View Full Version : Capture One Pro
I made the fatal mistake of downloading the demo of some software I can't afford and playing with it lol
I have to tell all you who process RAWs - I have tried LOTS of RAW processing tools. Some well known, some obscure, and there are some really good tools out there. Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop - all excellent at processing RAWS but let me tell you that Capture One Pro is the daddy! I've been playing with it solidly for two days now and it's adjustments control and simplicity of use is just superb. The colour adjustment tools are the best I've used since Final Cut Studios Color application - and that used to be thousands of dollars.
The downside to using Capture One Pro is that its digital asset management is minimal (so you'll need to have a strict workflow on how you archive and store your files - most people do anyway) and that it's purely 110% a raw processing tool - nothing else. No image editing. No fancy mamby pamby filters and effects, pure raw processing and then export to the format you then want to work in.
The upside is that if you want what I believe to the best and most accurate reproduction from your raw with maximum control over the bits within the raw itself - this is the tool. It really is. I mean Nikons $100 Capture NX 2 is a superb raw processing tool, but I think Capture One Pro produces even better derivatives than it does.
If I had to give the application a mark out of 10 purely for raw processing then it would get an easy 9! It only loses one mark due to its price (which I think is a bit steep). However, you do get what you pay for here.
Yeah, their stuff is slick. I own just a cheaper older version of their raw converter, and have really liked it. The batch raw processing along with the sliders and options even in the older C1 LE is better in many regards to Photoshop CS4 and Adobe RAW.
I'll be honest with you though. I'm lazy, and prefer the more direct approach of CS4 with Raw. I really like the brush editing in CS4 right in raw. You can take an exposure brush right in raw and apply it right then in there before it even touches Photoshop. Since it's all being done in RAW and so selectively, I don't think there's a better way to spot edit while keeping as much detail as possible from the raw file. I've just got CS1 right now, and need to decide what I want to use. I like a lot of the PS features, but some are just not needed IMO. I'll probably pick it up though for the smart objects and way better raw handling. Not to mention the new browser. :)
I made the fatal mistake of downloading the demo of some software I can't afford and playing with it lol
I have to tell all you who process RAWs - I have tried LOTS of RAW processing tools. Some well known, some obscure, and there are some really good tools out there. Lightroom, Aperture, Photoshop - all excellent at processing RAWS but let me tell you that Capture One Pro is the daddy! I've been playing with it solidly for two days now and it's adjustments control and simplicity of use is just superb. The colour adjustment tools are the best I've used since Final Cut Studios Color application - and that used to be thousands of dollars.
The downside to using Capture One Pro is that its digital asset management is minimal (so you'll need to have a strict workflow on how you archive and store your files - most people do anyway) and that it's purely 110% a raw processing tool - nothing else. No image editing. No fancy mamby pamby filters and effects, pure raw processing and then export to the format you then want to work in.
The upside is that if you want what I believe to the best and most accurate reproduction from your raw with maximum control over the bits within the raw itself - this is the tool. It really is. I mean Nikons $100 Capture NX 2 is a superb raw processing tool, but I think Capture One Pro produces even better derivatives than it does.
If I had to give the application a mark out of 10 purely for raw processing then it would get an easy 9! It only loses one mark due to its price (which I think is a bit steep). However, you do get what you pay for here.
Damn. Haha...... and this bug has bitten you too!
Well I certainly cannot afford new apps right now or anything. BUT..... Ive heard good things about Capture One. Although some still swear by DPP for pure RAW processing to send to other apps such as PS or Aperture or LR for processing and output.
So Sparc, you'll use it as a converter to a 16-TIF file and then process it in Aperture or PS?
Damn. Haha...... and this bug has bitten you too!
Well I certainly cannot afford new apps right now or anything. BUT..... Ive heard good things about Capture One. Although some still swear by DPP for pure RAW processing to send to other apps such as PS or Aperture or LR for processing and output.
So Sparc, you'll use it as a converter to a 16-TIF file and then process it in Aperture or PS?I'll use it for the 30 day trial and then have fond memories of it after lol (unless I can convince the pro photographer I know who has two copies to sell me one for half-price :))
If I was keeping it I would definitely do all my raw processing in Capture One Pro and then export as an uncompressed TIF.
Sounds like what I might be doing... haha.
Man...... its boys with their toys. MONEY.
Okay. So the basic no-no's in photography are:
- don't shoot into the Sun
- Be aware of the dynamic range when framing
- Have a nice steady surface to shoot from for best sharpness
So I guess shooting out the window of a moving train directly into the sun in the middle of Summer with the entire left hand side of the frame in shadow...is probably not considered adhering to the spirit of the 'rules' lol However it makes for a cracking test for Capture One Pro - and what a great job it did to resolve my *cough* issues, while still allowing me to preserve contrast and remain noise free (in the shadows).
Colour me impressed (again)
If the image doesn't show then you can view it >>here (http://ourspaceonthenet.com/pickup/OutofTrainWindow.jpg)<<
http://ourspaceonthenet.com/pickup/OutofTrainWindow.jpg
I had seem a similar type "test" where the person had shot underwater at the subject and the sun coming through the water made a terrible looking flare up, but through DPP it looked normal and pretty acceptable, but through (can't remember the other apps tested) some of the other raw processors it looked pretty bad. RAW Processing can indeed make a difference, which is why most people use a specific RAW processor and then export a resized 16-TIF version... .... but I don't need to tell you that. Haha.
Raw 'processing' can make a difference for sure. I think a straight out of the camera raw immediately converted to TIF won't be different between applications as it's a straight forward, lossless conversion to a common format. It's the actual processing, i.e. when you start sliding controls within the tool to give your image punch, vibrancy, contrast and the such like where you really start seeing the differences.
Having said that, all the raw processing tools that I've used do a pretty good job. There maybe nuances between them but they are all pretty good. I've not used DPP but I have no doubt that it's more than capable.
Okay. So the basic no-no's in photography are:
- don't shoot into the Sun
- Be aware of the dynamic range when framing
- Have a nice steady surface to shoot from for best sharpness
So I guess shooting out the window of a moving train directly into the sun in the middle of Summer with the entire left hand side of the frame in shadow...is probably not considered adhering to the spirit of the 'rules' lol However it makes for a cracking test for Capture One Pro - and what a great job it did to resolve my *cough* issues, while still allowing me to preserve contrast and remain noise free (in the shadows).
Colour me impressed (again)
If the image doesn't show then you can view it >>here (http://ourspaceonthenet.com/pickup/OutofTrainWindow.jpg)<<
http://ourspaceonthenet.com/pickup/OutofTrainWindow.jpg
Nice! I think what might be fun is if we all get the same raw image, do our thing in the converter of our choice, and post the results. :)
Good idea.
To pick up the raw (using your favourite ftp client):
- log into ftp.ourspaceonthenet.com (user: anonymous@ourspaceonthenet.com, pwd: {anything you like})
- download _DSC1567.dng
I've converted it to DNG. Hopefully this can be read by most raw processing tools (although for Nikon's Capture NX 2 I will have to use the NEF I think).
I'll do it again in Capture One Pro from the DNG and keep it all in colour (want to be able to assess purple fringing in a shot like this I reckon). I can also process it in Capture NX 2.
Definitely a good idea. When I get my camera tomorrow I'll test this out with DPP.
Oh and do you guys think that when you convert RAW (without sharpening or touch ups) as is, to a 16-TIF that the "bullet has been dodged" in terms of RAW processing. What I mean is, assuming that whatever Raw Processor you use is better than the apps you use to touch up the image after its been converted, would converting to a TIF dodge the bullet of having to worry about RAW conversion qualities? As in... .is this THE conversion to get right.
I assume that all programs convert RAW differently, but would all of them convert a TIF to A JPEG (for web use) in the same fashion (ie: same quality)?
I can't imagine a straight convert (with no changes whatsoever) to a TIF would be different from application to application. Just like it doesn't matter which application you use to zip a file, it still compresses the same and still is lossless.
RAW to JPEG could be different between applications as that would depend more on what JPG encoder they used. It's a lossy compression and so the encoder plays a much more 'visible' role.
However, you never take a RAW and don't change something through the RAW processing tool. What would be the point? You may as well just shoot as TIF in the first place (which you can do btw). As soon as you start moving sliders then that's where the differences between the tools can creep in (imo) What you need to do is try them out with your camera and your image files and see which looks most pleasing to you. If you want why not post the same image to the forum here processed with different tools (but not labelled) and we'll give your our views on which one looks best.
I'll definitely be doing something just like that. Taking a picture with somewhat of a problem area, and one with none. RAW into DPP out to JPEG/TIF. And then RAW into Aperture 2 to JPEG and TIF. We can compare JPEGs to JPEGs and TIFs to TIFs.
We can also compare TIF->JPEG and TIF->JPEG.
I guess the reason is, I want to know which is best for quality, what is best to do in terms of workflow. I will adapt my workflow to best quality standards, not compromising.
Okay, here is my raw output using Adobe Camera Raw 5. Nothing was done in Photoshop. I have to say I really love what I've been seeing in Adobe RAW this last week. I did a lot of brushing on the exposure right in raw, and it shows the histogram right there to show what I'm doing to it. I do like the result of the lack of grain with my output on the right side. But it's interesting because the actual RAW setting for luminance noise was set to 0, or no noise reduction. I'm not sure if this is handling grain a bit cleaner from the get go or what.
http://i39.tinypic.com/10x6clg.jpg
Sparc
http://ourspaceonthenet.com/pickup/OutofTrainWindow.jpg
For anyone else doing this, the image width should be 960 pixels. I think there is a lot to be said about what Phase 1 is doing, and that they are doing a lot of things better than ACR 5.0. But I think my workflow with the selective editing right in RAW works better for me. Of course, I haven't processed say 100 images at a time with this, although I did do that with CS1 when I did a resort shoot. But I think since an upgrade to this Photoshop CS4 along side Adobe Camera RAW 5 will just cost me $200, I'll probably just go this route and not look back. This selectively brushing on exposure, contrast, saturation, sharpening and more with such a wide range of data (Doing it in RAW) I think pays off for me in the end result because I like to do this any ways with a lot of photos. Having to do this afterward out of RAW would result in a loss that way for sure.
I think what can be said, both will yield great results. Another thing is it's hard to judge based on a small sample like this. The best thing almost is to print both up at say 8x10 and see what looks cleaner and so on. Another thing that makes this hard is that I prefer a bit more contrasty image, so we're not really conclusively determining anything I suppose. Maybe I should try and match Sparcs image exactly and go from there. But I did this more for the fun of it. It's a great image to work with Sparc! Great eye. :)
For those interested in the selective editing features in Adobe RAW for CS4, this breaks it down nicely:
http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs4/cameraraw.htm
This will actually make it so for a lot of my photography, I won't have to go into Photoshop again. The process I had to go through before was creating various exposure versions of the one raw file, open them in Photoshop, and blend them using masks. Either that, or I was too lazy and made the tweaks with one version and ended up with more noise, banding, and so on.
If you wanted to test it out then I'd say just convert the RAW file plain and simple to a JPEG or TIF and try that to see any difference with no touch ups, both look good for different reasons right now, but they are also very different in terms of creative work done.
Reflex - converting straight from RAW to TIF or JPEG with no adjustments will show nothing imo. To test a raw processing tool you need to be doing what you will do when you process a RAW. No one will ever just do a straight conversion because there are adjustments which should really be done in the RAW processing tool before it's converted - such as moire reduction, elimination of purple fringing, better exposure handling, and so on. The quality of a tool will be in how it manipulates the bits within the RAW when you are making adjustments.
Skulpt - excellent work buddy. Definitely selective processing of RAW is a benefit and in fact Nikon's Capture NX 2 allows this too. Capture One Pro has tremendous control over exactly which tones in the image you alter and so this actually does work almost like a selective editing as you can really tie it down to a specific point in the image (moving the mouse over the pixel shows where in the histo that pixel is located - great for curves adjustments). The colour manipulation within Capture One Pro is really excellent as you can check a box to 'show selected color' which will desaturate all the colours in the image that won't be affected by your next colour adjustment - allowing you to fine tune the range. Very neat.
I think we should process the raw each and keep it in colour. I'll give mine a go later today/this evening.
Hmmmmmm I think thats how some people judge the basic output of a plain old RAW file. it seems to be what I've been reading on the internet anyway.
I'll be doing this (and my own test between DPP and Aperture 2) when I get my computer back and my camera tomorrow. Until I get my computer back I'll have to just use DPP to work on my stuff I shoot. I have a live band to shoot tomorrow night with my near gear.
Hmmmmmm I think thats how some people judge the basic output of a plain old RAW file. it seems to be what I've been reading on the internet anyway.
I'll be doing this (and my own test between DPP and Aperture 2) when I get my computer back and my camera tomorrow. Until I get my computer back I'll have to just use DPP to work on my stuff I shoot. I have a live band to shoot tomorrow night with my near gear.Well all they're testing is the TIF and JPG encoder :|
Can't wait to see the shots from the live band taken with the 5D! Good luck with getting to grips with your new camera before then lol
Yeah I'll have about 6 hours to get to know the camera... .which honestly isn't long enough, but I think I'll be ok. I think it will be a good test of high ISO abilities. Both zooms I have (getting) maintain their 2.8 across all focal lengths, so that helps a lot, but couple that with usable ISO images at 6400 and good quality images at 3200.... well.... who the hell knows!
As I said I will conduct a little test when I get my computer. Have you done this test or this thing with Aperture 2 yet?
(oh and when you buy the Aperture 2 update in the box, do you have to update to 2.1 or whatever through the web?)
Yeah I'll have about 6 hours to get to know the camera... .which honestly isn't long enough, but I think I'll be ok. I think it will be a good test of high ISO abilities. Both zooms I have (getting) maintain their 2.8 across all focal lengths, so that helps a lot, but couple that with usable ISO images at 6400 and good quality images at 3200.... well.... who the hell knows!Trust me....you are going to get GOOD images at 6400 with that camera, not just usable ones! I've been reading tons of reports and seeing articles and image samples from the 5D (I maybe a Nikon user but, like console gaming, I still love all the technology no matter who makes it) and the results are just stunning.
As I said I will conduct a little test when I get my computer. Have you done this test or this thing with Aperture 2 yet?
(oh and when you buy the Aperture 2 update in the box, do you have to update to 2.1 or whatever through the web?)I haven't but I will do later today. It won't take me too long as I really know Aperture 2.1 quite well. As for the update, your Mac should prompt you to do the Software Update (or you can force it from the Apple menu). It's possible though that you may have the latest version in the box. Check when you upgrade, it should be 2.1.2
(EDIT ISN"T WORKING AGAIN!)
Sparc, I've been reading about the RAW conversions, its seems that we were both right..... but take a look at the difference between simple RAW processing ... Aperture 1 on the right and Aperture 2 on the left:
http://media.arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture-2-review.media/31-aperture2vs11.jpg
Obviously you can alter things, but I've been reading for the last few days that there is indeed a difference in just pure processing into other formats.
But I've also been reading that the general consensus is that Aperture 2 is definitely a good program for conversion, where as it definitely did not used to be so good. The new RAW processor has been nice, or so they say.
It seems that Aperture 2's weak link is its sharpening and noise reduction hand in hand. The reviewer was saying that plug-ins are the thing to look for when compensating for this. NIK's anyone!? haha. A one stop shop for photos is nice.... maybe just going with Aperture 2 is best (with NIK's plugins of course).
Each review I read had strong points and weak points for each application. I wish there is 1 single app that blew them all out of the water haha.
*Note: These files are full res JPEG's - just in case you're on 56K*
Okay. I processed the image in both Capture One Pro and Aperture 2
Tell me which one you think is best in terms of quality
- look for noise in the shadows especially
- fringeing (that purple or green edge you get sometimes along edges)
- halos along high contrasting edges
I've used ONLY the adjustment tools within the application itself - no plug ins.
Note! Don't pay too much attention to the saturation levels. I tweaked it more in one tool than the other (only remembered after exporting an uploading)
Raw 1
http://ourspaceonthenet.com/Raw1.jpg
Raw 2
http://ourspaceonthenet.com/Raw2.jpg
I'll tell you which was done in which when you've selected the version which looks best to you :)
Hard to tell really, I like the 2nd image a bit more, but possibly because of the colors..... noise seems to be a bit better on the 2nd one. My laptop SUCKS, so judging on here is not the greatest.
I don't go in these parts but what the heck. I thought the 2nd image as more fuzzy or had more noise(same thing). So i would say the 1st image is better quality. Although personally i like the look of 2nd image more. To be honest im quite a noob when it comes to processing tools apart from photoshop. With all it fancy shmancy easy to apply effects. As opposed to these raw editing tools, and all these formats i have no idea about. I do like looking at the stuff you guys create tho. So i may just watch now.
Bayster, I agree that the first image shows less sign of noise. If you look to the left hand side of the Raw 2 image you can see how the lightening has introduced the speckled noise grain. The first image is a lot smoother, although looking at them now I suspect I didn't push the first one as much as I did the second. What I should probably have done is processed one and then took the same values and put them in the processing tool and see what the comparative images look like.
Ok. Here's mine. :)
http://www.adigitaldreamer.com/portfolios/train.jpg
It's a bit hard not knowing how the scene really looked like, what should be saturated, what shouldn't, but this is what I came up with. Not quite as sharp, but I also think a bit cleaner as well, which is usually what I go for. I also would probably sharpen for output a little differently depending on how big I wanted to print this. But this was a great image to work with, and really helped me learn more about ACR 5. Thanks for the image Sparc.
The fun thing about RAW is that it's a lot like developing film. You really do have the same kind of control. It's fun seeing how much you can retain details and higher dynamic range without sacrificing image quality in other areas. One of the challenges for me was the CA (color fringes around bright areas), and what that did for the edge as well as the effects sharpening had on it. I opted for a softer edge instead of sharpening.
That one looks nice too. I should have my compute back this weekend, I'll process this too.
That one looks nice too. I should have my compute back this weekend, I'll process this too.
I think it boils down to them all being somewhat comparable. I'd be shocked for example if there was one that did every aspect better than the competition. Some might be better at retrieving highlights and blown out areas. Another might have a less processed look for noise reduction. Another will do a better job with rendering certain colors. I'm not sure if there really is one out of these that would be a poor choice. They all are being used by people who make a living off of their work exclusively, and would probably all have different opinions about which one is best. :)
Yeah I tend to agree, especially after spending the last 2 weeks reading various forum topics, reviews, blogs, etc.