LR vs Capture1 for a7rii - help needed, c1 looks sharper

[OlHeath]

I have tried various combinations of direct raw from LR, c1, importing tiffs from C1 and Sony into LR, both plain and with sharpening in LR, and it seems to me:

 

plain raws and tiffs are sharpest from Sony Image Data Converter (IDC)

Plain raws/tiffs from C1 are about the same as LR with no effects applied to either

Raws/tiffs from C1 with sharpening are superior to LR with sharpening, and also,

Raws/tiffs from C1 sharpened are superior to C1 tiffs sharpened in LR.

 

Annoyingly, Sony seems the best raw converter (no surprise).

And C1 clearly has much better sharpening/noise control compared to LR, at least for Sony files. Its really quite a bit difference. With LR i am getting speckles all over my pics, hazy speckles. C1 just cleans them out, images look much nicer.

 

On LR, i am struggling to push sharpening past 40 without unwanted artifacts, and thats with some masking. Anyone managing to push them further?

 

I really dont want to switch to C1, but will have to.

[drasko2015]

my conclusion so far from my testing:

 

LR gives you more Details out of the shadows, see my testpictures on flickr but has more noise https://www.flickr.com/photos/stojaphotography/20690741502/in/photostream/

 

capture one: less details in the shadows but better noise controll without even adding denoising and "better"  or more accurate? color

 

sharpening: 99% i´m not sharpening my pictures at all

 

Summery: Lightroom is much more convenient, with one slider for shadow detail its much easier to controll than you would have to process in capture one to get similiar result

 

so for me capture one is not a choice right now, color and denoising, further nik effects can be added to the picture if needed in lightroom or if you want the denoising from capture one: export the file from lightroom and denoise it in capture one

[OlHeath]

Just downloaded DxO pro, trial version, didnt recognise camera really but accepted TIFF files. From first impressions compared side by side, DxO is cleaner than LR, but not as clean, or as sharp, as C1. Maybe that will change once they have a full profile for the camera.

[alastc]

Something I noticed in the A7R2 manual was that setting the camera to the Adobe RGB colour space would result in "washed out" colours in software that doesn't support it.

 

I need to test this, but I set my A7S to that (without knowing about this) and did get washed out colours, and don't in the A7R2 without that setting.

 

You would have thought am Adobe product would understand the Adobe colour space, hey ho.

[alastc]

Just downloaded DxO pro, trial version, didnt recognise camera really but accepted TIFF files...Maybe that will change once they have a full profile for the camera.

I've used DXO for a long time, and unless it recognises the camera you won't get much benefit, except perhaps different sliders from LR.

 

Give it a try when they have an A7R2 profile, you will probably notice due to the news reports about the A7R2's DXO mark score ;-)

[Singingsnapper]

Something I noticed in the A7R2 manual was that setting the camera to the Adobe RGB colour space would result in "washed out" colours in software that doesn't support it.

 

I need to test this, but I set my A7S to that (without knowing about this) and did get washed out colours, and don't in the A7R2 without that setting.

 

You would have thought am Adobe product would understand the Adobe colour space, hey ho.

Or maybe it's that Sony don't understand Adobe colour space?

[Christo25]

I use both LR and C1 and have done for years as a professional photographer. I have been to quite a few training sessions with the Phase One guys over the years and I think that the attitude in the industry that C1 is more professional than LR is put about by them and then picked up and carried by everyone else without much side by side testing. Admittedly LR1 and LR2 were a bit of a joke in my opinion as they created some awful edge effects when using highlight or shadow adjustments and so I had them on my machine but stuck with C1 version 3 at the time. I think that the fact that C1 of course comes free with every Phase One back ( I previousley owned an H20 then a P30 back ) you will see a lot of pros using C1 and never bothering to learn LR as it means going through that awful clumsy period in front of your client where you aren't sure of where every tool is! Again, this is just my opinion, but I think they are both now great pieces of software with both having their strengths and weaknesses. Shooting tethered with a Sony camera to LR via the Sony Remote Camera Control software and a watched folder is a bit of a joke really so I prefer the Capture One for tethered shoots. Ultimately my biggest gripe with Adobe is their subscription package. Ok so it isn't much per month but I just prefer to buy the software outright, not rent it!

[seb]

Both are capable to process your wishes. Both processing tools are great. Any (realistic) processing you made in LR you can do in C1 and the other way around.

LR pros: catalogue handling, taging, search functions, contrast

LR cons: algorithms that are going too far (eg. hot pixels, sharpening). If I go to the limit, I'll have to check the whole picture in detail afterwards, if there isn't any overprocessing.

C1 pros: color handling, every functions works well and smooth for the whole picture.

C1 cons: Workflow (Maybe I'm still not used to very well)

 

Over the years catalogue handling may be worth more. But I still try C1 atm.

[christer]

.........

 

Over the years catalogue handling may be worth more. But I still try C1 atm.

.........

 

You are probably right.

 

I have both LR and C1 and I generally work with C1. My filing system is entirely independent of what software I use, but then I am not a professional shooting 1000s of pictures a week.

 

---

https://500px.com/Nix-Pix/sets