Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
My daughter is a hair stylist. She can make that happen. :grin:
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Which post processing software ....
- Thread starter Jim DE
- Start date
deejjjaaaa
Member
working natively with raw converter means using parametric adjustments too, no... but they work with rasterized image provided by LR enginer, so it is not natively, it is simply more convenient at best
Ok a question for the C1 user's.. do you also use their filing software as well?...... And if you ever used Aperture is their filing software anything like Apertures?
I just processed 17 a7rII images through C1 alone...... it's results ended up looking good though it's file size was 159mp for one image and it took me a very long time to get it done than in Aperture as expected due to lack of familiarization. Some stumbling blocks for me was using it's leveling tool, moving from one image to another as it would seem to stay stuck on a image. It uses the multi tool array that PS/CS uses which forces me to go in and swap tools. No email sharing ability as Aperture has and I had to export a image to work on it with my Topaz plugin.
These are all very minor issues and will quickly fall away the more I commit to C! if I do.... one advantage to LR is I can go and get the LR Topaz plugin files from Topaz and upload them to LR for use.
Man I wish Mac has mercy on us old Aperture users and upgrade this new Photo software to at least near the power of Aperture. I'm too old for this
I just processed 17 a7rII images through C1 alone...... it's results ended up looking good though it's file size was 159mp for one image and it took me a very long time to get it done than in Aperture as expected due to lack of familiarization. Some stumbling blocks for me was using it's leveling tool, moving from one image to another as it would seem to stay stuck on a image. It uses the multi tool array that PS/CS uses which forces me to go in and swap tools. No email sharing ability as Aperture has and I had to export a image to work on it with my Topaz plugin.
These are all very minor issues and will quickly fall away the more I commit to C! if I do.... one advantage to LR is I can go and get the LR Topaz plugin files from Topaz and upload them to LR for use.
Man I wish Mac has mercy on us old Aperture users and upgrade this new Photo software to at least near the power of Aperture. I'm too old for this
Godfrey
Well-known member
Please Jack. I like you too much to ever associate you in any way with Donald Trump.Consider me the Donald Trump of processing software -- there is no room for political correctness
If you take the time to compare LR to C1 on a pixel level basis, LR simply cannot compete. And I don't care if you're shooting a Nikon, Leica, Sony or a MF digital back... Now, you may prefer LR's workflow and cataloging conventions and that is fine; and if it's good enough technically for your needs, cool. But it simply isn't as good of a technical processor for detail or color as C1, period.
LR may "suck"—I don't know. I see a lot of good photographs being made with it, however, so I don't think it matters much how much better or worse it performs as a "technical processor."
I judge my photos quality by looking at them printed to 11x17. The pixel level differences are mostly irrelevant at that size. Maybe if I printed to 24x36, I'd see things differently, but I only rarely find myself making such gigunda photos.
G
Algrive I read on one of the forums that non CC copies of CS6 will not continue to get updates from Adobe anymore. I like you buy my softwares and refuse to do anything in the clouds whether my macs, iPhones, or softwares. I also refuse to lease a software rather than buy it but it appears that Adobe will soon be all lease or nothing at all.
This only applies to PS, NOT LR, which still will receive updates for purchased versions.
This basically boils down to camera/lens support with RAW processing. Since those profiles will still be available via LR, they can be copy and pasted into Photoshop's ACR to keep current.
One other thing.....
I use keyboard shortcuts a lot since that speeds up my workflow considerably. I found C1 to be lacking in many areas especially when I wanted to view the image in various different ways or move around in the interface. I also use a Wacom tablet with LR.
I really miss Aperture but am beginning to enjoy LR, you really have no choice but to accept and finally love what you have........
I use keyboard shortcuts a lot since that speeds up my workflow considerably. I found C1 to be lacking in many areas especially when I wanted to view the image in various different ways or move around in the interface. I also use a Wacom tablet with LR.
I really miss Aperture but am beginning to enjoy LR, you really have no choice but to accept and finally love what you have........
tashley
Subscriber Member
Lightroom for import and cataloging and for 95% of developing, C1 for files that really require the last drop to be wrung from them. Get both. It's the cost of doing business. But personally I think C1 sharpening is less flexible so when I use it I disable all sharpening and NR, develop, export to tiff and import that to LR where it gets finished and stored.
It is clunkier than it sounds because to an extent, sharpening clarity and NR all interact, which means doing all those things in LR.
But that's only for 5% of files. Otherwise it's plain sailing.
It is clunkier than it sounds because to an extent, sharpening clarity and NR all interact, which means doing all those things in LR.
But that's only for 5% of files. Otherwise it's plain sailing.
tashley, Sadly I have too many... LR6, CC6, DXO10, C1 8.3.2, SPP, Aperture, OS Photo's, Expose, DXO Viewpoint, Focus-snapheal-Intesity Pro's, the full topaz suite, PhotoFXLab, Portrait Pro, APG, Hugin, ....... way TOOOO many in fact!!!!! Sadly Aperture best suited my needs and wants for years... all these other softwares with me using them resembles a monkey with a football. I can muddle through them and get the job done but it takes much much longer.
But, I know I need to pick a alternate to Aperture and just stay with it till it too becomes second nature....
But, I know I need to pick a alternate to Aperture and just stay with it till it too becomes second nature....
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
I'm a fan of C1 Pro but to be honest that's only because of three little things - colour accuracy, medium format back LCC processing and the quality of the raw conversion which I do find to be special. There's a subtlety about the rendering of C1 that I just don't get in PS/LR ACR but it's also true that it's not always required. I do very little post processing in C1 beyond the basics to get a great starting image and for this it is very intuitive IMHO. If I need much more than basic adjustments I'll take the images to PS.
If you're looking for a DAM then I'd definitely look elsewhere than C1.
If you're looking for a DAM then I'd definitely look elsewhere than C1.
Eoin
Member
Similar to yourself, I've used Aperture since it's release and have many plugins for it. Regardless of any other softwares better performance with files, I've always felt most comfortable, capable and never felt I was lacking any functionality to get an image to where I wanted within Aperture.
While Apple has discontinued support for it, they still will add new camera profiles to Camera Raw at an OS level, I see no reason to be forced at this stage to abandon my workflow and Aperture software. I'm happy with it today .... I'm sure I'll still be happy with it in another few years.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Graham,
While I feel sort-of the same way, I wonder if that feeling is justified or if it's just left over from years of C1's DAM incompetence
. The current Catalogs do everything I've needed a DAM to do - it seems more a question of familiarity. Are there features missing for you?*Best,
Matt
*Aside from handling other medium format files...
Amin
Active member
I struggled with exactly this - do I want my preferred workflow/cataloging (LR) or my preferred results (C1). I have settled in with C1 and am loving it.
Disclosure: I was given a free copy of C1 to review some versions ago, but I did pay for the later versions.
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
Matt,Graham,
While I feel sort-of the same way, I wonder if that feeling is justified or if it's just left over from years of C1's DAM incompetence
Best,
Matt
*Aside from handling other medium format files...
You raise a valid point in so far as I've been burned by the early versions of catalogs and so don't use them. Ditto with MediaPro.
Given the size of my raw files I'm very wary of entrusting them to a hidden file structure/container that could corrupt and lose everything so I've continued with using sessions where I can easily move files around.
Yes, I fear that we do get set in our ways!
With respect to raw rendering, I've continued to find that C1 consistently produces the nicest images. If it supported my Foveon raw files I'd be ecstatic.
Graham
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Graham,
Capture One catalogs are similar to Aperture's Libraries in two respects. The originals can be left "in place" so that the file system and other applications can see them. And even if imported into the catalog (at least in the Mac version), the originals are untouched as files. I just checked by importing a DNG (from a Leica S2, oddly, and it renders fine. Hmmm...) and the file was visible inside the catalog.
Having said that, I still import into a Session every time for ease of relocation.
I'm still not sure if I'm going to go deep into C1 as a DAM. I did once LONG ago (versions 1-3) and it didn't end well.
Best,
Matt
Capture One catalogs are similar to Aperture's Libraries in two respects. The originals can be left "in place" so that the file system and other applications can see them. And even if imported into the catalog (at least in the Mac version), the originals are untouched as files. I just checked by importing a DNG (from a Leica S2, oddly, and it renders fine. Hmmm...) and the file was visible inside the catalog.
Having said that, I still import into a Session every time for ease of relocation.
I'm still not sure if I'm going to go deep into C1 as a DAM. I did once LONG ago (versions 1-3) and it didn't end well.
Best,
Matt
robert kuprion
New member
I stick with LR because of the great Laura Shoe tutorialS, she has great teaching abilities and the sound quality and clarity on her cd's are excellent.
The c-1 tutorials not a good teacher, having bad hearing the accent and poor sound quality makes it too much work to learn. I contacted c-1 and the girl was insulting intimating I was a rank amateur and c-1 was the pros choice.
bASICALLY THE C-1 TUTORIALS DO NOT WORK FOR ME therefore the program does not.
The c-1 tutorials not a good teacher, having bad hearing the accent and poor sound quality makes it too much work to learn. I contacted c-1 and the girl was insulting intimating I was a rank amateur and c-1 was the pros choice.
bASICALLY THE C-1 TUTORIALS DO NOT WORK FOR ME therefore the program does not.
hiepphotog
Member
Guy, their package is outrageously priced, but most of them are not that useful. I found only their Denoise is head and shoulder above others; it has edge-aware algorithm that would only blur/NR the solid part. Similarly, their masking tool is very good. Their sharpening plug-in is full of options (separate mid-tone, highlight, shadow sharpening); however, I found Nik Sharpener is much faster to use with comparable result. The rest is like Instagram/hipster stuff.
I acquired my Topaz individual softwares over a long period of time and when I started the Topaz softwares were less expensive than NIK. When NIK had problems and was bought that is when their prices came way down. For me they are about two same like each. I use Denoise, Adjust5, B&W Effects 2, and Detail 3. The others I picked up along the way and just about all of them at their introductory sale prices. Some of them are just bells and whistles off the wall stuff... I guess I use DeNoise and Detail the most.