LR vs Capture One?

[Mike-Photos]

Hello
DXO does not support the A77 yet, and it's not on their next release schedule. I therefore have to upgrade my LR or get Capture One. Does anyone have any experience in using them both with A77 files?

[David Kilpatrick]

ACR faster and better, Capture One superior colour...

David

[Mike-Photos]

ACR faster and better, Capture One superior colour...

David

Thanks, what a conundrum!
Faster means nothing after DXO, nothing can be as slow as that.
By "better", do you mean better noise reduction? I'm happy to do that in PS.
I've always far preferred the DXO colours to ACR, maybe Capture One is the way to go.

[David Kilpatrick]

NR in ACR is completely unlike anything you can do in PS. ACR has transformed all my old raw files if I choose to go back to them, and LR of course has the same engine. 'Process 2010' made such a huge difference to Sony files, compared to 'Process 2003' (the Bayer extraction). Combined with the new set of NR controls and sharpening (one tab contains all you need) you can get almost noiseless images at any ISO up to 1600.

The main point for ACR/LR is that you can save several defaults. For example, you can set Lens Corrrection defaults to use profiles in a certain way, and have that remembered. You can set every single parameter you want for each ISO setting differently. To give you a silly example, you could easily have ISO 50 set up with a Velvia-like adjustment and ISO 64 to be a Portrait film, and ISO 80 to be a direct monochrome conversion. These settings are never used by Auto ISO. ACR/LR will remember your preset for every different ISO setting and each different camera body, or to use just one setup for everything, or just one for each ISO but to treat extra camera bodies of the same type the same (different types, like A700 and A77, always need to have their own presets saved). But those low ISO settings are actually all quite similar, and you can use them to create three different ACR/LR processes which will kick in automatically, just by choosing those ISOs - like changing film.

And, of course, the RAW always remains unviolated and all that can be reversed.

I have good reason for liking ACR/LR even though I also have full latest installations of C1Pro and DxO.

David

[Mike-Photos]

Thanks David.

NR in ACR is completely unlike anything you can do in PS. ACR has transformed all my old raw files if I choose to go back to them, and LR of course has the same engine. 'Process 2010' made such a huge difference to Sony files, compared to 'Process 2003' (the Bayer extraction). Combined with the new set of NR controls and sharpening (one tab contains all you need) you can get almost noiseless images at any ISO up to 1600.

The main point for ACR/LR is that you can save several defaults. For example, you can set Lens Corrrection defaults to use profiles in a certain way, and have that remembered. You can set every single parameter you want for each ISO setting differently. To give you a silly example, you could easily have ISO 50 set up with a Velvia-like adjustment and ISO 64 to be a Portrait film, and ISO 80 to be a direct monochrome conversion. These settings are never used by Auto ISO. ACR/LR will remember your preset for every different ISO setting and each different camera body, or to use just one setup for everything, or just one for each ISO but to treat extra camera bodies of the same type the same (different types, like A700 and A77, always need to have their own presets saved). But those low ISO settings are actually all quite similar, and you can use them to create three different ACR/LR processes which will kick in automatically, just by choosing those ISOs - like changing film.

And, of course, the RAW always remains unviolated and all that can be reversed.

I have good reason for liking ACR/LR even though I also have full latest installations of C1Pro and DxO.

David

[Mike-Photos]

Hi David
One more question if I may. I notice that you use ACR rather than LR. Is there any reason you prefer ACR?
Mike

NR in ACR is completely unlike anything you can do in PS. ACR has transformed all my old raw files if I choose to go back to them, and LR of course has the same engine. 'Process 2010' made such a huge difference to Sony files, compared to 'Process 2003' (the Bayer extraction). Combined with the new set of NR controls and sharpening (one tab contains all you need) you can get almost noiseless images at any ISO up to 1600.

The main point for ACR/LR is that you can save several defaults. For example, you can set Lens Corrrection defaults to use profiles in a certain way, and have that remembered. You can set every single parameter you want for each ISO setting differently. To give you a silly example, you could easily have ISO 50 set up with a Velvia-like adjustment and ISO 64 to be a Portrait film, and ISO 80 to be a direct monochrome conversion. These settings are never used by Auto ISO. ACR/LR will remember your preset for every different ISO setting and each different camera body, or to use just one setup for everything, or just one for each ISO but to treat extra camera bodies of the same type the same (different types, like A700 and A77, always need to have their own presets saved). But those low ISO settings are actually all quite similar, and you can use them to create three different ACR/LR processes which will kick in automatically, just by choosing those ISOs - like changing film.

And, of course, the RAW always remains unviolated and all that can be reversed.

I have good reason for liking ACR/LR even though I also have full latest installations of C1Pro and DxO.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

I have CS5 and LR is obscure and strange in finding files and using directory structures fast. I need Bridge to find from a vast range of finished and raw files, folders of images for magazine articles from photographers, etc - Bridge does this faster and better than LR. Also, ACR's working window provides me with a far bigger preview, far faster 100% navigation round the image to check for dust spots etc, and I much prefer the way the control tabs and settings work. LR is suited to a more catalogue and batch process worker, I tend to work with individual files and hardly ever batch process.

Having said this, my Default settings could be considered a 'batch' in ways, and I often use 'Previous Conversion' when progressing through a series of images. I just find ACR faster, bigger, clearer, simpler, more versatile.

I use Media Pro for all later DAM. It has some extremely fast functions for converting files, and a very good metadata handling with GPS and keywording. It also has much better colour rendering than any Adobe program (or worse - depends on how you see it, Adobe programs tend to simulate a very dull flat end result).

David

[Mike-Photos]

I agree about the DAM issues in LR, I never use them. I import and then remove from LR once I have finished. I control my photos via my own folders, I don't have the same DAM requirements that you must have.

As far as the preview, I prefer LR because I have a dual monitor system and I can put my image onto the whole of the second monitor and have my controls on the other monitor. If it wasn't for that, I'd be working in Camera Raw, it would cost be nothing extra.

Still, Adobe colour is an issue, it is really flat compared to DXO and probably Capture Pro, so that leaves me with more work. I have DXO presets that make my conversions very quick, but who knows when they will support the A77.

I once tried all the software before I settled on DXO, and SilkyPix also had very good colour, but the interface was ouchy - placing files in the cloakroom to delete them was an example in those days.

So, I guess I'll be playing with LR / Camera Raw settings for awhile.

BTW, it's interesting to hear about the noise advancements Adobe has made. I have some old KM 7D shots where I mistakenly used ISO 1600, and I wasn't able to process very well in those days. I'll try LR with those old files and I'm sure I'll improve them dramatically.

Thanks for the detailed responses. It's always good to hear what a real expert has to say!

I have CS5 and LR is obscure and strange in finding files and using directory structures fast. I need Bridge to find from a vast range of finished and raw files, folders of images for magazine articles from photographers, etc - Bridge does this faster and better than LR. Also, ACR's working window provides me with a far bigger preview, far faster 100% navigation round the image to check for dust spots etc, and I much prefer the way the control tabs and settings work. LR is suited to a more catalogue and batch process worker, I tend to work with individual files and hardly ever batch process.

Having said this, my Default settings could be considered a 'batch' in ways, and I often use 'Previous Conversion' when progressing through a series of images. I just find ACR faster, bigger, clearer, simpler, more versatile.

I use Media Pro for all later DAM. It has some extremely fast functions for converting files, and a very good metadata handling with GPS and keywording. It also has much better colour rendering than any Adobe program (or worse - depends on how you see it, Adobe programs tend to simulate a very dull flat end result).

David

[agorabasta]

Two comments -

Colour profiles are highly adjustable in Lr/ACR. You may get whatever colour you prefer, and then you get the extensive HSL adjustments. No other raw proggie offers that.

Between the Lr and ACR+CS there's one nasty difference that swayed me towards Lr. It's that the CA corrections in Lr are applied to sensor native colour channels, and then in the ACR+CS those corrections are applied to the translated colours of the developed image. The result is that there's a lot of residual colour fringing in images from ACR+CS, and one has to use the 'defringe all edges' option which may simply kill the colour of smaller objects completely. So ACR+CS was not for me.

[Mike-Photos]

Thanks!

Two comments -

Colour profiles are highly adjustable in Lr/ACR. You may get whatever colour you prefer, and then you get the extensive HSL adjustments. No other raw proggie offers that.

Between the Lr and ACR+CS there's one nasty difference that swayed me towards Lr. It's that the CA corrections in Lr are applied to sensor native colour channels, and then in the ACR+CS those corrections are applied to the translated colours of the developed image. The result is that there's a lot of residual colour fringing in images from ACR+CS, and one has to use the 'defringe all edges' option which may simply kill the colour of smaller objects completely. So ACR+CS was not for me.