Comparing Photoshop to Capture one 7 Express

[Daveart]

Here is a screen shot of the original raw image in the middle the one on the left is CO7 processed image the shadow sliders moved to 50% no sharpening just shadow adjust saturation and clarity structure to 30, the image on the right is from photoshop shadow 100% clarity 70% sharpening detail 100% rad .4 sharpening 30. then further adjustments when sent from abode raw to psp cs5 of unsharp mask 100 .7 and 3 and a little cotrast.
I think CO7 does a better job of correcting errors in exposure than PSP CS5

What do you guys think.

Dave
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7nzdixkpfy...2015.09.26.png

[chauncey]

Dave, based only on what I looked at, the noise level on the left image is unacceptable.
I would also submit that you could have done a better job with the CS-5 version using different tools.

[Manfred M]

Unfortunately, this is an apples and oranges type comparison.

Comparing two different images prepared with different settings with different image editors is rather meaningless. It likely has more to do with the editor's choices than with the software that has been used. Yes, I agree that there is a noise issue with the Capture 1 conversion, but given the level of underexposure in that part of the image, this is hardly surprising.

[Mike Buckley]

Comparing two different images prepared with different settings with different image editors is rather meaningless.

Manfred is being very nice. It's not rather meaningless. It's totally meaningless.

[Daveart]

Hi I used this image because of the vastly underexposure that is in the image I would have deleted such images, as to noise this maybe beause it is a screen shot as I have printed that images at 16x12 inches and no sign of noise but the detail in the wall that apeered black with next to now detail I think that CO7 did the best job were by Adobe software no matter how you look at it is incapable of getting any were near the detail, I judge a photo editor by how well it copes with a badly exposed image and how it recovers. Ifthe noise appeared as it appears on the website it could be rectified anyway and still looked a lot better than Adobe produced. If you have a brilliant and correctly exposed image then any basic editor would be just as good as top pro software.

I know which photo I would put on my wall. Ho the CO7 image took all of 20 seconds to get the image were you see it, it took 40 mintues to get PSP CS5 to where it is now, I just wanted to share this with you guys.

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Adobe software no matter how you look at it is incapable of getting any were near the detail

Sorry, Dave, but I really do doubt that to be true. You're explaining that the software is incapable of doing something that I've seen done in expert hands. I remember seeing a similar exercise done using CS5's ACR plug-in when it was first released exactly because it handled this exact situation so much better than previous versions of ACR (and much better than in your exercise). I can only assume the current version of ACR will perform the task at least as well and probably better than the old version that was demonstrated at the time.

[Glenn NK]

Dave:

I have a suggestion - upload the RAW file to Dropbox and we'll all have a go at developing it.

Glenn

[Manfred M]

Dave - have you seen the detail the "shadows" slider in ACR or Lightroom can bring out?

I strongly suspect that this is more an issue of you knowing how to achieve an effect with one piece of software, whereas perhaps not in the other. I have certainly seen people who use Capture 1 as their RAW converter, but they generally follow this up with the actual PP work in PS.

[Polar01]

Dave I noticed that the Capture One 7 Express was a 8bit jpeg whereas the others were all 16bit image raw files.

Cheers: Allan

[Daveart]

>>Hi All It is one raw being developed in two different raw editors, not two different images. Yes 8bit in capture 0ne that is because it is an 8bit I think thats the mode I have used it in a default. and yes it was edited in 16 bit in CS5 which you would think that would give a better dymanic range not less, yes you can probably produce equally if you had all those onone software plugins etc...

I don't have and cannot afford those expensive plugins as PSP CS5 was expensive enough more than three times that of Capture one 7 Express.

Well I have had prints accepted in The National Portrait Gallery an a couple of other too.

Also Top Pro world class photographers use Capture One 7 Pro version, so there must be a reason for that too.

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Well I have had prints accepted in The National Portrait Gallery an a couple of other too.

Nobody in the thread has doubted the quality of your photographs or others who use Capture One. Some of us, especially I, have doubted your claim about Adobe software. If you can meet all of your photographic needs using a competing software, that's fine. (My primary software is not developed by Adobe, so I understand.) However, that's a completely separate issue from your claim about what Adobe software can't do.

It's odd to me that you explicitly asked others what we think, yet you are summarily dismissing what we think. Now that that has happened, I'll bow out of the discussion.

[Manfred M]

>>Hi All It is one raw being developed in two different raw editors, not two different images. Yes 8bit in capture 0ne that is because it is an 8bit I think thats the mode I have used it in a default. and yes it was edited in 16 bit in CS5 which you would think that would give a better dymanic range not less, yes you can probably produce equally if you had all those onone software plugins etc...

I don't have and cannot afford those expensive plugins as PSP CS5 was expensive enough more than three times that of Capture one 7 Express.

Well I have had prints accepted in The National Portrait Gallery an a couple of other too.

Also Top Pro world class photographers use Capture One 7 Pro version, so there must be a reason for that too.

Dave

Dave - now you are rationalizing and these latest comments have nothing to do with the tools in question. You can use whatever tool you want to get the desired edits and no one is saying that Capture One is not an acceptable tool that pros use.

I know people that use Canon's DPP, Nikon's ViewNX2 (I use this on occasion) and Phase One's Capture One Pro. That does not make them a better or worse photographer for doing so, these are the tools of their choice, but as I stated in a previous post in this thread, these tools are PRIMARILY RAW convertors. I don't know any advanced photographers that use these as editors as their primary editing tool. There may be some, but I suspect they would be the minority.

If you look at the Phase One website; it is marketed as a RAW convertor...

http://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-S...One-Pro-7.aspx

However, comparing Phase One Express to Phase One Pro, is more like comparing Photoshop Elements to Photoshop; both have similar purposes and but different audiences.

[Glenn NK]

There is an interesting thread here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/fo...1455#msg741455
wherein the OP starts out by stating that he was "quite disappointed in what I'm getting from LR5 and CS6's RAW developers". He preferred the results from Capture One and DXO Pro.

When someone pointed out that he had the Clarity slider too high in LR5, he started over in LR, and found that he "likes LR5's finished image and tool set more than Capture One or DXO".

And so it seems that someone's preference of a developer had more to do with how they used the tool, rather than the tool itself.

And this seems to apply to many more tools than RAW developers (saws, hammers, you name it are in this category - oh and let's not forget cameras ).

Glenn