LR6


    Results (C1 left LR right):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-07-19 at 20.51.30.jpg 
Views:	55 
Size:	20.6 KB 
ID:	119917
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-07-19 at 20.52.06.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	20.9 KB 
ID:	119918


    The "raw" file: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...S/CF045436.IIQ
    The DCP profile used is here (hopefully the right one): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar.../P45+_dual.dcp

    Screenshots:
    http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...s/Screend1.png
    http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...s/Screend2.png

    So, what do I see? In these cases I actually prefer the results from Lightroom. That has obviously a lot to do with bias, I am a long time Lightroom user.

    Anders Torger has done a great job with DCamProf, that effort should be applauded. DCamProf can generate profiles for Capture One, even if C1 is more tricky.

    I have found that C1 does often a somewhat better job on colour aliasing than Lightroom. But, aliasing is not a great problem in many images, as resolution is often limited by workflow.

    The results here reflect my experience with Lightroom (plenty) and with C1 (little), but both are very basic conversions.

    Best regards
    Erik
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 19th July 2016 at 11:32.

  2. #2
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,046
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6? Another example.

    Hi,

    Here is another example, a P45+ shot this spring.

    The images below have two crops. Processing is (left to right) C1 - linear profile, LR6 (dcamprof), C1 - film profile.

    Raw image is here: Access forbidden!

    Screendumps (full size):
    http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...C1/Screen3.png
    http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...C1/Screen4.png

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen3.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	21.1 KB 
ID:	119951
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen4.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	20.1 KB 
ID:	119952

    My take is that both can produce a nice image. LR with DCamProf has lower contrast and higher saturation. A lot of grass colours are outside Adobe RGB, which is about what we can have visible on screen, but they would be printable on my Epson 3880. So I need to make some prints, but those are hard to share. over the net

    The idea with these comparison is not to find out which is the best raw converter to P45+, but mainly to see if LR is OK using DCamProf generated profiles. Both converters have a wide range of options to improve an image and may take a long time to master. So what I trying to do here is to use colour profiles with as little manual adjustments as it is feasible.

    Best regards
    Erik
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 21st July 2016 at 00:07.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I'm a bit surprised over the large difference in saturation. Not in the flowers though, as both Hasselblad and Phase One desaturates high saturation colors *a lot*, and it's actually a good strategy as raw converters by tradition aren't that good at compressing gamuts in nice ways. I will probably revisit that area at some time with DCamProf as I'm not sure the gamut compression stuff is handling these cases as good as it could.

    When I started working with gamut compression I thought it would be easy, but it isn't. The problem is that you can't really just mathematically compress into the smaller gamut (which is easy) as that will make bright high saturation colors that clip look dull, sunsets a good example. So you need to compress, but still let it clip and finding that balance was not so easy. You even have to sacrifice some hue accuracy, letting clipping reds become a bit orange for example.

    What surprises me is the large difference in the normal range of colors like seen in the buildings. I guess that Phase One's profile is a bit under-saturated, but possibly DCamProf's result is a little over-saturated. I need a fresh memory of the scene to decide. In any case it's easy to adjust by changing the "ChromaScaling" value.

    If your workflow always include a lot of post-processing work of colors it's usually wise to have a somewhat desaturated profile, so possibly the C1 profile is intentionally slightly low on saturation.

    The intention of a DCamProf default profile is to render colors as realistically as possible, and keep that realism with the film curve. The problem with profile makers from say X-Rite is that they only make the profile to work with a linear curve (reproduction mode) and then slap the film curve on top with no other modifications, and thus ignores how the curve affects colors, both in terms of hue distortion but also in terms of the psychovisual non-linear connection between contrast and saturation. Bundled profiles in C1 (and also Adobe) makes similar adjustments as DCamProf but their profile making tools are inhouse and not available to users.

    Anyway, the most obvious difference is that Phase One's profiles applies a warm tone, or like I prefer to call it - a yellow cast as it's not there in reality. AFAIK the yellow cast look is unique to Phase One. I suppose it's fixable using the C1 color editor though.

    Personally I don't see any reason for the heavy bashing LR receives if you make custom profiles. The default profiles provided by Adobe is indeed often not that good, although there are large differences depending on camera model. Sure the noise reduction and demosaicing is not as finely tuned as for C1 but I consider that difference to be marginal. I wouldn't exaggerate the "badness" of Adobe's profiles either. If you work with landscape for example with lots of post-processing applied I don't see that Adobe's default profiles would be a big issue. If you work with skin tones and product photography etc I do see that Adobe's profiles can be a problem.

    I work with landscape and is in actuality not that sensitive to color profile, but I just want to maximize the potential of my digital gear. Digital can make much more natural and realistic colors than film ever could, and then I just want that. I do apply post-processing to my colors, but I just find it to make much more sense to have a starting point that is as realistic as possible (within reason, I don't think it makes sense to simulate human night vision for example).

    The raw converter choice to me is more about which one you like the most in terms of adjustment tools and workflow. And sure, there are strong reasons to prefer C1 also in that case, but I guess it depends on what you're used to. That a Phase One digital back would be fantastically better in C1 than in any other raw converter I consider to be a profile thing.

    And in terms of profile, despite that it's certainly well-designed and robust, I'd either adjust the default in C1, or make a custom profile (it's possible to make DCamProf profiles for C1 too), as to me the yellow cast does not make any sense. What a profile could do is to adjust lightness to make tonality show better, adjust saturation to match psychovisual effects related to contrast, compress gamut, do some tricks around clipping, and possibly slightly adjust hues to improve color separation (or reduce it, common in caucasian skintone range).

    Applying pretty much a global color cast is not one of those things I think a profile should do though, and it's a mystery to me why it's there and why so few seems to have noted it. My guess is that it's some sort of legacy thing that once users got used to they couldn't remove it, or the "Image Professor" has some strange taste, or perhaps many actually like it and Phase One sells more cameras due to this look. I don't know.
    Thanks 3 Member(s) thanked for this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,498
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I've been struggling with C1 since getting my Leaf back. I think it's a great bit of software, but coming from Lightroom, not to mention a workflow based 100% on scanning film with an Imacon – I'd output 16bit TIFFs from Flexcolor and edit in PS/LR – it has been a tricky transition that is still proving itself to be an ongoing headache.

    The hardest part for me is understanding the colour profiles and how C1 in general handles colour. I bought a Rocky Nook book to try get a better grasp how exactly each component of the software works, but much of it was glossed over quickly. I'm not at all hung up on getting accurate colour, more something that matches my subjective vision honed during years of shooting, scanning and printing from film. Portra was never what I'd call accurate, so perhaps that's where my frustrations lie?

    Essentially, I find that the Leaf profiles seem really lifeless and with generally low saturation and kind of odd colour balance, especially for landscape work. For example, skies seem to look too light and generally grey, and subtle shifts of color temp and light during a shooting session are masked unless I choose the ProPhoto profile. In an nutshell, the Leaf profiles just seem to suck the magic out of things. They don't seem either particularly accurate or pleasing (at least to my subjective eye,) so I've resorted to using the ProPhoto profile as my default import profile, almost never opting for anything else. The ProPhoto profile is very saturated however, so I dial that down in combination with some selective editing in the advanced colour editor tab, but the overall colour balance seems better to me off the bat, or at least closer to what I'm aiming for overall for the final print. As I do it now, I get as close as I can in C1 then output to 16bit TIFFs and fine tune in LR like I always used to with my film scans. Probably not what advanced C1 users ever resort to doing...

    I trust my eyes – at least when working on my Eizo monitor – but I wonder if I'm missing something. Are the Leaf profiles just very low key, generally low saturation profiles? Are they a bit boring, or what? Why am I not seeing the Leaf colour magic that people rave about with my back specific profiles, and why might ProPhoto be getting me better results? To be clear, I don't want to emulate film or portra colour specifically, it's just happens that I had a workflow down pat and it has gone out of the window now... In short, for the love of God, please help me!!!!

    Too many questions from a person that understands colour management in terms of keeping things consistent from screen to print, but nothing about camera profiles.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I had not really seen the yellow cast in C1, although I have not done much comparitive work with other programs so may just be used to it and dial it out mentally. That is until I played with a recent lens aquisition a 50mm C Zeiss NOT T* coated. On the P45+ I now notice a pronounced yellow in particular on the greens, is this related to the coating or IR contamination again from the coating? The coating that is on is very clean and I did buy the lens for a lower conrast B/W look on film but of course digital testing is more rapid

  6. #6
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,046
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi!

    Input profile should be one of the profiles for your back. An input profile describes your back.

    It would be helpful if you posted a raw image showing the issues you have. We are eager to help but need to observe the problem.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    I've been struggling with C1 since getting my Leaf back. I think it's a great bit of software, but coming from Lightroom, not to mention a workflow based 100% on scanning film with an Imacon – I'd output 16bit TIFFs from Flexcolor and edit in PS/LR – it has been a tricky transition that is still proving itself to be an ongoing headache.

    The hardest part for me is understanding the colour profiles and how C1 in general handles colour. I bought a Rocky Nook book to try get a better grasp how exactly each component of the software works, but much of it was glossed over quickly. I'm not at all hung up on getting accurate colour, more something that matches my subjective vision honed during years of shooting, scanning and printing from film. Portra was never what I'd call accurate, so perhaps that's where my frustrations lie?

    Essentially, I find that the Leaf profiles seem really lifeless and with generally low saturation and kind of odd colour balance, especially for landscape work. For example, skies seem to look too light and generally grey, and subtle shifts of color temp and light during a shooting session are masked unless I choose the ProPhoto profile. In an nutshell, the Leaf profiles just seem to suck the magic out of things. They don't seem either particularly accurate or pleasing (at least to my subjective eye,) so I've resorted to using the ProPhoto profile as my default import profile, almost never opting for anything else. The ProPhoto profile is very saturated however, so I dial that down in combination with some selective editing in the advanced colour editor tab, but the overall colour balance seems better to me off the bat, or at least closer to what I'm aiming for overall for the final print. As I do it now, I get as close as I can in C1 then output to 16bit TIFFs and fine tune in LR like I always used to with my film scans. Probably not what advanced C1 users ever resort to doing...

    I trust my eyes – at least when working on my Eizo monitor – but I wonder if I'm missing something. Are the Leaf profiles just very low key, generally low saturation profiles? Are they a bit boring, or what? Why am I not seeing the Leaf colour magic that people rave about with my back specific profiles, and why might ProPhoto be getting me better results? To be clear, I don't want to emulate film or portra colour specifically, it's just happens that I had a workflow down pat and it has gone out of the window now... In short, for the love of God, please help me!!!!

    Too many questions from a person that understands colour management in terms of keeping things consistent from screen to print, but nothing about camera profiles.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    I've been struggling with C1 since getting my Leaf back. I think it's a great bit of software, but coming from Lightroom, not to mention a workflow based 100% on scanning film with an Imacon – I'd output 16bit TIFFs from Flexcolor and edit in PS/LR – it has been a tricky transition that is still proving itself to be an ongoing headache.

    The hardest part for me is understanding the colour profiles and how C1 in general handles colour. I bought a Rocky Nook book to try get a better grasp how exactly each component of the software works, but much of it was glossed over quickly. I'm not at all hung up on getting accurate colour, more something that matches my subjective vision honed during years of shooting, scanning and printing from film. Portra was never what I'd call accurate, so perhaps that's where my frustrations lie?

    Essentially, I find that the Leaf profiles seem really lifeless and with generally low saturation and kind of odd colour balance, especially for landscape work. For example, skies seem to look too light and generally grey, and subtle shifts of color temp and light during a shooting session are masked unless I choose the ProPhoto profile. In an nutshell, the Leaf profiles just seem to suck the magic out of things. They don't seem either particularly accurate or pleasing (at least to my subjective eye,) so I've resorted to using the ProPhoto profile as my default import profile, almost never opting for anything else. The ProPhoto profile is very saturated however, so I dial that down in combination with some selective editing in the advanced colour editor tab, but the overall colour balance seems better to me off the bat, or at least closer to what I'm aiming for overall for the final print. As I do it now, I get as close as I can in C1 then output to 16bit TIFFs and fine tune in LR like I always used to with my film scans. Probably not what advanced C1 users ever resort to doing...

    I trust my eyes – at least when working on my Eizo monitor – but I wonder if I'm missing something. Are the Leaf profiles just very low key, generally low saturation profiles? Are they a bit boring, or what? Why am I not seeing the Leaf colour magic that people rave about with my back specific profiles, and why might ProPhoto be getting me better results? To be clear, I don't want to emulate film or portra colour specifically, it's just happens that I had a workflow down pat and it has gone out of the window now... In short, for the love of God, please help me!!!!

    Too many questions from a person that understands colour management in terms of keeping things consistent from screen to print, but nothing about camera profiles.
    My guess is that you're not doing anything wrong, but you simply don't like Leaf's profiles. Also Leaf's profiles are highly subjective and you may or you may not like them. I sort of liked them but I didn't use them much as I've used custom profiles for a long time. I know some (all?) Leaf profiles desaturates colors close to neutral to make "neutrals more neutral" which you may or may not like (sounds to me that you would not like it), but otherwise the look should be quite saturated if I remember correctly, so the only strange thing in your story is that you say you experience the profiles as desaturated in a global sense, but it's hard to see exactly what you mean without an example image of course.

    If I remember Yair's info correctly the oddly named "ProPhoto" profile (it really hasn't anything to do with prophoto) was made by Leaf as some users wanted a more neutral profile as a starting point for their own looks. I don't know how it relates to a contrast curve though. If it was designed like a reproduction profile it could look over-saturated when used with a curve.

    "Accurate" color can really only exist in a reproduction use case with fixed light close to D50, linear curve, and printing a copy of the artwork or whatever you shot and view it under controlled light. Therefore I prefer to use the term "realistic" color when it comes to general-purpose photography. For some type of scenes I prefer realistic color the best (say midday sun conditions) but in most cases I modulate colors a little for atmosphere/mood and matching images in a series. Still I prefer to have a reference point to start with, and when I can have realistic color, I choose realistic colors.

    The problem with strongly subjective profiles from manufacturers, even if you like them, is that if you change gear some point you suddenly get vastly different color response and suddenly it becomes hard to get the colors you want. The "Prophoto" profile for Leaf backs is the closest to neutral/realistic you'll get without using a custom profile, so I guess it's a good starting point.

    Perhaps you should shoot a typical scene with both your old film workflow and your new digital workflow, and then try to if not match at least get a look which is to your eyes as pleasing as the film look. Maybe by experimenting with that you could figure out what type of adjustments you need to do to get where you want. Having something to compare to makes things much easier.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    I've been struggling with C1 since getting my Leaf back. I think it's a great bit of software, but coming from Lightroom, not to mention a workflow based 100% on scanning film with an Imacon – I'd output 16bit TIFFs from Flexcolor and edit in PS/LR – it has been a tricky transition that is still proving itself to be an ongoing headache.

    The hardest part for me is understanding the colour profiles and how C1 in general handles colour. I bought a Rocky Nook book to try get a better grasp how exactly each component of the software works, but much of it was glossed over quickly. I'm not at all hung up on getting accurate colour, more something that matches my subjective vision honed during years of shooting, scanning and printing from film. Portra was never what I'd call accurate, so perhaps that's where my frustrations lie?

    Essentially, I find that the Leaf profiles seem really lifeless and with generally low saturation and kind of odd colour balance, especially for landscape work. For example, skies seem to look too light and generally grey, and subtle shifts of color temp and light during a shooting session are masked unless I choose the ProPhoto profile. In an nutshell, the Leaf profiles just seem to suck the magic out of things. They don't seem either particularly accurate or pleasing (at least to my subjective eye,) so I've resorted to using the ProPhoto profile as my default import profile, almost never opting for anything else. The ProPhoto profile is very saturated however, so I dial that down in combination with some selective editing in the advanced colour editor tab, but the overall colour balance seems better to me off the bat, or at least closer to what I'm aiming for overall for the final print. As I do it now, I get as close as I can in C1 then output to 16bit TIFFs and fine tune in LR like I always used to with my film scans. Probably not what advanced C1 users ever resort to doing...

    I trust my eyes – at least when working on my Eizo monitor – but I wonder if I'm missing something. Are the Leaf profiles just very low key, generally low saturation profiles? Are they a bit boring, or what? Why am I not seeing the Leaf colour magic that people rave about with my back specific profiles, and why might ProPhoto be getting me better results? To be clear, I don't want to emulate film or portra colour specifically, it's just happens that I had a workflow down pat and it has gone out of the window now... In short, for the love of God, please help me!!!!

    Too many questions from a person that understands colour management in terms of keeping things consistent from screen to print, but nothing about camera profiles.
    Probably due my inexperience with C1 I am having similar problems, but with my XF+100. I must change over to Prophoto which LR uses as the default color space since the Adobe RGB color space is just too small a bucket. I truly find it amazing that C1 uses that color space as a default.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    It may be some confusion going on here, not sure. There's a Leaf camera profile that's called "Prophoto" which has nothing to do with the Prophoto color space. I thought it was that tjv referred to, but now I'm not as sure...
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  10. #10
    Member msadat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Hermosa Beach, CA
    Posts
    151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    beside the output, workflow is also important. the current version of the LR CC is extremely slow and buggy and i am planning to give c1 a try. so have that in mind
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  11. #11
    Senior Member Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    This is a most interesting thread. I use Prophoto as my colour space and I generally find C1 is pretty good (I'm a print maker) except for saturation. Although I abhor the over-saturated images that seem to be fashionable these days, I do find that C1 under-saturates. I generally have to add at least 10-15 points to get the colour I think I remember! (This is with the IQ3-100, but true of the IQ180 too).

    Do others find the same issue?

    Bill
    Bill CB

    www.billcaulfeild-browne.ca
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,747
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I tend to stay away from ProPhoto color space as it's too easy to get colors out of gamut, at least for an Epson 9900 or 7800, especially blues. I realize this is a very individual preference.

    C1 on the CCD backs for me always seemed a tad oversaturated but on the IQ100, I find it way over saturated on green. In fact images when first loaded in C1 have a rather green tint to them. Easy fix, but an interesting issue. Other colors seem fine. LR still has no support for the 100 at least last time I checked.

    As for C1 vs LR, if and when LR supports the IQ100 I will often start in C1 and if I can't get where I want to go, will try LR. The tool sets in each C1 and LR have certain strengths that I like, examples:

    Auto mask in LR, Color picker in C1, adjustment layers in C1 vs LR's adjustment brush, (still all or nothing). C1 offers sessions which I prefer, LR has an excellent print engine.

    Paul C

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Caulfeild-Browne View Post
    This is a most interesting thread. I use Prophoto as my colour space and I generally find C1 is pretty good (I'm a print maker) except for saturation. Although I abhor the over-saturated images that seem to be fashionable these days, I do find that C1 under-saturates. I generally have to add at least 10-15 points to get the colour I think I remember! (This is with the IQ3-100, but true of the IQ180 too).

    Do others find the same issue?

    Bill
    The P45+ photo in the first post here does look under-saturated. I've noted that under-saturated profiles are quite popular for higher end cameras also in Lightroom. I don't really know for sure why, but my theory is that if you're doing post-processing on colors anyway it's an advantage to start off a bit lower on saturation, as it's easier to work with increasing saturation (perhaps selectively) than decreasing.

    There are also advantages from a profile design perspective to make an under-saturated profile. Increasing saturation means separating the color channels more, which means increasing noise. A desaturated profile will thus make the camera look less noisy.

    It's also more difficult to make a robust profile with realistically saturated colors than an undersaturated profile, because if you make normal colors saturated enough you'll end up pushing high saturation colors (like flowers etc) outside the gamut and you need to apply quite heavy gamut compression. To make nice gradients you need that gamut compression to work over a wide range, and letting it go into the normal colors (so those become under-saturated) makes it easier to make the profile look good.

    So my guess is that all the profiles are intentionally slightly desaturated for these reasons.

    (With DCamProf the default is to make also the normal colors look realistically saturated, but it has caused me significant pain in getting the profile robust for the high saturation colors, and I'd say that even now it's not as robust as a typical C1 profile.)
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,498
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Anders, I think you're right. It's probably that I just don't really like the Leaf profiles.

    You're also right in that it's not exactly a global saturation issue. I went back today to have a quick look – admittedly on my laptop not Eizo – and found that it is in fact more to do with colours that are closer to neutral tones. The reason this annoys me so much is that if I photograph during the "blue hour", for example, the lovely light is just sucked right out of the picture and everything seems forced closer to neutral, paricularly in skies and within the built environment. This is where selecting the ProPhoto camera profile helps. I pretty much always choose this in conjunction with the Product curve. I will admit though that I do have to knock back the saturation to tone the colour down a bit, but it's still much better to my eye than the Leaf Product profiles for example. On the occasions that I want a more neutral colour it's good to know now how the Leaf profiles might be operating.

    It's interesting to hear that Bill is mostly selecting the ProPhoto profile with his back also. Bill, do you still find you add saturation to your conversions when using ProPhoto to get them where you want? I'm guessing Leaf and Phase do have some hardware differences, else the two makes of backs could simply be considered interchangeable with the same profile set – which I understand isn't the case.

    What I also want to know is if I edit an image with the ProPhoto camera profile selected (getting it pretty close to where I want it,) then I export to a 16bit TIFF in the ProPhoto colour space; if colours are out of printer gamut can I still pull them back in LR (which I use to finetune and print from,) without too much worry that I'm losing too much data? I'm generally talking relatively minor adjustments here, on things like fluroesent orange road signs and cones that don't show clipping warnings but look a little hot and flat on close inspection.

    Also, what do people tend to select as their rendering intent? When I first opened C1 I selected Relative Colormetric in the preferences as that's what I've always used with best results in other programmes – minimising colour shifts etc during exports – but now, considering my rather convoluted workflow, I'm not so sure as I could run the risk of clipping data? Or does selecting the ProPhoto output profile effectively negate this issue?

    TJV

    PS: Sorry, I'd post RAW files for others to look at but I'm unable to share them due to commercial sensitivities.


    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    My guess is that you're not doing anything wrong, but you simply don't like Leaf's profiles. Also Leaf's profiles are highly subjective and you may or you may not like them. I sort of liked them but I didn't use them much as I've used custom profiles for a long time. I know some (all?) Leaf profiles desaturates colors close to neutral to make "neutrals more neutral" which you may or may not like (sounds to me that you would not like it), but otherwise the look should be quite saturated if I remember correctly, so the only strange thing in your story is that you say you experience the profiles as desaturated in a global sense, but it's hard to see exactly what you mean without an example image of course.

    If I remember Yair's info correctly the oddly named "ProPhoto" profile (it really hasn't anything to do with prophoto) was made by Leaf as some users wanted a more neutral profile as a starting point for their own looks. I don't know how it relates to a contrast curve though. If it was designed like a reproduction profile it could look over-saturated when used with a curve.

    "Accurate" color can really only exist in a reproduction use case with fixed light close to D50, linear curve, and printing a copy of the artwork or whatever you shot and view it under controlled light. Therefore I prefer to use the term "realistic" color when it comes to general-purpose photography. For some type of scenes I prefer realistic color the best (say midday sun conditions) but in most cases I modulate colors a little for atmosphere/mood and matching images in a series. Still I prefer to have a reference point to start with, and when I can have realistic color, I choose realistic colors.

    The problem with strongly subjective profiles from manufacturers, even if you like them, is that if you change gear some point you suddenly get vastly different color response and suddenly it becomes hard to get the colors you want. The "Prophoto" profile for Leaf backs is the closest to neutral/realistic you'll get without using a custom profile, so I guess it's a good starting point.

    Perhaps you should shoot a typical scene with both your old film workflow and your new digital workflow, and then try to if not match at least get a look which is to your eyes as pleasing as the film look. Maybe by experimenting with that you could figure out what type of adjustments you need to do to get where you want. Having something to compare to makes things much easier.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I think Bill was only talking about Prophoto color space, not Leaf's confusingly named "Prophoto" camera profile.

    Leaf has its own camera profile pipeline so Leaf profiles are not working on Phase One backs or the other way around. That is even if hardware is exactly the same the software doesn't allow interchanging camera profiles between those brands.

    Leaf had their own raw converter and thus their own color pipeline and own way of formatting their ICC profiles, which is different from Phase One's. I know this as I reverse-engineered the format for the RawTherapee project. When Leaf was bought by Phase One and their backs started to be supported by Capture One they did not change the profile format, but instead added the color pipeline from Leaf into Capture One. This pipeline is only used for Leaf backs though. Phase One and third party cameras like Canon, Nikon, Sony etc all use the same original Capture One color pipeline and thus you can interchange profiles between them if you have two cameras with similar hardware color response, but Leaf profiles on any other camera will look like crazy.

    Leaf backs, at least the Aptus series, embeds a plain color matrix for direct conversion to the Prophoto color space. It's on that the ICC profile is then applied (in Capture One there's no pre-matrixing like that). If I remember correctly the Leaf-Prophoto camera profile is almost indistinguishable from that plain color matrix result, I guess that's why it's called "Prophoto", because you get (almost) the same result as the embedded white-balanced-raw-color-to-prophoto-color-space conversion matrix. This means that that profile is not adapted for being used with a curve, so when you apply a product curve you will get some over-saturation and some hue shifts, just as if you apply a plain RGB S-curve on any image. It can still be okay as a post-processing starting point, but as far as I understand it's a very basic profile, just as if you would make a profile using say X-Rite's software with a CC24.
    Last edited by torger; 22nd July 2016 at 04:53.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    What I also want to know is if I edit an image with the ProPhoto camera profile selected (getting it pretty close to where I want it,) then I export to a 16bit TIFF in the ProPhoto colour space; if colours are out of printer gamut can I still pull them back in LR (which I use to finetune and print from,) without too much worry that I'm losing too much data? I'm generally talking relatively minor adjustments here, on things like fluroesent orange road signs and cones that don't show clipping warnings but look a little hot and flat on close inspection.

    Also, what do people tend to select as their rendering intent? When I first opened C1 I selected Relative Colormetric in the preferences as that's what I've always used with best results in other programmes – minimising colour shifts etc during exports – but now, considering my rather convoluted workflow, I'm not so sure as I could run the risk of clipping data? Or does selecting the ProPhoto output profile effectively negate this issue?
    Note that many not used to Leaf cameras will be confused by the term "ProPhoto camera profile" as to all other users "Prophoto" is a color space and nothing else. But as Leaf users we know that this is just one of their camera profiles :-). To answer the question, yes you can still pull them back in LR. I'm no expert in LR, but I know there are hue adjustment sliders there and you can pull individual colors back. Or you just let the relative colorimetric printing mode rolloff handle it, if it's not too much out of gamut the result is usually fine.

    I use relative colorimetric for printing, with black point compensation (BPC is always on in most software these days, AFAIK it's always on in LR and there's no option to disable it). Strict relative colorimetric should hard-clip any out-of-gamut colors (also towards the blackpoint), but I think no commercial package is strict these days but does some sort of rolloff so it doesn't look ugly. Perceptual rendering means that you use the printer profile's hard-coded gamut compression which is pre-made with an assumption of what your source gamut is, which probably is AdobeRGB and not ProPhoto that you're using. Unfortunately there's no tag in the printer profile that says which source gamut it was made for, but I think AdobeRGB source is the most common. As it's hard-coded and static it always compress even if the image doesn't contain colors outside the gamut. Static compression like this was certainly good when ICC format was new back in the 1990s when computers weren't that powerful, but today I don't think it makes sense. When I make my own printer profiles I don't even care to include a perceptual rendering table.

    The "defacto standard" with dynamic soft rolloff on relative colorimetric is makes much more sense. If you get too much clipping still, you can always use the color adjustment tools in your raw converter or photoshop to reduce the gamut for problem colors prior to printing.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,431
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    124

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I was indeed writing about Prophoto colour space (as an alternative to Adobe 1998). But my comments re undersaturation would apply to Adobe 1998 as well.

    I like Torger's explanation for undersaturation. That makes sense to me - though I'm certainly no expert in this field!
    Bill CB

    www.billcaulfeild-browne.ca
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #18
    Senior Member DougDolde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Joshua Tree, CA
    Posts
    308
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I don't see it talked about here very often but Joseph Holmes' Ekta Space PS profile is the one to use. Not so much for the profile itself but for the Chroma variants you can assign once the image is converted to the Ekta Space PS profile. They are similar to saturation adjustments but are non destructive and can be changed at will

    The only instance I use the Saturation slider is generally when I need to reduce the saturation of a specific color.

    http://www.josephholmes.com/profiles.html

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    465
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I stopped using C1 when I found out it did not support Pentax MF files and that the round-tripping from PS or other filters (Silver Efex Pro etc) was not as robust as with LR.

    I only print via QImage and as discussed here before, it does a much better job (IMHO) than either LR or PS.

    I am not particularly fussy about color accuracy as long as I see what I like on the screen and the print matches it. I think color is a highly subjective aspect of an image. How does one know what the scene looked like, unless you put in a Macbeth color chart in every shot? Skin tones too are so variable, but arguably easier to 'correct' since we intuitively know what they should look like. Landscapes, buildings, objects, flowers, who is to say what the correct RGB value should be or the saturation?

    Overall, I am quite happy with LR at present, it could certainly improve in certain areas, but it checks most of the boxes for me.
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,906
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    I stopped using C1 when I found out it did not support Pentax MF files and that the round-tripping from PS or other filters (Silver Efex Pro etc) was not as robust as with LR.
    With the round-tripping part, you lost me. What exactly do you mean? TIA

  21. #21
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    With the round-tripping part, you lost me. What exactly do you mean? TIA
    Previous versions of C1 didn't have the current robust set of tools to round trip through Photoshop and back. In the current version, you can "edit with" in Photoshop or other 3rd party application, return the resulting tiff and see the results within c1. You can also view layered tiffs, and through process recipes control the naming, and location of the resulting round trip'd file.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    I stopped using C1 when I found out it did not support Pentax MF files and that the round-tripping from PS or other filters (Silver Efex Pro etc) was not as robust as with LR.

    I only print via QImage and as discussed here before, it does a much better job (IMHO) than either LR or PS.

    I am not particularly fussy about color accuracy as long as I see what I like on the screen and the print matches it. I think color is a highly subjective aspect of an image. How does one know what the scene looked like, unless you put in a Macbeth color chart in every shot? Skin tones too are so variable, but arguably easier to 'correct' since we intuitively know what they should look like. Landscapes, buildings, objects, flowers, who is to say what the correct RGB value should be or the saturation?

    Overall, I am quite happy with LR at present, it could certainly improve in certain areas, but it checks most of the boxes for me.
    Just to note, Capture One profiles are not designed for accuracy. It's designed for a pleasing look, and is as such highly subjective.

    Color accuracy using established scientific models is only possible for reproduction use case, where you copy say an painted artwork by photographing it under controlled light and print it. No contrast curve is involved in that process.

    For a real scene you need to add contrast for the output medium otherwise it will look dull, as the output medium generally has lower dynamic range and brightness. This is a normal psychovisual phenomenon. Adding a single global S-shaped contrast curve is a bit simplistic but very effective, and that's what we've been doing since the film days and what the camera profiles still do today.

    When we add contrast many things happens to the colors which needs compensation, and there's no standard to follow, each manufacturer does it differently. Pleasing skintones may be more about how the tones are rolled off gradually into the whitepoint and how saturation is controlled in the shadows than about the hue itself. All is controlled by the camera profile. The camera profile can also to some extent control color separation, it can be increased in some ranges and decreased in others. One example is that some profiles desaturates close-to-neutral colors to unify neutrals but also separate them from others. Various more or less subtle subjective adjustments that add up to a total color behavior and look.

    I guess my point is that there's much more to pleasing color behavior than what the hues are, and the bundled Lightroom profiles are generally less well designed than bundled Capture One profile, at least if you ask me. It's all subjective though. It think one can objectively say though (not with 100% certainty though as I don't have all facts) that Adobe's profile design methods are much simpler than Phase One's, but as color is about taste that does not guarantee that you will like their color better.

    Personally I just make my own profiles, and I love the freedom I get from that, I don't feel locked in to a particular manufacturer's look, and while accuracy is not really possible (as discussed above), it is possible to make colors look more realistic than most manufacturers provide with their bundled profiles, and to me that doesn't hurt. It's a good reference point. I rather have that than my colors change radically as soon as change camera brand or in some cases even just camera model. Then I can on top of that base look make color adjustments for creating atmosphere/mood or whatever the subject and context requires.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,046
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6? Another sample

    Hi,

    Today I did run some tests for some issue with one of my Sony lenses but I have also tested one of the Contax Zoom lenses I have for the Sony. Day was clean blue sky with very consistent but harsh light. In this shoot I also included the Planar 100/3.5 and my Canon 24-105/4L. The outcome was sort of nice. The issue with the Sony lens was confirmed. The Contax 35-135/3.3-4.5 is remarkably good and the Canon 24-105/4L is no slouch at all. What about the Planar 100/3.5, it really shines at it is totally consistent across the field.

    But, this posting is about colour rendition. Check the screen dump below, P45+ with C1 on the left, Sony A7rII in LR at center and P45+ with LR on the right. Crop has been chosen to get some interesting colour so no idea to compare sharpness…

    Some observations:

    • LR uses DCamPro profiles
    • Colour rendition is a bit different
    • The images processed in LR are pretty close, but the yellow wall is more intense on the P45+in LR
    • Yellow wall is more similar between P45+ and Sony
    • Small flowers blue in Capture One and bluish purple in LR


    Original screen dump: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...C1/Screen5.png


    Best regards
    Erik

  24. #24
    Member Jay Emm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    93
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    A few examples of C1's latest version here - might be some tools amongst this lot that assist your needs???

    http://blog.phaseone.com/top-5-reaso...ure-one-pro-9/

    FWIW, i've found tethered mode in C1 much better than LR, but LR is "free" with my PS sub so I have stuck with it. On the other hand, LR is slow and the modular interface isn't appealing after many years on Aperture (1st world problem I know, to be fair LR does it's job just fine).

  25. #25
    Senior Member dchew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    859
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6? Another sample

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Some observations:

    • Small flowers blue in Capture One and bluish purple in LR


    Best regards
    Erik
    Erik,
    I'm very curious about the blue because that is one difference I've seen with C1: blue is blue and purple is purple. I can't get the same distinction in LR (is this what Torger means by "separation"?). Do you also find that to be the case?

    Dave

  26. #26
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,568
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    549

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    The obvious question to Erik is what colour were the blue/purple flowers in real life?

    A common problem with digital files and raw rendering is the classic bluebell/purple bell/pink bell flowers. In the UK it was something that would drive me crazy as some cameras and their raw converters produced distinctly different colours for the same shot. Now we know of course that the human eye is sometimes fooled by the fact that what the camera captures and the eye sees/processes can be very different both in absolute terms and in context of other colours and tones.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  27. #27
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,046
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi Graham,

    A very good question. The best way is to go back and perhaps collect a sample and measure with a spectrometer.

    Still, I am pretty sure that they were something like deep bluish purple, because I know that colour renders blue in Capture One and I made mental note when shooting the pictures to check how they will render in C1.

    • These colours on "the purple line" are tricky as there are no corresponding spectral colours.
    • What is interesting here is that it clearly indicates that it is colour profile and not sensor differences are causing the problems.
    • Just to say, Jack would say that it is easily fixed by the colour editor, that is quite true.
    • What is interesting here may be that the Sony and P45+ sensors are quite close, when using profiles generated by the same tool under same conditions.


    I have made an experiment a few years ago, under more controlled conditions. In that experiment the colour of the bluish deep purple petals was measured:

    http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...or/SimpleCase/

    P45+ C1 (daylight) P45+ LR (dual illuminant, using DNG Profile Editor)
    Spectral samples, petals Spectral samples, blades



    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    The obvious question to Erik is what colour were the blue/purple flowers in real life?

    A common problem with digital files and raw rendering is the classic bluebell/purple bell/pink bell flowers. In the UK it was something that would drive me crazy as some cameras and their raw converters produced distinctly different colours for the same shot. Now we know of course that the human eye is sometimes fooled by the fact that what the camera captures and the eye sees/processes can be very different both in absolute terms and in context of other colours and tones.
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 22nd July 2016 at 23:14.

  28. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hmmmm... I was messing about in the garden a few weeks ago with my V system 120mm f/4 Makro-Planar mated to a Flexbody and IQ160 back. Below is a screenshot comparing the same file processed in either C1 or ACR. Nothing very artistic, mind you, but I thought the intense colors of the fuchsia would provide an interesting test case for the present thread. The C1 conversion (left) was made using C1's stock daylight profile, whereas the ACR conversion (right) used a custom dual illuminant profile. Color balance was set using a grey card as reference. The C1 file was exported as a tiff and for the sake of this comparison both files were opened up in Photoshop with no other adjustments.

    Over all I'd say that the color rendition is pretty similar. Per Graham's comment the purple part of the flower is actually purple in both files and matches pretty closely to the real thing. It may be difficult to see in this screen grab, but as with other images I've processed I feel that there's more texture (for lack of a better word) in the C1 conversion's midtones. The difference is admittedly quite subtle, in any case.

    - John
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C1-ACR-comparison.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	295.7 KB 
ID:	119977  
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Good example showing that differences are generally quite subtle, because that is what's generally the case when comparing profiles. This means that many just say "why bother?" and use whatever at hand, and I think that's pretty valid. There are differences though.

    What you should do when comparing is to put both images on top of each other in separate layers, and then toggle on/off, differences become much more clear then. It's much more difficult to see differences side by side.

    When doing so one can see that the LR rendering is a bit brighter and more saturated, and thus lose a bit of texture. One can also see that on the purple part of the flower C1 works more with lightness to enhance texture, while LR keeps more saturation, which loses texture but may be more "accurate". This is related to LR's RGB-HSV curve, which I don't think has that good properties in the rolloff to whitepoint. In DCamProf I have chosen an approach more similar to C1 in this regard. The hues differs a fair bit too, although they are in the same ballpark. C1 has more yellow as usual. Without knowing I would guess that LR is a bit more realistic concerning hue.

  30. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    The obvious question to Erik is what colour were the blue/purple flowers in real life?

    A common problem with digital files and raw rendering is the classic bluebell/purple bell/pink bell flowers. In the UK it was something that would drive me crazy as some cameras and their raw converters produced distinctly different colours for the same shot.
    Blubells in the UK - tell me about it !!!

    D500 Capture NX-D



    P20 C1 v7



    Fuji Pro400H 35mm Plustek OpticFilm 8100
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,046
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi,

    Sometimes difference are sublime, sometimes not.

    Lets consider some cases:

    • You are a studio photographer, adjust your settings for taste, save as a profile/setting and are happy forever.
    • You are a landscape shooter, you get what you get and are happy for life. (that's me)
    • You are a botanist shooting flowers for a book…
    • You are a landscape painter, taking care to match paints to scenery. You train your vision to interpret colours...


    Different scenarios, all feasible…

    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Good example showing that differences are generally quite subtle, because that is what's generally the case when comparing profiles. This means that many just say "why bother?" and use whatever at hand, and I think that's pretty valid. There are differences though.

    What you should do when comparing is to put both images on top of each other in separate layers, and then toggle on/off, differences become much more clear then. It's much more difficult to see differences side by side.

    When doing so one can see that the LR rendering is a bit brighter and more saturated, and thus lose a bit of texture. One can also see that on the purple part of the flower C1 works more with lightness to enhance texture, while LR keeps more saturation, which loses texture but may be more "accurate". This is related to LR's RGB-HSV curve, which I don't think has that good properties in the rolloff to whitepoint. In DCamProf I have chosen an approach more similar to C1 in this regard. The hues differs a fair bit too, although they are in the same ballpark. C1 has more yellow as usual. Without knowing I would guess that LR is a bit more realistic concerning hue.

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Animated GIFs only support 256 colors so the image below is a dithered mess, but I just wanted to show how much easier it is to spot differences between two different renderings when you layer them on top and toggle between them. Here JNG / John's images from a few post backs comparing LR and C1 renderings:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C1-ACR-comparison.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	14.0 KB 
ID:	119979

    To make a comparison with less difference between the two profiles one should try to make the difference in overall brightness as small as possible, but it's usually not possible to get exactly the same as it varies between profiles how light various hues are rendered, plus that the contrast curves can differ a fair bit.

    It can be interesting to see how brightness varies despite the same settings too, as it can vary a fair bit that too between raw converters. A good idea when making a camera profile is try to match the in-camera JPEG brightness, as the camera's auto-exposure is tuned for that.

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Just a few example of profile differences seen in John's image (C1 shown):

    Name:  C1-ACR-comparison-1.jpg
Views: 492
Size:  143.4 KB

    A) Color separation is not necessarily achieved by separating hues more, you can also separate them with lightness. Here in the C1 profile we see that the browns in the bud are rendered much darker than in the LR version, and thus there's more separation. Another trick I've seen in some profiles is to add in say a little magenta into the oranges/browns between greens and reds. This way separation is increased between greens and browns which can be beneficial in landscape photos.

    B) Here we see on along the edge of the flower that the purple color becomes light and desaturated, while LR keeps more saturation. Bright saturated colors easily clips the gamut, and then you lose texture/tonality, it becomes more flat. A subjective adjustment used by C1 here is then to desaturate and lighten those colors rather than just clipping them. Less accurate perhaps, but usually a more pleasing result. Overall we can see that the C1 profile is less saturated, almost certainly a bit under-saturated, but it makes rendering flowers much easier/robust.

    C) This area is a variation of the same theme, less saturation, more modulation with lightness => texture more visible.

    Not seen in this particular image, but another very common subjective adjustment is to render deep blues much lighter than realistic, for the reason that our eyes have poor sensitivity in the deep blue range and thus texture/tonality gets flat unless we lighten it.

  34. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Animated GIFs only support 256 colors so the image below is a dithered mess, but I just wanted to show how much easier it is to spot differences between two different renderings when you layer them on top and toggle between them. Here JNG / John's images from a few post backs comparing LR and C1 renderings:
    Layering the two versions to facilitate comparisons is a nice tip. I will try this the next time I'm deciding between two different versions of the same image. Thanks!

    In this particular comparison I was frankly surprised at how similar the two conversions are. I don't usually keep all possible parameters the same as I'm generally more interested in the final look of an image than in making A-B comparisons between the different software. I rarely use ACR anymore for converting my P1 back files as I've grown to prefer my results with C1. But this is entirely subjective.

    John

    EDIT: I missed your more detailed comparison before posting my reply. Yes, the differences you highlight - which can be more dramatic in other images I've worked on in the past - are in large part why I prefer the C1 conversion although I suppose futzing more in ACR and PS could offset some of the differences.
    Last edited by jng; 23rd July 2016 at 07:39.

  35. #35
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,046
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6? Another sample

    Hi Dave,

    I have seen this before, not least when scanning film, that the purples are sort of tricky (*). It is easily done that a profile turns them into red or blue. It may be argued that a good profile should keep purples purple.

    What I have seen is Capture One is pushing saturation on blues (and greens) quite aggressively. Check the colour patch in the enclosed image. It is a comparison of a shot of an IT8 chart with it's reference values. the blue field here is about Delta E 16.8 off it's target value, but the patches are very close. How come? C1 pushed the colour widely outside the gamut of Adobe RGB, which is about what my screen can show. So there is a large difference in colour, just that my screen cannot show it.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2016-07-23 at 17.35.29.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	21.0 KB 
ID:	119981
    Best regards
    Erik

    (*) I am in a bit of hurry, but I can try to explain it a bit later…

    Quote Originally Posted by dchew View Post
    Erik,
    I'm very curious about the blue because that is one difference I've seen with C1: blue is blue and purple is purple. I can't get the same distinction in LR (is this what Torger means by "separation"?). Do you also find that to be the case?

    Dave

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    High saturation colors is a mess to handle for cameras and camera profiles. The native raw colors of a camera is generally quite desaturated, so the profile needs to separate the channels more, thus increasing noise. With high saturation colors only one or two raw channels have much signal, so the process becomes more unstable. Saturated colors also exaggerate the difference between the human observer and the actual camera filters.

    Simply put, they are more difficult to get right.

    And then after hue has been determined there's the problem of gamut clipping. If raw converters had been designed in a modern and color scientific way the camera+profile would just mimic a "colorimetric measuring device" and the raw converter would take care of all contrast handling, gamut compression, clipping etc, but that's not how it works -- the profile needs to handle it all (although inelegant from an engineering perspective it's not all bad though, as it means that a custom profile can control the fundamentals of color in any raw converter supporting ICCs or DCPs and thus "fix" the "poor" rendering of LR for example). Anyway, compressing the gamut and clip while keeping texture and maintaining the feeling of a bright saturated color is not an easy task.

    Purple is a special challenge due to it's mix of red and blue, with many cameras it's like balancing on a knife's edge; you have relatively weak blue and weak red and that should point somewhere along the line of purples, just a small change makes it jump a large distance, that is purples can be even more unstable than other saturated colors.

    Differences between camera's hardware responses (in terms of color filters) also become more evident with saturated colors, and it's harder for a camera profile to "fix" things in that range.

    I'd love to do some more experimentation with high saturation colors, as I think it's an area I could improve DCamProf, or at least improve my understanding. It's more difficult to experiment with it though as saturated colors of high quality is harder to come by. Flowers are excellent, but they eventually fade :-/

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,498
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Anders, the more I read your comments the more I realise that I need to give your profiling tool a try...

    Is it easy to print a calibration target and run the profiling process, or does one need a commercially available patch?

  38. #38
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,046
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Hi,

    I think it is preferable to go with ColorChecker. The standard one is just fine.

    If you print a target of your own you need to measure it. A printed target will just contain different mixes of the inks, while the ColorChecker has a wide mix of spectral responses. Anders suggests the normal ColorChecker is a pretty good starting point.

    Shooting the test target takes some care.

    DCamProf is now command line driven, no problem for Linux jerk, like me, but may be an obstacle for some others.

    As a Lightroom user, I would start off buying a ColorChecker and use it with Adobe DNG Profile Editor or ColorCheckerPassport software. Both are free. After that I may look into using DCamProf.

    Which back do you have? It wouldn't be difficult to make a decent single illuminant profile if there is some decent quality test chart shot with that back including a ColorChecker.

    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by tjv View Post
    Anders, the more I read your comments the more I realise that I need to give your profiling tool a try...

    Is it easy to print a calibration target and run the profiling process, or does one need a commercially available patch?

  39. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    As a Lightroom user, I would start off buying a ColorChecker and use it with Adobe DNG Profile Editor or ColorCheckerPassport software. Both are free. After that I may look into using DCamProf.

    Which back do you have? It wouldn't be difficult to make a decent single illuminant profile if there is some decent quality test chart shot with that back including a ColorChecker.

    Best regards
    Erik
    I made a dual illuminant profile for my IQ160 using a Colorchecker Passport and Adobe DNG Profile Editor. Although I still prefer C1, the custom profile has markedly improved my conversions in ACR. I originally tried generating a profile with the X-Rite ColorCheckerPassport software (both single and dual illuminant) but found that it couldn't handle the file size generated by the 60 Mp back. This was back in November 2014 - X-Rite tech support advised me that, at least at that time, their software could not handle files larger than 30 Mb, which rules out using this software for uncompressed IQ160 files.

    tjv: I recall that you're using a Credo 60 so this limitation likely applies to your situation as well. The Adobe DNG Profile Editor works fine, in any case. And given my inability to use command line, Anders' tools are beyond my capabilities unless I get some professional help!

    John
    Last edited by jng; 24th July 2016 at 08:50.

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I can make you a DNG profile in five minutes if I just get a raw file with a CC24 shot in your preferred light, something similar to D50 is a good all-around light. Minimized glare, and even light, minimized perspective distortion of the target, and I need to know if the colorchecker was made before or after november 2014. A colorchecker passport is okay too.

    Making a C1 icc profile is a bit messier, but you can make a quick test in LR first to see if you like the result, and if so we can make a C1 ICC later.

    Making a basic DCamProf profile is not that difficult, but if it's the first time you use the command line it can look a bit scary. The "easy way" to make a DNG profile is described here: Making a camera profile with DCamProf and there's a corresponding section for Capture One.

    Currently I only provide source code, but builds of the DCamProf program for mac and windows can be found in the Lula DCamProf thread, OSX link OSX lula message and Windows link Win lula message
    Last edited by torger; 24th July 2016 at 11:38.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  41. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    I can make you a DNG profile in five minutes if I just get a raw file with a CC24 shot in your preferred light, something similar to D50 is a good all-around light. Minimized glare, and even light, minimized perspective distortion of the target, and I need to know if the colorchecker was made before or after november 2014. A colorchecker passport is okay too.

    Making a C1 icc profile is a bit messier, but you can make a quick test in LR first to see if you like the result, and if so we can make a C1 ICC later.
    Anders,

    Thanks for your generous offer! PM sent...

    John

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,498
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    That's a very generous off, thank Anders.
    I'll need to get my hands on a target first... I think I have a passport mini X-Rite target somewhere...
    Thanks again,
    T

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    I can make you a DNG profile in five minutes if I just get a raw file with a CC24 shot in your preferred light, something similar to D50 is a good all-around light. Minimized glare, and even light, minimized perspective distortion of the target, and I need to know if the colorchecker was made before or after november 2014. A colorchecker passport is okay too.

    Making a C1 icc profile is a bit messier, but you can make a quick test in LR first to see if you like the result, and if so we can make a C1 ICC later.

    Making a basic DCamProf profile is not that difficult, but if it's the first time you use the command line it can look a bit scary. The "easy way" to make a DNG profile is described here: Making a camera profile with DCamProf and there's a corresponding section for Capture One.

    Currently I only provide source code, but builds of the DCamProf program for mac and windows can be found in the Lula DCamProf thread, OSX link OSX lula message and Windows link Win lula message

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Here's quick-and-dirty IQ160 profiles made from John's D65 shot. I got two shots but I didn't make it dual illuminant now to save time. It's better if you have a look and see if it's worth working on first.

    IQ160 neutral
    IQ160 neutral+
    IQ160 no curve

    The contrast curve is Adobe's default curve. For a more serious profile one may want to match it to the C1 (native) curve instead of using ACR default, but that curve is not bad either.

    Neutral is a neutral rendering, neutral+ is almost the same but some subjective adjustments, and nocurve is the flat one without contrast curve, ie "reproduction style". The profiles are quite relaxed in patch matching to focus on smoothness.

    I'm travelling so I actually don't have LR at hand, so I make these "in the blind", but it should work. Let me know if there are problems.

    Where to install the profiles? For Adobe Lightroom / Camera Raw: Microsoft Windows: C:\Users\<username>\AppData\ Roaming\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles, and Apple OS X: /Users/<username>/Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfiles/. These are hidden directories so you may need to make some trick to make them show (don’t make me google it for you). You must restart Lightroom for it to detect new files.

  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    The "no curve" profile is good for diagnostics, it shows what colors DCamProf thinks the camera sees. If colors are plain wrong there, there's some issue with the target shot or target matching. The profiles with curve start with the "no curve" base profile but has then applied lots of perceptual adaptations due to the contrast increase so it's not about colorimetric accuracy any longer, but "global realism", that is if you look at a complete image at once it should look to have a contrast and saturation/hues that look realistic, not too much and not too little.

  45. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    71
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    I did 6 conversions of the same IQ160 file I showed earlier in this thread, using either ACR (whatever the latest version is on CC) and C1 (v9.1):

    ACR w/Adobe standard profile
    ACR w/dual illuminant profile made in Adobe DNG Profile Editor
    ACR w/DCamProf neutral profile
    ACR w/DCamProf neutral+ profile
    ACR w/DCamProf no curve profile
    C1 v9.1 w/IQ160 outdoor daylight profile

    Each seems to have its own merits depending on what's in the file and the look that's desired. Clearly, each profile uses its own special sauce, with "no curves" being (intentionally) the equivalent of a bland, spice-free diet.

    Per Anders' suggestion, I made a .psd file with one layer for each conversion, so it's possible to click between the different layers to do direct "A-B" comparisons. For those who are interested, a downsized file can be found on Dropbox:

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ao4g6wrxo...QdlRPcXva?dl=0

    The only adjustments I made for the conversions was color balancing against a grey card and exposure adjustment (same for all).

    Thanks very much to Anders for doing this!

    John
    Last edited by jng; 24th July 2016 at 15:13.

  46. #46
    Senior Member RVB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    807
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    Probably due my inexperience with C1 I am having similar problems, but with my XF+100. I must change over to Prophoto which LR uses as the default color space since the Adobe RGB color space is just too small a bucket. I truly find it amazing that C1 uses that color space as a default.
    "I truly find it amazing that C1 uses that color space as a default." Isn't the color space based on the chosen profile in the output recipe?

    I think you can also change it in the "View" section under "proof profiles".. screen grab attached.

    Name:  Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 01.53.17.jpg
Views: 373
Size:  80.8 KB
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  47. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    465
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Interesting thread. As always, this forum and the contributors continue to amaze me.

    The way I look at it, it is the end result that matters.

    If the final resting place for your image is the web, then forget about color profiling accuracy, it will depend on what the viewer's monitor is profiled to show.

    If you are doing it for a client, then it is what the client's ultimate resting place is that determines the process and it can then get very tricky very quickly.

    If you are doing it for yourself (like me) then it is all about what pleases you.

    In the end it is ALL subjective. All discussion is moot, though very interesting.

    For me, since my end result is the print, if it matches what I see on the screen and if the screen pleases me, I am quite happy.

    The rest of it is all about the cataloging capabilities and LR is quite good at it. So don't need anything else at this point.
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........

  48. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Unfortunately I don't have Photoshop at hand (travelling...) and that PSD doesn't open as layers in the Gimp so I can't view it :-/, except for the first layer...

    edit: could view it by converting to multipage tiff first using imagemagick. Will post comments soon.
    Last edited by torger; 25th July 2016 at 00:31.

  49. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Quote Originally Posted by RVB View Post
    "I truly find it amazing that C1 uses that color space as a default." Isn't the color space based on the chosen profile in the output recipe?
    there is a good reason for a-rgb as default color space in c1 because all c1 camera profiles i have checked fit almost perfect into it. maybe using prophoto makes some sense with acr and lr but with c1 i doubt it has any benefits.

  50. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,531
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Capture One or LR6?

    Comments on John's layered PSD with all renders:

    - it seems like the profile I made quick in the blind has worked, the look is what I would expect from DCamProf

    - DCamProf's contrast is considerably lower. I kind of like that, but if one wants more "pop" the first thing to do is to change the contrast curve to something more similar to C1.

    - DCamProf's saturation is lower

    - As advertised the difference between Neutral and Neutral+ is very small, you can see that the greens become a bit more yellow and saturation is very slightly increased. Neutral+ is intended as "better neutral than neutral", and I generally suggest that as the main to compare with when comparing to bundled profiles.

    - DCamProf contrast is also lower than ACR's results, despite using the same curve, howcome? DCamProf profiles has the blackrender tag that instructs LR to not automatically subtract black. One can remove that tag if one wants automatic black subtraction and get more contrast, but I prefer to have a fixed curve and if you desire higher contrast make a higher contrast curve.

    - The DNG PE is the highest saturation profile. I don't know the internals of it, but it seems like it does like most profile makers available to us consumers that it just makes a linear curve reproduction style profile (nocurve variant), and then slaps the RGB curve on top without making any adjustments to compensate the effects of the curve and the psychovisual effects of contrast. This leads to an oversaturated result. As Adobe's curve is RGB-HSV hue stabilized it doesn't lead to much color shifts though.

    Then some subjective evalutations: I'm obviously biased but if I was a IQ160 landscape photographer I would certainly look further into DCamProf, possibly making my own contrast curve and match it more with C1, probably have it a bit lower though. That's because I like to have a more neutral starting point, and DCamProf I'm confident that it's the most neutral despite I don't have access to the original scene. To those that think DCamProf's result looks too flat and dull, I'd say the reason is that the lower contrast (and/or that no black subtraction has been made).

    I don't think DNG PE is a good alternative for making custom profiles, as it doesn't seem to make adjustments based on the applied curve, the drawbacks is perhaps most seen in high saturation images like this. I prefer Adobe Standard over DNG PE.

    C1 seems to have very robust gamut compression, and it may be superior to DCamProf. I'm not sure I like DCamProf's handling of the highlights of the brightest pink/coral leaf/petal, screen profile can come into play here too so it's risky to come to conclusions without further evaluations. On the other hand C1 seems to flatten out the actual brightness differences in the petal which is there (see the nocurve rendering), so I'm not sure what's best. I have noted that both Hasselblad and Phase One apply pretty strong gamut compression which means that saturations are flattened out more and you can't reach as high saturation levels as with other profiles, but it's also very robust and easy to work with.

    That's why I'd like to some point to study flowers more, it's a really interesting challenge for profile making.

    (Nocurve has no curve and is thus the only one where DeltaE comparisons make sense. If I don't have the real scene at hand I often use a nocurve/linear profile as reference for hues and saturation and then increase the exposure so the midtones is about as bright as the midtones of a profile with contrast. Then by toggling back and forth one letting the eye adjust for a couple of seconds inbetween one gets a sense if the contrast profile has higher or lower saturation and how well the hues match. It matching is good or not is subjective of course, but even so it can be nice when evaluating profiles to have some sort of reference.

    Note that when pushing exposure of the nocurve image some areas will likely clip and those cannot be used for evaluation. Many raw converters do nonlinear tricks too when pushing exposure into clipping to simulate film behavior, so I usually use RawTherapee for such comparisons when the exposure slider doesn't do any such tricks.)
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •