C1 v Lightroom

[Jack]

I have about had it with C1 stability issues on my MBP. I have the newest and fastest MBP with max (16G) ram, the newest video, and still get random -- and moreover, frequent -- crashes.

Soooooo... I am seriously considering moving back to -- dare I admit it -- Lightroom.

My concerns: I like C1 workflow, love the quality of conversion, hate the instability. With old LR, I never quite fell in love with the parametric adjustments and vague masking as i like more precision and control. I also hated their cataloging methodology as opposed to C1's sessions (C1 sessions fit into my workflow exactly the same way I work). But I suspect it's at least stable.

What say you Nikon shooters that use or have used both?

 

[ptomsu]

Jack,

I am obviously one of the crazy guys using LR, Aperture and C1.

I meanwhile moved my whole workflow to Aperture and LR - Aperture mainly for import and file storage etc, LR additionally for some editing work. Both are VERY stable with D800E and also all other cameras I use(ed) like EM1, EM5, Fuji XPro1, XE2, XT1, all my Nikons till D800E, etc.

I quite often have stability issues with C1, which IMHO comes from the file system management and import (however they call these modules). It can take ages to import and sync and many times crashes.

My current workflow:

1) import everything with Aperture - I always store outside Aperture (not in Aperture Library). This way one can use easily multiple libraries.
2) do first scan/delete of files in Aperture, also do sorting, numbering - I love the structured approach from Aperture with projects.
3) import all files into LR (without copying) generating previews + smart previews, which later lets you edit without files online (just in catalog - or library as Aperture calls this).
4) Do editing either in Aperture or LR - just where I can get better results. Aperture and LR are equally good IMHO for D800E, although LR might have a slight advantage because one can individually choose camera and lens profiles. Aperture does this kind of automatically (you see the pop when image gets read from library and preview is first built). Especially great I find LR for Fuji RAW files, because you can use different Fuji film modes for RAW files, which delivers outstanding results for most of my demands without having to ply too long in any RAW editing.

C1 I am using very rarely, main reason it crashes and freezes too often on MBP. Really a shame, as otherwise from editing C1 really shines. But to be honest, LR and Aperture are pretty similar WRT IQ for most cameras.

Hope this helps,

Peter

 

[mjr]

Jack

I have both and have the same issues, the problem for me is the D800/E files are just so much better from C1. I can get close in LR but it isn't the same, I prefer the C1 workflow too and the tethering. I wish C1 was more reliable for sure, I have never had any issues with LR.

Mat

 

[Jan Brittenson]

My main problem with LR is Adobe's terrible saturation control. It produces really ugly results. So I set LR to low saturation, low vividness (or whatever they call it) and saturate manually in Viveza. It looks much, much better. I suspect part of the reason Nikon output is especially bad in LR may be that the captures aren't strongly separated by hue so need more saturation during processing, which in turn pushes a poor saturation method to where it really shows its weakness.

Obviously, using a plugin isn't a viable option for large batch runs...

 

[mranger211]

Jack,

I started using C1 back when Adobe didn't convert Fuji X files well, and used it both with the Fuji and the D800. I was never too keen on the C1 color rendition with those cameras, which looks pleasant but not particularly accurate. Stability issues made C1 one big nightmare to use.

Now I am using LR for both cameras, and I am very happy with it. I don't do much editing in LR, so masking functions are not important to me. The image quality is great with both cameras, and there are zero stability issues.

The C1 sessions are nice, but I think you can emulate them in LR1 without much effort. Just open a new catalog for each "session" and save it in a folder with the images. You can also combine catalogs or export part of your catalog into new catalogs, which gives you a lot of flexibility in organizing your images.

Martin

 

[iiiNelson]

I just downloaded CO7Pro to test out. The results are nice but I'm sure with a little work and/or filters using custom recipes I can get images to look exactly the same for all intent and purpose from either Aperture or Lightroom. I did notice that there was a glitch while importing from my SD card where C1 chose to import duplicates of certain images and failed to import some images altogether. I will say all this about it and it was my issue with C1 before. All the image quality in the world will not make me continue to use buggy, incomplete, or unstable software. Media Pro while seeming like a good idea and maybe adding Lightroom/Aperture level functionality to C1 seems just as glitchy and incomplete to me.

I guess that's the largest benefit to using Lightroom and Aperture for me. They just work without fuss, all these sessions, catalogs, etc. You just select the image from the folder you place it in and go to the Develop/Adjustment module. There's also the larger plug-in support and lens profiles for cameras I actually own/use. I am/was a Sony and Leica shooter and needless to say C1 lens profile support is abysmal for anything that isn't Phase One, Canon, Nikon, Leaf, Mamiya, or SK.

The IQ results are certainly excellent right off the gate with a good image in C1. The interface is much better than it was in version 4 (the last one I used.) I don't want to build a lens profile or LCC for every lens I own. I don't have to with Lightroom because they are either there or coming soon. So for me C1 will ONLY be an option for some smaller jobs on paid work where the absolute highest IQ is the goal. For personal projects and pictures I will stick to Lightroom/Aperture but as for which is better - it's all personal preference. I use Lightroom primarily but I moved to Aperture after Lightroom 2 before returning to Lightroom for version 4.

 

[Jack]

Jack

I have both and have the same issues, the problem for me is the D800/E files are just so much better from C1. I can get close in LR but it isn't the same, I prefer the C1 workflow too and the tethering. I wish C1 was more reliable for sure, I have never had any issues with LR.

Mat

Phuc. My issue is I do everything toward ultimate IQ or look, and that's what I get from C1 and never did get from LR or ACR -- and I assume the conversion engine is the same in ACR as it is in LR? I hate the lack of stability in C1, but it seems I'm left with no real option other than to continue on with it. I see a lot of you seem to get results you like with LR, but I just can't quite get there in ACR at present.

 

[RVB]

Phuc. My issue is I do everything toward ultimate IQ or look, and that's what I get from C1 and never did get from LR or ACR -- and I assume the conversion engine is the same in ACR as it is in LR? I hate the lack of stability in C1, but it seems I'm left with no real option other than to continue on with it. I see a lot of you seem to get results you like with LR, but I just can't quite get there in ACR at present.

Jack,whenever I have stability issues in C1P7 (which i love to use..) they're always sorted by thrashing the preference files.. works pretty much every time..

I also find (on OS X) that is works better in non full screen mode..

Rob

 

[mmbma]

I use both C1 and LR

I love how C1 converts the raw files from Nikon and my M4/3 cameras. LR looks more grey and flat under comparison. I would do my post in C1 then process them into a specific folder.

then I boot up LR and automatically imports from that folder. I do the final touches in LR like contrast/clarity adjustments, then print/upload form there. I love LR's easy printing module and all the plugins into 500px, Flickr, etc.

 

[lmeiners]

Jack, pardon me for answering a question you didn't ask, but I think NX is underrated. I can easily do things with it that are hard for me duplicate with C1 and LR. Admittedly, C1 was so difficult for me to learn that I don't think I ever really got it. I really like the color booster feature in NX. I usually can get the color where I want it without things getting weird. Also it contains a lot of the Nik engine in easy to use form. I usually run my files through NX before PS. I think Nikon put a lot of work into the package, and because it's easy to use, some people think it's not as good.

I think I probably just revealed myself as a Philistine.

 

[robmac]

Have used C1 and LR and migrated to LR. Never a big fan of how C1 treated Nikon files, stability issues (especially when tethered) and various small quirks I never took to.

That said, I just use LR for capture when tethered (see below) and for cataloging and gross adjustments so clients (or self) can get a better approximation of what finished file would look like. ALL my files see PS layers anyway. I want the finesse in post-processing that PS offers.

That said, I don't use LR as the god's intended. I use a DIY sessions method similar to C1. Every shoot gets it's on catalog. Raw files, catalog, previews, any large PSB files, etc., from any given shoot are all in one folder.

In this manner, much like C1's sessions, I can easily clone the capture folder to backup drives (I shoot on location) during shooting breaks and backup easily back in office.

Tethering on LR direct is SLOW and like C1 (with Nikon & Canon) unreliable, BUT using Nikon CC2Pro or Sofortbild as the ingest program for hot-foldering by LR works like a charm.

Either program will ingest a 800e file over US2 (not 3) faster than LR will ingest a D3s file. Also rock-stable and quick to re-acquire when switching camera on/off. NO LR or C1 reboots, etc.

NX2 works well, but not a fan of UI and processing speed. I also need something like LR that clients or assistants with 5 minutes 'training' can easily grasp for rating images, etc.

None of these program are perfect, really just a matter of working with one that best fit your workflow.

 

[Dogs857]

Capture One are taking a survey to help improve their product.

Maybe this can help lead to the changes you seek.

Capture One User Feedback

 

[Bob]

I have simple needs.
First just the general handling of files, rating and sorting, applying metadata, and ultimately getting down to the few that will get further respect.
I have fairly recently abandoned C1 except for the 1 in 10 files that it might possibly improve beyond that which can be has in C1.
At first I thought simply that C1 was just "better" than lightroom, but after working with LR for a bit, it seems to me that you just have to approach processing a little differently. I won't say which is absolutely better, but almost always I can process a file with either that exceeds my needs.
Did I like the C1 workflow better?, yes I did. However, shooting 10-12 k images per year, the C1 attempt at catalogues was just a heartbreak, really a total fail. They bought media pro but never integrated it with c1, just continues to bring out version after version of buggy software where some of the bugs go back at least three years.
Mostly because I think that Phase One has bitten off more than it can chew with its limited development staff, I think it is a lost cause.
-bob

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I bought LR a couple weeks ago so still getting the hang of it. I went through 2000 images today and it went very well. Not sure how it is with Nikon files but with Sonys so far looks pretty good. Several features I really like but more important all my glass is supported and my cams. I can't say that with C1 so that forced me to buy it. Will see how it goes but I did do a internal comparison an liked the LR file better. I might do a report later on it.

 

[Bob]

So much of this image quality thing is just too subjective. Measurable differences would be better to qualify which is better.
I am getting a bit jaded in that attempt to achieve perfection so that I can get the best image when viewed under a magnifying glass.
I think I better just do a better job at getting the best image. IQ is already superb, so superb +/- is still superb.
Nobody has ever told me that they wanted an image because of its IQ, but they want it because of just how it looks.
-bob

 

[ptomsu]

I bought LR a couple weeks ago so still getting the hang of it. I went through 2000 images today and it went very well. Not sure how it is with Nikon files but with Sonys so far looks pretty good. Several features I really like but more important all my glass is supported and my cams. I can't say that with C1 so that forced me to buy it. Will see how it goes but I did do a internal comparison an liked the LR file better. I might do a report later on it.

I will be interested in such a report!

I do find LR and Aperture both pretty good today for most camera RAW's. Sometimes Aperture, sometimes LR having the slight edge.

What I like about LR are the number of profiles for cameras and lenses. And also the feature of LR mobile for iPhone and iPad is pretty cool - allows full editing via creative cloud - which service you have to buy in unfortunately to get this.

 

[Paul2660]

As a PC user I find that 7.2.1 or 7.2.2 very stable. Not sure why the Mac side is having so much trouble. I am not using win 8.1 for any production work, however when tethered with the Surface pro 2 or 3, I have C1 open and again very stable.

As for differences between L1 and C1, as user of both on the Nikon files, I can a bit more on areas I find to be strengths or weakness.

1. LR is catalog only, I don't want to be forced into only a Catalog, as I have no desire to have all my images in a catalog, for my style of shooting, it just makes not sense. C1 with it's session and catalog setup is my preference.

2. I find now I rarely use CC for much other than a slight tweak of a file and I do the vast majority of my work in LR or C1 as both have excellent tool sets.

3. C1's implementation of adjustment layers, again a plus since you can turn off each individual layer to see the effects, in LR with the adjustment brush it's currently an all on or all off. This makes is hard to really tweak an individual layer since you can't see only it's effect on a file

4. LR has noise, reduction available in the adjustment brush and the ability to use the WB tool in each adjustment layer. And you can overlap adjustment brush adjustments and each doesn't cancel the other out.

5. C1, usually has a better color adjustment selection that LR. However in Local adjustment layers, if you overlap a layer and try to make a 2nd color adjustment in a layer that is overlapped and which has as color adjustment already, you will get a error and C1 creates a strange blooming effect. This happens in mac and windows and C1 is aware of it, but has told me it is due to the design of C1 and icc profiles in the layers. LR in effect has figured out a way to get around this by allowing you to have WB adjustments in separate adjustment brushes that don't cancel each other out.

6. C1 has a bit better base profile of the D800 camera and at times I will use the Phase One IQ250 profiles on the D800 files. LR has gotten better, but the default profiles are a bit harsh and you really have to be careful. I don't have any custom profiles for the Nikon D800 in either software.

7. C1 to me just has tethering down. I have tethered the D800 several times just testing it and it's very solid. I really don't have a need to tether the D800, but it's nice to know it works. LR I have not tried a tethered session on Nikon.

8. LR HAS A HISTORY, Man, do I wish C1 would read this and figure out how friggin important a history file can be, especially if you do a lot of adjustments on a file. It's great to be able to go back to an image you worked on 6 months ago, open it in LR and you can still see the steps you took. Sure C1 has the undo but if you are working on multiple files which I often do, you will get lost very fast as to where you are. I have mentioned this to C1 10 times at least on beta reviews, and open cases, but they apparently don't deem it important.

9. LR has just a bit of an edge on sharpening with the D800e files, C1 has gotten much better with Vr7 however.

10. Highlight/shadows pretty much a draw, as both tools have gotten much better. LR will allow shadow adjustments in an adjustment brush which is a nice feature.

11. Adjustments for perspective, LR is more user friendly. I have really never been able to figure out the C1 adjustments here, and have tried quite a few times. With the latest version of LR, the "upright" tool is an excellent addition.

These are the main issues differences I seen in daily workflow. I am sure many are unique to my style of working.

Paul

 

[mjr]

8. LR HAS A HISTORY, Man, do I wish C1 would read this and figure out how friggin important a history file can be, especially if you do a lot of adjustments on a file. It's great to be able to go back to an image you worked on 6 months ago, open it in LR and you can still see the steps you took. Sure C1 has the undo but if you are working on multiple files which I often do, you will get lost very fast as to where you are. I have mentioned this to C1 10 times at least on beta reviews, and open cases, but they apparently don't deem it important.

Paul

Paul, couldn't agree more with this, it may be the single biggest issue for me with C1, being able to see the changes you made in LR and go back to where you want is just a million miles ahead of C1.

I'm finding more and more that I process the basics in C1, wb, first round of sharpening, basic settings and then export the files I like to a folder and in to Lightroom, the LR results are better on a C1 processed file for me, the shadow/highlight features just work better. I agree that sessions works really well in C1 and I record each job as a session.

Mat

 

[Paul2660]

Paul, couldn't agree more with this, it may be the single biggest issue for me with C1, being able to see the changes you made in LR and go back to where you want is just a million miles ahead of C1.

I'm finding more and more that I process the basics in C1, wb, first round of sharpening, basic settings and then export the files I like to a folder and in to Lightroom, the LR results are better on a C1 processed file for me, the shadow/highlight features just work better. I agree that sessions works really well in C1 and I record each job as a session.

Mat

Mat,

I was surprised at the reaction I received from Phase One, C1 in the few cases I opened. It should not be that big a deal but it also might force a catalog style workflow as LR is able to keep it due to the catalog and database it creates from what I understand.

From other posts I have read here and Lula, and C1's forum, I don't feel C1 is up to the level of cataloging that LR is. However I also feel that with version 8.x this will hopefully improve.

Since I started printing 100% from LR, I find that I always will 'tweak" the image in LR before printing, since the final printed version stays in the catalog, with the last level of adjustments this is a nice feature of LR. You just have to remember if you moved the file, which I often do after I archive. But LR will remember everything, if you can locate the file.

Paul

 

[mjr]

It would certainly be a huge benefit in my view Paul, I will sometimes alter a couple of shots and then want to go back a few steps and having to use the undo feature is just rubbish.

For personal shots, testing and stuff, I use a Catalog in C1 and then make projects within the catalog, I put a folder of all images under the project then use smart folders for 1 star/2 star etc. I end up with a project for a set of images and folders within, works well for me.

There's no doubt that keywording and things are far more advanced in LR but to be honest I store images under date and job so I never struggle to find what i want.