I think together with the HDMI output this is a strong advantage over MFDBs. On one chanel you can quickly preview JPGs whilst on the other the Tech may adjust the raw files...
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Official USA Pricing for Leica S2
- Thread starter dfarkas
- Start date
Peter,
Your concerns and preferences are respectable. That being said, what if the files coming out of the S2 are of sufficient high quality that little or any adjustment is needed? Then an app like C1, though very familiar to your workflow, may be nothing more than an expensive thing to play around in. Just a thought. We will not know how good or not things are going to be until we see actual results and files.
On that thinking, if you are going into PS anyway to do the sorts of adjustments that do not exist in C1, if the RAW conversion in ACR or LR is minimal (and as long as it does not mess up the file by introducing things, e.g. noise), what does it matter which app is used? Folks that had been longtime users of C1 had to make some pretty big workflow adjustments when the user interface changed anyway, so what would be so hard to do the same with LR or Bridge/ACR if you are going to be going into PS anyway?
The issues I see are around the conversion algorithms. Many folks prefer C1, as it seems to do a very good job with many files, they now understand the workflow, and it also does not tend to introduce many conversion artifacts. LR, on the other hand has been evolving in ways that C1 has not, such as being able to handle layers that have adjustments to the RAW conversion. That can be a big plus for some. The downside to LR and ACR, in my opinion, is that the conversion algorithms are not always the best. There are, at times, some strange artifacts and noise introduced to files, especially at higher ISO renderings. Not all files, not all cameras. I like the ACR engine for my Canon 1D series, but not for the 1Ds series, for example. Some colors are still a bit off in both at times, but not always.
My point is that IF, and that is a huge concern, the S2 files come out with clean, good crisp colors and stuff, and require almost no adjustment (beyond personal preferences), and IF the LR/ACR engine does not introduce new things, then C1 is just another expensive app to maintain for little other reason. If your workflow is locked in with C1 and cannot be adjusted to something else that may do the job and more, that is your choice, and you will make other decisions based on that. I sort of thought one chooses the camera system first and the workflow after, but maybe some do it the other way around. (I feel very comfortable using Aperture for my M8 stuff, moreso than ACR. I can also use C1. For my Canon 1Ds-series files, I prefer C1, but do use Aperture and ACR, though neither is as good as DPP, which I personally just do not bother with much because it is more difficult/obtuse, and still needs to go to PS afterward. I have not found a "one app fits all", and hence have not locked into one specific workflow only, but that is how I find it useful for me.)
Anyway, I would suggest folks not condemn the camera system because of a preferred workflow. It is possible that the files may need little adjustment, and any clean converter will do the job. Just something to wait and see for a while longer. (BTW, while I do not have any real passion for any of these apps, I would not count Adobe out of the race, as they have a lot of experience in this area, even though they are spreading themselves out to many camera systems all the time. If they are able to deal with good, clean files, and not mess them up, then they could start rising up again.)
LJ
Your concerns and preferences are respectable. That being said, what if the files coming out of the S2 are of sufficient high quality that little or any adjustment is needed? Then an app like C1, though very familiar to your workflow, may be nothing more than an expensive thing to play around in. Just a thought. We will not know how good or not things are going to be until we see actual results and files.
On that thinking, if you are going into PS anyway to do the sorts of adjustments that do not exist in C1, if the RAW conversion in ACR or LR is minimal (and as long as it does not mess up the file by introducing things, e.g. noise), what does it matter which app is used? Folks that had been longtime users of C1 had to make some pretty big workflow adjustments when the user interface changed anyway, so what would be so hard to do the same with LR or Bridge/ACR if you are going to be going into PS anyway?
The issues I see are around the conversion algorithms. Many folks prefer C1, as it seems to do a very good job with many files, they now understand the workflow, and it also does not tend to introduce many conversion artifacts. LR, on the other hand has been evolving in ways that C1 has not, such as being able to handle layers that have adjustments to the RAW conversion. That can be a big plus for some. The downside to LR and ACR, in my opinion, is that the conversion algorithms are not always the best. There are, at times, some strange artifacts and noise introduced to files, especially at higher ISO renderings. Not all files, not all cameras. I like the ACR engine for my Canon 1D series, but not for the 1Ds series, for example. Some colors are still a bit off in both at times, but not always.
My point is that IF, and that is a huge concern, the S2 files come out with clean, good crisp colors and stuff, and require almost no adjustment (beyond personal preferences), and IF the LR/ACR engine does not introduce new things, then C1 is just another expensive app to maintain for little other reason. If your workflow is locked in with C1 and cannot be adjusted to something else that may do the job and more, that is your choice, and you will make other decisions based on that. I sort of thought one chooses the camera system first and the workflow after, but maybe some do it the other way around. (I feel very comfortable using Aperture for my M8 stuff, moreso than ACR. I can also use C1. For my Canon 1Ds-series files, I prefer C1, but do use Aperture and ACR, though neither is as good as DPP, which I personally just do not bother with much because it is more difficult/obtuse, and still needs to go to PS afterward. I have not found a "one app fits all", and hence have not locked into one specific workflow only, but that is how I find it useful for me.)
Anyway, I would suggest folks not condemn the camera system because of a preferred workflow. It is possible that the files may need little adjustment, and any clean converter will do the job. Just something to wait and see for a while longer. (BTW, while I do not have any real passion for any of these apps, I would not count Adobe out of the race, as they have a lot of experience in this area, even though they are spreading themselves out to many camera systems all the time. If they are able to deal with good, clean files, and not mess them up, then they could start rising up again.)
LJ
The Moire removal tool in Phocus is very very good.
Nick-T
ptomsu
Workshop Member
@LJ
Issue is that I have all the other apps and SW running on my MACs and I come always back again to C1. Not only does it have the right conversion with best results, but also the right level of tools for post processing and for creating exports and web pages very fast, efficient and with great results.
I was long time seeking the ONE application for PP, this was when I tried Aperture, LR, etc. Finally neither of them could satisfy all my needs and if it was only such as the print engines in these programs suck, or the way you can use levels or curves or what else. Thus I always ended up in using PS for printing and now in using PS4 for adjusting my TIFFs to the exact look I need for my landscape results. And this is a very individual process, which NO PP SW will be able to handle without me adjusting many parameters individually, which can be done only in PS4 in a really efficient and satisfying way.
Now you are right, why do I need C1 for the S2 instead of Aperture or LR to produce my TIFFs? I could use these other programs, but currently I cannot see that they produce results out of RAW conversion as good as C1. And as said C1 has the best tools in place to do first fine adjustments to TIFFs.
So conclusion - my best workflow is C1 plus PS4. And if S2 is not supported by C1 then this is a no go for me. As it almost is a no go already with Hasselblad, as their 3F RAW files can be only processed in Phocus (and I think in Aperture) which both suck for first fine adjustment in my opinion.
And I could not care less about a JPEG output of a high end camera - what game do we play here - Kindergarden???? Come on this is really a nightmare and if my clients want to see first outputs during shooting, they can do so with C1 and numerous cameras directly from the RAW files.
For me a system consists of camera, lenses, post processing options, flexibility all together. And if one sucks, then the whole system sucks in my opinion. Unless Leica can proof highest quality with easy and comfortable and flexible handling of post processing, the S System is dead for me. And I think not only for me, but for lot of others.
Issue is that I have all the other apps and SW running on my MACs and I come always back again to C1. Not only does it have the right conversion with best results, but also the right level of tools for post processing and for creating exports and web pages very fast, efficient and with great results.
I was long time seeking the ONE application for PP, this was when I tried Aperture, LR, etc. Finally neither of them could satisfy all my needs and if it was only such as the print engines in these programs suck, or the way you can use levels or curves or what else. Thus I always ended up in using PS for printing and now in using PS4 for adjusting my TIFFs to the exact look I need for my landscape results. And this is a very individual process, which NO PP SW will be able to handle without me adjusting many parameters individually, which can be done only in PS4 in a really efficient and satisfying way.
Now you are right, why do I need C1 for the S2 instead of Aperture or LR to produce my TIFFs? I could use these other programs, but currently I cannot see that they produce results out of RAW conversion as good as C1. And as said C1 has the best tools in place to do first fine adjustments to TIFFs.
So conclusion - my best workflow is C1 plus PS4. And if S2 is not supported by C1 then this is a no go for me. As it almost is a no go already with Hasselblad, as their 3F RAW files can be only processed in Phocus (and I think in Aperture) which both suck for first fine adjustment in my opinion.
And I could not care less about a JPEG output of a high end camera - what game do we play here - Kindergarden???? Come on this is really a nightmare and if my clients want to see first outputs during shooting, they can do so with C1 and numerous cameras directly from the RAW files.
For me a system consists of camera, lenses, post processing options, flexibility all together. And if one sucks, then the whole system sucks in my opinion. Unless Leica can proof highest quality with easy and comfortable and flexible handling of post processing, the S System is dead for me. And I think not only for me, but for lot of others.
Peter,
Thanks for your thoughts. Not sure where you got going on the JPEG part, as I was not talking about using them as finals. However, the part we still do not know is just how much tweaking and correction may be going into the file in the S2. It may be very little for the RAW, or it may be the same things that are going into the JPEGs for processing. At least the adjustments should be written with the RAW file, so that comes down to how a processing app is able to read them for its first pass or default conversion. Honestly, I do not know how that is going to work out, nor do many others at this point, and that is why I am not tossing the baby out with the bathwater on this one yet.
I am glad that you are comfortable using C1, and that you like what it does for the files you run through it. It does a good job, as I have mentioned several times, but it is not perfect with all files all the time either. If your files always require a lot of adjustments, and C1 is the method you prefer, then that pretty much does look like it is locking you in with Phase. I am sure that will work out for you. I also appreciate your comments about wanting a system that from camera through post processing tools to work the way you want. Hasselblad has that now, not just Phase, though it does not use C1. Users of Phocus seem to like what it does for their files, even if the user interface is not perfected yet. (If you really look at these various apps, they are all pretty much converging on the same thing. Apple started it off with Aperture, and LR followed, as did Phocus and even C1 as it transformed to its present look.) One real difference is how the algorithms handle the RAW file information in the conversion. Phase does a very good job, and you seem to be very comfortable with it as a tool. Others tools can and do offer more for some needs, and also handle some files very nicely. Raw Developer is an example of a conversion tool that does an outstanding job with the files, but its interface is less comfortable for some folks to get used to, and it only runs on a Mac, so it lacks wider distribution, for the most part. From what I have seen, it looks to do a better job at conversion than C1 in many cases, but it may not be as user friendly looking to use.
Not trying to convince you of doing anything different. Just offering up the concept that if the RAW file that the S2 produces is all that they say or hope it to be, there may not be as much need for all the fancy stuff in conversion. And as far as post processing goes, LR, PS, and Aperture all have more tools and capabilities than C1....just depends on how you use it and what your needs are.
If C1 is the only tool you prefer to use, then yes, some other very good systems may be dead to you, such as Hasselblad and now Leica, at least the S2 for now. Seems a shame to cancel out those systems just to use C1, but that is your choice. So be it. So what happens when C1 starts to reduce support for other cameras also, like maybe the M9? (This goes back to my other posts about Phase needing to be more clear about just what business they are going to support.....only their backs and software for those, like Hasselblad, or their backs and their software operations as two strong, but somewhat separate entities? If the former, folks might as well start looking for other options now, as it will only be a matter of time before other cameras are not supported for C1. Hope that does not happen.....)
Anyway, enjoy whatever you finally decide to get, Peter. Sounds like you are locked into Phase, more for C1 than anything. Hope that works out for you.
LJ
Peter,
I dont believe you - that the processing software is more important in your decission than the camera/system itself. It is allways possible to learn and understand a new piece of software, but if you have any limitations in your hardware there is no way to change that.
IMO - as non pro users (what I think you and me are) software is even less important, because we do not have to process thousands of images and we dont have to fulfill schedules.
Yes, software is one important part of the overall process, but why allready limit yourself to c1 if you dont even know yet which software will support the S2 and how good/bad it is?
I dont believe you - that the processing software is more important in your decission than the camera/system itself. It is allways possible to learn and understand a new piece of software, but if you have any limitations in your hardware there is no way to change that.
IMO - as non pro users (what I think you and me are) software is even less important, because we do not have to process thousands of images and we dont have to fulfill schedules.
Yes, software is one important part of the overall process, but why allready limit yourself to c1 if you dont even know yet which software will support the S2 and how good/bad it is?
Speak for yourself. I doubt it includes "a lot of others".
I'd go for the S2 if I could afford it BECAUSE it is set up for Lightroom.
There are a host of really good photographers that use all those other post programs that "suck." What perplexes me is why the end product they produce doesn't also suck? How can that be?
To date, nothing tops LR for speed, flexability and security IMO. Everytime I try to debate the IQ issue with my pal Irakly in favor of C1, he shows me how to achieve the same thing in LR twice as fast and twice as easy. He uses a Phase One back and M8, yet favors LR as the post program. His work sure sure doesn't "suck".
Besides, I could not imagine processing a wedding in C1 ... life is just to short.
Different strokes for different folks.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
Well,Speak for yourself. I doubt it includes "a lot of others".
I'd go for the S2 if I could afford it BECAUSE it is set up for Lightroom.
There are a host of really good photographers that use all those other post programs that "suck." What perplexes me is why the end product they produce doesn't also suck? How can that be?
To date, nothing tops LR for speed, flexability and security IMO. Everytime I try to debate the IQ issue with my pal Irakly in favor of C1, he shows me how to achieve the same thing in LR twice as fast and twice as easy. He uses a Phase One back and M8, yet favors LR as the post program. His work sure sure doesn't "suck".
Besides, I could not imagine processing a wedding in C1 ... life is just to short.
Different strokes for different folks.
1) I do NOT have to do weddings - thanks god and poor you
2) I do not say you cannot achieve good results with LR, issue is how convenient to get there. I used LR for over 2 years, before I went for Aperture and this was for a good reason, because Aperture was that time much more developed and mature than LR.
3) Maybe LR is good today, maybe I should give it a try.
So you see, I am not as religious as you, I just am lazy and not willing to change PP SW every few months
Last edited:
1) I love shooting weddings, and I'm anything but poor because of it.Well,
1) I do NOT have to do weddings - thanks god and poor you
2) I do not say you cannot achieve good results with LR, issue is how convenient to get there. I used LR for over 2 years, before I went for Aperture and this was for a good reason, because Aperture was that time much more developed and mature than LR.
3) Maybe LR is good today, maybe I should give it a try.
So you see, I am not as religious as you, I just am lazy and not willing to change PP SW every few months
2) LR is the most convenient Processor out there as far as I can tell. I never have to leave it ... I can open any file in PS, work on it, and close it back into LR.
3) LR is nothing like it was. It has new processing tools like nothing else out there. I only need PS for layer work which I can do from the LR Browser and don't need ACR Browser to open it..
If there is one constant that everyone knows here on the forum is that I use Lightroom .... and don't jump around except to play ... for work it's LR everytime.
Different strokes for different folks.
Christopher
Active member
Well I love lightroom it is great it is fast and to get perfect colors and a finished images is much faster than any other program. I hate C1 compared to it, it feels like using a program that came out 10 years ago.....
However it depends what you need. I will do all the final editing in Lightroom, but for raw conversions Lightroom just sucks, sorry but if you think it's good, it certainly is not. Just make prints from both and look at dark areas, well C1 looks just so much better, especially that it renders noise more like film grain than lightroom. Lightroom renders noise as digital artifacts. PFUIIII
EDIT:
And by all means, I don't think that is something that will be different with S2 files. Lightroom does it with every camera so far and I think it is just the way it works.
However it depends what you need. I will do all the final editing in Lightroom, but for raw conversions Lightroom just sucks, sorry but if you think it's good, it certainly is not. Just make prints from both and look at dark areas, well C1 looks just so much better, especially that it renders noise more like film grain than lightroom. Lightroom renders noise as digital artifacts. PFUIIII
EDIT:
And by all means, I don't think that is something that will be different with S2 files. Lightroom does it with every camera so far and I think it is just the way it works.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
My observations too! But there are folks out there who obviously do not care about such details.
Maybe their clients love artifacts :angel: Could be a totally new style if you sell it the right way
Obviously I have a different POV.
The notion that every camera is lessened by use of Lightroom hasn't been my experience. C1 may be better for certain RAW files but not equally for all RAW files. I may occasionally use Ci for certain things it does well ... like correct the occasional file from a specific lens exhibiting a certain type of fringing (thanks to Jack's urging to try C1 with those issues). When I shot with a DMR I found the Hasselblad RAW converter to be better than anything else ... which is no surprise given the fact that Imacon was involved with the DMR. So, I wouldn't write off the S2 and Lightroom just yet if there was any exchange between Leica and Adobe.
I also think that intense experience is being discounted here. Like many post programs, Lightroom is a very flexible and powerful program that continues to improve exponentially. The more involved with it you are the more it unlocks it's secrets. Not unlike the experience with Photoshop, which literally can continue revealing its secrets for years of use.
However, unlike a few closed minds here, I am open to changing my mind. I will attempt to process a couple of files from my D3X and Sony A900 which both fair well in Lightroom using my user presets and compare the noise rendering with C1-Pro. I have not noted that LR renders noise as digital artifacts, and do not know what people are doing in LR to get that effect.
I also don't understand how you can bring a C-1 processed file into LR and suddenly LR renders noise in a different way than it does initially. If as you say "it is the way it works with all cameras", how does that change when importing a file processed in C-1? It either renders noise as artifacts, or it doesn't.
Chris, how do you integrate C1-Pro? Do you just batch process in C-1 and convert to Tiffs for work in Lightroom? Help me out here so I can grasp how to get the benefits you are speaking about then final process in LR ... which is still a lot faster and more secure than final processing from PSCS-4 Bridge.
Thanks,
-Marc
carstenw
Active member
I think the relevant parties might start exchanging raw files and development settings, rather than exchanging blows.
In my experience, I have seen better noise and sharpness from C1 than from LR, but I am not sure that it would ever be visible anyway except on-screen at 100%.
In my experience, I have seen better noise and sharpness from C1 than from LR, but I am not sure that it would ever be visible anyway except on-screen at 100%.
Okay, time to call you on your insulting posts.My observations too! But there are folks out there who obviously do not care about such details.
Maybe their clients love artifacts :angel: Could be a totally new style if you sell it the right way
Opinion and preferences are one thing which we are all entitled to no matter how strongly stated ... however, directly saying someone's work is inferior, and they are selling inferior work to their clients because of their preferences is a whole other thing.
So ... PROVE IT!
Show me a file processed in LR that renders noise as these so called "digital artifacts", and the same file showing how C-1 does it like film grain.
Should be simple thing to demonstrate. Right?
While you're at it, please explain noise as "digital artifacts" as they appear in these attached shots so I can learn what you guys mean. I'm always open to new information. I've included the full shot and a tight crop of a shadow area for each shot to make it easy.
Thanks for your help,
-Marc
Interesting,
I thought I was the only one who likes and uses LR a lot.
For max. IQ for the sinar files I like the Sinar Software, but for Nikon and M8 I have used LR often lately instead of NX2 and C1.
Its sometimes hard to compare the software converters since there are so many parameters. Sometimes you one is noice but then it might show more detail, or there is a slightly different tone curve, etc etc.
I thought I was the only one who likes and uses LR a lot.
For max. IQ for the sinar files I like the Sinar Software, but for Nikon and M8 I have used LR often lately instead of NX2 and C1.
Its sometimes hard to compare the software converters since there are so many parameters. Sometimes you one is noice but then it might show more detail, or there is a slightly different tone curve, etc etc.
Speak for yourself. I doubt it includes "a lot of others".
I'd go for the S2 if I could afford it BECAUSE it is set up for Lightroom.
There are a host of really good photographers that use all those other post programs that "suck." What perplexes me is why the end product they produce doesn't also suck? How can that be?
To date, nothing tops LR for speed, flexability and security IMO. Everytime I try to debate the IQ issue with my pal Irakly in favor of C1, he shows me how to achieve the same thing in LR twice as fast and twice as easy. He uses a Phase One back and M8, yet favors LR as the post program. His work sure sure doesn't "suck".
Besides, I could not imagine processing a wedding in C1 ... life is just to short.
Different strokes for different folks.
Isn't that the debate here? The S2 ships with Lightroom, and there are those who think it lessens the value of the S2 (i.e., price related) because it supposedly will not work with C-1.
We haven't even seen a RAW file from this camera yet, nor anything from Lightroom regarding the S2. :wtf:
Marc, I agree that the differences are very little "IQ wise".
It's all more about workflow and maybe taste.
I am a diehard of icc based input profiles (camera profiles) and me personally I find the Color Editor of C1 is by far the strongest color editing tool (especially if you factor color management questions into the equation).
However without tweaking a lot I get finer details from C1 than from ACR... see a comparision I prepared some month ago (so maybe still with CS3... am not quite sure).
It's all more about workflow and maybe taste.
I am a diehard of icc based input profiles (camera profiles) and me personally I find the Color Editor of C1 is by far the strongest color editing tool (especially if you factor color management questions into the equation).
However without tweaking a lot I get finer details from C1 than from ACR... see a comparision I prepared some month ago (so maybe still with CS3... am not quite sure).
Last edited: