Why non Team Phase One users should avoid Capture One…

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Siddhaarta,

I would agree with what you say, just adding a few things.

At least for me, Lightroom is a workflow solution, I don't do a lot of stuff in Photoshop. Regarding C1 I also figure it is a workflow solution.

I don't really have issues with Lightroom colours, it obviously depends on what you shoot, but later time I started using DCamProf to generate colour profiles for both the P45+ and the A7rII.

If only a raw converter is needed, there are plenty interesting and good options. I have played with RawTherapee, AccuRaw and Iridient's RawDeveloper.

James Russel, also known as BC over at LuLa, mentioned that whatever software he uses, when the files go to a detoucher the first thing they always do is to open the raw file in ACR.

Best regards
Erik

I used C1 with my Nikon and Sony Cameras and liked the color rendition and sofisticated features of the software, although I find the software not very intuitive (though getting better). Lightroom is horrible with Nikon and Sony Raw files, IMO

Since I bought my Leica S, I use exclusively Lightroom. The colors from the DNG files are wonderful and the options are quite sufficient. Some features of C1 could be integrated in LR, but nothing earth moving, IMO. Anyway, the files move to Photoshop for detailed processing, if necessary.

So for me it is a non-issue, and what I hear from Hasselblad users, it's the same with Phocus.

Really, I cannot see C1 as a main factor for deciding for one or another system …

So Erik, I agree with your conclusions, only adding this advise to not-P1 users: don't worry about C1 … and be happy with your Pentax, Hasselblad or Leica System and their respective Raw processors.

 

[Paul2660]

Hi Graham,

So you are none of those having the X1D on preorder?

Best regards
Erik

Can't speak for Graham, but it's a strong consideration for me. I have used C1 since before 3.7.8 (2004 or so) and would never want to invest in a MF camera that is excluded from it. I am sure Phocus works fine, but not going to start on a new path.

I use LR and C1 about the same amount just depends on the shot/camera and where I am trying to get to, both C1 and LR have strengths and weakness neither being perfect for me. But I would prefer to see Adobe get LR support for the IQ100 as there are several tools in LR I use daily (pano and HDR merge) that C1 can't do.

Paul C

 

[Wayne Fox]

Can't speak for Graham, but it's a strong consideration for me. I have used C1 since before 3.7.8 (2004 or so) and would never want to invest in a MF camera that is excluded from it. I am sure Phocus works fine, but not going to start on a new path.

I’m ok as long as it’s supported adequately by Lr. but if I decided I wanted a lighter kit with more resolution than my a7r2 and I had to use Phocus to process the raws I’m sure I would manage just fine.

At this point 50mp mirrorless is only a little tempting. However, once the glass is available for these systems and they put a 70-80mp sensor in it, I would probably buy in. As to which, most likely determined by the lens line up and quality. I’m sure I can muddle through any raw processing software if I can drop enough weight off my current XF pack. It would still be my secondary system, but on some treks the weight difference is getting more important at my age.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi,

The thread title may be misleading a bit. The intention was to discuss using Capture One with MFD coming from non Team Phase Vendors. That should have been made clear in the thread title, but it is pretty obvious if you read the first posting

I would change the title of the thread if I could.

Some non Team Phase One users want to use Capture One with competing MFD, see this thread as an example:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...59897-hasselblad-raw-editing-capture-one.html

Best regards
Erik

yeah, we’ve wandered off your original thought, but still a good discussion.

 

[robertwright]

I've always felt that it was short sighted for Phase to not support other cameras in C1. I use both C1 and Lr equally. Lr has the digital asset management, book creation and print support I used regularly, C1 is the best tethered solution out there. So I don't see it as an either or. I can shoot to C1, save metadata, and import the same jobs into Lr. I could even use the folder structure if I wanted to, Trash, Processed etc. Plus, if I liked the color better on one or the other I'd have a choice. Practically with Canon, I can make the Lr output exactly the same as C1. So count this as one users request to open up C1 to Hasselblad and Pentax and Fuji. I'm not getting rid of the Canon, so you have me on tethered regardless......!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I won't buy a camera unless it's supported by C1. That's me though although I tried Phocus and it's nice in Hassy files. This tends to leave me out on the new Fuji and that's a shame. I've had C1 since the Canon 1ds that's ages ago and I'm not switching now.

Btw James is going by what everyone has in the industry not really his chose because ACR is built into the industry standard of PS. Not everyone has specialized raw processing software. I understand his decision too as he uses a lot of air brush artists for his work. So he has to take the path of least resistance per say.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Hi Graham,

So you are none of those having the X1D on preorder?

Best regards
Erik

Actually it is true that I do have an order in for the entire Hasselblad X1D outfit but if I manage to pull together my IQx100 upgrade first it'll be put on the back burner.

Personally I have no beef with Phocus, I just try to limit the number of converters that I use to a minimum because of the opportunity to lose files (or their converters). C1 has worked as the ubiquitous quality tool for me for a long long time so I gravitate to it naturally. If Adobe or another tool suddenly showed me a quantum leap in quality in their conversions I'd obviously be mad not to use them.

 

[hcubell]

I’m ok as long as it’s supported adequately by Lr. but if I decided I wanted a lighter kit with more resolution than my a7r2 and I had to use Phocus to process the raws I’m sure I would manage just fine.

Phocus is extremely easy to learn and use in its current state, because it only tries to be a relatively simple raw converter for producing the best raw conversions out of Hasselblad cameras and a stable platform for tethering Hasselblad cameras. It succeeds. There just isn't that much to learn, quite frankly. The feature set is pretty limited. V. 3.0 does offer a limited ability to use layers with masking brushes, but anyone who is familiar with LR or C1 could master them quickly. I would say anyone who is facile with LR or C1 could master Phocus in a couple of hours. Others may feel differently, but I would not let Phocus stand in the way of buying the X1D if I otherwise wanted it. I am sure I would rather use Phocus than whatever software Fuji offers up for the GSX. If there is one thing the Japanese camera companies have proven over the years it is that they are incapable of writing good software.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Me referring to James may be a bit out of context. I don't know which software he actually uses. Originally he was very much pro Capture One, but later he was complaining about licensing issues, but that may have been resolved. For some reason he now seems to enjoy Leica S2 as his main camera and that is not supported by Capture One, AFAIK.

Anyway, what he said is that retouchers work with ACR. That is quite natural as retouchers are normally using Adobe Photoshop as their processing tool. Here, I would say that the experience with a tool chain matters a lot. If you are familiar with a set of tools, it would take a lot of effort to switch to another set of tools. That would apply even more if you would be an expert user. Example, how do I reproduce that effect in this tool?

The end of story may be that tools may matter less when processing is done in several steps. The folks involved will always have a preference for the tools they know well.

Best regards
Erik

I won't buy a camera unless it's supported by C1. That's me though although I tried Phocus and it's nice in Hassy files. This tends to leave me out on the new Fuji and that's a shame. I've had C1 since the Canon 1ds that's ages ago and I'm not switching now.

Btw James is going by what everyone has in the industry not really his chose because ACR is built into the industry standard of PS. Not everyone has specialized raw processing software. I understand his decision too as he uses a lot of air brush artists for his work. So he has to take the path of least resistance per say.

 

[GrahamWelland]

TBH Using a good converter and dropping into PS isnt a problem. It's just the management of files and converters that becomes a pain if not using a single tool.

Sometimes though there are tweaks available such as Doug Petersen's capture one styles that can make a tool more than a tool (> 100% highlight recovery did it for me). In the past Kodak's "Looks" package ditto.

 

[VeronicaSusan]

Good idea, it would be better if the focus on avoid
the company will look for the benefit of customers
I always use a sony C1 files use of color and infrared always successful
have no experience in focus

 

[Mgreer316]

I'm a portrait guy. I've been shooting my Credo 60 tethered into C1 for 3 years. For that entire time I've been trying to migrate my operations, not just tethered capture, to C1. But the truth is the results I get from C1 aren't appreciably better than that which I get from Lightroom. And C1 hasn't yet included history states for some reason. Be it C1 or Lightroom, the results I obtain are phenomenal, but C1 isn't as operationally smooth as Lightroom. My computer was a beast in its day, but it's now 6 years old. I'm sure C1 operations would benefit from an upgrade, but my old computer handles 60MP files just fine with Lightroom. C1 can get choppy with some actions.

C1 was my first production raw converter back in 2003. They lost me because of their tardiness with support for new cameras. Once LR came out it was a natural fit to me. But I kept tabs on C1 through the years. After I bought my medium format system, I re-employed C1, at least for tethering. But in trying to return to operating it, it just seemed and still seems so cumbersome. Which I would put up with IF I found the results to be significantly better.

I know some people thumb their nose at Lightroom. I believe it has more to do with the fact that Lightroom is used by the masses than any capability deficiencies. C1 demands more of you to master. And it does offer more microscopic control and precision, but I don't require that level of functionality.

With a Phase One Credo back, and Phase One Capture One, I thought I'd get better results than with Lightroom. But that just hasn't been my experience.

 

[Paul2660]

I'm a portrait guy. I've been shooting my Credo 60 tethered into C1 for 3 years. For that entire time I've been trying to migrate my operations, not just tethered capture, to C1. But the truth is the results I get from C1 aren't appreciably better than that which I get from Lightroom. And C1 hasn't yet included history states for some reason. Be it C1 or Lightroom, the results I obtain are phenomenal, but C1 isn't as operationally smooth as Lightroom. My computer was a beast in its day, but it's now 6 years old. I'm sure C1 operations would benefit from an upgrade, but my old computer handles 60MP files just fine with Lightroom. C1 can get choppy with some actions.

C1 was my first production raw converter back in 2003. They lost me because of their tardiness with support for new cameras. Once LR came out it was a natural fit to me. But I kept tabs on C1 through the years. After I bought my medium format system, I re-employed C1, at least for tethering. But in trying to return to operating it, it just seemed and still seems so cumbersome. Which I would put up with IF I found the results to be significantly better.

I know some people thumb their nose at Lightroom. I believe it has more to do with the fact that Lightroom is used by the masses than any capability deficiencies. C1 demands more of you to master. And it does offer more microscopic control and precision, but I don't require that level of functionality.

With a Phase One Credo back, and Phase One Capture One, I thought I'd get better results than with Lightroom. But that just hasn't been my experience.

Glad to see someone else appreciates the need for history steps in C1. Sure wish Phase One did.

Paul C

 

[GrahamWelland]

Glad to see someone else appreciates the need for history steps in C1. Sure wish Phase One did.

Paul C

+1 on that. I generally checkpoint changes using variants but it's a kludge TBH and easy to forget.

 

[PSon]

From my hand on experiences using different medium format systems and raw processing softwares over the years, I like the Phase One digital back for several reasons independently of Capture One (C1): 1) the sync cable is securely and reliably locked when using a technical camera, 2) the older CCD digital back (DB), Phase One CCD DB is reliable on the technical camera, 3) the battery is inserted inside the DB which is helpful when using the DB on certain cameras such as the Hasselblad SWC, 4) speaking of the Hasselblad V system as a square format camera, the Phase One DB allows me to mount the DB in either portrait or landscape orientation, which allow the square format camera to be used more ergonomically as in its original design, 5) the more up to date DB, Phase One still support the Contax 645 mount. The last factor (5), is still very important for me since I still use my Contax 645 systems for many reasons. These 5 factors are my reasons to choose the Phase One DB independently of C1.

For my other medium format digital systems, I use Lightroom (LR) and appreciate this solution. Intuitively, I find LR to be easier to use without having to spend time to learn the software. Predate LR, I found C1 is most intuitive. Now I found both softwares to be very powerful and useful in their own ways and I appreciate that both of these solutions are available to all of us. I would encourage for all of those who never got the chance to try out these softwares to give them a chance that you may end up liking them. Just as my own experiences with trying out many other camera systems, I ended up learning a lot from them and appreciate them.

Thank You,
-Son

 

[dchew]

TBH Using a good converter and dropping into PS isnt a problem. It's just the management of files and converters that becomes a pain if not using a single tool.

I have the same problem. Just learning what is sticky and what isn't in regards to file importing and exporting is a "gotcha" for me. I us a convoluted combination of C1 catalogs, LR WIP catalogs and a LR master catalog. I still struggle with how C1 handles recipes and output target locations.

Dave

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Son,

Thanks for chiming in and also for posting some marvellous pictures on these forums.

When I started this thread the intention was not discuss the advantages and disadvantages of C1 vs other converters just to make clear that Phase One never had and probably never will support competing MFD systems. Seems some posters are not aware of that…

It is possible to use C1 one on some competitors files, but that is not supported and there is a certain probability that Capture One will disable that option in a future version. Just to say C1 9.3 will ignore DNG files coming from a Hasselblad back.

Those things are nice to be aware of before you buy a system for 20-50k$.

I would agree that C1 is a complex product and that has it pitfalls.

I mostly use LR, but I make my own colour profiles and that works very well for landscapes. Would it work as well for portraiture, I don't know as I don't do that kind of stuff.

I have a P45+ and I feel it is well made, use it with a Hasselblad 555/ELD. But, my usage has declined since I have an A7rII. It allows me to do a lot of things I always wanted to do. I am not enthusiastic about it, but it does the job and that is all I really ask of a camera.

Best regards
Erik

From my hand on experiences using different medium format systems and raw processing softwares over the years, I like the Phase One digital back for several reasons independently of Capture One (C1): 1) the sync cable is securely and reliably locked when using a technical camera, 2) the older CCD digital back (DB), Phase One CCD DB is reliable on the technical camera, 3) the battery is inserted inside the DB which is helpful when using the DB on certain cameras such as the Hasselblad SWC, 4) speaking of the Hasselblad V system as a square format camera, the Phase One DB allows me to mount the DB in either portrait or landscape orientation, which allow the square format camera to be used more ergonomically as in its original design, 5) the more up to date DB, Phase One still support the Contax 645 mount. The last factor (5), is still very important for me since I still use my Contax 645 systems for many reasons. These 5 factors are my reasons to choose the Phase One DB independently of C1.

For my other medium format digital systems, I use Lightroom (LR) and appreciate this solution. Intuitively, I find LR to be easier to use without having to spend time to learn the software. Predate LR, I found C1 is most intuitive. Now I found both softwares to be very powerful and useful in their own ways and I appreciate that both of these solutions are available to all of us. I would encourage for all of those who never got the chance to try out these softwares to give them a chance that you may end up liking them. Just as my own experiences with trying out many other camera systems, I ended up learning a lot from them and appreciate them.

Thank You,
-Son