Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Viewer, CaptureOne, and all that, again

Subject: Re: [OM] Viewer, CaptureOne, and all that, again
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:35:45 -0700
On 6/10/2010 7:20 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> That's exactly what I found, both Olympus and Canon DPP render more 
> pleasing/accurate color than ACR. For an image, color is the key not the 
> process, I don't mind the poor interface or what, only the results count.

I agree that it's the results that count. But I don't have the same 
experience you do.

I did get my free copy of Capture One, so I did a simple comparison. 
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/RAW_Convert/Raw_conv_MG_0021.htm>

No sharpening for web, nothing done but RAW conversion. I also turned on 
JPEG output, and the in-camera generated JPEG is indistinguishable from 
the DPP default, which is just as it should be.

It was early afternoon of a sunny day, but the marine layer hadn't gone 
far offshore, so there was a lot of moisture in the air. I had just been 
there, and I've been to that location many times, so I have an idea what 
the color should look like.

Canon's default isn't at all bad, but I would say the two ACR 
conversions are the closest to correct for my eye. If I process this for 
real, it will probably be somewhere between the two ACR WBs.

The Capture One default looks to me too flat or dull, primarily a matter 
of low saturation, I think. CO has camera profiles, and this is their 5D 
default. I wasn't much impressed.

On 6/14/2010 5:50 AM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> ...
>
> CaptureOne I just don't understand.  I really looked hard for the one or two 
> features that would put it over the top. ...  It seems like it excels in 
> situations where one has multiple images from the same setting at roughly the 
> same exposure.  Set up the recipe for one shot and batch the others.  But 
> they all do this, right?

I dunno. Like you, I very seldom do multiple shots that need just the 
same processing. When I do have a few, I just use the "Last Conversion" 
option in ACR. As often as not, I then tweak them anyway. Their 
introductory/promo video does indeed make a big deal of the mass preview 
processing options. Sounds great for many pro projects, but not of much 
interest to me.

> I guess I like the fact that it doesn't have a separate Library,

Somebody doesn't? I would hate that. I have my own directory structure 
for downloaded images and subsequent processed images.

> but it does put folders all over the place, to which I object somewhat,


Quite unprofessional programming, IMO. Messy, and I don't like it.

> although I could live with it if the result were truly better than the 
> alternative.
>
> It has the ability to use different color setups.  For example, I can use the 
> generic E-3 setup for the E-3, and the result looks just about exactly the 
> same as the result coming out of Studio.  Bravo for that.
>    

Certainly better than what I got with 5D.

> Or I could select ACR or the setup for the E-1.  If anyone likes ACR,it is 
> available.

Except it doesn't look like what I get from ACR, no matter what CO may 
call it..

> I guess one could experiment endlessly with using E-1 or other profiles with 
> the E-3.  Haven't tried Canaan color yet, but I guess one could try that too.
>    

Seems like it would be better to find one that's close, tweak it and 
save it as your own profile.

> Within the color dialogues there is the ability to adopt different versions 
> of the color to approximate the characteristics of film.  The default seems 
> to be "film standard" and there is an exaggerated
> version of this as well as a thinner version.  There is also "linear." Film 
> standard, the default, seems best to my eyes, or at least the one that 
> matches Studio best.  It is perhaps within these color dialogue settings that 
> CaptureOne achieves its superiority, but it all seems like a pig in a poke to 
> me.
>    

Not doing much for me yet, either.

> Naturally, PhaseOne, Lightroom, even Studio want to be the place where you do 
> all of your image management.  I am a tough customer because I just want to 
> bring the image into Photoshop the best it can be and without harm for final 
> tweaks.

Amen.

> I might be tempted to finish up with Capture One because it integrates 
> highlight/shadow adjustment, noise
> reduction, and sharpening very nicely into the process.  But so does LR, no?  
> Also Studio?  The problem for me is that Capture One (and the rest too) 
> doesn't do any of these things as well as dedicated
> products, particularly noise reduction and highlight/shadowing rendering.

I suppose they are all afraid that another company that makes an all in 
one solution will kill them off if they don't do everything, too. Adobe 
has been adding to ACR all sorts of functions that used to be in PS, and 
are now in both places, although not necessarily quite the same. They 
created Bridge, but it's big and mysterious enough that in CS5 they've 
added a mini thumbnail browser. I assume Capture One's acquisition of 
Expression Media is because they perceive their existing image 
management to be insufficient to convince pros to do it all with them.

Personally, I prefer stand alone apps to do each separate function. Sort 
of like with the all-in-one scanner-printer-fax-whatever. If any one 
function fails, all are lost. With separates, I can replace/upgrade just 
the part needed at any time.

> The tools are sufficient if the need is modest, but in those cases I probably 
> wouldn't bother.  The highlight/shadow tool in my very old version of PS is 
> so much more subtle in use and effect.
>    

CS5 is supposed to improve it further.

> If the problem were worth the attention, I simply wouldn't use CaptureOne as 
> my tool, knowing that there are better tools for the purpose.  It ends up 
> being a set of pointless features for me.  Why include them if they are not 
> top drawer?
>    


'Cause that's all they got at the time and they need to sell product to 
stay alive. Even the all purpose tool of all, PS, doesn't do some 
important things as well as separate plug-ins, such as NR, resizing, 
sharpening and distortion correction. Yeah, I know, lens profiles in 
CS5, but so far, it looks like a lot of sound and fury that isn't as 
good as PTLens.

> But in fairness, I don't fault Studio for including such tools.  But apples 
> for apples, CaptureOne doesn't improve on Studio for me in terms of any 
> feature I would take home to mama.
>    

I can't see yet how it's an improvement over ACR, for my needs.

> I am hoping someone can help me understand better how to get more out of 
> CaptureOne.  I've bought it now, so I guess I'll keep it around, but it's a 
> blue Monday of buyer's remorse.  Maybe that free thingie
> that comes along with it will cheer me up.
>    

Let me know. I've tried starting image management with Expression Media 
a couple of times and it feels a lot like jumping into the deep end with 
my hands tied behind my back. I'm sure it can do the job well, but the 
learning curve for me has kept me back. The huge backlog of images to 
process is a big part of the problem.

Moose
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz