#7747049 - 06/24/14 12:16 PM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: Duc]
|
GSParker
GSParker
Unregistered
|
Never used it but have seen how different software changes the outcome of a photo with "similar" settings. This is just one reason why I just don't like RAW photos because if you dont' have the software calibrated properly you'll just get shitty results from the beginning.
And yes, it's laziness too.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7753622 - 06/29/14 04:07 AM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: ]
|
Nate047
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 03/03/03
Posts: 28558
Loc: La La Land, CA
|
I use C1 sometimes, it's buggy and the interface sucks, but the end results are really good. Generally speaking C1 recovers highlights more smoothly than ACR in my experience. I don't use it that often though because the actual act of using the software is like jerking off with sandpaper. I've used C1 with Canon, Nikon, and Phase files. All of them come out beautifully, it's the process of getting there that makes me want to jump off a bridge. Especially if you have to capture tethered with anything but a Phase system, good luck lol.
Never used it but have seen how different software changes the outcome of a photo with "similar" settings. This is just one reason why I just don't like RAW photos because if you dont' have the software calibrated properly you'll just get shitty results from the beginning.
And yes, it's laziness too.
You need to edit your photos by how they look, not by a setting number that you engrained into your brain once upon a time as being "right." Or, keep doing the same shit over and over and never make forward progress.
Nate
Edited by Nate047 (06/29/14 04:09 AM)
_________________________
natehasslerphoto.comFlickrFacebook"Nate047 > NateSTL" - TenTwelve "As long as I have a face, you'll always have a place to sit." - SlowBlackCar *insert picture of stock Fit here*
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7753938 - 06/29/14 03:40 PM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: Nate047]
|
GSParker
GSParker
Unregistered
|
I use C1 sometimes, it's buggy and the interface sucks, but the end results are really good. Generally speaking C1 recovers highlights more smoothly than ACR in my experience. I don't use it that often though because the actual act of using the software is like jerking off with sandpaper. I've used C1 with Canon, Nikon, and Phase files. All of them come out beautifully, it's the process of getting there that makes me want to jump off a bridge. Especially if you have to capture tethered with anything but a Phase system, good luck lol. Never used it but have seen how different software changes the outcome of a photo with "similar" settings. This is just one reason why I just don't like RAW photos because if you dont' have the software calibrated properly you'll just get shitty results from the beginning.
And yes, it's laziness too. You need to edit your photos by how they look, not by a setting number that you engrained into your brain once upon a time as being "right." Or, keep doing the same shit over and over and never make forward progress. Nate I knew you were going to respond that way.
My issue is that I need to figure out what needs to be done to keep my imported RAW images into LR from being "pre-processed" by whatever LR or Camera Raw does because every time I have, the reds go crazy oversaturated and i'm unable to achieve that look I got when reviewing in-camera vs. what is being done in LR/photoshop.
Yes, laziness, but then again, I have NEVER gone to the lengths of editing a photo like you have, especially when you did your HDR of the lexus. In your world, that matters. In my world, it doesn't. I like learning about it, but if every photo I took needed that kind of detail, i'd stop taking photos.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7754856 - 06/30/14 12:03 PM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: NOT spotch...]
|
GSParker
GSParker
Unregistered
|
Do you shoot canon? DPP will match your raws to your in camera jpgs and let you start editing from there iirc. Nikon.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7755233 - 06/30/14 04:24 PM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: NOT spotch...]
|
GSParker
GSParker
Unregistered
|
I honestly don't know...never knew anything existed for Canon either.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7755336 - 06/30/14 05:31 PM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: ]
|
chef
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 04/27/00
Posts: 23758
Loc: The OC
|
It used to be made by Nik, but then they changed to something else after Google acquired Nik. I've not used either of the versions.
_________________________
Why choose mac? "Well, huh, might as, might as well ask why is a tree good? Why is the sunset good? Why are boobs good?" RRLSi "put that money into a new imac damn it. it's the bomb" jsmonet "This all fuckin' day. Feel the 900MB/sec of glory. It's like a digital money shot all over your face." RRLSi Order my photo prints (New files uploaded)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7757857 - 07/02/14 09:19 AM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: ]
|
NOT spotch...
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 07/25/00
Posts: 57155
|
I honestly don't know...never knew anything existed for Canon either.
The canon one doesn't seem to be used by many "pros" but there are some on forums etc that swear by it. The best thing I think it has going for it is that it's the only one that can make your raw files match your in-camera's-settings-created jpgs. I haven't had time to learn it though, so until now I just use cs6.
_________________________
"On the street where there is no lap timer, feel is all that matters" - scootergeek "A bunch of nerdy douchebags chasing a ghost." -Ob1 on bitcoin
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7758613 - 07/02/14 02:18 PM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: ]
|
Nate047
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 03/03/03
Posts: 28558
Loc: La La Land, CA
|
I use C1 sometimes, it's buggy and the interface sucks, but the end results are really good. Generally speaking C1 recovers highlights more smoothly than ACR in my experience. I don't use it that often though because the actual act of using the software is like jerking off with sandpaper. I've used C1 with Canon, Nikon, and Phase files. All of them come out beautifully, it's the process of getting there that makes me want to jump off a bridge. Especially if you have to capture tethered with anything but a Phase system, good luck lol. Never used it but have seen how different software changes the outcome of a photo with "similar" settings. This is just one reason why I just don't like RAW photos because if you dont' have the software calibrated properly you'll just get shitty results from the beginning.
And yes, it's laziness too. You need to edit your photos by how they look, not by a setting number that you engrained into your brain once upon a time as being "right." Or, keep doing the same shit over and over and never make forward progress. Nate I knew you were going to respond that way. My issue is that I need to figure out what needs to be done to keep my imported RAW images into LR from being "pre-processed" by whatever LR or Camera Raw does because every time I have, the reds go crazy oversaturated and i'm unable to achieve that look I got when reviewing in-camera vs. what is being done in LR/photoshop. Yes, laziness, but then again, I have NEVER gone to the lengths of editing a photo like you have, especially when you did your HDR of the lexus. In your world, that matters. In my world, it doesn't. I like learning about it, but if every photo I took needed that kind of detail, i'd stop taking photos.
You probably have some sort of "picture style" set on your camera or something like that. JPEG previews on the back of the camera are not actual previews of the RAW images, so that's why they don't look the same, which I'm sure you knew. No matter on what level or with what intent you are shooting, you still need to manipulate your images in some way or another most of the time. The RAW file is supposed to be "flat" and full of data, and then you manipulate it in different ways to get what you want. Doesn't have to take forever, for example that Lexus HDR you mentioned took about 5 minutes, half of which was time the computer spent saving the images.
CN: don't be lazy
Nate
_________________________
natehasslerphoto.comFlickrFacebook"Nate047 > NateSTL" - TenTwelve "As long as I have a face, you'll always have a place to sit." - SlowBlackCar *insert picture of stock Fit here*
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7758787 - 07/02/14 03:43 PM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: Nate047]
|
GSParker
GSParker
Unregistered
|
You probably have some sort of "picture style" set on your camera or something like that. JPEG previews on the back of the camera are not actual previews of the RAW images, so that's why they don't look the same, which I'm sure you knew. No matter on what level or with what intent you are shooting, you still need to manipulate your images in some way or another most of the time. The RAW file is supposed to be "flat" and full of data, and then you manipulate it in different ways to get what you want. Doesn't have to take forever, for example that Lexus HDR you mentioned took about 5 minutes, half of which was time the computer spent saving the images. CN: don't be lazy Nate I'll double check, but I generally don't have any styles setup on my camera. No dynamic anything, no NR, etc. I leave the settings flat because I was looking to use it for light video and they generally say to leave everything flat.
The problem isn't that the RAW photos are flat, it's that when I import them into LR, they are adjusted when I review the file. Red saturation skyrocket and blacks go extremely black. If it is flat, what is causing it to start adjusting? This leads me to believe LR is doing something upon import, but I haven't found out what that is.
And generally, I do have to manipulate all photos I take but I have never had issues editing a JPEG to my liking. Not once have I wished "man, if i would have shot this in RAW, I could have saved it".
I know people love to harp on this, and in some worlds it's normal. But for me, for my general enjoyment out of photography, JPEG works great.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7758899 - 07/02/14 05:14 PM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: ]
|
Nate047
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 03/03/03
Posts: 28558
Loc: La La Land, CA
|
LR has an option to set import presets, you may have one of those going on. I dunno man. All I hear here is laziness and refusal to try super simple stuff in the interest of making better images. Soooo, if that's how you feel than more power to ya, lol.
Nate
_________________________
natehasslerphoto.comFlickrFacebook"Nate047 > NateSTL" - TenTwelve "As long as I have a face, you'll always have a place to sit." - SlowBlackCar *insert picture of stock Fit here*
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7759975 - 07/03/14 01:01 PM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: Nate047]
|
GSParker
GSParker
Unregistered
|
If I have that going on, I didn't set it. The software is pretty much default except for the panels I have showing/hidden. But that's what i'm trying to figure out and what has prevented me from going back to RAW. Not to mention the ongoing need to upgrade software to keep up with ACR...I couldn't shoot RAW on my D300s when I first got it because the version of LR and PS couldn't support it. That's fucking lame.
And while I know photography is "work" for you, it is "fun" for me. My photos are for me only and with the resolution and details today's cameras can produce, there is nothing wrong with JPEG. When I shoot and achieve what I was looking to get, get home and verify it is good, then make my tweaks to get that final output I was trying to get, how is this wrong?
Yes, I know, you're probably like this right now:
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#7760597 - 07/03/14 09:17 PM
Re: Anyone use Capture 1 Pro for processing?
[Re: ]
|
NOT spotch...
Post Master Supreme
Registered: 07/25/00
Posts: 57155
|
If I have that going on, I didn't set it. The software is pretty much default except for the panels I have showing/hidden. But that's what i'm trying to figure out and what has prevented me from going back to RAW. Not to mention the ongoing need to upgrade software to keep up with ACR...I couldn't shoot RAW on my D300s when I first got it because the version of LR and PS couldn't support it. That's fucking lame. And while I know photography is "work" for you, it is "fun" for me. My photos are for me only and with the resolution and details today's cameras can produce, there is nothing wrong with JPEG. When I shoot and achieve what I was looking to get, get home and verify it is good, then make my tweaks to get that final output I was trying to get, how is this wrong? Yes, I know, you're probably like this right now:
LOL. I'm of a somewhat similar mindset on this, in that I don't like having to manipulate the shit out of my RAW files in order to get skin tones and colors that look like they do IRL. Part of it is my inexperience, and part of it is that ACR's baseline is what it is because that's how it's programmed to interpret raw data. At the same time, when I compare a raw file converted to jpg in ACR, without any editing, there's a ton more detail and I can do a ton more to it compared to the relatively shitty (detail-wise) jpgs from the camera. I'm pretty sure my solution is going to be picking up an additional converter for pics that I don't intend to edit much or at all (but would still like improved detail vs the .jpg from the camera) and don't want to edit much, and then use LR or CS6 when I want to actually edit the shit out of something. This might be something you'd be interested in looking into... just finding a raw converter that does a better job straight out of the box, without any editing. You'll basically just need to read some reviews or find some free trial copies.
Most of the reviews do pretty good side-by-side comparisons of how each converter renders shit differently. http://www.lifeafterphotoshop.com/dxo-vs-lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro-best/
_________________________
"On the street where there is no lap timer, feel is all that matters" - scootergeek "A bunch of nerdy douchebags chasing a ghost." -Ob1 on bitcoin
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: jsmonet, x, 2000SiRacer, Professor Paki
|
|