# Lightroom vs. Capture One



## climber (Jul 22, 2014)

Here I found an interesting article, where the author praise Capture One over Lightroom as a RAW converter. He wrote that the colours appear more natural and representative of the original scene. And that the images are sharper at the beginning, straight out of camera (without any adjustments).

See the article here: https://fstoppers.com/originals/lightroom-or-capture-one-which-raw-processor-best-24769


Has any of you similar experience?


----------



## scottburgess (Jul 22, 2014)

Interesting review, and thanks for sharing! I would like to know more about this, too... Capture One appears to be somewhat oriented toward fashion and product photographers, so I would be particularly interested in nature photographers' comparisons with Lightroom.


----------



## danski0224 (Jul 22, 2014)

I prefer the Capture 1 output over Lightroom for flower pictures.

I'm certainly no pro with post processing stuff, but the C1 looks nicer right out of the box. This doesn't mean that you can't get there with Lightroom.

Edited to add: From a hobbyist point of view, DPP sure seems to do a damn fine job at processing Canon images. If the image is good/close out of the camera, just a couple of quick clicks does the trick. As much as I may hate to admit it, the "auto" and "auto +" do a damn fine job of recovering underexposed images. I haven't tried 4.0 yet. 

DPP is free- added bonus.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 22, 2014)

climber said:


> Here I found an interesting article, where the author praise Capture One over Lightroom as a RAW converter. He wrote that the colours appear more natural and representative of the original scene. And that the images are sharper at the beginning, straight out of camera (without any adjustments).
> 
> See the article here: https://fstoppers.com/originals/lightroom-or-capture-one-which-raw-processor-best-24769
> 
> ...



I've tried Capture one, DXO, DPP, and even ACDC Pro. Each renders a image slightly differently, and its a matter of personal preference. 

I did not like Capture One at all. DXO had poor face tones. DPP and Lightroom, while different were acceptable. I've forgot how ACDSEE Looked, I have not used it for over a year.

It really is personal preference, so give them a comparison and see which you like best. It is often true that they will do a better job on certain subjects as well, one might excel at landscapes, while another might be better at portraits, so pick the one that works for you. I wanted to like the new DXO, but so far, its been a disappointment, and my trial is almost over. Be sure to test export times, and the look of exported jpegs, as well as prints. All those things are variables.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 22, 2014)

I use light room for most of my work. 99% of the time it's fine. BUT every time I want to get the best out of an image I go straight to capture 1. I like the images it produces and have been using it for about 2 years now.

DPR also produces better images than lightroom IMHO and of course it's free 

BUT lightroom is a great database for photos, with an in built raw converter. I find I'm using plugins more and more with lightroom, but for those few special images, for me, it's capture 1 followed by photoshop every time.


----------



## hsbn (Jul 23, 2014)

climber said:


> Here I found an interesting article, where the author praise Capture One over Lightroom as a RAW converter. He wrote that the colours appear more natural and representative of the original scene. And that the images are sharper at the beginning, straight out of camera (without any adjustments).
> 
> See the article here: https://fstoppers.com/originals/lightroom-or-capture-one-which-raw-processor-best-24769
> 
> ...


I always find straight out of the camera comparison kind of bias. Each software has its own default settings, some may apply more sharpening than other. Also Lightroom can use custom-profile to get accurate color.
I want to see comparison where expert in Lightroom and experts in other software working on the same photo from start to finish. Then comparing the final products to see which one is better.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 23, 2014)

hsbn said:


> climber said:
> 
> 
> > Here I found an interesting article, where the author praise Capture One over Lightroom as a RAW converter. He wrote that the colours appear more natural and representative of the original scene. And that the images are sharper at the beginning, straight out of camera (without any adjustments).
> ...



While its true that you can tinker with images in the software to get what you like, its also a good point that some software renders a nicer image with default settings.

Of course, with a different camera model, the results might vary, so its again something that should be tried before buying. Phase One is said to do a super job with the high MP Nikon D8XX series.


----------



## Danielle (Jul 23, 2014)

Until this year I've been using Lightroom extensively. I've now completely switched over to Capture One pro 7.

Why? Personally I find the results are just better and that bit counts. Some tools Capture One has like the colour correction tool (huge one), tethering tools and even the clarity/details sliders are a light year ahead of Adobe in my opinion. That said, I completely agree Capture One is built for commercial photographers. But that said, any photographer of any genre can obviously use it. It's a very very different program, Adobe Lightroom I'd suggest is much more user friendly to the casual's out there, costs less money too! 

Without going into any real depths, those interested would pick up there's a free 30 day trial. Either program can create stunning results, it's a personal and potentially logistical choice for some. That's my view.


----------



## climber (Jul 29, 2014)

If someone is interested in Capture One, below is a video about the basics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6KqYfjVt50&feature=em-uploademail


----------



## canonvoir (Aug 11, 2014)

With the Aperture BS Apple has pulled I decided to try out a few alternates. I purchased a year license to the photography package from Adobe (LR and PS) because it is the closest to Aperture in terms of using my NIK plugins, etc. So far, the Auto Enhance in Aperture is great, but in LR not so much. All that aside, I am sure I will get better with the adjustment.

Capture One seemed nice but it definitely has a studio feel. Not my thing.

I am struggling with DxO Options Pro Elite (crazy they charge based on camera body) and I like the RAW conversion and the Essential Tools section. If you shoot raw, this is a real winner. What frustrates about DxO is the lack of watermarking (which I hear is coming soon), brush/localized corrections and lack of plugins. I don't need another step in my workflow but if you want to get the best out of a RAW, DxO is hard to beat (especially if you don't want to use PS). 

I will still utilize Aperture the remainder of this year for paid projects as I decide on which path I am going to take.


----------



## LDS (Aug 12, 2014)

climber said:


> He wrote that the colours appear more natural and representative of the original scene. And that the images are sharper at the beginning, straight out of camera (without any adjustments).


That depends on the kind of pre-processing the software applies to RAW images when you open them. A RAW image *can't* be displayed without some kind of pre-processing - what in LR is in the "Process Version". In LR you can use both camera profiles and import presets to tailor the initial image to your tastes. For example you can match one of the camera RAW processes selecting it from Camera Calibration -> Profile.

LR default profiles are pretty conservative, AFAIK, and don't try to render a "good" image from start, because it can't know what is good for you, your specific camera, and for a given image.

I wouldn't judge a RAW editing tool from its initial display of a RAW images, especially if this can be calibrated as you like. Other are the factors about choosing one software or another.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 16, 2014)

When I upgraded to LR5, I had issues with the "out of camera" look. This was especially true for 6D files. 

I kid you not when massive amounts of color information was missing. The images looked pale. They were sharp, but something was wrong. I was getting better results in DPP and other RAW programs.

To fix this, I needed to choose "Camera Standard" in the develop module, not Adobe Standard (which my copies of LR always defaulted to). It never used to be this way for me, but it is now.

I'll post a couple examples later. Perhaps this is why C-1 may look better to some people now. 

I'm a huge LR fan, so encountering this was frustrating.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 16, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> When I upgraded to LR5, I had issues with the "out of camera" look. This was especially true for 6D files.
> 
> I kid you not when massive amounts of color information was missing. The images looked pale. They were sharp, but something was wrong. I was getting better results in DPP and other RAW programs.
> 
> ...



You can default Lightroom to any look you like, and can make it specific to camera model, serial number, or camera / lens combination. It will apply the processing as it opens the images depending on your settings. 

The biggest issue with Lightroom is that users often just try to learn as they go, and miss some of the features. Its really worth the trouble to purchase a book and work entirely through it.


----------



## LDS (Aug 16, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The biggest issue with Lightroom is that users often just try to learn as they go, and miss some of the features. Its really worth the trouble to purchase a book and work entirely through it.



+1

In his book "The Digital Negative - RAW image processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw and Photoshop", Jeff Schewe writes:

"If you fell in love with the way your image looked when you chimped the LCD on the back of the camera, this first look in Lightroom or Camera Raw might be disappointing. Neither Lightroom nor Camera Raw uses the camera-maker’s software development kit (SDK) for rendering the digital negative, so expecting the preview to look like the camera LCD is unreasonable. When he was designing the rendering engine, Thomas Knoll made a conscious decision not to try to match the camera companies’ “looks” but, instead, to present you with a reasonable and normalized preview of your image." 

In LR 5 camera profiles allows to match the camera "look".

IMHO among the best books about LR is Martin Evening's "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Book - The complete Guide for Photographers", it's not a light read, but it is comprehensive and really explains how LR works (and why).


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 16, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > When I upgraded to LR5, I had issues with the "out of camera" look. This was especially true for 6D files.
> ...




Right. I've been using it since Version 1. But this was the first time the Adobe Standard just really messed up the image. Before it was variations on a theme. This just ruined the color information.

An interesting bug that popped up in LR5.

I love Lightroom and use it for everything. I find the IQ to be outstanding and well suited to nature photography. I prefer "the look" to DPP, which IMHO smooths out to many details.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 16, 2014)

climber said:


> He wrote that the colours appear more natural and representative of the original scene.



He's unequivocally wrong about that.

Christian Greuner - one of Phase One's staff and a regular contributor to the Phase One/Capture One forum - is on record on numerous occasions to confirm that Capture One's profiles are explicitly intended to be _pleasing_ rather than accurate.

I use Lr and Capture One, and agree entirely with this - and I tend to _prefer_ Capture One's colours myself, but it's not because they're more accurate.

Capture One renders microdetail better than Lr, but Lr's highlight recovery is better than Capture One's: they're both better than Optics Pro in this latter regard (by a country mile - this is true of their respective "shadows" tools too), but Optics Pro has its own qualities to recommend it, such as its lens correction tool and its NR (PRIME is peerless, although Capture One is the equal of Optics Pro's "standard" NR, which is high praise for Capture One).

One thing I like about Optics Pro is the ability explicitly to select Bicubic Sharper as the output resizing algorithm: this is usually enough on its own to produce a splendidly sharp image without any USM or lens correction sharpening applied - it seems to work better than resizing with Bicubic Sharper in Photoshop.

Back to Capture One, a little trick which has real value is to apply a small amount of the "Structure" slider in the Clarity Panel (with the method set to "Punch") - it adds a very worthwhile but subtle amount of extra sharpening that can't really be obtained with the standard USM. 

Until recently I would have put Lr's NR above Capture One's, but with recent releases of both, I'd definitely give the nod to Capture One.

All told it's currently my go-to converter, but I tend to flip-flop between it and Photo Ninja, with Lr and Optics Pro played in as mood and necessity dictate; but if/when Picturecode ever gets its version 1.2.3b out of pre-release, with the bug fixes and highlight recovery improvements they've told me are in the offing, it'll probably go back to the top of the pile, because I really like the "just a converter" design model, and Photo Ninja does that one job phenomenally well - and cleverly, too boot, with much of its intelligence hidden from user view...


----------



## MonkeyB (Aug 17, 2014)

shooting with a 6D, i do not like LR5's emulation of my camera sensor's RAW data. DPP4 does it much better. have not tried C1 yet, but maybe will check it out.


----------



## pwp (Aug 18, 2014)

It's probably a case of horses for courses. Some time ago I went through a breathtakingly time wasting process of deep testing every known RAW converter on the planet, including the dreaded Silkypix which I just got a new license for with my Panasonic GH4 (now my go-to camera for video...bye-bye Canon).

What an ultimately flawed process! Yes, they all have certain stand-out qualities, wildly varying workflow efficiencies and equally varying impact on the Visa card. At the end of it all I went with the King of Workflow, Adobe Lightroom and now use nothing else, except occasionally Adobe Camera Raw which uses exactly the same engine anyway. In later versions of Photoshop there is the very cool option of opening any image up in Camera Raw with a keyboard shortcut. Useful!

It probably doesn't matter which RAW converter you use provided you're comfortable with it and it suits your workflow and budget. 

Bottom line is that _It's All About the Image!_ A fabulous shot will look fabulous if it's shot on an iPhone and a boring shot will still look boring even if it's shot on a 5D3 or a Hasselblad. Don't forget what Einstein, Aristotle and Leonaro Da Vinci all said: Content is King.

-pw


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 18, 2014)

pwp said:


> Don't forget what Einstein, Aristotle and Leonaro Da Vinci all said: Content is King.



Far be it for me to argue with such luminaries, but it's only half the story: given that the content will be the same regardless of converter, why would anyone not want to get _the best possible rendition_ of that content? 

In other words, great content and great image quality trumps great content that looks like crap, and "_it's all about the image_" comfortably accommodates "_image quality_" as a relevant parameter.


----------



## LDS (Aug 18, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> why would anyone not want to get _the best possible rendition_ of that content?



Can you measure it - the "best possible rendition" - using a scientific method, or it is just a matter of personal tastes in selecting parameters with a tool or another?

IMHO Schewe is right when it calls a RAW file a "digital negative". From it you can produce different images depending on what you want from it. Is there a tool that produces the "best result always"? I don't think so.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 18, 2014)

MonkeyB said:


> shooting with a 6D, i do not like LR5's emulation of my camera sensor's RAW data. DPP4 does it much better. have not tried C1 yet, but maybe will check it out.



Try Camera Standard as the default profile.


----------

