[Oakland Rob]

For oly the profiles Adobe used were not good. I've compared side by side two raws with no processing done, in Olympus software and in lr, and color was quite different even with use of lr profiles. One from Olympus app had more natural look closer to what you see in the back of the camera. I haven't used Pentax silky pix thing, so I don't know how it processes Pentax raws. But I personally like c1 color and detail over lr.

Which profiles? I think vivid was a bit morr vivid with the Lr profile than in Oly's software with my E-M5II, but it's very very hard to tell the difference on my sRBG monitors, And I assume by "no processing" you mean default settings except for switching from Adobe Standard to the Camera Vivid, Muted or other camera profiles (since Oly's software doesn't have a "standard" or more neutral setting as Lr does). What versions of software and ORFs you using? I hadn't compared recently since I always use my own profiles, or DxOs.

The Pentax S*itty Pix is just so horrible to use it's hard to assess with Pentax DNGs or PEFs. But it also doesn't do a more neutral like Adobe Standard, and the other modes are rather heavy handed, like most camera manufacturers. They all seem to aim for recreating OOC JPEGs, which is fine.

I tend to view these like using different films; each has a sort of default look. I prefer the most neutral I can get so of course I end up sort of biased towards Adobe, but it also makes it easier if you use a lot of presets (like VSCOs) and want consistency across cameras. Again, I kinda wish Phase One had made plugins for Lr, instead of going with the DAM they bought (I kinda forgot its lineage), but there are more than enough alternatives now.

[awscreo]

Which profiles? I think vivid was a bit morr vivid with the Lr profile than in Oly's software with my E-M5II, but it's very very hard to tell the difference on my sRBG monitors, And I assume by "no processing" you mean default settings except for switching from Adobe Standard to the Camera Vivid, Muted or other camera profiles (since Oly's software doesn't have a "standard" or more neutral setting as Lr does). What versions of software and ORFs you using? I hadn't compared recently since I always use my own profiles, or DxOs.

The Pentax S*itty Pix is just so horrible to use it's hard to assess with Pentax DNGs or PEFs. But it also doesn't do a more neutral like Adobe Standard, and the other modes are rather heavy handed, like most camera manufacturers. They all seem to aim for recreating OOC JPEGs, which is fine.

I tend to view these like using different films; each has a sort of default look. I prefer the most neutral I can get so of course I end up sort of biased towards Adobe, but it also makes it easier if you use a lot of presets (like VSCOs) and want consistency across cameras. Again, I kinda wish Phase One had made plugins for Lr, instead of going with the DAM they bought (I kinda forgot its lineage), but there are more than enough alternatives now.

I'll need to dig up the comparison pics I produced, since i've moved to pentax system I've archived my oly images in the backup drive. I'll post to illustrate when I find them. I was shooting EM1. By no processing I mean putting files into oly app and LR respectively, and comparing results (in LR i'd only switch camera profile to neutral). Image in oly app had a balanced natural color, in LR same file had a warmer tint and strange colors in shadows, which I guess could be fixed, but even they could be, it's an extra step. I adapted a Oly app > export tiff > finish processing in Lr/Photoshop workflow, which was cumbersome, but produced better looking results for me personally.

[emalvick]

I tend to view these like using different films; each has a sort of default look. I prefer the most neutral I can get so of course I end up sort of biased towards Adobe, but it also makes it easier if you use a lot of presets (like VSCOs) and want consistency across cameras. Again, I kinda wish Phase One had made plugins for Lr, instead of going with the DAM they bought (I kinda forgot its lineage), but there are more than enough alternatives now.

This is very spot on with regard to the "look" aspect. I think that's why LR never bothered me much (or any of the software) because the look they give you is usually just a starting point.

As for Phase One, can a user just create their own export settings to get it over to Phase One? I'm guessing it isn't that easy because of the way the software works, but it would seem doable. I actually think that complication with IMatch, which I use for my catalog, is part of why I ended up with DxO instead of Capture One when I initiated a switch from using Lightroom/ACR for raw processing.

My own issue with LR outside of others I've discussed is that I've never been able to create a default preset that works well for me. Auto-tone always over-exposes and causes clipping for me and a look that is just too bright. I know how to get what I want from that point, but it usually involves backing off the exposure about a half-stop off of what the auto selects. Unfortunately, LR provides no means of making adjustments relative; they are either absolute (i.e. a specific value) or fully automatic. It's almost like I wish there was an ability to dial in exposure compensation like I do in the camera. DxO on the other hand has defaults that are quite close to what I want. And, like LR, doesn't over do it on the vibrance or saturation at the start.

[Class A]

Unfortunately, LR provides no means of making adjustments relative;

Any adjustments you do in the Library module are relative.

If you, for example, need to bump up the exposure of a bunch photos that already have exposure adjustments by one stop, select all photos you want to affect and make the "+1" change in the Library module.

As for Phase One, can a user just create their own export settings to get it over to Phase One?

What do you mean by "get it over to Phase One"?

C1 allows a lot export settings to be done but I don't think there is a publishing service (to Flickr, etc.), if that is what you mean.

[Rondec]

I can't tell much about Capture 1 as I played with it briefly a few years ago, but that was it.

I am really familiar with Lightroom -- used version 3 to the present 6. It does pretty well and isn't hard to use. With a computer with decent speed, I don't notice issues with it slowing down or having issues like that. As far as color profiles, I don't use the Adobe standard ones, but purchase the Huelight ones which seem to be quite a bit better. Nik Effects from Google is a free photo suite that I use some as well -- I will do initial tweaks to an image -- bump shadows a little, crop, etc then send to Color Efex Pro for sharpening, add contrast, or maybe a graduated digital ND filter and then back to Lightroom for finishing touches.

In the end, I think all of these programs work fine. The thing is to create presets within the program that give you the results you want and develop a work flow that works for you. Learning short cut keys helps too -- they really can speed things up rather than using a mouse to click on things.

Good luck!

[awscreo]

I can't tell much about Capture 1 as I played with it briefly a few years ago, but that was it.

I am really familiar with Lightroom -- used version 3 to the present 6. It does pretty well and isn't hard to use. With a computer with decent speed, I don't notice issues with it slowing down or having issues like that. As far as color profiles, I don't use the Adobe standard ones, but purchase the Huelight ones which seem to be quite a bit better. Nik Effects from Google is a free photo suite that I use some as well -- I will do initial tweaks to an image -- bump shadows a little, crop, etc then send to Color Efex Pro for sharpening, add contrast, or maybe a graduated digital ND filter and then back to Lightroom for finishing touches.

In the end, I think all of these programs work fine. The thing is to create presets within the program that give you the results you want and develop a work flow that works for you. Learning short cut keys helps too -- they really can speed things up rather than using a mouse to click on things.

Good luck!

How do you like huelight profiles? I've never heard of them, are they closer to real colors that adobe's own k-1 profiles (meaning their natural, landscape, portrait etc)?

[Rondec]

How do you like huelight profiles? I've never heard of them, are they closer to real colors that adobe's own k-1 profiles (meaning their natural, landscape, portrait etc)?

I have been very pleased with them. Adobe only has two profiles for every camera -- "embedded" and "adobe standard," both of which are pretty lousy. The Huelight standard profile really seems to do better, landscape seems to have a little higher contrast and deeper blacks, while the portrait seems to have a little less contrast and not as deep blacks. I think it was 15 dollars for them and I thought it was money well spent.

[awscreo]

I have been very pleased with them. Adobe only has two profiles for every camera -- "embedded" and "adobe standard," both of which are pretty lousy. The Huelight standard profile really seems to do better, landscape seems to have a little higher contrast and deeper blacks, while the portrait seems to have a little less contrast and not as deep blacks. I think it was 15 dollars for them and I thought it was money well spent.

Hmm, adobe shows 6 profiles for my K-1 - Standard, Camera Natural, Camera Bright, Camera Vibrant, Camera Landscape, Camera Portrait. That's in lightroom, but I think ACR would be the same as they share profiles.

[Rondec]

Hmm, adobe shows 6 profiles for my K-1 - Standard, Camera Natural, Camera Bright, Camera Vibrant, Camera Landscape, Camera Portrait. That's in lightroom, but I think ACR would be the same as they share profiles.

I haven't really looked at those -- I just got Lightroom 6 a couple of weeks ago, so not sure how those compare. They weren't really present in Lightroom 5.

[Winder]

How do you like huelight profiles? I've never heard of them, are they closer to real colors that adobe's own k-1 profiles (meaning their natural, landscape, portrait etc)?

I used Huelight profiles on my K-3. I can't say they really made much of an improvement. I ended up with an X-Right Color Passport and I create my own profiles.. Best option if you are working with skin tones.

[Oakland Rob]

Yeah, if Adobe supports your RAW it has lots of profiles per camera. For my Pentax bodies it's five of them; I also make my own. And again, the "standard" is designed to be lousy. Or blank or neutral, if you prefer. I only use my own, or standard if I'm using a camera I haven't made profiles for. There are separate profiles for the Oly bodies I've used as well. In fact, for every camera body that produces RAW that I've ever owned. If you only have standard and embedded then you're maybe using JPEG? they only make sense in RAW use. Or your camera isn't support; iPhone RAW DNGs, eg, only show embedded, standard and one other.

[emalvick]

Any adjustments you do in the Library module are relative.

If you, for example, need to bump up the exposure of a bunch photos that already have exposure adjustments by one stop, select all photos you want to affect and make the "+1" change in the Library module.

I'm talking with respect to presets. I find that my ideal would usually be a preset that (1) uses the auto-tone setting and then (2) backs the exposure off by about 0.2 stops from where the auto-tone puts it. That can't be done in a preset as far as I can see.

What do you mean by "get it over to Phase One"?

C1 allows a lot export settings to be done but I don't think there is a publishing service (to Flickr, etc.), if that is what you mean.

I mean in terms of just exporting a photo from Lightroom (or any Dam) into Capture One for processing. It's actually the same problem one would have when working with Lightroom from somewhere else. You can't just open a file without taking some steps to import it. And, it would be convenient if Capture One would have created an export plugin for LR so that people using LR's catalog could export a photo to Capture One for processing. I would think that any software that wants to gain users would make any attempt they can to draw Adobe users away from their software. That's all.

[Oakland Rob]

I'm talking with respect to presets. I find that my ideal would usually be a preset that (1) uses the auto-tone setting and then (2) backs the exposure off by about 0.2 stops from where the auto-tone puts it. That can't be done in a preset as far as I can see.



I mean in terms of just exporting a photo from Lightroom (or any Dam) into Capture One for processing. It's actually the same problem one would have when working with Lightroom from somewhere else. You can't just open a file without taking some steps to import it. And, it would be convenient if Capture One would have created an export plugin for LR so that people using LR's catalog could export a photo to Capture One for processing. I would think that any software that wants to gain users would make any attempt they can to draw Adobe users away from their software. That's all.

I think I see now. Since "autotone" will adjust differently for each photo it analyzes, you want those values, but just say x amount less exposure on each. Use this plugin then: Relative adjustment

I had the same problem with C1; I got C1 Express just cuz I liked what it was doing with some of my RAW. But they dumped it soon after I bought it. Both C1 and Lr can reference the same file. C1 is kinda in competition with Adobe, but that might explain why they use their own way of doing things. Other Lr competitors like Mylio accommodate Lr and Ps since they are such standards. Maybe your observation is a reason to avoid C1; it is for me.

[Class A]

And, it would be convenient if Capture One would have created an export plugin for LR so that people using LR's catalog could export a photo to Capture One for processing.

C1 can import LR catalogues.

I tried it once and it didn't work in my case. Perhaps my catalogue format was too old (LR 3.6). In principle, it should work, though with most basic adjustments being supported.

If you want to export an image from LR to be used in C1, why don't you just export to the TIFF format for instance?

At least C1 has the "session" workflow next to the "catalogue" workflow that should make using an image in C1 a more lightweight process than doing a full import.

Overall, though, I don't see LR and C1 being used in conjunction. Yes, C1 has much better colour editing and more local adjustment choices, but if you are leaving LR anyway then why not to something like PS that has better retouching support than C1 and LR combined?

[emalvick]

I think I see now. Since "autotone" will adjust differently for each photo it analyzes, you want those values, but just say x amount less exposure on each. Use this plugin then: Relative adjustment

I had the same problem with C1; I got C1 Express just cuz I liked what it was doing with some of my RAW. But they dumped it soon after I bought it. Both C1 and Lr can reference the same file. C1 is kinda in competition with Adobe, but that might explain why they use their own way of doing things. Other Lr competitors like Mylio accommodate Lr and Ps since they are such standards. Maybe your observation is a reason to avoid C1; it is for me.

Thanks for the link... and yes that is essentially what I want to do.

As I said, I haven't really tried C1 (last I tried was probably version 7). Part of the reason I'm using DxO a lot more is that I don't need the relative adjustments, or rather, DxO's auto-adjustments are right where I'd want them. LR tends to over-brighten things; i.e. I always feel it adjusts the exposure and whites too high.

So, if I were to ever go to C1, and I probably won't, I'd expect the auto-adjustments to be at least as good as DxO's.

---------- Post added 10-10-2016 at 07:50 AM ----------

C1 can import LR catalogues.

I tried it once and it didn't work in my case. Perhaps my catalogue format was too old (LR 3.6). In principle, it should work, though with most basic adjustments being supported.

If you want to export an image from LR to be used in C1, why don't you just export to the TIFF format for instance?

At least C1 has the "session" workflow next to the "catalogue" workflow that should make using an image in C1 a more lightweight process than doing a full import.

Overall, though, I don't see LR and C1 being used in conjunction. Yes, C1 has much better colour editing and more local adjustment choices, but if you are leaving LR anyway then why not to something like PS that has better retouching support than C1 and LR combined?

The fact that I would need a whole new catalog is why I am not trying C1. In reality, I catalog my photos with IMatch as it has better features for my workflow. My only dislike is that software like LR and C1 make it difficult to just process a handful of photos. C1 does have a leg up with its Sessions, but the sessions do make a bit of a mess with the creation of sub-folders and sidecar files that I wasn't able to wrap my head around. Part of the reason I test and now use DxO is that (1) they made a plug-in to get photos from LR, which was great when I started transitioning and (2) it is really easy to work straight to DxO from IMatch.

As far as I can see DxO is also competing with LR, but they recognize that (1) people are already invested in LR for a catalog feature and (2) that the best way to grab customers is to make it easy for people to get at the software from their competitor. My comment was really that C1 could make it easy on LR users to ease them in. I can see where they wouldn't also, but from a business standpoint, they might be missing out. Generally, people are conservative about things like this and are going to be hesitant to jump from one software to another for cataloging and processing.

As for why people might use LR and C1, it would strictly be that they have a working catalog in LR but want something different for post-processing. It isn't so much that they might edit in LR and then in C1. Again, having to shift a whole catalog to another software just to use a RAW developer is part of the problem with the models used by LR and C1. All catalog software has its differences, and I doubt that any is going to make a clean conversion that will just work.

I suppose the cleanest thing would be to work with Bridge/ACR/and PhotoShop, but for my use, the cleanest thing is going to be to leave LR completely and likely never to try C1. I'll be curious to see how On1's software works as it seems to have a lot of features that might make it like the Bridge/ACR/Photoshop route since it has no real catalog. I guess I'll see.