Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Following the advice of kind folk here I dove into C1 and learned its basic use, quickly discovering that there's no form of jiggling with sliders I can find in LR that delivers the full resolution of the P45+ sensor as revealed by C1.

    It's almost as if the LR version is slightly squashed so as squeeze its resolution away.

    Then I noticed that the pixel dimensions of the same file render differently this:

    LR 7240 x 5433
    C1 7216 x 5412 (which is what the spec sheet for the back indicates)

    Now: the LR w/h ratio is 1.332597
    whereas
    the C1 w/h ratio is 1.333333

    Could this difference explain the strange loss of resolution in the LR rendered version?

    BTW can anyone suggests the best portrait lens for the P645III / P45+ combo?

    Tim

  2. #2
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Hi Tim:

    First off, if you compare the conversions side-by-side, you'll see the LR conversion actually generates additional image info by those few pixels; IOW there is an extra 10 pixels of hidden image revealed on each side of the image by LR/ACR. Thus there is no pixel squeezing or stretching going on.

    The other thing to note aside from the huge difference in color rendition and exposure accuracy, is that LR/ACR tends to over-accentuate edge definition (relative to C1) in an attempt to increase the appearance of detail, but the real culprit is in the micro-detail where LR/ACR leaves it more smeared. Here is where LR/ACR really fails IMO; it generates an over-cooked outer edge with under-cooked subtle center, kind of like a poorly prepared pancake . And as you pointed out, no combination of sliders will correct that or make it look as good as C1.

    **However, since you seem particularly determined to make it so with LR, you might try decreasing the lum NR to zero, color NR to 10 or so and pump the detail slider way up to 50 or 60. Combine this with aggressive sharpening settings at low radius -- try amount 50 to 60, radius 0.5. You should end up a little closer to the C1 sharpness, but more visible noise and probably some color artifacts. If you do ultimately find a way to get there with LR, be sure to let us know your recipe -- and good luck!

    ~~~

    For portraits:

    I really like my 150/2.8, but would certainly still own the f3.5 version if I couldn't or didn't want to afford the 2.8 version.

    The 210/4 is nice too, and another great value, but a little long for studio.

    Another lens I enjoy for portraits is the Hasselblad F/FE 110 f2 lens. It is all-manual on the Mamiya via the adapter, and thus more difficult to use, but generates some beautiful effects in people.

    Mamiya made a manual focus 145 "Soft Focus" lens with adjustable front element, or an early D-O lens like Nikon's. It is all manual on the Mamiya AFD as well, but actually works very well and is relatively cheap (like $300) on the used market. I own one of these and really never use it, generally preferring my 150 or Hassy 110. I may be convinced to sell it if anybody is interested.

    Finally there was also a converted Imagon portrait 120 (uses sink-strainer aperture disks) made in Mamiya 645 mount, though somewhat rarer than the 145 SF and more money. It has a relatively slow max aperture and user reports are mixed. I've never used that specific version on my Mamiya so cannot comment precisely, but have used them on LF cameras --- for whatever it's worth, I did not care for the effect very much as foreground bokeh was decidedly different than background bokeh and generated an "unbalanced" look to the files.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  3. #3
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    As for Mamiya portrait lenses, you might also consider the 120 Macro.
    -bob

  4. #4
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Thanks for the very useful tips guys,

    @Bob I had thought that lens might kill two birds with one stone so good to hear that it's fit for purpose as a portrait lens - what I'm seeing with the P45p so far is that macro could give some great results!

    @Jack, there's a lot to chew there, especially the lens suggestions - I can see a lot of research coming up! I find the idea of the soft focus lens interesting only it does seem to be a shame to throw away all those pixels when an uprezed noctilux might do a nice job...

    Have you noticed the following strange thing: if you process a file to DNG from C1, it comes out with C1 dimensions - but if you then import it into LR, you keep the 'right' dimensions but end up with the 'wrong' colours, resolution etc?

    I tried that because I'm kind of stuck: LR's local area adjustments have become a vital way of working for me. They are quicker and more subtle than anything that can simply be done in Photoshop and non-destructive to boot, which keeps file size down. So I had hoped that exporting a DNG from C1 at approx 75mb might save me the file size of 220+ mb for a TIFF export.

    There has to be a way around this. Fundamentally, the job of a RAW program is to
    a) Get the best from the file
    then b c and d other stuff, including cataloguing, applying effects and adjustments etc.

    C1 excels at a) but is so pitiful at the others that IMHO it is only viable because LR has not got its act together on some minor algorithmic sub-routine... not only can't C1 do clever stuff like the local area adjustments of LR, it doesn't even have basic stuff like a vibrance rather than saturation adjustment, though I'm sure with fiddling the same effect can be achieved.

    But those local area adjustments are killer. The ability to get detail back into a sky without schlocky grad filters, by using the LR Grad filters, or to get rid of blown highlights with the adjustment brush... these are now basics too. Things move fast in this industry.

    IMHO C1 should focus on what it's good at: batching the best basic output from a P45+ (or any other camera file) and outputing it into the lowest filesize lossless format that LR can read without screwing up.

    This would play to Phase's strengths whilst getting them out of the bind of trying to compete with a company such as Adobe which has better economies of scale and more beta testers... so they should be a sort of pre-raw processor processor... err...
    Last edited by tashley; 21st November 2008 at 15:55.

  5. #5
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    C1 excels at a) but is so pitiful at the others that IMHO it is only viable because LR has not got its act together on some minor algorithmic sub-routine... not only can't C1 do clever stuff like the local area adjustments of LR, it doesn't even have basic stuff like a vibrance rather than saturation adjustment, though I'm sure with fiddling the same effect can be achieved.

    But those local area adjustments are killer. The ability to get detail back into a sky without schlocky grad filters, by using the LR Grad filters, or to get rid of blown highlights with the adjustment brush... these are now basics too. Things move fast in this industry.

    IMHO C1 should focus on what it's good at: batching the best basic output from a P45+ (or any other camera file) and outputing it into the lowest filesize lossless format that LR can read without screwing up.

    This would play to Phase's strengths whilst getting them out of the bind of trying to compete with a company such as Adobe which has better economies of scale and more beta testers... so they should be a sort of pre-raw processor processor... err...
    The saturation slider in C1 works as a saturation slider in the negative direction but as a vibrance slider in the positive direction. The color editor can also be used to saturate/desaturate any section of the color wheel with any amount of blending into adjoining colors. For instance you could set up the color editor so lightly saturated colors are slightly desaturated and all strongly saturated colors except reds are more saturated ("saturation contrast"). Once you've found the "saturation" effect that works best for you the resulting change can be saved as a preset. We'll be covering this in the masters class we're offering via online-screen-sharing next month and in the January Moab GetDPI workshop (I'll be there supporting Jack and Guy as a C1 and P1 instructor).

    Also, a raw processor is nothing more than a good user interface to accesses those "minor algorithmic sub-routines" that you mentioned. So I would probably not call them minor, nor sub-routines as they are in fact the core engine of the program.

    All that said, LR's local adjustments are really cool. We all wish we had them in C1. I'm sure it will happen at some point.

    Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
    Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer | Personal Portfolio

  6. #6
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    @Jack, Have you noticed the following strange thing: if you process a file to DNG from C1, it comes out with C1 dimensions - but if you then import it into LR, you keep the 'right' dimensions but end up with the 'wrong' colours, resolution etc?
    First, I do not bother converting to DNG because I don't use (or even like) LR. Second, maybe your thinking is off --- IMO the C1 file produces the "right" dimensions and the "right" colors!

    I tried that because I'm kind of stuck: LR's local area adjustments have become a vital way of working for me. They are quicker and more subtle than anything that can simply be done in Photoshop and non-destructive to boot, which keeps file size down. So I had hoped that exporting a DNG from C1 at approx 75mb might save me the file size of 220+ mb for a TIFF export.
    I work just as fast or faster in CS, and with more granularity, and since I use adjustment layers my edits are totally non-destructive AND EDITABLE AFTER THE FACT -- which your LR files are not... As for file size, IMO hard drives are cheap, around $0.10/gig or a whopping 4 cents per converted file. And I only export files I intend to use, so I archive my raws and then browse them in C1 and convert only the ones I want to use at any given time.

    There has to be a way around this. Fundamentally, the job of a RAW program is to
    a) Get the best from the file
    then b c and d other stuff, including cataloguing, applying effects and adjustments etc.

    C1 excels at a) but is so pitiful at the others that IMHO it is only viable because LR has not got its act together on some minor algorithmic sub-routine... not only can't C1 do clever stuff like the local area adjustments of LR, it doesn't even have basic stuff like a vibrance rather than saturation adjustment, though I'm sure with fiddling the same effect can be achieved.
    C1 gives me the best file, I apply all the localized effects and adjustments I want in CS and I catalog with my own method (date and job code based), so none of those are issues for me.

    As for vibrance, Doug answered that, so yes it's there. BTW, vibrance is often misunderstood as an adjustment --- simply stated it identifies colors at the lower saturation levels and adjusts those up to the baseline (or vice-versa for negative adjustments). Very handy but easy to replicate with localized saturation, you just need to know which colors to target your adjustments to. The fact that C1 combines the best from both into the one slider makes it quite usable and fast.

    But those local area adjustments are killer. The ability to get detail back into a sky without schlocky grad filters, by using the LR Grad filters, or to get rid of blown highlights with the adjustment brush... these are now basics too. Things move fast in this industry.
    Asked and answered -- I have zero issues with my current workflow. In fact I repeat -- I get MORE fine tune-ability by understanding and working with CS. In fact, this is a large part of what we teach in our workshops. Once you understand layers and the power of blend modes and soft masks in CS, you get hooked on the total workflow .

    In fairness to LR, having the basic local adjustments is very sweet and gets you maybe 80% of the way there with most image edits, all with the simplicity of a single program. That combined wiht the cataloging you desire is what your complaint is about; you want C1 to do those too. Problem is that C1 does the raw conversion so much better for Phase (and Leica) files, that by comparison it is LR that is destructive to those files before you are out of the gate...

    IMHO C1 should focus on what it's good at: batching the best basic output from a P45+ (or any other camera file) and outputing it into the lowest filesize lossless format that LR can read without screwing up.
    Then bitch to Adobe to get them to properly read a Phase file .

    Tim, it is clear you are hung up on your LR workflow and very resistant to changing it. Unfortunately, if you want the best your Phase has to offer -- in fact if you want the best *ANY* digital back has to offer -- LR is *NOT* the best software; as I said above, LR is essentially destructive from the get-go... Again, perhaps you should be scratching at Adobe's door and leaning on them to improve their raw processing for higher end files, not the other way around.

    My .02,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  7. #7
    TimF
    Guest

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Tim,

    [You] import it into LR, you keep the 'right' dimensions but end up with the 'wrong' colours, resolution etc?
    Have to say I agree with Jack. However, if you dislike the LR colours, perhaps you could download the free DNG Profile Editor from Adobe Labs and play with the thing till you get something you like (or not, as the case may be! )

    As I'm expecting my own P45+ end of this week, I've been reading of your experiences with much interest.

    Cheers

  8. #8
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    I know it sounds like a broken record and honestly the bottom line c1 is certainly the best out there for Phase files and actually many others. LR is a nice program because of the library system for some but for me it really does me no good. When a client calls i can easily go back to there file folder in c1 bring up all the images again , my settings for those images are still there than just make the adjustments needed for there latest purpose and I am done. If you create a nice file system within your system it is not to bad. i would rather myself create a catalog of the final files anyway for me that has more purpose. I can easily go into that and find a image that i may need for the web let's say. C1 and PS are very powerful tools and if i can't get it done in those 2 programs than i just can't get it done. The killer is CS4 is the same as LR except for the libary
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  9. #9
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpetersonci View Post
    The saturation slider in C1 works as a saturation slider in the negative direction but as a vibrance slider in the positive direction. The color editor can also be used to saturate/desaturate any section of the color wheel with any amount of blending into adjoining colors. For instance you could set up the color editor so lightly saturated colors are slightly desaturated and all strongly saturated colors except reds are more saturated ("saturation contrast"). Once you've found the "saturation" effect that works best for you the resulting change can be saved as a preset. We'll be covering this in the masters class we're offering via online-screen-sharing next month and in the January Moab GetDPI workshop (I'll be there supporting Jack and Guy as a C1 and P1 instructor).


    Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
    Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer | Personal Portfolio
    Thanks Doug,

    I've been with only a 2ghz/2gb macbook pro to experiment with and C1 keeps crashing on it so I can't really experiment but it seems pretty stable on my home machine (a very recent and well specced Mac Pro) so I'll try those out when I get home. Am pleased to hear (and to learn more by looking at the instructions PDF about the fact that the saturation slider is actually a vibrance engine!

    Best

    Tim

  10. #10
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    hmm...I thought guy and jack were using LR at Moab last year and I was the only philistine using C1 on my punky sony ultralight laptop. granted, almost everyone was shooting the M8; has it now gone the way of the dodo?

  11. #11
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    First, I do not bother converting to DNG because I don't use (or even like) LR. Second, maybe your thinking is off --- IMO the C1 file produces the "right" dimensions and the "right" colors!
    Nope, my thinking's bang on because that's what I said ;-)

    I absolutely don't dispute that C1 gets the best results in terms of colour and clarity and that it gives the pixel dimensions claimed for the sensor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    I work just as fast or faster in CS, and with more granularity, and since I use adjustment layers my edits are totally non-destructive AND EDITABLE AFTER THE FACT -- which your LR files are not... As for file size, IMO hard drives are cheap, around $0.10/gig or a whopping 4 cents per converted file. And I only export files I intend to use, so I archive my raws and then browse them in C1 and convert only the ones I want to use at any given time.
    Local area adjustments in LR are not only totally non-destructive and therefore editable and re-editable at any stage, but I have used Photoshop practically since version 1 and am now one of those guys that has gone over to LR almost totally. I personally can get lots of stuff done in it better and faster and without creating vast filesizes that even on an eight core machine with 8 gig of RAM take forever to render in PS. It's a horses for courses thing and sometimes I still do round trip into PS but for now the only thing that LR seriously lacks is soft-proofing. Otherwise, for 80% of my needs it's 'soup to nuts' and very highly effective.

    BTW one C1 file with a few layers (some for adjustments, some for sharpening and so on) can easily top 2 gig or more, which means with backup it's 4, possibly 5 or six gig. LR really does make a difference here over time!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Asked and answered -- I have zero issues with my current workflow. In fact I repeat -- I get MORE fine tune-ability by understanding and working with CS. In fact, this is a large part of what we teach in our workshops. Once you understand layers and the power of blend modes and soft masks in CS, you get hooked on the total workflow .

    In fairness to LR, having the basic local adjustments is very sweet and gets you maybe 80% of the way there with most image edits, all with the simplicity of a single program. That combined wiht the cataloging you desire is what your complaint is about; you want C1 to do those too. Problem is that C1 does the raw conversion so much better for Phase (and Leica) files, that by comparison it is LR that is destructive to those files before you are out of the gate...

    Then bitch to Adobe to get them to properly read a Phase file .
    I will have to bitch Adobe to do just that since I still find that not only does C1 not have the ambition to be 'soup to nuts' but that in most part, LR fulfils that ambition superbly. It's just a pity it's c**p at parsing the P1 RAW data at the outset. For now I still prefer to open my files in C1, choose the best ones, do basic processing, save them as TIF and then import them into LR for cataloguing and for the sort of PP you mostly do in CS, and for printing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Tim, it is clear you are hung up on your LR workflow and very resistant to changing it. Unfortunately, if you want the best your Phase has to offer -- in fact if you want the best *ANY* digital back has to offer -- LR is *NOT* the best software; as I said above, LR is essentially destructive from the get-go... Again, perhaps you should be scratching at Adobe's door and leaning on them to improve their raw processing for higher end files, not the other way around.

    My .02,
    Yup, you're right on all counts: I am hooked on LR, I don't want to turn all my 40gb C1 TIFFs into 1 or 2 gigabyte layered monsters but I do want to dodge, burn, remove dust, ad graduations and keep to a reasonable file size so LR has to remain at the core of my workflow. In any event it is at the core of my cataloguing and backups so I really do need to canvas Adobe!





    T

  12. #12
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by TimF View Post
    Tim,


    Have to say I agree with Jack. However, if you dislike the LR colours, perhaps you could download the free DNG Profile Editor from Adobe Labs and play with the thing till you get something you like (or not, as the case may be! )

    As I'm expecting my own P45+ end of this week, I've been reading of your experiences with much interest.

    Cheers
    Hi Tim,

    Jack and I are not in disagreement here: LR gives the wrong pixel dimensions, cannot match the resolution and detail extraction of C1 and its colours look less correct to me. What I was noting was that if you open a P45+ TIFF file in C1 so as to get these things 'right' and then process it to DNG and then import that DNG into LR so as to benefit from its (IMHO superior) workflow thereafter, the file will open in LR with the correct pixel dimensions but looking otherwise like a dog's dinner. In other words, I was merely pointing out that this is not a good workaround for those who prefer LR. The only solution is to open the file and perform basic adjustments in C1 and then process to 16 bit TIFF and import into LR as a 250mb file :-(

    Good luck with yours. It sure takes some getting used to but it has a LOT of pixels (as you know!)

    t

  13. #13
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I know it sounds like a broken record and honestly the bottom line c1 is certainly the best out there for Phase files and actually many others. LR is a nice program because of the library system for some but for me it really does me no good. When a client calls i can easily go back to there file folder in c1 bring up all the images again , my settings for those images are still there than just make the adjustments needed for there latest purpose and I am done. If you create a nice file system within your system it is not to bad. i would rather myself create a catalog of the final files anyway for me that has more purpose. I can easily go into that and find a image that i may need for the web let's say. C1 and PS are very powerful tools and if i can't get it done in those 2 programs than i just can't get it done. The killer is CS4 is the same as LR except for the libary
    I don't have CS4 yet Guy, since I am so LR based these days - does it have the Local Area Adjustments of LR?

    t

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Jack your description of the way LR handles the details is excellent. I had missed this until I started looking at the LR images closely and at first thought something was wrong with my back. Lighteoom definately overcooks the outer edges and misses the finer details. I had been able to recover them with Uwe's detail resolved. I don't have as much trouble with color and in fact many times prefer LR color over capt 1.

    Paul Caldwell
    www.photosofarkansas.com

  15. #15
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    hmm...I thought guy and jack were using LR at Moab last year and I was the only philistine using C1 on my punky sony ultralight laptop. granted, almost everyone was shooting the M8; has it now gone the way of the dodo?
    John, I was back then. If you read my entire post (I know it was too long) I say I *hated* C1 previous to version 4
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  16. #16
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    I don't have CS4 yet Guy, since I am so LR based these days - does it have the Local Area Adjustments of LR?

    t
    Photoshop has had localized adjustments since day one --- that's what masks were all about. The difference is since CS, the masking functions have gotten progressively easier and many are automated. Just need to know how to use them, which is a large part of what we teach
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  17. #17
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    Jack your description of the way LR handles the details is excellent. I had missed this until I started looking at the LR images closely and at first thought something was wrong with my back. Lighteoom definately overcooks the outer edges and misses the finer details.
    Paul Caldwell
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Hi Paul:

    Yes it is a weirdness I cannot explain. I almost did not buy a Phase back because my ACR conversions were so bad...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  18. #18
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Photoshop has had localized adjustments since day one --- that's what masks were all about. The difference is since CS, the masking functions have gotten progressively easier and many are automated. Just need to know how to use them, which is a large part of what we teach
    Ahh but.... I didn't say 'does Photoshop have local area adjustments' because I know that as you say, it does. What I asked was 'does it have the local area adjustments of LR'?

    Because in LR you don't have to make masks at all... and if that sounds like it's Local Area Adjustments for Beginners remember, even Mr Schewe uses it and he's pretty hard-core!

    That said though, it is clearly the case that one has to have those masking skills because in some cases LR just won't cut it. But I have a number of files where I tried for ever to get the right dodge/burn results in Photoshop, with and without masks, and never got quite what I wanted, whereas with the LR method I get just what I want and often quite easily. I also find LR MUCH easier to use for a fake grad filter effect (and yes I have tried the plugins in Photoshop as well as grad adjustment layers and so on!)

    Horses for courses again, and of course one needs instructions on how to ride each horse and a map of each course!

    t

  19. #19
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post

    BTW one C1 file with a few layers (some for adjustments, some for sharpening and so on) can easily top 2 gig or more, which means with backup it's 4, possibly 5 or six gig. LR really does make a difference here over time!

    T
    A few points for clarification in no particular order:

    1) The fact you have not used Photoshop for a while is showing... Adjustment layers add very little to the total file size in CS Even with a few full sharpening layers and half a dozen adjustment layers, my base files rarely go over 1Gig. But admittedly when I save that, it is not a 50MB raw file with adjustments.

    2) As I understand it -- which admittedly could be wrong since I have never bothered with LR2, is you have to go back to that image and redo an entire localized edit; IOW you cannot go back and tweak a local adjustment mask in LR2 (because it doesn't share that mask with you) as you can do in CS...

    3) Dodge and Burn in CS have been pretty gross tools and as such most of us didn't bother with them. FWIW, of us have done my dodge and burn for the past 5 or so versions of Photoshop on a soft-light blend layer. However, the bleed over from LR2 is showing up in CS4 and now the dodge and burn tools are virtually identical. In fact, a lot of the tools changed behavior with CS3 which was one of the great benefits to upgrading to it from 2. My point is a lot of the basic CS4 tools have moved to being "gentile" and thus are now "beginner friendly"

    4) Finally, and most important, I am NOT wanting to make this a "CS is better than LR debate!" To the contrary, I feel there are many paths to the final image and we are fortunate to have choices. I fully agree that many of LR2's features will be important and even necessary to some, and thus a better choice for them. For others, the full and total power in CS will be the driving force for their choice...

    5) #4 said, the bottom line is we are BOTH having to use two programs* to get to where we want to be! Not horrible, but certainly not ideal either ---

    (*PS: In actuality, I do generate web jpegs directly from C1 for posting my P45+ files, so sometimes do get by with only one program )



    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  20. #20
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    The fact you have not used Photoshop for a while is showing... Adjustment layers add very little to the total file size in CS Even with a few sharpening layers, my base files rarely go over 1Gig.

    As I understand it -- which admittedly could be wrong since I have never bothered with LR2, is you have to go back to that image and redo an entire localized edit; IOW you cannot go back and tweak a local adjustment mask in LR2 (because it doesn't share that mask with you) as you can do in CS...
    I prepared some files from a 1DSIII for an exhibition this summer and used Photoshop CS3 for all of them. When upresed and with the series of layers that my then-current workflow demanded for printing large-ish, all of them topped 1gig and some were nearly two - that's why I assume that P45+ files will be notably larger! But you're right, I haven't used PS much for the last month or so. However I am fully aware that adjustment layers don't take up much space.

    From your description of what you can and can't do in LR, I can't really tell how to answer you. It doesn't work on a mask metaphor so no, you can't tweak a mask. But you can tweak any parameter of the edit (size, position, combination and intensity of effects and so on) and you can also paint negative effects in as an edit. As Mr Schewe says, overdo it on the first edit and then subtract a little.

    You should give it a try. I think it's the future! And it is so infinitely better than the way Aperture does it it applies the changes parametrically to the RAW file whereas Aperture has to render a big fat tiff first and you work on that instead.

    OK, enough already, I'm such a LR junkie that I have tracks on my mouse arm...

    t

  21. #21
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Need to switch drugs. LOL
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  22. #22
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    I am on a 12 step LR withdrawal program.
    The first step was that I had to acknowledge that I was addicted to the damn thing.
    I began to notice a compulsive tendency to add metadata for location and other sorts of things that I was SURE that I would want to select-on in the future.
    I spent more time tweaking metadata than processing images.
    I discovered that I tended to file my images by year/month/date-location(or event)
    I also discovered that spotlight on the mac, or even finder search was pretty good at searching for date and/or location (or filename for that matter).
    Being inherently thick-skulled and stubborn, I played around with C1 and NX2, but tied my hands to LR, then LR2.
    I have played with dng profiles(beta) from adobe, and yes, you need those to get reasonable colors from LR, although the D3 files looked fine, oh, except for sharpening, that only looked ok with NX2, unless I screwed around with it a lot in post-post.
    So I played around more with c1 since LR didn't understand the phase metadata (iso 50 files looked 1 stop under-exposed and so forth, wrong pixel dimentions, bad color, and no way to profile since the profiler assumes a raw dng, and c1 exports a cooked dng, and the adobe dng converter had the same problems as LR), but anyway, tiffs converted from C1 were better than "half-bad", so then I aim C1 at some of my Leica originals, and holy S**T, they get a whole lot better.
    What I care most about is the finished result. One of the reasons I sold my D3 was that the AA filter almost killed me. I found that without NX2, I had to do a "sharpening gone wild" routine. The hell with it.
    So where does that leave me.
    C1 gave me good files with both my M8 and the P45+, LR couldn't handle the Phase files, I tried the mess that Microsoft turned iView Media into, and threw it out, and settled on directory structure and naming convention as the best way to organize my files. I decided that it really wasn't that important to be able to search for files taken with a specific lens, which didn't work with 8 files since the data isn't present in a LR or iView compatible way.
    I used to search for good pieces of wood from which to craft my furniture. The commercial planes somehow just weren't right, so I made my own from Japanese blades and pear wood and cocobolla. I could but don't have the patience to roll my own raw converter, life is just too short.
    So I have ended up using C1 with Leica and P45 files, and finder as my file organization mechanism.
    Don't get me wrong.... C1 is a miserably unstable piece of software all around the fringes. I crashes if you re-name a directory listed in favorites, or almost any other, withing or without the program, it displays 8 minutes of exposure in exif data as 8 seconds, it is very sensitive to database corruption, so session files must be routinely deleted which peeves me since the open source database they use is designed for transactional integrity, and if a second import is attempted, and should it fail for any reason, bye-bye session integrity. So it is a far from perfect solution, but it does give me good results.
    So I am dragging LR into the trash where it belongs along with NX2 and Microsoft expression media.
    -bob

  23. #23
    Senior Member helenhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    wow BOB
    Congrats on your DETOX....

    Obama is giving up his Crackberry

    Were all moving Forward

    I am close to giving up all digital and just shooting film...
    Best to You - H

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    I'm a little torn, but first let me post my biases: I love LR in theory, just not in practice. The baseline conversions that I get in C1 are vastly better than what I get in LR with the best file being raw conversion in C1, global color tweaks in LR2 on the tiff, export to Photoshop for local adjustments. Now I have not played with CS4 much, but that may make LR unnecessary. I have not purchased LR2, I just don't see enough need to purchase it and Bridge CS4 is surprisingly decent so far and may handle my DAM needs. It is much, much better than CS2/CS3.

    Now one area that LR beats Photoshop hands down is uprezzing a file. Not sure how C1 does yet. I was able to make very nice 30x40" prints from a D2x raw file from LR2. They were far cleaner and more detailed than an image uprezzed in CS2 using 110% jumps with bicubic smoother. The difference was just jarring between the two methods.

    Now I have not made the time to really learn to use C1 and I find the program unacceptably clunky and unstable, and I don't like the workflow or the way you have to got through several tabs to adjust an image, or the way it handles adjustments to multiple images, or really anything else about it. But, and this is a big BUT, I get higher quality conversions on the vast majority of images faster than any other raw converter/workflow I have tried.
    Last edited by Bill_Green; 26th November 2008 at 15:00.

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California/Thailand
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Bill,

    You might like to try uprezzing via CS(3 or 4) by simply choosing the required end size and resolution, use bicubic smoother as before, but skip the 110% steps. The newest version of PS have new algorithms which no longer benefit from the 110% process which may even do more harm than good now.

    That said, uprezzing may be better handled by a separate app (several available now), but I still us PS and bicubic smoother. I've been intending to try the various alternate options but haven't gotten to it yet.

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by Dale Allyn View Post
    Bill,

    You might like to try uprezzing via CS(3 or 4) by simply choosing the required end size and resolution, use bicubic smoother as before, but skip the 110% steps. The newest version of PS have new algorithms which no longer benefit from the 110% process which may even do more harm than good now.

    That said, uprezzing may be better handled by a separate app (several available now), but I still us PS and bicubic smoother. I've been intending to try the various alternate options but haven't gotten to it yet.
    Dale, thanks for the thoughts, I definitely will give that a try. I'm not up on all the current upressing software, but LR beats any I used in the past. I know that this is because LR handles interpolation differently than previous versions of photoshop. Perhaps someone with intimate knowledge of the two apps (e.g. you are under NDA or socially lubricate someone with one) can confirm that CS4 uses the same method as LR.

    For any old timers who have not tried this, I would say the look is vaguely similar to Genuine Fractals, and careful application of PK Sharpener yields breathtaking results.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California/Thailand
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Bill, I can't remember for sure, but I was thinking that LR and the newest versions of CS are using a similar approach to uprezzing (I think that's what I recall Schewe saying). If so, maybe that will simplify your process.

    I have a few of the third party options bookmarked and I should run the demos for some comparisons.

  28. #28
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    LR got the new uprez algorithms prior to CS3, which were improved over CS2. So in effect, they are identical.

    However, I still feel the best uprez technique is to go to 120% of you final intended size using smoother, then downrez to target size using sharper. Works like a champ
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    I am on a 12 step LR withdrawal program.

    I used to search for good pieces of wood from which to craft my furniture. The commercial planes somehow just weren't right, so I made my own from Japanese blades and pear wood and cocobolla.

    So I have ended up using C1 with Leica and P45 files, and finder as my file organization mechanism.

    Don't get me wrong.... C1 is a miserably unstable piece of software all around the fringes. I crashes if you:

    1. re-name a directory listed in favorites, or almost any other, withing or without the program,
    2.it displays 8 minutes of exposure in exif data as 8 seconds,
    3. it is very sensitive to database corruption, so session files must be routinely deleted which peeves me since the open source database they use is designed for transactional integrity,
    4. and if a second import is attempted, and should it fail for any reason, bye-bye session integrity.

    So it is a far from perfect solution, but it does give me good results.

    So I am dragging LR into the trash where it belongs along with NX2 and Microsoft expression media.
    -bob
    Bob - this was an incredibly useful note thank you.

    I hesitiate to report software 'glitches' - because everyone's system is set up differently etc etc etc

    Capture One has been crashing on my work computer ( which is exactly the same as my home computer in every way - which doesnt crash ) I think importing routines are not as stable as they should/could be..this mornign I tried a simple CF card import and teh programme just decided to not recognise teh subfolder and crash on me abotu 5 times..I gave up ..


    that being said - I totally agree on Capture One delivering far superiror IQ than anythign from Adobe. Which is the reason I will stick with C1 Pro for raw processing

    Fortunately Phocus for my other system - does not display any instability issues - so far * and fingers crossed.

    Pete

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California/Thailand
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Interesting LR vs C1 difference

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    LR got the new uprez algorithms prior to CS3, which were improved over CS2. So in effect, they are identical.

    However, I still feel the best uprez technique is to go to 120% of you final intended size using smoother, then downrez to target size using sharper. Works like a champ
    Jack,

    Thanks for the reminder of this process. Yes, yes, this it what has worked best for me. I believe I first read of it on Uwe's site and should have mentioned it (heck, maybe it's your article there - don't recall), but I spaced it. That's why you're the boss.

    Edit to clarify: yes, it was Jack's article at Digital Outback Photo, Workflow Technique #60: http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_60/essay.html
    Last edited by Dale Allyn; 26th November 2008 at 18:45.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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