Don't use Capture One for the 645's RAWs!

**The Madshutter** · 04-09-2014, 11:44 PM

I am getting to grips with my new Pentax 645D, which I really like a lot in the field; getting back home, the problem is how to process these gorgeous files. I couldn't install the Pentax Silkypix thingy, probably because the included CD was too old to be compatible with OS X Mavericks. I am used to Capture One since my PhaseOne digital backs' days, I also used it happily with all my Leicas and for some Nikon jobs as well and I know it very well: so I decided to use it as a starting point for the 645D's DNGs.

Big mistake.

The files came out very blotchy, with an inordinate amount of CA/fringes that the software couldn't fix, and not just on the usual high-contrast & border areas where you'd expect it but everywhere in the image. At first, tending to trust Capture One's conversions, I started doubting the 645D and, especially, its lenses. The 25mm was the worst offender, which I attributed to being such a WA; the adapted 45mm 67 was better but still very very bad, which I attributed to being an old, 67 design; the 75mm A, 150mm A and 200mm A were better but still not great. It took me hours to clean manually all my keepers, and I was really very very close to give up on the whole system.

After doing some more research and thinking, not convinced that the gear could really be so terrible and not having found evidence to support such a thesis online, I decided to give Adobe ACR a try: not my first choice for a lot of the files & cameras I use, but a solid converter and sort of a standard. What a difference: the files came out very clean, no blotchy colours, the very little amount of CA present was gone with a click. The only partially bad thing is that ACR creates some interesting artefacts at pixel level, some sort of "2-to-4 pixel aggregations" that can be seen as more or less evident dots at 100%, and reveal themselves at 200% and up. You don't really see any of these at regular web magnifications, and they don't show up in prints unless you go real large, but they are there.

So, the bad news is that I started reprocessing all the keepers from the 645D I got so far, which will take me some time; once I'll have the images redone, I will expand this in a blog post including comparison images. The good news is that they aren't thousands yet, so it's still a manageable task, and - especially - that I am now comfortable with the results I get and I decided to happily going to keep and keep using the 645D.

So, if you have a 645D and are wondering what converter to use with it, just stay clear of PhaseOne's Capture One: ACR does a much better job.

Na Horuk · 04-10-2014, 04:01 AM

Maybe Phase One does this on purpose to give the advantage to their own MF cameras?

**The Madshutter** · 04-10-2014, 05:05 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Maybe Phase One does this on purpose to give the advantage to their own MF cameras?

Well, thinking that they'd deliberately sabotage Pentax would be a bit unfair - I think they just don't want to spend time and get out of their way to help a direct competitor, maybe...

Which speaks of the conflict of interests they are in, if you think that Phase is a software developer, after all, besides being a camera developer. In an ideal world, they'd keep the two division separate and out of conflict. In the real world, the software division choose not to develop any specific 645D profiles, letting C1 open the files as "generic DNG" with the horrible results that we all can see.

IMHO, if Phase is thinking that one would not buy a 645D and get a Phase camera instead JUST because C1 cannot open the 645D files would make Phase - well - as not very intelligent to say the least; in the meantime, they lose potential software sales to 645D owners. Again, these are people who, very likely, wouldn't change to Phase JUST to be able to use C1: on the other hand, selling software would be a way to introduce people to the brand and, eventually, generate camera sales - and if not, well, they'd have sold a copy of the software in the meantime anyway, which is better than nothing.

So, overall Phase is not coming out as really brilliant in this instance, is it?

rawr · 04-10-2014, 03:07 PM - **1 Like**

Capture One routinely has had issues with Pentax DNG's - from the K-3, K-5, K-x etc. C1 DNG colour profiles in particular have caused grief for many a user. There are lots of threads about it in these forums. Eventually they seem to deliver good DNG support, but often only after some prompting from users. It is disappointing to see that these sort of issues carry through all the way up to the 645D.

I wonder if Phase One has taken a 'short-cut' to profiling the 645D by merely renaming the K-5 colour profile as a 645D profile, similar to what they seem to have done with the K-3 colour profile in C1:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/256455-capture-one-7-2-1-s...ml#post2771225

**The Madshutter** · 04-10-2014, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Capture One routinely has had issues with Pentax DNG's - from the K-3, K-5, K-x etc. C1 DNG colour profiles in particular have caused grief for many a user. There are lots of threads about it in these forums. Eventually they seem to deliver good DNG support, but often only after some prompting from users. It is disappointing to see that these sort of issues carry through all the way up to the 645D.

I wonder if Phase One has taken a 'short-cut' to profiling the 645D by merely renaming the K-5 colour profile as a 645D profile, similar to what they seem to have done with the K-3 colour profile in C1:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/256455-capture-one-7-2-1-s...ml#post2771225

I see, I am fairly new to Pentax so i didn't know the whole support story, thank you for the info.

About the 645D, they actually do not have a profile for it, the files use their "generic DNG" profile which is likely why the results aren't so brilliant. I haven't tried any other Pentax profile, since the tech is so different (CCD vs CMOS, for one), but it might be worth a try. After working today all day on files and comparing conversions, I noticed that ACR's conversions are also sharper than C1, btw.

Bigvern1263 · 04-11-2014, 07:12 PM

Last thing i remember reading on this, was that there was no support for the D with C1, reason given was that it was a competitor ? to the phase i guess. Certainly on ability , but not price ;-) , Have used Adobe ACR for 3 years now with the D and does an awesome job, not seeing any of the CA issue you mention unless shooting real high contracts scenes into around the sun etc.. My 2 cents for all its worth ? maybe 5 cents ? have fun out there.

**The Madshutter** · 04-12-2014, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by Bigvern1263

Last thing i remember reading on this, was that there was no support for the D with C1, reason given was that it was a competitor ? to the phase i guess. Certainly on ability , but not price ;-) , Have used Adobe ACR for 3 years now with the D and does an awesome job, not seeing any of the CA issue you mention unless shooting real high contracts scenes into around the sun etc.. My 2 cents for all its worth ? maybe 5 cents ? have fun out there.

I see an exaggerate amount of CA with C1, not with ACR where, when a little is present, it's gone with a click.

ACR creates some weird pixel-level artefacts though, they look like groups of 2 to 4 pixels, white or red. Did you experience anything like this?

FrankC · 04-12-2014, 09:30 AM

So is ACR found in Photoshop and Lightroom the best solution to developing DNG files from the 645D? Is there any other type of software that does a better job of it? Does converting to B&W make a difference?

Bigvern1263 · 04-12-2014, 11:12 PM

@ Madshutter, If i do get any CA yes in ACR one click and it is away, no issues, not even worth losing a wink of sleep about. :-)
Also only time i see any weird artefacts,are at 200% zoom, i might see some red/blue pixels if doing a LE of a few minutes or more, even with dark frame being used, but again usually only visible at 100% or more, i do print a lot so ic heck on my LE prints, and i just fix up, might take 10-15 mins or more.. Nor sure much i can do about that.. ?

@Frank C, I only ever used Bridge/PS /ACR so sorry can't comment, this software does a great job, yes at a price, but i don't have time to research or try lists of free SW even if there is any, i doubt it would come close to what you get with PS… Only my opinion , right or wrong, i can't prove/disprove my statement.. :-)

**The Madshutter** · 04-20-2014, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Bigvern1263

@ Madshutter, If i do get any CA yes in ACR one click and it is away, no issues, not even worth losing a wink of sleep about. :-)
Also only time i see any weird artefacts,are at 200% zoom, i might see some red/blue pixels if doing a LE of a few minutes or more, even with dark frame being used, but again usually only visible at 100% or more, i do print a lot so ic heck on my LE prints, and i just fix up, might take 10-15 mins or more.. Nor sure much i can do about that.. ?

Exactly, I get these same artefacts from ACR when developing mostly LEs, and sometimes on normally exposed images as well; however, they are visible at 100% as well (as white dots, most of the times). The interesting thing is, developing RAWs with CaptureOne I don't get them - but then C1's general IQ is cr@p, so I'd rather deal with ACR's artefacts and keep using ACR...

FXT · 05-09-2014, 11:06 AM

As a Mac user, I use Aperture for developing Raw files from my 645D, and I am really happy with that (I have LR as well but I am more familiar with Aperture).
A PhaseOne official has represented in 2012:
We are an open platform software and support all manner of cameras.
Some, however, are not given permission for use in our software. Others are not possible for us to support without the manufactures assistance (ex, Fuji X-Pro1). If you would like to see support for this cameras files in Capture One, please request that Pentax contact us to expedite the possibility.
Camera's are not always left unsupported because of a lack of desire on our end but due to external forces that we cannot control.
See: Phase One and Leaf - Mamiya Official User to User Forum • View topic - Support for Pentax 645D

**Photodana** · 05-09-2014, 02:25 PM - **1 Like**

Isn't there som computr guyout there who could create af plug-in or somthing to make Capture One process 645D and K-3 Raw files. I really enjoy using Capture One 7 Pro. IMO the best RAW converter. I tried Liggtroom (since I'm a Adobe Creative Cloud subscriber), but LIgroom is really a pain in the a.. I eventually I ended up "converting" my K-3 JPEGs. I guess I'll be doing the same with my 645D RAW files :-( rEGARDS
JENS, PLANFOTO, DENMARK

Hakusan · 05-09-2014, 06:23 PM

I use ACR for my 645D files. C1 does not support Pentax files--they are a competitor.

donesteban · 05-13-2014, 09:44 AM

As a Mac user, Hasselblad Phocus is a very good choice, too, and it is for free. Just important to know: If the 645D is not within the cameras explicitely mentioned to be supported by the OS X libraries (almost always true before Maverics), you have to switch the 645D to DNG RAW format, it will not recognise the PEF. If on the opposite it is supported (like it is most likley if Maverics is installed), the it has to be put to PEF, the DNGs get bad colors be default and you have to do an etxra click on the colors and most likely on the brightness, too.

04-09-2014, 11:44 PM	#1
The Madshutter Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: San Ginesio Posts: 1,083	Don't use Capture One for the 645's RAWs! I am getting to grips with my new Pentax 645D, which I really like a lot in the field; getting back home, the problem is how to process these gorgeous files. I couldn't install the Pentax Silkypix thingy, probably because the included CD was too old to be compatible with OS X Mavericks. I am used to Capture One since my PhaseOne digital backs' days, I also used it happily with all my Leicas and for some Nikon jobs as well and I know it very well: so I decided to use it as a starting point for the 645D's DNGs. Big mistake. The files came out very blotchy, with an inordinate amount of CA/fringes that the software couldn't fix, and not just on the usual high-contrast & border areas where you'd expect it but everywhere in the image. At first, tending to trust Capture One's conversions, I started doubting the 645D and, especially, its lenses. The 25mm was the worst offender, which I attributed to being such a WA; the adapted 45mm 67 was better but still very very bad, which I attributed to being an old, 67 design; the 75mm A, 150mm A and 200mm A were better but still not great. It took me hours to clean manually all my keepers, and I was really very very close to give up on the whole system. After doing some more research and thinking, not convinced that the gear could really be so terrible and not having found evidence to support such a thesis online, I decided to give Adobe ACR a try: not my first choice for a lot of the files & cameras I use, but a solid converter and sort of a standard. What a difference: the files came out very clean, no blotchy colours, the very little amount of CA present was gone with a click. The only partially bad thing is that ACR creates some interesting artefacts at pixel level, some sort of "2-to-4 pixel aggregations" that can be seen as more or less evident dots at 100%, and reveal themselves at 200% and up. You don't really see any of these at regular web magnifications, and they don't show up in prints unless you go real large, but they are there. So, the bad news is that I started reprocessing all the keepers from the 645D I got so far, which will take me some time; once I'll have the images redone, I will expand this in a blog post including comparison images. The good news is that they aren't thousands yet, so it's still a manageable task, and - especially - that I am now comfortable with the results I get and I decided to happily going to keep and keep using the 645D. So, if you have a 645D and are wondering what converter to use with it, just stay clear of PhaseOne's Capture One: ACR does a much better job.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hartblei T/S for 645	andycogbill	Pentax Medium Format	71	05-07-2014 03:00 AM
Don't be sick of me...how's the Sigma 70-200?	northmole	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	03-30-2014 05:14 PM
Abstract You don't see many pics like this one.	stepmac	Photo Critique	6	03-16-2013 07:31 PM
Anyone ever use the zoerk T/S adapter for 645D?	Ryan Tischer	Pentax Medium Format	8	03-29-2012 10:22 PM
Black & White I Don't Shoot Flowers. Here's One.	nate_b	Post Your Photos!	6	07-22-2011 12:34 AM

04-10-2014, 04:01 AM	#2
Na Horuk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,183	Maybe Phase One does this on purpose to give the advantage to their own MF cameras?

04-10-2014, 05:05 AM - 1 Like	#3
The Madshutter Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: San Ginesio Posts: 1,083 Original Poster	Originally posted by Na Horuk Maybe Phase One does this on purpose to give the advantage to their own MF cameras? Well, thinking that they'd deliberately sabotage Pentax would be a bit unfair - I think they just don't want to spend time and get out of their way to help a direct competitor, maybe... Which speaks of the conflict of interests they are in, if you think that Phase is a software developer, after all, besides being a camera developer. In an ideal world, they'd keep the two division separate and out of conflict. In the real world, the software division choose not to develop any specific 645D profiles, letting C1 open the files as "generic DNG" with the horrible results that we all can see. IMHO, if Phase is thinking that one would not buy a 645D and get a Phase camera instead JUST because C1 cannot open the 645D files would make Phase - well - as not very intelligent to say the least; in the meantime, they lose potential software sales to 645D owners. Again, these are people who, very likely, wouldn't change to Phase JUST to be able to use C1: on the other hand, selling software would be a way to introduce people to the brand and, eventually, generate camera sales - and if not, well, they'd have sold a copy of the software in the meantime anyway, which is better than nothing. So, overall Phase is not coming out as really brilliant in this instance, is it?

04-10-2014, 03:07 PM - 1 Like	#4
rawr Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Capture One routinely has had issues with Pentax DNG's - from the K-3, K-5, K-x etc. C1 DNG colour profiles in particular have caused grief for many a user. There are lots of threads about it in these forums. Eventually they seem to deliver good DNG support, but often only after some prompting from users. It is disappointing to see that these sort of issues carry through all the way up to the 645D. I wonder if Phase One has taken a 'short-cut' to profiling the 645D by merely renaming the K-5 colour profile as a 645D profile, similar to what they seem to have done with the K-3 colour profile in C1: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/256455-capture-one-7-2-1-s...ml#post2771225

04-10-2014, 03:18 PM	#5
The Madshutter Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: San Ginesio Posts: 1,083 Original Poster	Originally posted by rawr Capture One routinely has had issues with Pentax DNG's - from the K-3, K-5, K-x etc. C1 DNG colour profiles in particular have caused grief for many a user. There are lots of threads about it in these forums. Eventually they seem to deliver good DNG support, but often only after some prompting from users. It is disappointing to see that these sort of issues carry through all the way up to the 645D. I wonder if Phase One has taken a 'short-cut' to profiling the 645D by merely renaming the K-5 colour profile as a 645D profile, similar to what they seem to have done with the K-3 colour profile in C1: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/256455-capture-one-7-2-1-s...ml#post2771225 I see, I am fairly new to Pentax so i didn't know the whole support story, thank you for the info. About the 645D, they actually do not have a profile for it, the files use their "generic DNG" profile which is likely why the results aren't so brilliant. I haven't tried any other Pentax profile, since the tech is so different (CCD vs CMOS, for one), but it might be worth a try. After working today all day on files and comparing conversions, I noticed that ACR's conversions are also sharper than C1, btw.

04-11-2014, 07:12 PM	#6
Bigvern1263 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: QLD 4165 Photos: Albums Posts: 67	Last thing i remember reading on this, was that there was no support for the D with C1, reason given was that it was a competitor ? to the phase i guess. Certainly on ability , but not price ;-) , Have used Adobe ACR for 3 years now with the D and does an awesome job, not seeing any of the CA issue you mention unless shooting real high contracts scenes into around the sun etc.. My 2 cents for all its worth ? maybe 5 cents ? have fun out there.

04-12-2014, 04:36 AM	#7
The Madshutter Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: San Ginesio Posts: 1,083 Original Poster	Originally posted by Bigvern1263 Last thing i remember reading on this, was that there was no support for the D with C1, reason given was that it was a competitor ? to the phase i guess. Certainly on ability , but not price ;-) , Have used Adobe ACR for 3 years now with the D and does an awesome job, not seeing any of the CA issue you mention unless shooting real high contracts scenes into around the sun etc.. My 2 cents for all its worth ? maybe 5 cents ? have fun out there. I see an exaggerate amount of CA with C1, not with ACR where, when a little is present, it's gone with a click. ACR creates some weird pixel-level artefacts though, they look like groups of 2 to 4 pixels, white or red. Did you experience anything like this?

04-12-2014, 09:30 AM	#8
FrankC Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 322	So is ACR found in Photoshop and Lightroom the best solution to developing DNG files from the 645D? Is there any other type of software that does a better job of it? Does converting to B&W make a difference?

04-12-2014, 11:12 PM	#9
Bigvern1263 Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: QLD 4165 Photos: Albums Posts: 67	@ Madshutter, If i do get any CA yes in ACR one click and it is away, no issues, not even worth losing a wink of sleep about. :-) Also only time i see any weird artefacts,are at 200% zoom, i might see some red/blue pixels if doing a LE of a few minutes or more, even with dark frame being used, but again usually only visible at 100% or more, i do print a lot so ic heck on my LE prints, and i just fix up, might take 10-15 mins or more.. Nor sure much i can do about that.. ? @Frank C, I only ever used Bridge/PS /ACR so sorry can't comment, this software does a great job, yes at a price, but i don't have time to research or try lists of free SW even if there is any, i doubt it would come close to what you get with PS… Only my opinion , right or wrong, i can't prove/disprove my statement.. :-)

04-20-2014, 11:37 PM	#10
The Madshutter Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: San Ginesio Posts: 1,083 Original Poster	Originally posted by Bigvern1263 @ Madshutter, If i do get any CA yes in ACR one click and it is away, no issues, not even worth losing a wink of sleep about. :-) Also only time i see any weird artefacts,are at 200% zoom, i might see some red/blue pixels if doing a LE of a few minutes or more, even with dark frame being used, but again usually only visible at 100% or more, i do print a lot so ic heck on my LE prints, and i just fix up, might take 10-15 mins or more.. Nor sure much i can do about that.. ? Exactly, I get these same artefacts from ACR when developing mostly LEs, and sometimes on normally exposed images as well; however, they are visible at 100% as well (as white dots, most of the times). The interesting thing is, developing RAWs with CaptureOne I don't get them - but then C1's general IQ is cr@p, so I'd rather deal with ACR's artefacts and keep using ACR...

05-09-2014, 11:06 AM	#11
FXT New Member Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 1	As a Mac user, I use Aperture for developing Raw files from my 645D, and I am really happy with that (I have LR as well but I am more familiar with Aperture). A PhaseOne official has represented in 2012: We are an open platform software and support all manner of cameras. Some, however, are not given permission for use in our software. Others are not possible for us to support without the manufactures assistance (ex, Fuji X-Pro1). If you would like to see support for this cameras files in Capture One, please request that Pentax contact us to expedite the possibility. Camera's are not always left unsupported because of a lack of desire on our end but due to external forces that we cannot control. See: Phase One and Leaf - Mamiya Official User to User Forum • View topic - Support for Pentax 645D

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-09-2014, 02:25 PM - 1 Like	#12
Photodana Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Greater Copenhagen Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 156	Isn't there som computr guyout there who could create af plug-in or somthing to make Capture One process 645D and K-3 Raw files. I really enjoy using Capture One 7 Pro. IMO the best RAW converter. I tried Liggtroom (since I'm a Adobe Creative Cloud subscriber), but LIgroom is really a pain in the a.. I eventually I ended up "converting" my K-3 JPEGs. I guess I'll be doing the same with my 645D RAW files :-( rEGARDS JENS, PLANFOTO, DENMARK

05-09-2014, 06:23 PM	#13
Hakusan Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Maine Posts: 51	I use ACR for my 645D files. C1 does not support Pentax files--they are a competitor.

05-13-2014, 09:44 AM	#14
donesteban Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 124	As a Mac user, Hasselblad Phocus is a very good choice, too, and it is for free. Just important to know: If the 645D is not within the cameras explicitely mentioned to be supported by the OS X libraries (almost always true before Maverics), you have to switch the 645D to DNG RAW format, it will not recognise the PEF. If on the opposite it is supported (like it is most likley if Maverics is installed), the it has to be put to PEF, the DNGs get bad colors be default and you have to do an etxra click on the colors and most likely on the brightness, too.