Capture One

<p>Has anyone here switched from Photoshop to Capture One? Your thoughts?</p>

<p>I actually use both. IMHO Photoshop has more features.....Capture One is great for nominal editing.</p>

<p>CaptureOne is like Lightroom, if one would want to compare. I much like CaptureOne (haven't used version 7 yet), as its UI is quite clean and straightforward in my view, and it's fast. Good quality RAW conversion for the cameras I use.<br>

But it's not a pixel-editor as Photoshop - it lacks features in that comparison. In the same way Photoshop is less optimised for handling large quantities of RAW conversions in little time. Different horses for different courses.</p>

<p>Capture One isn't a "replacement" for Photoshop, Stanley - they're very different beasts.</p>

<p>Keith, I know that they are different. I've used Photoshop since Ver 5.5, however I seldom do anything with it anymore other than convert my RAW files, and make adjustments, saving as tif and/or jpg. I will be upgrading my camera from a D200 soon, and I'm not sure that I want the expense of jumping through the hoops to upgrade my Photoshop to CS6 (and future versions via subscriptions) from CS5, which I now have (and will probably keep). So, I'm out checking out the landscape. Thanks Stephen, Wouter and Keith.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Keith, I know that they are different.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair enough Stanley, but the question you asked about <em>replacing</em> one with the other suggests that you thought they were "of a kind". Even if you use Photoshop only as a Raw converter, there are still things that Photoshop can do that Capture One can't and vice versa.</p>

<p>Phase One allows a generous 60 day trial period for Capture One, so - as is usually the case with questions like this - giving it a try is your best bet, to see whether <em>for you</em> it could replace Photoshop.</p>

<p>It doesn't for me, and as of Capture One 7 I'm pretty much done with the software (having been an enthusiastic user since release 3) because of obtuse changes by Phase One to well-established workflow processes; performance issues; generally buggy code; ongoing image quality problems; and - to be blunt - an apparent change in Phase One's attitude to its customer base which has alienated more than just me.</p>

<p>If you're looking for a new converter to go with your upcoming new camera, I find myself recommending DxO Optics Pro 8 more and more - I'm really warming to the inherent high quality of its conversions, and its ability to get things right, very often, without any user input.</p>

<p>I'd also seriously suggest Photo Ninja by Picturecode: this is a converter with a real, unique look to its conversions, and I flip-flop between it and DxO Optics (I probably <em>just</em> favour Photo Ninja, because I do like its "just a converter" design model).<br /> <br /> But as of beta release 1.1.0 it comes with a Photoshop plugin that allows Photo Ninja to be called from within Photoshop as a direct functional alternative to ACR. This - if you like how Photo Ninja does its thing - might be the perfect solution for you.</p>

<p>Oh, and I should of course point out that it you like the results you're getting now, Stanley, Lightroom 4 would be something of a no-brainer - it's the third of my regularly-used converters, and I don't have a bad thing to say about it. </p>

<p>Stanley, if you're only using Nikon RAW files, then CaptureNX2 is worth the shot too - for me it still has the edge in quality of the conversions. It's interface is a bit quirky, but it fits me well. 95% of what I do is only CaptureNX2 (the remaining 5% split between CaptureOne and some Photoshop).<br>

What Keith points out about CaptureOne 7, I do not know - as said, I'm still on version 6 (Express), and that works fine for me. The tip about trial versions is the best one, I think - User interfaces are a bit a personal preference, so best to find out for yourself what works for you, and what not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What Keith points out about CaptureOne 7, I do not know - as said, I'm still on version 6 (Express), and that works fine for me.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Wouter. There's a couple of perfectly good examples of Phase One's arbitrary buggering about with established workflow options in the difference between 6 Express and 7 Express (which as an aside, we had to drag, kicking and screaming, out of Phase One).</p>

<p>In 6, "developing" (exporting) a conversion is a simple case (in Windows) of pressing Ctrl + D. In 7, this keystroke option is gone, and instead every conversion requires entering an Export dialogue, selecting the "Export Variants" option from a drop-down and activating the option - much, <em>much</em> slower workflow. And in 7, conversions of my Canon 7D files to full-sized 16 bit tiff take <em>up to 45 seconds - </em>more than twice the time 6 takes.</p>

<p>You can't use sessions and your operating system's file browser functionality to navigate to your images in Express now either: instead every file you want to convert needs to be imported into a catalogue, Lightroom-style: one of the things I particularly liked about 6 and its predecessors was that I <em>didn't need</em> to import files into catalogues.</p>

<p>And about IQ: despite Phase One's claims that Capture One 7 has an all-new, best-in-class processing engine, it still generates ugly, detail-damaging "chequerboard" artefacts, especially at higher ISOs, something that some of those of us who are (or were) active on the Phase One forums have railed against for a <em>long</em> time.</p>

<p>Thanks, again, for your input. I realize that changing my editing software will mean going through yet another learning curve, and maybe changes to how I store and file my images, depending upon how files are saved, exported, or whatever the semantics used by the vendor.<br /><br />In Photoshop, edited NEF files are saved with a sidecar file (.xmp). I decided to convert the NEF ‘s to DNG’s, which reduced the size of the file and eliminated 1/3 of the files (clutter) on my hard drives. It still allows me to revert back to the original state, if I want to rework. (I will continue to use Photoshop for my occasional graphic work.)<br /><br />Lightroom, from what I’ve been told, requires the files to be imported before they can be edited, and the changes are stored in a central database rather than with the file. That’s great for search and retrieval, but it sounds like I can’t just move an edited RAW file somewhere else and retain the edits. I’ve also had bad experiences with corrupted database files, and even if backups are available, you almost always lose something.<br /><br />It seems that Capture One claims that the RAW edits are non destructive, but I don’t know how much trouble it is to get back to the original.<br /><br />I could go to Photoshop Elements, which uses the same RAW converter (ACR) that is used by Photoshop and Lightroom.<br /><br />I am also aware of Bibble (now Corel Aftershot Pro), ACDSee RAW editor, Picture Window and Gimp – all unknowns.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lightroom, from what I’ve been told, requires the files to be imported before they can be edited, and the changes are stored in a central database rather than with the file.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The latter part of this is not true. The import process simply logs them into the database. However, you can have Lightroom use xmp sidecars. You can also convert image files to DNGs.</p>

<p>Jeff, that is good to hear. What I stated is what I read in a forum by someone who claimed that he couldn't edit the files without importing them, and the advice that he was given. These kind of things is why I started this discussion. Thanks.</p>

<p>Stanley, once the files are in the Lightroom catalogue - a one-time only process - they'll be readily available in Lightroom subsequently (assuming the user doesn't delete them or move them around <em>outside</em> of Lightroom) for how ever many re-edits you wish to apply.</p>

<p>But - for clarity - you <em>do</em> need to import them that first time so that Lightroom can "see" them (record them in the database) and make them available to the user in-progam. This is a <em>necessity</em> of using Lightroom (and, now, of using Capture One 7 Express).</p>

<p>Keith, thanks, appreciated that feedback - saves me considering spending any money on the upgrade to CaptureOne 7... sounds like a good few steps back!</p>

<p>There <em>are</em> IQ improvements in Capture One 7, Wouter - highlight recovery is much improved, and it is better than it was at higher ISOs (although Lightroom 4 and DxO Optics Pro 8 still outperform it there, in my experience): you might love it though, so - again - I'd suggest giving it trial.</p>

<p>Keith, based upon your comments, I looked up the DXO website and read about DxO Optic Pro 8. Can you tell me which file formats it will read/process and which it will write? Presently I have thousands of RAW files in the DNG format.</p>

<p>Sorry for the delay in replying, Stanley.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, DxO Optics Pro does not support DNG apart from files from those bodies that have an in-camera DNG option.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am also aware of Bibble (now Corel Aftershot Pro), ACDSee RAW editor, Picture Window and Gimp – all unknowns.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>AfterShot Pro is - in my experience, having owned a copy since its release, and having previously been a Bibble user for years - <em>utterly awful</em>: it's buggy (show-stopping image quality-destroying bugs I raised <em>more than five years ago</em> during the Bibble days still remain unfixed); gimmicky; with terrible IQ (including far and away the worst highlight handling of any commercial converter I've ever tested - and as far as I can figure, the only one I haven't tried is Aperture, which is Mac only).</p>

<p>In addition, a key selling point - built-in Noise Ninja - is finished, because Picture Code has pulled the plug on the licencing arrangement. As far as anyone can figure, Corel has essentially abandoned AfterShot Pro - which is no loss.</p>

<p>No DNG support, either.</p>

<p>ACDSee, in its latest incarnation, is actually <em>pretty damn' good - </em>it has long been well known as an effective file organisation (DAM) tool. and the latest release has really raised the game in image quality terms. I'm properly impressed with the new version.</p>

<p>Picture Window Pro <em>is </em>a possible alternative to Photoshop - it's a pixel editor with a lot of clout and some unique features. It also has Raw conversion capability, but I really don't like its conversions.</p>

<p>Even so, people who use it seem to <em>love</em> it - even with its <em>pug-ugly</em> Windows 95-style interface..!</p>

<p>The Gimp? Can't beat the price, but the interface is just too quirky and unintuitive for me - it actively <em>gets in the way</em>, in my experience.</p>

<p>It has some - arguably pretty big - limitations as a pixel editor, such as no 16 bit processing, poor noise reduction (and, not supporting Photoshop plugins, I can't use my favourite Topaz DeNoise solution); its Raw conversion is DCRaw-based (nothing wrong with that - many converters are) via the <a href="http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/">UFRaw</a> plugin, which provides a decent GUI for DCRaw, but (as UFRaw's author freely admits) it's relatively feature poor: highlight recovery for example is still essentially non-existent, which in itself would be a deal-breaker for me even if the other Gimp issues above didn't exist.</p>

<p>Another application that might be worth checking out is <a href="http://www.pl32.com/">PhotoLine</a> - this is a really nice, useful, effective little program and there's not much it can't do. Nice interface, too.</p>

<p>Keith, thanks again for your insight. I'm narrowing the editors that I plan to test via the trial downloads. I just got finished upgrading the photo codec for Windows (Microsoft and Adobe codec). I can view all of my file types except for the D7100 NEF files. I tried the Nikon codec which is supposed to allow viewing of the D7100 NEF files, but it caused Windows Explorer to crash, and I had to uninstall it. In fact, during the installation, they had a read-me file with weasel words that said that any NEF file that had the EXIF camera model changed, or any NEF file that had been edited and saved from Nikon View NX might not be viewable. This doesn't make me want to use Nikon software. Thanks, again.</p>