Are C1 conversions really better than LR?

[glenerrolrd]

If you followed the other thread about using C1 and LR in your workflow, you could see some sparks begin to fly around the "best workflow". Without understanding fully the individuals requirements for archives, prints ,web and even subject matter....this is like recommending the "best" DSLR . Add to this the experience,skill and commitment of the individual and it becomes futile.

Unfortunately ..even agreeing on some "facts" ..becomes difficult. I tried the same questions on two LR forums and LL ....really all around could you create an effective workflow ....by using LR as the "mothership" and only reprocessing the selected raw files in C1. The logic is sound 90% of my files work out fine through LR but for about 10% ....if I could get a little better image quality ...I would want to try. But in each case ..I was told ...sort of "its a poor workman that blames his tools". Or if I was semi competent I could get the same thing out of LR. The point being contended really boils down to are the raw conversion for say a M8 .DNG a higher image quality or are they just maybe a little closer to start with.

So if I took an "expert" skilled in raw conversions and all they wanted was the "best" conversion of M8 .DNG files..would the C1 files be better. Whats the consensus of those that feel they know? Is there any published expert testimony?

 

[LJL]

Well, I may be very far from being an "expert" on any of this. However, I have found that some processing algorithms work better on some files than others. With that in mind, I have committed to several workflows. For example, a lot of the stuff I shoot with a 1DMkII comes out very nicely for my purposes when done in ACR. I still do not like the yellows and reds, but have learned to work around that. For the 1DsMkII, C1 seems to yield very good results, and better than ACR, which would mean better that LR, since they use the same engine. For the M8, I like both Aperture and C1.

What I have found is that even with all the fancy new plug-ins and other features in some of the apps, like LR and even Aperture, that part of the workflow is less relevant if the conversion is poor, so it seems a bit of a waste. I do use several of the Nik Software plug-ins in both PS and Aperture, so if I do use C1 to do the RAW conversion, I still need to get the file to PS or Aperture to do my finish work.

If that means I am a poor workman, so be it. I rather use the tools that get the job done to my liking, rather than to get locked into an app believing its workflow is the way to go.

For M8 files, I like C1 and Aperture, but early on, I also used Raw Developer quite a bit and thought it may have done the best job. However, I did find it a bit harder to keep working with so many different conversion routines, that I now limit myself to C1, Aperture and ACR, depending on camera used and need of the output. If you keep the RAW files anyway, it is not that big a deal to rerun a conversion. For stuff that I have put a fair bit of effort into already, I always have the full PSD files saved for those, or have the versions in Aperture. I do not think there is one holy grail for conversions or workflow, unless you only shoot one camera and have already tested everything out there to settle on what works best for your needs.

LJ

 

[glenerrolrd]

The feedback I got from Jeff Shewe ..was that the colors maybe be more consistent with the cameras JPEGs (screen display) when using the camera mfg proprietary software but that the renderings (sharpness,noise etc) will be no better.

Thats not consistent with the POV shared by many on this forum and others.

If all I had to do was match the color rendering ...it would seem that you could figure out your camera calibration . In fact you could argue that you would want the renderings (color) to become similar. This way images taken using different cameras similar.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

If all I had to do was match the color rendering ...it would seem that you could figure out your camera calibration . In fact you could argue that you would want the renderings (color) to become similar. This way images taken using different cameras similar.

You can actually do this using the DNG Profile Editor. I have all my cameras (canons and p&S's) mapped to the D700's colour because I happen to like it. Tweaked a bit but still...

 

[glenerrolrd]

You can actually do this using the DNG Profile Editor. I have all my cameras (canons and p&S's) mapped to the D700's colour because I happen to like it. Tweaked a bit but still...

Ben




What I was trying to do was separate this out to clarify the question. If the differences in raw convertors were limited to color rendition..then the calibration tools (DNG profile editor) might eliminate any color advantage of camera specific convertors. Now getting excellent color without significant calibration efforts is a worthwhile benefit of camera specific convertors...even if its driven by simply having better profiles out of the box.

Generally I hear three specific benefits of say using Capture One with the M8 files:

1. Better color using the vendor supplied profiles without further adjustment.

2. Better noise and sharpness due to using software that is more closely tuned to a camera specific raw file.

3. Better control over CA and other sensor or lens created flaws.

Is this conventional wisdom..what most have found in from there individual efforts?

The difficulty in this discussion is that "experts" generally discount the bias caused by their skills and experience. Yes ..if I had your skill and experience ..and commitment ..then I could certainly get wonderful results with bridge and photoshop.

What I have been trying to get at .......is it a skill issue or does Capture One have a real advantage as many have stated as a "given".


Roger

 

[ddk]

If you followed the other thread about using C1 and LR in your workflow, you could see some sparks begin to fly around the "best workflow". Without understanding fully the individuals requirements for archives, prints ,web and even subject matter....this is like recommending the "best" DSLR . Add to this the experience,skill and commitment of the individual and it becomes futile.

Unfortunately ..even agreeing on some "facts" ..becomes difficult. I tried the same questions on two LR forums and LL ....really all around could you create an effective workflow ....by using LR as the "mothership" and only reprocessing the selected raw files in C1. The logic is sound 90% of my files work out fine through LR but for about 10% ....if I could get a little better image quality ...I would want to try. But in each case ..I was told ...sort of "its a poor workman that blames his tools". Or if I was semi competent I could get the same thing out of LR. The point being contended really boils down to are the raw conversion for say a M8 .DNG a higher image quality or are they just maybe a little closer to start with.

So if I took an "expert" skilled in raw conversions and all they wanted was the "best" conversion of M8 .DNG files..would the C1 files be better. Whats the consensus of those that feel they know? Is there any published expert testimony?

While I can't comment on your Leica files, the fact that different raw processors will give you different results is true, but as usual in photography, everything depends on everything else. In my experience the best software one uses depends a lot on the camera, subject matter, final pp and the purpose of the images.

For family, event, wedding, general street, travel, general landscape, etc., type photography where color needs to be good but isn't critical I find LR and its set of presets perfect for the job and very, very fast. LR works great with every camera I own/owned and is the great equalizer. Depending on your final product I noticed that differences in camera brands and their output is minimized when the files are processed in LR or even PS for that matter.

For some other shots, usually my own personal work, I feel that the camera's own software give me the best results for the most part, but that could also be that ACR doesn't fully support these cameras. Besides the difference in color and tonality there are other things like noise above certain iso settings seem to be better handled by camera specific software but there are times when that noise will enhace the image. In case of my Kodaks which had major purple fringing issues, the problem all but disappears when using ACR as a converter the trade off is that you lose out completely on Kodak's colors and tones, one of the main reasons to stay with such an old camera. These are just a couple of examples of everything depends on everything else.

As far as C1 being the ultimate converter, well again it depends on which camera, your subject matter, your target product and in the end your personal tastes. I'm sure it works great with Phase dbs but in my experience it was the worst processor for Fuji and Kodak files, cameras that I primarily shoot with. I didn't like how it handled Ricoh dng files either, granted I haven't tried the latest version but I doubt very much that the nature of colors and tones have changed much in the software. In my experience if the final image is going to be in BW or heavily pp'd with plug-ins like Nik's and others, while there might be some differences, the original raw processor plays little or no effect on the quality of the final product and even less of a factor when you print the file. So the short and long answer to your question is; "everything depends on everything"!

 

[charlesphoto]

Yes, remember when it mattered what enlarger you used and how it was aligned, the quality of the lens you used when printing, the type of paper and developer and so on and so on. Some photographers made and sold iconic fine art prints made with cheap enlarging lenses that now demand a pretty penny; others had to have the latest greatest APO's and their work never left the basement. It's all relative to what works best for you, what one has access to, and what one can afford.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Ben




What I was trying to do was separate this out to clarify the question. If the differences in raw convertors were limited to color rendition..then the calibration tools (DNG profile editor) might eliminate any color advantage of camera specific convertors. Now getting excellent color without significant calibration efforts is a worthwhile benefit of camera specific convertors...even if its driven by simply having better profiles out of the box.

Generally I hear three specific benefits of say using Capture One with the M8 files:

1. Better color using the vendor supplied profiles without further adjustment.

2. Better noise and sharpness due to using software that is more closely tuned to a camera specific raw file.

3. Better control over CA and other sensor or lens created flaws.

Is this conventional wisdom..what most have found in from there individual efforts?

The difficulty in this discussion is that "experts" generally discount the bias caused by their skills and experience. Yes ..if I had your skill and experience ..and commitment ..then I could certainly get wonderful results with bridge and photoshop.

What I have been trying to get at .......is it a skill issue or does Capture One have a real advantage as many have stated as a "given".


Roger

Hi,

DNG Profile editor is easy to use if you want to create a profile from a gretag chart. Takes all of about 1 minute and I do it the whole time, I create custom profiles for studio or wedding formal work. That should give you perfectly accurate colour though accurate doesn't equal pleasing in many cases.

You can tweak but it's very easy to screw up, knowledge of colour is important.

Personally although I like the C1 tonality I don't like it's colour. As Jack loves to point out though you do get more micro detail and people report that the CA control is better out of the box.

As ACR has the ability to customise the curve you can get the tonality right for faces, just needs a little tweak.

I think the point is that yes C1 might be better at sharpness and possibly colour 'out of the box' but IMO everything else needs tweaking more than ACR for best results out of the box and the workflow is nowhere near as friendly. You also lose dodge and burn which to this wedding shooter is more than heaven sent.

I think you're going to need to tweak whatever RAW converter you use for a good default setting. Personally with ACR that takes a small tweak of the curve, a colour profile that took a minute to make and a few changes to the sliders and I have a perfect default that is automatically applied to all my images the moment they are imported. Once I have that default it's just easier to use for fast work with hundreds of images where you want to avoid entering PS at all costs. You can do this in LR as well but without the curves which bothers me.

I'm sure that someone is going to say that you can do the same with C1 and once you know it it's very easy and fast. Thing is though that you can find a million tutorials and methods from the massive userbase of ACR/LR to really streamline your processing. Huge forums for both on the adobe site to answer all your questions immediately. Until that happens with C1, yes it may be possible to work as fast, as streamlines, etc, etc but it's going to take a lot of effort and time to work out how for what is for me a negligeable increase in IQ. So why exactly am I bothering?

Heck this all started with Marc needing to get rid of the CA on his lens. So his need for C1 is because it has better correction tools for a lens abberration that shouldn't be there. If the lens performed on par with it's manufacturers reputation and the price tag then he still wouldn't have even looked at C1 and started asking about tutorials methinks.

A serious stripped down performance supercar will outdrive a softer software supercar. You do need a whole heck of a lot of skill, experience and training to drive the former properly though. Why bother unless you have to? There is a specific need for C1 over the adobe offerings with MFDB's, the A900 and the M8 for example. If you don't have that need then why climb the cliff unless you have to? I know the answer, gaining the ultimate IQ. However at a certain level workflow will trump IQ...

 

[jonoslack]

If you followed the other thread about using C1 and LR in your workflow, you could see some sparks begin to fly around the "best workflow".

HI Glen
I hope it didn't look like my sparks were flying. Of course, these things are absolutely a matter of taste.

But I do think that there is a problem that those who have not availed themselves of one of the DAM converters (ie. Aperture or Lightroom) very often don't understand their advantages (I still remember how difficult I found to get my head around the concept). If you've never drunk wine, you may not understand the wonder of a decent Sauvignon! :ROTFL: Of course, you may not drink wine and still understand the wonder (at least in theory).

Back to your question
Personally I'm pretty convinced that different 'converters' really do rather different jobs with files. I feel that the problem with ACR is mostly with the 'lesser' cameras (e.g. the M8 and the A900) of course it stands to reason that they'd make more effort for the Canikon brigade.

The C1 M8 conversions that I can make are better than the LR ones that I can make . . . but it's also worth remembering that I've spent more time with C1 than with LR. . . . and here's another problem in doing comparisons.

So, in answer to your question what I think is:
Yes - but it isn't worth changing for the small benefit you may find.


I've decided that the reduced skill levels inherent in using different programs is probably more of an issue than the quality benefits, so I've decided simply to use one program (Aperture in my case) and stick to it.

 

[glenerrolrd]

This is a difficult discussion ..because it moves quickly to what works for a specific individuals requirements and the value proposition. MY assumption is C1 provides better conversions of an M8 file.

1. Better color and tone.
2. Better noise and sharpness.
3. Better camera specific corrections.

The push back I have been getting on the other forums has been :

1. Color and tone yes but only because of the better profiles....you can match this with custom profiles and presets in LR or ACR.
2. Quality of the rendering... sharpness,noise etc..you don t know what you are doing.
3. Camera specific ...yes for certain situations like the wide angles CA issue.

We can take as a given that the effort to work with multiple products may not be justified for many or even most users. So if I was doing an exhaustive test with competent but not expert photographers ..would they see the benefits as proposed of just the raw conversion.

Thanks to all that have participated you have provided some excellent examples to help people make the value judgement. No sense in tackling the workflow issues ..if the payoff isn t much.

Roger

 

[woodyspedden]

Ben




What I was trying to do was separate this out to clarify the question. If the differences in raw convertors were limited to color rendition..then the calibration tools (DNG profile editor) might eliminate any color advantage of camera specific convertors. Now getting excellent color without significant calibration efforts is a worthwhile benefit of camera specific convertors...even if its driven by simply having better profiles out of the box.

Generally I hear three specific benefits of say using Capture One with the M8 files:

1. Better color using the vendor supplied profiles without further adjustment.

2. Better noise and sharpness due to using software that is more closely tuned to a camera specific raw file.

3. Better control over CA and other sensor or lens created flaws.

Is this conventional wisdom..what most have found in from there individual efforts?

The difficulty in this discussion is that "experts" generally discount the bias caused by their skills and experience. Yes ..if I had your skill and experience ..and commitment ..then I could certainly get wonderful results with bridge and photoshop.

What I have been trying to get at .......is it a skill issue or does Capture One have a real advantage as many have stated as a "given".


Roger

The problem, as I see it, is that C1 (version 4.8) constantly crashes. I don't care that it renders better files If I have to keep relaunching it due to the crashes. I reinstalled it after fully removing my current version. So there was no issue of installing on top of the old version.

If someone knows how to stop the crashes please let me know. I actually love the program but I simply won't commit it to my workflow until it is stable.

Looking for help

Woody

 

[Jack]

I would submit that on the other forum, regarding push back point 2 is, it is THEY do not know what they're doing

At the end of the day, I'd agree you can get LR to better color with home-rolled color settings. A pet peeve of mine is these get referred to as "profiles" by almost every LR user, yet they are not true profiles, but rather a set of specific color adjustments -- and that is a very different thing than a profile!

However from a pure, high-frequency detail rendering standpoint, LR cannot match C1. Here what is debatable is whether the improvement from C1 is relevant or significant for the output in question. I would submit it probably is not for web, and probably not even for prints up to say A3, but definitely starts to show reward at A2 and larger. Bottom line for me is it is a difference you can see at 100% view when comparing optimal conversions from each program onscreen.

Noise is a problematic discussion, as both programs do very well with low through medium ISO images. However, once you get into higher ISO, noisier files, C1 takes a significant lead. The glitch is high-frequency detail is moderated as the noise is treated, so it's a double-edged sword and hence a totally subjective call as to which is "best." I personally only use high ISO when absolutely needed and have a strong preference for the smoother if somewhat less detailed C1 result, but respect other's preferences may differ.

Camera specific benefits are an absolute advantage for any camera supported by C1.

PS: As respects C1 4.8 crashing, I have not had significant problems -- and I am running the supposed worst machine for it, an 8-core Mac with a lot (24 Gigs) of RAM. I would encourage anybody having crash problems to totally remove the old program per the Capture Integration website instructions and reinstall it fresh.

Cheers,

 

[dougpeterson]

If someone knows how to stop the crashes please let me know. I actually love the program but I simply won't commit it to my workflow until it is stable.

I'd be happy to look into your crashes. Are you on an 8-core Mac?

However, I beg you to phrase more specifically "until it is stable" to be "until it is stable on my system". I only ask that because 4.8 has been the most stable version I've seen so far. There are a few memory issues with 8 core macs (Mac Pros) but they effect only a small number of users of even those specific machines. Otherwise it has been rock solid. So your experience is very different than the vast vast majority of my customers.

Doug

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

 

[dougpeterson]

I would submit that on the other forum, regarding push back point 2 is, it is THEY do not know what they're doing

At the end of the day, I'd agree you can get LR to better color with home-rolled color settings. A pet peeve of mine is these get referred to as "profiles" by almost every LR user, yet they are not true profiles, but rather a set of specific color adjustments -- and that is a very different thing than a profile!

It seems a minor technical point but it's actually quite important. Most other processors make a conversion based on a generic color profile for the camera and then adjust the results. C1's Color Editor tool allows you to modify the ICC profile with which the file in converted. When the file is being converted with only minor adjustments it doesn't make a lick of difference; however, when extreme changes in exposure, contrast, or other curve/levels are made the accuracy of colors especially in the shadows (a.k.a. crossover) can be very different. Irrident Raw Developer is another converter which allows a non generic ICC profile for the conversion, but the last version I used did not allow in-program manipulations of that ICC profile, which means you need a stand alone ICC profile editor or a program like C1 which has a profile editor built in (and can export the modified ICC profile).

As far as #2 I have to strongly agree with Jack. It's easily proven with any image C1 does well (Phase, Leica, and Canon being my experience) that more micro detail is provided by conversions in C1 than in LR. You can try any/all noise and sharpening settings in LR but when you treat both with the most-knowledgeable settings in each program C1 simply shows more micro-detail. As a bonus C1 does so at the default settings. This is the result of a core team at Phase that are among the best image processing specialists in the world and is fostered by the obsession that Phase One has with maximizing quality.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

 

[jonoslack]

Hi There
I must say, I don't have any issues with C1 4.8 crashing on my 17"MPB with a humble 4Gb RAM

I also agree that it sems to do a better job with micro detail every time with all the cameras I have.

As far as colour is concerned, I generally prefer the way Aperture deals with colour with the cameras I use . . . but then I don't mess too much, I just get irritated if I don't like it :ROTFL:

 

[ddk]

Ahemm, with all due respect Doug, this sounds more like a dealer plug than anything else.

It seems a minor technical point but it's actually quite important. Most other processors make a conversion based on a generic color profile for the camera and then adjust the results. C1's Color Editor tool allows you to modify the ICC profile with which the file in converted. When the file is being converted with only minor adjustments it doesn't make a lick of difference; however, when extreme changes in exposure, contrast, or other curve/levels are made the accuracy of colors especially in the shadows (a.k.a. crossover) can be very different. Irrident Raw Developer is another converter which allows a non generic ICC profile for the conversion, but the last version I used did not allow in-program manipulations of that ICC profile, which means you need a stand alone ICC profile editor or a program like C1 which has a profile editor built in (and can export the modified ICC profile).

I can understand the value of ICC profiles for a studio camera but I think that you're over stating its value for an M8! How many profiles, under how many conditions should you make to cover the range of diversity in use and situation with the M8?

As far as #2 I have to strongly agree with Jack. It's easily proven with any image C1 does well (Phase, Leica, and Canon being my experience) that more micro detail is provided by conversions in C1 than in LR. You can try any/all noise and sharpening settings in LR but when you treat both with the most-knowledgeable settings in each program C1 simply shows more micro-detail. As a bonus C1 does so at the default settings.

I agree with this regarding Phase dbs and maybe some Leicas but I'm not so sure about Canon raw files. It might be subjective and I know that many like C1 for their conversions but my memory is different, personally I didn't much care for the canned look that I was getting from earlier versions of C1 and Canon files.

This is the result of a core team at Phase that are among the best image processing specialists in the world and is fostered by the obsession that Phase One has with maximizing quality.

:toocool: Please, are you saying that the engineers at Leaf, Kodak, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji, Hasselblad, Jenoptic, Adobe and other reputable companies are any less professional or competent than those working for Phase One?

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up[/QUOTE]

 

[glenerrolrd]

Jack/Doug/Woody Thanks for weighing in .....I believe you have to separate the "real" image quality improvement potential of the raw conversion from the work flow. This is difficult to do because the effort to work with two software products verse one ..is measurable in terms of cost and effort.....plus you could argue that the typical user will screw it up anyway.

Personally I have found that LR can do everything I need with my .NEF files from a D3/D700 combination. I shoot a lot of sports and action with this set . From a quality standpoint ...the IQ results are better than most pros . Its not about IQ its getting the image.

The M8 is a different story ....the camera calibration profiles are all over the place. Just take a file and walk thru the LR camera calibration profiles ...just on exposure there is a 1-2 stop difference. This means that files processed last year don t match this years profile(you don t have to update them ..but the question is shouldn t the new profiles be better?) . And its the M8 files that I might someday print large..so the C1 conversion is of great interest to me.

Now I have a summers worth of work to do. The new MacBook is here along with most of the "hot rod" modifications that Guy made. I will need a new workflow and backup scheme. I will need to get up to speed with C1 . Then I need to start processing files!

FYI I had a very long career as a program manager for large scale systems integration projects. Thinking strategically about software and workflow isn t common. Generally when you have two "bullies" like adobe and apple ..they win in the end . Ask the same questions last year .....and I would have recommended pick one and make it work. But what I had been seeing as a trend is a marriage between the proprietary conversion software and the higher quality cameras . When designed to work together they can incorporate capabilities not quite possible in the more generic integrated solutions. The integrated solutions will get better and better but the market potential for MF,leica etc will never be enough get the best. Is it worth it.......for the typical user...no way... but I still like to think
thats not me ..right?

Roger

 

[Jack]

Roger:

Right!

,

 

[dougpeterson]

Ahemm, with all due respect Doug, this sounds more like a dealer plug than anything else.

My workflow for all my personal work is 70-90% processing in C1 and archiving processed finals in Aperture (it is just so DAM good). I may represent C1 insofar as I work for a dealer that carries Phase One products, but I am always very eager to note that NO product is perfect, and the high-end world is all about compromises and priorities.

There are many many many photographers (easily the majority, probably the vast majority) who would be much better off with LR or Aperture which are both fantastic programs. However, I chimed in on a thread specifically named "Are C1 conversions really better than LR". I very sincerely believe the answer is yes and I was providing reasons for that.

I can understand the value of ICC profiles for a studio camera but I think that you're over stating its value for an M8! How many profiles, under how many conditions should you make to cover the range of diversity in use and situation with the M8?

I should have been more clear: if your goal is accurate reproduction of the scene's color then you only need one or two profiles (the second for tungsten when applicable). What I was saying about modifying the ICC profile is much more about if you are making dramatic changes to the image like darkening the sky (lowering blue luminance) or rotating the hue of a certain fabric/piece-of-furniture or otherwise going off the deep end. In other programs these changes are made after the conversion, in C1 and RD they are made as part of the conversion itself. Like I said for small tweaks (what are needed to make the scene accurate) the difference is completely negligible.

I agree with this regarding Phase dbs and maybe some Leicas but I'm not so sure about Canon raw files. It might be subjective and I know that many like C1 for their conversions but my memory is different, personally I didn't much care for the canned look that I was getting from earlier versions of C1 and Canon files.

Fair enough. I see it, especially at higher ISOs, but for sure the difference is more profound with the M8 or a Phase back than a Canon. Canon's DPP and Iriedent Raw Developer also do a better job IMO with microdetail compared to LR.

:toocool: Please, are you saying that the engineers at Leaf, Kodak, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji, Hasselblad, Jenoptic, Adobe and other reputable companies are any less professional or competent than those working for Phase One?

At each company (Apple/Adobe/Phase etc) the team who writes, tailors, and otherwise improves the algorithms for basic demosaicing the image, removing/masking noise, and sharpening details consists of a very very small number of people. Lionel at Phase One is an all-star in this realm (if image processing specialists have all-stars taht is :ROTFL.

In fact much of the team doing this work at Lightroom are former members of the C1 version 3 team.

If I said "Leica's optics designers are among the best in the world" it would not be a shot at the designers at Mamiya or Rodenstock. Likewise I'm not saying that Apple/Adobe's team is less than professional/competent.

Besides there is another issue here and that is priorities. Here is a case study: Brian Griffith does Irrident Raw Developer essentially by himself and manages to get better results (in pure IQ terms) than LR and is on par with C1 (sometimes better). This is because of the same thing: he is very very very good in the realm of image processing and because his priority is always quality over speed/features/workflow. There are often trade-offs on the speed/responsiveness of the program and the quality of the processing. LightRoom's processing is very good already; making the program slower, or giving up development time/money/management-mindshare on improving the quality further does not make sense.

Kinda reminds you of digital backs vs. dSLRs. The fanatical advocates of dSLRs say the quality difference is minor and unimportant and the workflow speed of a dSLR far outweigh them. MFDB users thrive off of the added quality and are willing to sacrifice some workflow speed to get it.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think I owe the forum a updated report on my hot rod MacBook Pro that i did with help from Jack, Bob and Lloyd with bouncing ideas and solutions around. This thing is working extremely well but the cost is high to get the maximum performance from a MPB. I honestly don't miss my Mac Pro and I can still make it faster