Is CaptureOne worth the price tag on it, or should I stick with Lightroom?
>>2804290
If you are shooting with a Sony it is well worth the price.
>>2804345
Or Fuji with the Xtrans.
>>2804366
I'm using a Nikon right now
>>2804366
I'm curious why CaptureOne is better suited for Fuji raws? I was using Lightroom with Canon before and still use it now with Fuji.
>>2804385
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
>>2804385
Adobe literally does not give the first shit about Fuji users and thus has budgeted approximately how much it would cost to buy a gradeschooler lunch for about two weeks to figure out how to process Fuji raws.
>>2804390
What makes the whole thing funny is, foss programs process fuji raws better. http://www.eyesuncloudedphoto.com/blog/2015/2/4/supplement-to-the-x-trans-raw-conversion-article
>>2804390
>Adobe literally does not give the first shit about any of it's users FTFY
Correct, Adobe is more interested in the big info grab to embellish it's data crunching applications for governments and big business
>>2804345
this
i like capture one, but the $30 price tag is tho only reason i did it. for $300 no thanks
So how does Darktable compare to Lightroom and capture one?
>>2804290
buy a sony and get it for free.
>>2804386
The shit one is lightroom, is the good one photoninja?
>>2804544
>free
Wait. Hold on. Stop.
That's Capture One 'Express', anon. not the full version.
>>2804641
It is.
Full disclosure, that's the worst example I've ever been able to pull out of it. Most are not that drastic. It's also out of Lightroom that's two versions old. It has since improved SOME. Not nearly enough to match PN, but it's not as bad as that anymore.
It's also with the 23mm f/1.4, which lightroom seems to have particular trouble dealing with. I have decided in my head that it's a lens correction issue or something, since other lenses aren't so dramatic, even in that older version of LR.
Here's another example. Again, Lightroom vs Photo Ninja.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
>>2804666
So I'm guessing you use PN or whatever (not LR) for all your fuji pp needs.
What do you use as a photo manager/library if in fact you use and have need for one?
Shame about LR, as it really is a capable all in one.
>>2804699
I actually mostly use lightroom still. These samples are 100% crops, which I don't worry about much for most of my shooting. When I'm working on a photo that needs a lot of detail, or will be printed large, I start in PN and do the basics, and export a TIFF, and then continue the work in lightroom.
>>2804366
Is it? Because instead of an adobe cc account in just over one year of usage the price tag would be totally justified. Especially because iam a fuji guy and if it really handles those raws better iam considering it now.
>>2807275
I don't use Fuji or Lightroom but I'd always been under the impression that it was absolutely horrible with the xtrans
>>2807310
Not anywhere near "absolutely horrible" just not the very best. The difference at viewing sizes is too small to notice. I shoot exclusively Fuji, and still do almost all of my editing with Adobe stuff unless it's going to be a large print.
>>2804533
why is it $30?
Isn't support for CaptureOne being discontinued?
>>2807603
For who? What do you mean? They just released C1 9, so it's still being supported as of right now...?
>>2807612
I had heard from the guy I work for (fashion photographer) that CaptureOne's support was being discontinued for Mac, its why we switched all his stuff over to lightroom
was he just rusing me to help him put all the VSCO's in lightroom for him?
>>2807617
No, a lot of professional software is being discontinued for Mac OS.
>>2807642
sucks for the digital techs, they all have macs
>>2804542
Depends on your taste, as i use Linux i obviously went with Darktable, i found it easier and more friendly than Lightroom. On Win i used Capture One and damn man, if i had the money i wouldn't hesitate to buy it. Is by far the most powerful of the three and has the best workflow for me. 10/10 for me, but as i said, it all depends on your taste
>>2804290
CaptureOne is all about dat studio tethering brah. If that's not important, there's no point.
>>2811312
Incorrect. Tethering is one of it's features but even without that it still shits all over Lightroom.
>>2811317
Without tethering, it has a couple of places where it is a little better, and a couple of places where it is very slightly worse. It definitely does not shit all over anything. It's very possible for you to like something without having to imply that everything else is a pile of dog shit, or that anyone different than you is an idiot.
>>2811307
What about Darktable vs Rawtherapee? I've been using RT for a couple months now and it's pretty cool, but should I try Darktable too or just stick with getting deeper with what I know?
>>2811317
It's not just a feature. It moves big files really well. Lightroom struggles hard. It's great for boring stuff like product shots.
>>2804290
how many non-canon cameras do you own
>>2804290
is anyone else dissapointed by lightroom? Tried it out when I had an olympus PEN and the colors were shit, went back to it when I bought a 5D and was surprised by how much better it was. After importing x100 photos into LR, I was again surprised by how the color handling had gone right back to PEN-like. Keep in mind, this is three whole software revisions later. What were they adding?
>>2811333
Sounds like you don't understand how Lightroom works, or what it's for...
>>2811328
>It's great for boring stuff like product shots
I find it great for most things,the only area where Lightroom wins is the user interface. It does take a little more practice to find your way around Capture One. But it's a minor complaint
>>2804666
So Lightroom has less local contrast. How is that a problem? Just apply some. I'd take flat images to start my post-processing workflow over contrasty images every time.
>>2811684
Feel free to add the local contrast if you can. I thought the same thing and tried it, and couldn't get it to work.
>>2804386
This looks wonderful, care to run us through your process?
