Review: Capture One 20 (More Refined, and More Powerful Than Ever)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

CaptureOne is great since a couple of versions. Unfortunately in the era of multi-device and iPad Pro the lack of mobile support or cloud sync makes it useless.

Cou can just save your session or catalogue file to any cloud you like. For example Dropbox or OneDrive. Than you can open it on another computer and continue editing. Its working like a charm : And much faster and more reliable than any adobe product : I dont now about ipad though. But I dont feel that tablets are a suitable tool for high end photo editing, which Capture one certainly provides.

I have found using any iPad for ANY meaningful pro-photo production to be a massive exercise in frustration. Still love iPAD for consumption, but that\’s it! Well with iPad Pro it changed. I love I can do it anywhere and really fast. Editing photos with a pencil is also a pleasure. Its a mere consumer device, and any kind of professional work is laughable crippled. Its just not made for it. Even for the crippled Lr Mobile. Much faster than on the desktop. The one feature that means I won\’t swap from lightroom is the lack of \’auto\’ adjust in the transform tool box equivalent.

For real estate photography this function is worth its weight in gold and C1 doesn\’t have it. However, these are only operative for their Phase One high-end cameras, which of course would be wonderful for architecture, or the other thing they\’re pushing, museum-style archiving. As Joe Mckinney says, though, Capture One has very powerful and easy to use mousable tools for all these transform corrections.

You can really get at any architectural corrections or effects, and likely much more precisely than an automatic feature would imagine for you. And, Capture One is set up to replicate this or any other adjustments across ranges of shot images.

This works in a very immediate way, via the big arrows in upper screen right, but also has a controllable clipboard for when you want to select which adjustments would be appropriate to apply for a group of images.

It\’s well set up to be used, and if you have sets of corrections that could be often re-used, you can create anything including perspective into one of your own personal Styles. Layers are very simple to use, but give you both masking and degree-of-effect control on now much and where feature is applied.

Slider-controlled Luma masking can let Layers act very easily on appropriate areas without any manual masking, such as shadows or highlights, or indeed mid-ranges. I see that PhaseOne is being a pain about letting one trial the software, codes and passwords specific to those codes now required. Probably it just is able to give them a little better idea of where the copy came from if \’somehow\’ protection is broken in order to pass around their fine work for free.

Phase is being jerky about setting up working trialware; the \”offline\” activation system doesn\’t work. Including in Sony purchase you get access to a free Sony version of Capture Pro.

Ver 12 included spot removal tool. The new ver 20 have removed it from the free version. Probably included in the pay version. So for some pictures I\’ve continued using the older version Dpreview: Lightroom cost 12,09 euro a month, Capture one cost 10,63 to 14 euro depending on wich option to take and when and with or without discount.

Subscription is the worst well not, yearly perpetual update without discount is worst, but that is most stupid to do. And for me getting the option to skip for years but have a garanteed license going, is actually worth a bit more just for the confidance.

But i\’ll skip this year, making it cheaper then lightroom. This whole \’10 dollar\’ advertisment from USA is getting boring, you are and cheaper, and no tax yet included seems many don\’t pay it including dpreview , and you get way more discount offers seen plenty, here the price is locked in stone at 12,09 euro.

Performance lagging: every credible source i\’ve read gives the nodge to C1. In fact C1 clearly supports 8 core cpu\’s hello Amd Ryzen , while lightroom doesn\’t. And lightroom has memory leak C1 never has.

Not 8 cores in LR? Maybe in old LR 6 from year , but CC is perfect even with 24 core Threadripper – super fast exports and previews.

You are actually wrong. It seems like LR is supporting multithreading in some very limited way. Moreover, there is nearly no difference between 18 and 8 cores for Intel processors. It actually suggest, that LR still can\’t utilize more than 8 cores and relies rather on single-thread performance. Or maybe it can not even utilize 6 or 4 cores, just we can\’t see it from the test, as it used only processors with 8 and more cores. This is the reason, why i wrote \”CC is perfect even with 24 core \” – and dont watch just the overall score, see export times, previews, converting to DNG and more.

There is little sense for someone to pay say twice the price for more processor cores if it will be useful only in very limited number of cases and even then will not scale proportionally with number of cores. Still, I have to admit, support of multi-threading is slowly improving with Lightroom.

Some years ago it could not even benefit from 2 cores on some operations. You can set the image background colour to a number of shades of grey, including black and white.

So while it is not possible to change the UI colours, judging images against various background luminosities is very easy. I know all about it. Also wrote them about this, they told me the same. I just want a light UI. Dark UIs kills my motivation to work on anything with PCs.

You buy C1 on Feb You buy a new camera in August You get zero support on that raw file on C1 unless you buy C1 ver The second point is true and has been true since the Z was released.

In fact, and on this forum, I and others have complained to high heaven with Phase One for its singular poor support of Pentax in general. Even though Pentax support is lacking in some areas, I use it because in my opinion it eats LR\’s lunch. But strangely enough they support the Fuji GFX series, which is a much better option overall than the Pentax as we speak. Just to give one example, the layers are in a different class. Nowadays I only use PS to retouch stitches. All the rest is done in C1 Pro.

I use LR only on my under-powered laptop when I am out on vacation. No one would want to steal that old thing I use LR to build the stitched panoramas I shoot and do the final edits in C1 when I get home. C1 lost its way for a while in the late noughties with a buggy release of version 4. Moveable panels have long been a feature of the software, as has impeccable image quality and outstanding colour accuracy. Where Lightroom gained was always ease of use and its excellent database backend, making the management of large numbers of image a breeze.

I\’ve been using Capture One since version 8. As the author mentioned I do not view these changes significance enough to warrant the jump to V20, so see this as a bit of price gouging.

What I really find annoying is that with the announcement there were and still are good discounts for new installations. What about the loyal users? Why no \”eve of announcement\” discounts for upgrades?

Sad to see Capture one going down the price gouging road. I\’ve purchased the last version of Capture One, unless they offer similar discounts for upgrades.

The review does not touch on the output image quality of C1, which is the reason most people choose this over Lightroom. C1 raw processing provides more details, better color accuracy, and punchier clarity and contrast which do not look ugly when increased. It\’s layer based adjustments also provide more flexibility then Lightroom. I use C1 as my main raw processor, and LR as my main catalog manager and mobile proxy. I have not setup either software to create previews so both have to create one on fly when I zoom in.

Are you comparing default settings? And what profiles? Default setting are different, and default is just a starting point anyway. No, i am comparing what you can get out of each. For most things I would say that using LR you will get there, eventually but with fairies one it is far easier. However microcontrast is difficult to achieve, and it introduces noise if pushed hard. Also the tone curves applied in capture one are hard to duplicate. The other thing is that, if you have capture one rended file available, you can try to mimic it, but just by using lightroom you won\’t know what is possible.

Clarity can be adjusted. Do max values in C1 add more clarity than max value in LR? Or do you talk about how files look on a monitor with default settings? What do you exactly mean? I suppose that you know that I know that clarity can be adjusted.

I just dont see the same affect in LR as I see in C1 and it is not just about clarity. This is not the place to do a comparison the article was the place for that which it did not do. If you are interested, test it out with free trial. I have uploaded a sample comparison screenshot in my gallery here where LR sharpness is maxed out and noise is everywhere.

The link is below. Check my comment for setting detail and click on original to see my uploaded screen capture without compression artifact. This is only showing details difference, I did not even start playing with colors. I second that. Did extensive comparison, \”pop\”, sharpness without oversharpening was just way better with C1. Another point for me: Highlight recovery and dark brightening \”HDR sliders in C1 : Much more capable, at least when I compared about 2 years ago. Well, it is my belief that most of Lightroom\’s competitors are better in some way to Lr, but not in all ways.

I also like how the most expensive version can support 8bf photoshop plugins directly, and Lr can not. I get better day to day results with my m43s photos by using ACDSee. However, Lr has its charms, \”not\” logic for searches is nice, And Lightroom\’s virtual copies implementation is much smoother than ACDSee\’s due to that significantly slower, but far more flexible relational database engine.

And finding help when you run into problems from other users is much easier with Lr. It is difficult to argue that Lightroom is not at least \”pretty good\” in all categories. I can see why people are attracted to it. Its only when you run into Lr\’s limits in certain areas that you start to look around.

What have you done to support your outlandish claim your outlandish claim that my claim is outlandish and non factual. Lightroom has a better DAM, and its image processing is good enough. However if someone is spending thousands of dollar on camera and lenses to eek out the last bit of best image quality, it behooves them to spend a little time and money on software side too. Wild claims of superiority of one raw converter over another wrt to detail should be regarded as wishful thinking.

LR is as good as it gets. Those of us who are shooting raw without an AA filter and haven\’t tried Enhance Details are in for a shock. Near total elimination of moire and false color with no penalty in detail, noise or artifacts. Don\’t try this with your software until they catch up. And yes, I can prove it. It\’s plain as day obvious. Its layering workflow and color editor is also vastly superior.

That doesn\’t mean I plan to migrate over due to how entrenched I am in the Adobe ecosystem, but I won\’t defend LR in situations where it\’s clearly outmatched. Enhance Details is a cool feature, but the files it creates are nearly 3x the size and while it often increases detail in some areas it also tends to create all sorts of strange artifacts in others.

I find it to be a mixed and unpredictable bag. There is a lot going on in Capture One as it first renders an image, and then a very smooth experience tuning this in any direction you prefer to go. This version 20 feels best of all in these regards, including ease of use. One thing your review did not touch upon is printing. C1 V12 had very limited printing capability when compared with LR. Has this been improved?

Otherwise, can anyone reccommend any printing software that can be used to create the print layouts that LR is capable of so that I can give C1 a proper try. Basically, all my serious work ends up printed, so this is of prime importance to me.

I am really only looking for an equivalence to the printing capabilities of Lightroom, which meets all of my printing needs. For example, printing custom layouts, borders, multiple images on one page in a sequence.

I would like to stop being locked into Adobe, but unless I can get my images onto paper, there is no point for me in taking the photograph or editing it. Well, I think Capture One 20 printing does all of these things, unless by border you mean adding lines of some kind. You might look through the documentation a bit, but the best would be to download the 30 day trial, and just see if you can get what you want. It comes with a number of templates, and also you can make as many as you like of your own – there are lots of setup controls possible; captions, watermarks, etc, included.

There\’s even ability to print against a magazine layout overlay, though I think that\’s only actually available if you are able to and using the immediate-from-some-cameras tethered capture. I use C1 and LR extensively. Far faster and easier processing in C1. But LR is still better at printing packages with any complexity. My prints from C1 are better but LR gives me far more layout options and multiple pages.

There are some weaker 3rd party tools but they are harder to use if you do a lot of printing. So until they step up their print layouts, LR is still needed for its print features. It\’s powerful, but \”with a friendly user interface\” is not how I would describe it.

It is no more unfriendly that what LR presents. If you don\’t like what is offered, then change it to what you want it to look like. It\’s not hard – I have several workspaces for doing different activities. Not being \”Cheeky\” but being honest. If that is the only thing you can find to complain about – then go right ahead. I think it is kludgy, ugly and clumsy every way you set it up. I think Adobe nailed it with the LR interface. PDL – I was willing to leave it at opinion only.

I guess my basic issue is, why do you want to replicate the LR interface. PDL – Well, this is a forum where we express our opinions, so I don\’t think it\’s appropriate to tell another person to keep schtum with their opinion.

Fortunately, you don\’t get to make that decision. And I don\’t want to replicate the LR interface, that was your suggestion.

I\’m just saying the interface isn\’t friendly, thus I find the article title ironic. Determining factor for what? I\’m not determining anything, just stating that the last thing I would call C1 is \”with a friendly user interface\”.

I find it kludgy and clumsy no matter how I customize it. LR nailed the interface and I think a lot of people agree. PDL – oh, so that offends you and you have to make an accusation now. It\’s free, extremely customizable and does a great job most of the times. I am more familiar with the Affinity tools than with Lr, though I\’ve played with the Lr tools. Personally, I think those features are best handled by 3rd party tools if they are important to you.

In order to make those built-in tools easy to use, the photos you use have to fit into a fairly narrow range of acceptability to get good results. With third-party tools, many of the \’unacceptable\’ photos work just fine, because of the greater ability to \’tweak\’ them from within the software. The stitch can fill the ends of a pano with the touch of a slider using Boundary Warp, another huge time saver.

The stitch is full dng, so you can keep adjusting with full latitude. Not to mention the ability to content aware fill, Transform Warp, etc. Reilly: I agree LR does a great job.. But there are cases where the Panorama simply does not stich or where the resulting HDR contains areas of a badly selectected layer, typically showing exceesive noise in spots of dark areas. I came because it said \”friendly user interface\”.

C1 is more like LR but with many more features in image development. It\’s my daily photo editor for Fujifilm Raw, though it\’s still not perfect: -Chromatic aberration and purple fringing remover tool are useless, I still have to take them out manually -No bracketing -No stitching -Limited addons. Regarding fringing: same on the Sony free version.

Need to do colour selection and de-saturate on the larger fringes. DXO does a better job. And so does the latest free version of dark table. I just switched to the Capture One Express free Fuji edition. I was paying for the 9. I think the overall file output is better than adobe. Fur sure Good to know. I had tried CO versions 9, 10, 11, and I absolutely hated the interface, and never used the program beyond the trial period. There\’s really nothing seriously improved on this UI.

Texts are still rather small, workflow is slow unless you use some kind of special input devices but ok, they are at least supported I don\’t see any reason to pay again for a rather minor update of the RAW converter.

I tried the demo version, but it couldn\’t do anything I needed, but could not do with version I thought it difficult too at first. The terminology was unneccesarily strange. The C1 tutorials have improved over the years too. How the workflow speed is changed because of special input devices? And compared to what? For me UI is very clear and logical. Nothing common with PS, and much more powerful for image developing than LR.

Ok this make sense, something like MIDI keyboard or graphic tablet. But I do not count this as workflow enhancement but most like specific step from this process is enhanced – interface between operator and software. But flow is the same. But anyway thank you for this information. For me workflow enhancement is when you do not need to open second application for color correction for example.

I use a tablet with additional keys. To me enhancement of workflow is all what makes it faster with the same end result. And for each click I need to concentrate, find the buttons, move the slider and change to the next tab. First, the fundamentals.

I can buy it, I don\’t need to import photos, and I can cause \”developed\” jpegs to be written to my output folder of choice, which I can then backup in various ways. In other words, CO does not hold my workflow hostage. I don\’t need to build a catalog of all my images. I can just store each import from my camera in a folder, look at the photos, and develop a few into jpegs that go in a chosen directory of results. The editing is also remarkably fast and intuitive, and the dynamic range tools, clarity, color contols, etc, are very well done.

CO is what makes my photo processing enjoyable. I get better day to day results with my m43s photos by using ACDSee. However, Lr has its charms, \”not\” logic for searches is nice, And Lightroom\’s virtual copies implementation is much smoother than ACDSee\’s due to that significantly slower, but far more flexible relational database engine.

And finding help when you run into problems from other users is much easier with Lr. It is difficult to argue that Lightroom is not at least \”pretty good\” in all categories.

I can see why people are attracted to it. Its only when you run into Lr\’s limits in certain areas that you start to look around. What have you done to support your outlandish claim your outlandish claim that my claim is outlandish and non factual. Lightroom has a better DAM, and its image processing is good enough.

However if someone is spending thousands of dollar on camera and lenses to eek out the last bit of best image quality, it behooves them to spend a little time and money on software side too. Wild claims of superiority of one raw converter over another wrt to detail should be regarded as wishful thinking. LR is as good as it gets. Those of us who are shooting raw without an AA filter and haven\’t tried Enhance Details are in for a shock. Near total elimination of moire and false color with no penalty in detail, noise or artifacts.

Don\’t try this with your software until they catch up. And yes, I can prove it. It\’s plain as day obvious. Its layering workflow and color editor is also vastly superior. That doesn\’t mean I plan to migrate over due to how entrenched I am in the Adobe ecosystem, but I won\’t defend LR in situations where it\’s clearly outmatched.

Enhance Details is a cool feature, but the files it creates are nearly 3x the size and while it often increases detail in some areas it also tends to create all sorts of strange artifacts in others. I find it to be a mixed and unpredictable bag.

There is a lot going on in Capture One as it first renders an image, and then a very smooth experience tuning this in any direction you prefer to go. This version 20 feels best of all in these regards, including ease of use. One thing your review did not touch upon is printing. C1 V12 had very limited printing capability when compared with LR. Has this been improved? Otherwise, can anyone reccommend any printing software that can be used to create the print layouts that LR is capable of so that I can give C1 a proper try.

Basically, all my serious work ends up printed, so this is of prime importance to me. I am really only looking for an equivalence to the printing capabilities of Lightroom, which meets all of my printing needs. For example, printing custom layouts, borders, multiple images on one page in a sequence. I would like to stop being locked into Adobe, but unless I can get my images onto paper, there is no point for me in taking the photograph or editing it.

Well, I think Capture One 20 printing does all of these things, unless by border you mean adding lines of some kind. You might look through the documentation a bit, but the best would be to download the 30 day trial, and just see if you can get what you want. It comes with a number of templates, and also you can make as many as you like of your own – there are lots of setup controls possible; captions, watermarks, etc, included.

There\’s even ability to print against a magazine layout overlay, though I think that\’s only actually available if you are able to and using the immediate-from-some-cameras tethered capture. I use C1 and LR extensively. Far faster and easier processing in C1. But LR is still better at printing packages with any complexity. My prints from C1 are better but LR gives me far more layout options and multiple pages.

There are some weaker 3rd party tools but they are harder to use if you do a lot of printing. So until they step up their print layouts, LR is still needed for its print features. It\’s powerful, but \”with a friendly user interface\” is not how I would describe it. It is no more unfriendly that what LR presents. If you don\’t like what is offered, then change it to what you want it to look like. It\’s not hard – I have several workspaces for doing different activities.

Not being \”Cheeky\” but being honest. If that is the only thing you can find to complain about – then go right ahead. I think it is kludgy, ugly and clumsy every way you set it up. I think Adobe nailed it with the LR interface. PDL – I was willing to leave it at opinion only.

I guess my basic issue is, why do you want to replicate the LR interface. PDL – Well, this is a forum where we express our opinions, so I don\’t think it\’s appropriate to tell another person to keep schtum with their opinion. Fortunately, you don\’t get to make that decision. And I don\’t want to replicate the LR interface, that was your suggestion.

I\’m just saying the interface isn\’t friendly, thus I find the article title ironic. Determining factor for what? I\’m not determining anything, just stating that the last thing I would call C1 is \”with a friendly user interface\”. I find it kludgy and clumsy no matter how I customize it. LR nailed the interface and I think a lot of people agree. PDL – oh, so that offends you and you have to make an accusation now. It\’s free, extremely customizable and does a great job most of the times.

I am more familiar with the Affinity tools than with Lr, though I\’ve played with the Lr tools. Personally, I think those features are best handled by 3rd party tools if they are important to you. In order to make those built-in tools easy to use, the photos you use have to fit into a fairly narrow range of acceptability to get good results.

With third-party tools, many of the \’unacceptable\’ photos work just fine, because of the greater ability to \’tweak\’ them from within the software. The stitch can fill the ends of a pano with the touch of a slider using Boundary Warp, another huge time saver. The stitch is full dng, so you can keep adjusting with full latitude.

Not to mention the ability to content aware fill, Transform Warp, etc. Reilly: I agree LR does a great job.. But there are cases where the Panorama simply does not stich or where the resulting HDR contains areas of a badly selectected layer, typically showing exceesive noise in spots of dark areas.

I came because it said \”friendly user interface\”. C1 is more like LR but with many more features in image development. It\’s my daily photo editor for Fujifilm Raw, though it\’s still not perfect: -Chromatic aberration and purple fringing remover tool are useless, I still have to take them out manually -No bracketing -No stitching -Limited addons.

Regarding fringing: same on the Sony free version. Need to do colour selection and de-saturate on the larger fringes. DXO does a better job. And so does the latest free version of dark table. I just switched to the Capture One Express free Fuji edition. I was paying for the 9. I think the overall file output is better than adobe. Fur sure Good to know.

I had tried CO versions 9, 10, 11, and I absolutely hated the interface, and never used the program beyond the trial period. There\’s really nothing seriously improved on this UI. Texts are still rather small, workflow is slow unless you use some kind of special input devices but ok, they are at least supported I don\’t see any reason to pay again for a rather minor update of the RAW converter.

I tried the demo version, but it couldn\’t do anything I needed, but could not do with version I thought it difficult too at first.

The terminology was unneccesarily strange. The C1 tutorials have improved over the years too. How the workflow speed is changed because of special input devices? And compared to what? For me UI is very clear and logical. Nothing common with PS, and much more powerful for image developing than LR. Ok this make sense, something like MIDI keyboard or graphic tablet.

But I do not count this as workflow enhancement but most like specific step from this process is enhanced – interface between operator and software.

But flow is the same. But anyway thank you for this information. For me workflow enhancement is when you do not need to open second application for color correction for example.

I use a tablet with additional keys. To me enhancement of workflow is all what makes it faster with the same end result. And for each click I need to concentrate, find the buttons, move the slider and change to the next tab.

First, the fundamentals. I can buy it, I don\’t need to import photos, and I can cause \”developed\” jpegs to be written to my output folder of choice, which I can then backup in various ways. In other words, CO does not hold my workflow hostage. I don\’t need to build a catalog of all my images.

I can just store each import from my camera in a folder, look at the photos, and develop a few into jpegs that go in a chosen directory of results. The editing is also remarkably fast and intuitive, and the dynamic range tools, clarity, color contols, etc, are very well done.

CO is what makes my photo processing enjoyable. CO has been miles better than LR for a couple of years now, I am still kicking myself for not having changed before. Plus, Adobe sucks balls. I just recently purchased C1P for Sony after having transitioned from Nikon to Sony; mainly for tethering. I love it. However, C1P is very nice and now that I\’ve used it for a few weeks, it is growing on me. I will say that it\’s not as fast as LR on my machine; just a tiny bit slower.

Also, the tethering speed is about the same. One thing, though, that I\’ve noticed is that the tethering connection, for me, is a lot more stable in C1P than it is with LR. Could you please specify what operation exactly are slower? And do you have good graphic adapter with acceleration enabled? Krava interesting! I am in the same situation as you are but my performance experience is different.

In LR I have to cope with small delays from a fraction of seconds to three seconds when culling or switching from grid view to development. I hate this part of LR, although I learned to love the since the first beta version. Actually, this is one of the few reasons I am about to leave Adobe, those \”myriads\” of small, disturbing delays daily. All of it is almost instant with C1 on my machine.

Does your experience differ from mine?? GeorgiJuraj – I have exactly same experience! Actually after few hours work it get so bloated that I need to restart it to be responsive again! The issue with this review is that it treats CO as another photo editing suite, but most working photographers I know use CO primarily as a tethered shooting solution. Shooting tethered into LR is dreadful, and whatever speed improvements you might have are gone.

Also LR is not designed for multiple catalogs, whereas CO uses sessions so you can separate multiple clients and shoots within one session. It really is an apples to oranges comparison. For everybody in this comments section that seems surprised that Capture One is slower than Lightroom Classic nowadays, here are some of the critical updates that Adobe has made since you switched to Capture One:. Full multi threading for preview generation. Full multi threading for export.

GPU rendering of the UI. Most importantly, last year, full GPU acceleration for edits. On the most recent LR Classic, applying local adjustments, moving sliders, switching modules, is extremely fast. I get it, we all hate Adobe or whatever. But the speed arguments that caused people to switch to Capture One are no longer relevant.

Actually all this improvements made it usable not extremely fast. And C1 is optimized well from the scratch so no reason for big speed advantage in LR. I do not hate Adobe but they really need to stop adding features before make their software optimized for current hardware and stable. And up to the moment all their software CC is slower and larger compared to competing products.

But there are still many areas left, crying for improvement, most notably but not only culling and switching from preview to development mode. Phase One: \”Who is LR??? Are you engaged with it? The ability to edit color is amazing and I can do much more to the raw file without having to go to another app. COP allows me to accomplish more natively and I will not be renewing my CC photography plan this year. All software comes with trade offs. Exactly my point about color.

Every time you need to go to PS and make new files for something simple. And PS much heavy interface wise and function wise. C1 is RAW developer with advanced color correction and layers. So this are really different products. LR is faaaaar away as \”golden standard\” for RAW developer. C1 is so fast exporting single images that sometimes I think I missed the button so I export again and again until I see a small flash of progress bar, only to find out I have multiple exports haha.

I realize there are uncountable variables in testing this, but the performance difference is really surprising. LR ran like a dog on my machine. There seems to be only one data point the author\’s machine and it is possible that his version of the XPS 15 doesn\’t have a discrete GPU. That alone could be a problem but perhaps there is another issue as well. Many people changed from LR to C1 due to the better performance so I agree that the author\’s findings are very odd.

Not impossible, but almost certainly not representative. Same for me. It\’s the 1 reason to switch to C1 from LR. LR is a gigantic slug, performance-wise. Ever tried to find the best of a row like 6 or 8 shots?

So try to compare more than 2 photos in full resolution in Lightroom – not possible. I am a Adobe cloud user – but why on earth could Aperture show you an overlay of the used AF points and the whole metadata like AF fine tune ect.

Maaany years I think it was around with Lightroom that Lightroom started to become more used by professional photografers. Before that it was all Capture One and Apple Aperture. At the end you can do with both Lr and C1 \’the job\’, if you want to – sufficient mature and to an extend, market standard.

In some case like Fuji there could be an advantage to think C1, but being open and honest, again it is more a knowledge sharpening, etc and taste matter. But I personally can\’t get used to the odd C1 interface time after time yes, everything is there, but where ;-. Delivering and working for dowstream in an Adobe environment including Id – it makes more sense to stay with Adobe than to do sidekick in an even more expensive option that has a few plusses and minuses vs Lr, but in mainstream, doing exactly the same.

C1 uses layer, letting you mask by luminosity, control color on a selected layer or globally, let\’s you modify rgb channels in your black and white photos.

Its pretty straightforward to use. Watch a 5min demo if you need to work out something specific. I don\’t see how Lightroom can compete with that. Actually LR without PS is useless if you do work over your images. About UI I really have no words. Everything with C1 is on screen and can be reconfigured as you like!

Which is not the same in LR or in PS!!! It\’s fine if you only have a few images but if you\’re using it to manage all your photos and need to find something it can take ages to rebuild the index or whatever it\’s doing when you select the top of the catalogue tree.

It\’s ok on my MBP as far as I\’ve noticed though. Not sure where your problem lies could be a corrupt catalogue, for instance but normally it shouldn\’t be slow to work with. I\’m not sure exactly either. It\’s plenty fast enough up to around photos but when I open the full tree of about is takes about 3 minutes before they\’re all searchable.

Once its reindexed or whatever it\’s doing then it\’s fine to switch between folders, if I close and then reopen then it takes the 3 minutes or so again. I tried another catalogue with and it also has the same behaviour. There\’s a few mentions of similar in the COP windows forum.

I can live with it though but thought it was worth mentioning for people to consider if they have large catalogues. Some buggy code somewhere — it\’s doing it with me too with a photo catalog and it did it in C12 — can\’t remember if it did it in earlier versions. I recently noticed some inefficiency building the thumbnails whenever the Proof Profile specifies a watermark. Whenever the Proof Profile — the one used to render the images to the screen — specifies a watermark, the rebuilding of browser thumbnails is slow.

Probably not quite the problem you are facing but I thought I\’d mention it, just in case it may help. I imported my catalogue into CO12 last year leading to a crash. Reinstalled CO, tried it again and another crash. Scrollop I tried 64, on an i9, 64gb ram, ssds and it crashed also, that was with the first release of cop20, not sure about the latest build with bug fixes. CO20 fully failed to work with huge catalogs for me as well.

My search after DAM to work together with C1 ist the last obstacle to abandon LR for me it does not mean that LR was a bad piece of software, it is a great one for many purposes. It\’s powered by the same impressive tech that guides self-driving vehicles and can detect and avoid obstacles from every angle.

Can it overcome a lackluster camera to win hearts and minds? Every year, DJI releases a new consumer-grade smartphone gimbal. The Osmo Mobile 6 is the latest model in the series. Is it good enough to enhance your videos and photos? Today they\’ve released their Classic, a less expensive single-camera sibling.

Who\’s it for and is it a worthy addition to the Mavic family? It may look a lot like the original R6 on the outside, but it includes refinements and features that make it a more capable and better-performing camera. We\’ve combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class. These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both the speed and focus to capture fast action and offer professional-level image quality. Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with loved ones or friends in better quality than your phone can manage.

We\’ve selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens. What\’s the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors.

In this buying guide we\’ve rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best. Street photography demands a discreet, fast focusing camera. Some, like our own Chris Niccolls, also require that they\’re pretty. Here are his top picks at three budget levels. The Orion spacecraft will be landing off the coast of Baja California this weekend. As Joe Mckinney says, though, Capture One has very powerful and easy to use mousable tools for all these transform corrections.

You can really get at any architectural corrections or effects, and likely much more precisely than an automatic feature would imagine for you. And, Capture One is set up to replicate this or any other adjustments across ranges of shot images. This works in a very immediate way, via the big arrows in upper screen right, but also has a controllable clipboard for when you want to select which adjustments would be appropriate to apply for a group of images.

It\’s well set up to be used, and if you have sets of corrections that could be often re-used, you can create anything including perspective into one of your own personal Styles. Layers are very simple to use, but give you both masking and degree-of-effect control on now much and where feature is applied. Slider-controlled Luma masking can let Layers act very easily on appropriate areas without any manual masking, such as shadows or highlights, or indeed mid-ranges.

I see that PhaseOne is being a pain about letting one trial the software, codes and passwords specific to those codes now required. Probably it just is able to give them a little better idea of where the copy came from if \’somehow\’ protection is broken in order to pass around their fine work for free. Phase is being jerky about setting up working trialware; the \”offline\” activation system doesn\’t work.

Including in Sony purchase you get access to a free Sony version of Capture Pro. Ver 12 included spot removal tool. The new ver 20 have removed it from the free version. Probably included in the pay version. So for some pictures I\’ve continued using the older version Dpreview: Lightroom cost 12,09 euro a month, Capture one cost 10,63 to 14 euro depending on wich option to take and when and with or without discount. Subscription is the worst well not, yearly perpetual update without discount is worst, but that is most stupid to do.

And for me getting the option to skip for years but have a garanteed license going, is actually worth a bit more just for the confidance. But i\’ll skip this year, making it cheaper then lightroom. This whole \’10 dollar\’ advertisment from USA is getting boring, you are and cheaper, and no tax yet included seems many don\’t pay it including dpreview , and you get way more discount offers seen plenty, here the price is locked in stone at 12,09 euro.

Performance lagging: every credible source i\’ve read gives the nodge to C1. In fact C1 clearly supports 8 core cpu\’s hello Amd Ryzen , while lightroom doesn\’t. And lightroom has memory leak C1 never has. Not 8 cores in LR? Maybe in old LR 6 from year , but CC is perfect even with 24 core Threadripper – super fast exports and previews.

You are actually wrong. It seems like LR is supporting multithreading in some very limited way. Moreover, there is nearly no difference between 18 and 8 cores for Intel processors.

It actually suggest, that LR still can\’t utilize more than 8 cores and relies rather on single-thread performance.

Or maybe it can not even utilize 6 or 4 cores, just we can\’t see it from the test, as it used only processors with 8 and more cores. This is the reason, why i wrote \”CC is perfect even with 24 core \” – and dont watch just the overall score, see export times, previews, converting to DNG and more. There is little sense for someone to pay say twice the price for more processor cores if it will be useful only in very limited number of cases and even then will not scale proportionally with number of cores.

Still, I have to admit, support of multi-threading is slowly improving with Lightroom. Some years ago it could not even benefit from 2 cores on some operations.

You can set the image background colour to a number of shades of grey, including black and white. So while it is not possible to change the UI colours, judging images against various background luminosities is very easy.

I know all about it. Also wrote them about this, they told me the same. I just want a light UI. Dark UIs kills my motivation to work on anything with PCs. You buy C1 on Feb You buy a new camera in August You get zero support on that raw file on C1 unless you buy C1 ver The second point is true and has been true since the Z was released. In fact, and on this forum, I and others have complained to high heaven with Phase One for its singular poor support of Pentax in general. Even though Pentax support is lacking in some areas, I use it because in my opinion it eats LR\’s lunch.

But strangely enough they support the Fuji GFX series, which is a much better option overall than the Pentax as we speak. Just to give one example, the layers are in a different class. Nowadays I only use PS to retouch stitches. All the rest is done in C1 Pro. I use LR only on my under-powered laptop when I am out on vacation. No one would want to steal that old thing I use LR to build the stitched panoramas I shoot and do the final edits in C1 when I get home. C1 lost its way for a while in the late noughties with a buggy release of version 4.

Moveable panels have long been a feature of the software, as has impeccable image quality and outstanding colour accuracy. Where Lightroom gained was always ease of use and its excellent database backend, making the management of large numbers of image a breeze. I\’ve been using Capture One since version 8. As the author mentioned I do not view these changes significance enough to warrant the jump to V20, so see this as a bit of price gouging.

What I really find annoying is that with the announcement there were and still are good discounts for new installations. What about the loyal users? Why no \”eve of announcement\” discounts for upgrades? Sad to see Capture one going down the price gouging road. I\’ve purchased the last version of Capture One, unless they offer similar discounts for upgrades. The review does not touch on the output image quality of C1, which is the reason most people choose this over Lightroom.

C1 raw processing provides more details, better color accuracy, and punchier clarity and contrast which do not look ugly when increased. It\’s layer based adjustments also provide more flexibility then Lightroom. I use C1 as my main raw processor, and LR as my main catalog manager and mobile proxy. I have not setup either software to create previews so both have to create one on fly when I zoom in. Are you comparing default settings? And what profiles? Default setting are different, and default is just a starting point anyway.

No, i am comparing what you can get out of each. For most things I would say that using LR you will get there, eventually but with fairies one it is far easier. However microcontrast is difficult to achieve, and it introduces noise if pushed hard. Also the tone curves applied in capture one are hard to duplicate. The other thing is that, if you have capture one rended file available, you can try to mimic it, but just by using lightroom you won\’t know what is possible.

Clarity can be adjusted. Do max values in C1 add more clarity than max value in LR? Or do you talk about how files look on a monitor with default settings? What do you exactly mean? I suppose that you know that I know that clarity can be adjusted. I just dont see the same affect in LR as I see in C1 and it is not just about clarity. This is not the place to do a comparison the article was the place for that which it did not do.

If you are interested, test it out with free trial. I have uploaded a sample comparison screenshot in my gallery here where LR sharpness is maxed out and noise is everywhere.

The link is below. Check my comment for setting detail and click on original to see my uploaded screen capture without compression artifact.

This is only showing details difference, I did not even start playing with colors. I second that. Did extensive comparison, \”pop\”, sharpness without oversharpening was just way better with C1.

Another point for me: Highlight recovery and dark brightening \”HDR sliders in C1 : Much more capable, at least when I compared about 2 years ago. Well, it is my belief that most of Lightroom\’s competitors are better in some way to Lr, but not in all ways.

I also like how the most expensive version can support 8bf photoshop plugins directly, and Lr can not. I get better day to day results with my m43s photos by using ACDSee. However, Lr has its charms, \”not\” logic for searches is nice, And Lightroom\’s virtual copies implementation is much smoother than ACDSee\’s due to that significantly slower, but far more flexible relational database engine. And finding help when you run into problems from other users is much easier with Lr.

It is difficult to argue that Lightroom is not at least \”pretty good\” in all categories. I can see why people are attracted to it. Its only when you run into Lr\’s limits in certain areas that you start to look around.

What have you done to support your outlandish claim your outlandish claim that my claim is outlandish and non factual. Lightroom has a better DAM, and its image processing is good enough. However if someone is spending thousands of dollar on camera and lenses to eek out the last bit of best image quality, it behooves them to spend a little time and money on software side too.

Wild claims of superiority of one raw converter over another wrt to detail should be regarded as wishful thinking. LR is as good as it gets. Those of us who are shooting raw without an AA filter and haven\’t tried Enhance Details are in for a shock. Near total elimination of moire and false color with no penalty in detail, noise or artifacts. Don\’t try this with your software until they catch up.

And yes, I can prove it. It\’s plain as day obvious. Its layering workflow and color editor is also vastly superior. That doesn\’t mean I plan to migrate over due to how entrenched I am in the Adobe ecosystem, but I won\’t defend LR in situations where it\’s clearly outmatched. Enhance Details is a cool feature, but the files it creates are nearly 3x the size and while it often increases detail in some areas it also tends to create all sorts of strange artifacts in others.

I find it to be a mixed and unpredictable bag. There is a lot going on in Capture One as it first renders an image, and then a very smooth experience tuning this in any direction you prefer to go. This version 20 feels best of all in these regards, including ease of use. One thing your review did not touch upon is printing.

C1 V12 had very limited printing capability when compared with LR. Has this been improved? Otherwise, can anyone reccommend any printing software that can be used to create the print layouts that LR is capable of so that I can give C1 a proper try. Basically, all my serious work ends up printed, so this is of prime importance to me.

I am really only looking for an equivalence to the printing capabilities of Lightroom, which meets all of my printing needs. For example, printing custom layouts, borders, multiple images on one page in a sequence. I would like to stop being locked into Adobe, but unless I can get my images onto paper, there is no point for me in taking the photograph or editing it.

Well, I think Capture One 20 printing does all of these things, unless by border you mean adding lines of some kind. You might look through the documentation a bit, but the best would be to download the 30 day trial, and just see if you can get what you want.

It comes with a number of templates, and also you can make as many as you like of your own – there are lots of setup controls possible; captions, watermarks, etc, included. There\’s even ability to print against a magazine layout overlay, though I think that\’s only actually available if you are able to and using the immediate-from-some-cameras tethered capture. I use C1 and LR extensively. Far faster and easier processing in C1.

But LR is still better at printing packages with any complexity. My prints from C1 are better but LR gives me far more layout options and multiple pages. There are some weaker 3rd party tools but they are harder to use if you do a lot of printing.

So until they step up their print layouts, LR is still needed for its print features. It\’s powerful, but \”with a friendly user interface\” is not how I would describe it. It is no more unfriendly that what LR presents. If you don\’t like what is offered, then change it to what you want it to look like. It\’s not hard – I have several workspaces for doing different activities. Not being \”Cheeky\” but being honest. If that is the only thing you can find to complain about – then go right ahead.

I think it is kludgy, ugly and clumsy every way you set it up. I think Adobe nailed it with the LR interface. PDL – I was willing to leave it at opinion only. I guess my basic issue is, why do you want to replicate the LR interface. PDL – Well, this is a forum where we express our opinions, so I don\’t think it\’s appropriate to tell another person to keep schtum with their opinion. Fortunately, you don\’t get to make that decision. And I don\’t want to replicate the LR interface, that was your suggestion.

I\’m just saying the interface isn\’t friendly, thus I find the article title ironic. Determining factor for what? I\’m not determining anything, just stating that the last thing I would call C1 is \”with a friendly user interface\”. I find it kludgy and clumsy no matter how I customize it. LR nailed the interface and I think a lot of people agree. PDL – oh, so that offends you and you have to make an accusation now.

It\’s free, extremely customizable and does a great job most of the times. I am more familiar with the Affinity tools than with Lr, though I\’ve played with the Lr tools. Personally, I think those features are best handled by 3rd party tools if they are important to you.

In order to make those built-in tools easy to use, the photos you use have to fit into a fairly narrow range of acceptability to get good results. With third-party tools, many of the \’unacceptable\’ photos work just fine, because of the greater ability to \’tweak\’ them from within the software. The stitch can fill the ends of a pano with the touch of a slider using Boundary Warp, another huge time saver.

The stitch is full dng, so you can keep adjusting with full latitude. Not to mention the ability to content aware fill, Transform Warp, etc. Reilly: I agree LR does a great job.. But there are cases where the Panorama simply does not stich or where the resulting HDR contains areas of a badly selectected layer, typically showing exceesive noise in spots of dark areas.

I came because it said \”friendly user interface\”. C1 is more like LR but with many more features in image development. It\’s my daily photo editor for Fujifilm Raw, though it\’s still not perfect: -Chromatic aberration and purple fringing remover tool are useless, I still have to take them out manually -No bracketing -No stitching -Limited addons. Regarding fringing: same on the Sony free version.

Need to do colour selection and de-saturate on the larger fringes. DXO does a better job. And so does the latest free version of dark table. I just switched to the Capture One Express free Fuji edition.

I was paying for the 9. I think the overall file output is better than adobe. Fur sure Good to know. I had tried CO versions 9, 10, 11, and I absolutely hated the interface, and never used the program beyond the trial period. There\’s really nothing seriously improved on this UI.

Texts are still rather small, workflow is slow unless you use some kind of special input devices but ok, they are at least supported I don\’t see any reason to pay again for a rather minor update of the RAW converter. I tried the demo version, but it couldn\’t do anything I needed, but could not do with version I thought it difficult too at first. The terminology was unneccesarily strange.

The C1 tutorials have improved over the years too. How the workflow speed is changed because of special input devices?

And compared to what? For me UI is very clear and logical. Nothing common with PS, and much more powerful for image developing than LR. Ok this make sense, something like MIDI keyboard or graphic tablet. But I do not count this as workflow enhancement but most like specific step from this process is enhanced – interface between operator and software.

But flow is the same. But anyway thank you for this information. For me workflow enhancement is when you do not need to open second application for color correction for example. I use a tablet with additional keys. To me enhancement of workflow is all what makes it faster with the same end result.

And for each click I need to concentrate, find the buttons, move the slider and change to the next tab. First, the fundamentals. I can buy it, I don\’t need to import photos, and I can cause \”developed\” jpegs to be written to my output folder of choice, which I can then backup in various ways.

In other words, CO does not hold my workflow hostage. I don\’t need to build a catalog of all my images. I can just store each import from my camera in a folder, look at the photos, and develop a few into jpegs that go in a chosen directory of results. The editing is also remarkably fast and intuitive, and the dynamic range tools, clarity, color contols, etc, are very well done.

CO is what makes my photo processing enjoyable. CO has been miles better than LR for a couple of years now, I am still kicking myself for not having changed before.

Plus, Adobe sucks balls. I just recently purchased C1P for Sony after having transitioned from Nikon to Sony; mainly for tethering. I love it. However, C1P is very nice and now that I\’ve used it for a few weeks, it is growing on me. I will say that it\’s not as fast as LR on my machine; just a tiny bit slower. Also, the tethering speed is about the same. One thing, though, that I\’ve noticed is that the tethering connection, for me, is a lot more stable in C1P than it is with LR.

 
 

Capture One 23 review – Life after Photoshop

 
Impartial review of Capture One Pro 12 by an experienced Lightroom user. Is it worth switching from another editing software? Don\’t miss it! This Capture One Pro 12 review shows you the new features and improvements. The Linear and Radial Gradient Mask tools and the ability of.

 

One moment, please – 2 Year Camera Accident Protection Plan

 
Other improvements include automatic switching to the next image after rating, adjustment clipboard improvements, toolbar text, phase one capture one pro 12 review free makes it easier to locate the tools you want. Now in its 13th generation, Phase One\’s flagship imaging application covers all rree bases: Images can be tagged, rated or given easily searchable keywords, and a wide range of manual and automatic tools are available to revew common exposure issues and lens defects, or to grade color and bring your artistic vision to life. All of it is almost instant with C1 on my machine. New films are being announced, new cameras are being unveiled and we\’ve rounded up a collection of film photography items you might want to consider getting over the holidays. Check out some summer vacation photos from beautiful British Columbia to see for yourself. Honestly, these new tools could читать статью been rolled out as an update to Capture One 12 quite easily. Idk, C1 is good eeview it can not compare to Photoworks or Luminar, leave phase one capture one pro 12 review free Adobe products.

 
 

Capture One Pro Review | Image Editing Software

 
 
One of these is that when I rename a file, it moves to somewhere else in the catalog, which can get annoying when trying to compare a series of photos. Landscape Composition – Part 6: Depth. I will say that it\’s not as fast as LR on my machine; just a tiny bit slower. It really is an apples to oranges comparison. MacGal Purchased this app yesterday and it took over 2 hours to get it registered. I do not hate Adobe but they really need to stop adding features before make their software optimized for current hardware and stable. Best cameras for Instagram in