[TonyW]

Depending on camera Capture One applies input sharpening on raw files. You can modify this according your preferences. Since - I think - version 10, Capture One also supports output sharpening in export recipes. You can choose output sharpening for viewing on monitors and printing.

I believe that is so and the reason for my reference to it is that often I have heard mention of Capture One images being great SOOC and much sharper than LR, with the assumption being that this means it is a better converter. The truth being that it like other raw converters treat data slightly differently depending on the app. programmers preference of how an image should look and applying more sharpening as default seems to be the route taken by them.

[acoufap]

I believe that is so and the reason for my reference to it is that often I have heard mention of Capture One images being great SOOC and much sharper than LR, with the assumption being that this means it is a better converter. The truth being that it like other raw converters treat data slightly differently depending on the app. programmers preference of how an image should look and applying more sharpening as default seems to be the route taken by them.

I didn't read that about sharpening but color rendering.

In fact you can choose from different basic raw development characteristics like a camera icc profile, curve (auto, film standard, ..., linear response) and raw engine and set it as standard for a specific camera type. The standard configuration of Capture One ist very good IMO but often I reduce input sharpening. I'm not able to compare Capture One with Lightroom. Never owned Lightroom or worked with it. My former raw converter was Apple Aperture 3.

[Digitalis]

Also I'll point out that for commercial work re-touching artists prefer un-sharpened images because it makes editing processing images simpler and less destructive to IQ. Many publications I have worked with over the years have their own in house image retouching departments and in my experience none of them ever work with jpegs, it is always full 16 bit uncompressed formats with embedded colour management*.

default (as does Canon DPP?)

Depends on the Canon model you are shooting with. The higher up 1D models DPP doesn't sharpen anything at all**.


* Embedded colour management is what I use to give me an amor-plated embankment against a client complaining about colour mismatches. If the client is using the wrong profile - it's their fault. I have my own profiles for all my cameras,displays and common output media. Printing proofs also is a big help.
**At least that is how it used to behave. It has been years since I have used DPP, things could have changed since then.

[cmohr]

I normally sharpen the crap out of pics, for printing proposes, rip engines apply a certain amount of restriction to it as well. I have my jpeg setting in-camera sett all to highest.


I recently just ran camera direct jepgs, from my K-1 and old K-5 images thru an Indigo 10000 , output fit to page (750mm x 530mm) thru the indigo 10000 dfe rip, and the results were impressive. Honestly, impressive, I wasn't expecting such detail. better than pixel peeping, because you are forced to view the entire image in context, but sharper than your screen, to come out in the rendering at only 800dpi , and printing with litho screening 175lpi and only cmyk seps ( not using light cyan, light magenta or light grey - just the basics). Remember, screen bitmaps are one thing, when you rip and image for output to a device, it's a different story. All is governed by the output device, and the rip engine involved in printing.


The machine I used to print can produce 1750 sheets of paper (750 mm x 530mm) print cmyk both sides an hour, (my prints, one off's took about 2 seconds) digitally , with lithography That- for those who don't know, is an image , transferred to a rubber blanket, then transferred to the paper, one colour at a time ), that's , new old school tech, and as I said, what I just tried as a test, was crazy good. considering years ago , I was involved in producing limited edition Litho prints of photos and artworks , oh, the heartache I used to endue just to get the hue and colour right on limited editions 25 years ago........, I must admit. even when doing my one offs, I did play with the colour balance on press, now just a quick few clicks adjusting the output gain to screens, ie: 60% is now 64% and the gradient across the entire gamut is exponential , so many variables when printing, and I print 500 to 1500 kg of paper everyday.

[TonyW]

Great points

Also I'll point out that for commercial work re-touching artists prefer un-sharpened images because it makes editing processing images simpler and less destructive to IQ. Many publications I have worked with over the years have their own in house image retouching departments and in my experience none of them ever work with jpegs, it is always full 16 bit uncompressed formats with embedded colour management*.

Very good point. I prefer to receive raw images for retouching and if possible restoration work. Hate receiving JPEGS to work on and oversharpened TIFF which can take a lot of time to try and improve by removing halos.

Depends on the Canon model you are shooting with. The higher up 1D models DPP doesn't sharpen anything at all**.

Thanks for that, that is why I put a question mark against it. My experience of Canon and DPP fairly limited and quite by chance asked to look why LR not good against DPP sharpness only (cannot recall model but may have been one of the 5D incarnations). Found it very easy to equal with some changes to LR defaults and believe that the user felt that all images should appear this way out of converter SOOC!

* Embedded colour management is what I use to give me an amor-plated embankment against a client complaining about colour mismatches. If the client is using the wrong profile - it's their fault. I have my own profiles for all my cameras,displays and common output media. Printing proofs also is a big help.

I like this a lot

**At least that is how it used to behave. It has been years since I have used DPP, things could have changed since then.

I would guess that it has probably not changed too much. One thing it did very well from what I understand is correct lens aberrations (Canon lenses only) seemingly making some alterations that ACR/LR did not. I think this may have extended to actually sharpening edge an corner fall off at different apertures - I may be wrong on this memory but...

---------- Post added 12-22-17 at 09:40 AM ----------

I didn't read that about sharpening but color rendering.

In fact you can choose from different basic raw development characteristics like a camera icc profile, curve (auto, film standard, ..., linear response) and raw engine and set it as standard for a specific camera type. The standard configuration of Capture One ist very good IMO but often I reduce input sharpening. I'm not able to compare Capture One with Lightroom. Never owned Lightroom or worked with it. My former raw converter was Apple Aperture 3.

Yes both sharpening and colour rendering. I did compare some time ago and found the Capture One 'look' to be repeatable with all raw editors with a little work and presumably able to save this as a camera profile or preset. My results echoed those of Martin Evenings. Nothing implied in this about the capabilities of either converter
http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2...0One%20Pro.pdf

[cmohr]

Also I'll point out that for commercial work re-touching artists prefer un-sharpened images because it makes editing processing images simpler and less destructive to IQ. Many publications I have worked with over the years have their own in house image retouching departments and in my experience none of them ever work with jpegs, it is always full 16 bit uncompressed formats with embedded colour management*.



Depends on the Canon model you are shooting with. The higher up 1D models DPP doesn't sharpen anything at all**.


* Embedded colour management is what I use to give me an amor-plated embankment against a client complaining about colour mismatches. If the client is using the wrong profile - it's their fault. I have my own profiles for all my cameras,displays and common output media. Printing proofs also is a big help.
**At least that is how it used to behave. It has been years since I have used DPP, things could have changed since then.

Yes, this. proper agency's prefer raw only, they have more than capable "you" (no offence meant, but they know what they want more than you do about what they want...soooooooo......) files supplied in raw format are what they want, but..... offering your idea of how that image should be seen is also as valuable, pdf format is also good ( yes, you can supply a pdf photo. cmyk ready) , in cases, psd's retain how you see the image should be, but, they are paying for it, and they have control, soooooooooooooooooo....... ICC profiles at easily removed, trust me, I remove them, I always supply raw dng files, plus a high res jepg . as well, in static product shots. both raw and jepg , also with pixilshift, (blew their minds, actually said, not to give them 165meg files of chocolate sauce again, no-one wants 165meg files of chocolate sauce, no.........one....... ) from feedback, they use the camera jepgs for most of their work. all shot in consistent lighting studio conditions, on an horizionless background for simple deep etching.


Just ask your client what they want, raw, or.... pics, they can quickly work with.