KARELEA Photo & Makeup wrote:
Not just RAW comparisons, but overall color editing and workflow.

Raw conversion is the process of demosaic, black level adjustment, color matrix and profile assignment, white balance, exposure correction. That's where it ends. Color editing is something entirely different, a next process. The problem of popular "raw converters" is that they try to do both things and don't do any of them well enough. If you want a powerful color editing software which also does very high quality raw conversion (using libraw) - 3DLutCreator. If you just want raw conversion software which gives you lots of control: RawTherapee (it's free). You can also check FastRawViewer (and RawDigger) if you are interested.

I guess I am old school and very well experienced in Adobe programs, hence my dedication to their software - pure comfort. However, technology moves on and we should evolve with it.

The problem with those comfortable tools is that they are aimed to be "smart" in order attract less smart but a great number of customers, depriving the power users from the sophisticated tools they actually need. (And all this comes with sending "anonymous statistics" about how you move your mouse etc).

The industry loves Capture One, so I've been doing my studying, yet still have not made the full leap. I feel workflow is still faster in Lightroom, but working on colors/tones (RAW) makes Capture One very favorable.
Check out this article from Photoshop User Magazine on this topic: http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengin … %20Pro.pdf

"Industry" really means a statistical average of people conforming to a common denominator based on recommendations the validity of which is rarely tested in-depth. So what is popular is really the result of the marketing efforts of companies, not the actual value of their product. That's why - always test for yourself, never trust opinions.

My post production is 80% pre-photoshop in Lightroom,
Skin retouch, other details or compositing is the 20% in PS.
This is why this switch is so important...  is it worth it???

It depends on what you want. If you are willing to change the software just because more people use another one - the answer is "No". If you have found something that is limiting your current work, then test all available tools until you find which one resolves the issue you are facing.

Shot By Adam wrote:
That said, I keep hearing everyone rave about Capture One. I've tried using it on numerous occasions and just can't get past the unbelievably poor interface. Just because software is powerful doesn't mean it has to have a horrible user experience...

I've used Lightroom before it got out of Beta, and up to version 3. I dropped it to use Capture One. If anything I find LR's interface largely lifted from Capture One (though over time they're influenced eachother). I can't understand how you could claim it's poor, let alone "horrible." So many of C1P's tools and interface options are clever and easy - the variety of rotation tools, the color grading tools, the keystone tool, the color selection tools, just to name a few. And given that the entire interface is customizable, and highly portable, there's no mystery why it's the standard for high volume commercial and high end commercial & editorial work.

Anchev: we gotta work on you     I get that RawDigger/FRV are the most accurate, but no way they're the best raw converters, given the broad needs of a pro capture workflow. Haven't had a need to try RawTherapee. Does it tether?

Jim Lafferty wrote:
Anchev: we gotta work on you     I get that RawDigger/FRV are the most accurate, but no way they're the best raw converters, given the broad needs of a pro capture workflow.

Have you tried them? I have never used FRV. Only RawDigger a little - I would't say it is not a raw converter in the common sense, it is more a raw data analysis tool.

Haven't had a need to try RawTherapee. Does it tether?

Afaik no. I don't use it much.

BTW I don't know what are the broad needs of a pro capture workflow. My capture workflow is quite narrow: I set the light, point and shoot. If focus and histogram are ok I proceed. Else - I curse. It's a software independent workflow

anchev wrote:
BTW I don't know what are the broad needs of a pro capture workflow. My capture workflow is quite narrow: I set the light, point and shoot. If focus and histogram are ok I proceed. Else - I curse. It's a software independent workflow

If you are the only one on the backside of the camera, then it makes no difference whatsoever.  However, if you have other creatives on your team or, even more importantly, client-side creatives on your side of the camera, then you need a methodology for showing them work in real time.  While no one would use all of the retouching tools in Capture One to finish something as complex as an advertising image, it is necessary to be able to apply an approximation of the final result as the images come in so that the client feels comfortable.  C1's onion skinning is also very helpful in allowing for text overlays (such as for a magazine or catalog cover).  Also, C1's capture pilot makes it incredibly easy to hand off an iPad to the client who can see the images come in in real time and rate them in real time as well.  Backup at time of shooting is also nice.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

I don't really like anyone to breathe in my neck, so my shooting is not organized in a way to make that easier. But of course I agree with you re. the needs to communicate visual stuff properly.

FWIW: I have been using C1 since its very first version. Also once I organized a PhaseOne presentation here in Sofia. The guys brought all their latest MF DSLRs and lens which they demonstrated etc. But my post production needs are quite rigorous and C1 can't meet them, so I don't use it. Generally I am not easily satisfied with tools.

Jim Lafferty wrote:
I get that there's a workflow which doesn't permit creativity-by-committee (or creativity-by-breathing-down-your-neck), but coming from where I work that concept doesn't translate well to the general industry. Even if you're free to work that way most of the time, if you're ever put in the position of *needing* to work collaboratively, with on-set feedback shaping the shoot, you can't simply shrug it off and say you can't make it happen. I mean, you can... you just won't get hired as often, or possibly ever by some clients.

Everything depends on how one approaches photography. Personally I don't believe in things like brainstorming, group creativity etc. Either you do it or someone else does and you just set the light and press the button.

anchev wrote:
I don't really like anyone to breathe in my neck, so my shooting is not organized in a way to make that easier. But of course I agree with you re. the needs to communicate visual stuff properly.

FWIW: I have been using C1 since its very first version. Also once I organized a PhaseOne presentation here in Sofia. The guys brought all their latest MF DSLRs and lens which they demonstrated etc. But my post production needs are quite rigorous and C1 can't meet them, so I don't use it. Generally I am not easily satisfied with tools.

Since so much of what I do is composite work, C1 isn't enough for me either (though the oinion skinning feature can sometimes help as I generally complete the CGI background plate before I shoot the talent).  Still, when I do editorial for a local magazine, the art director likes to be able to review the work in real time.  Do I like it?  Not at all - it makes me wish for film (which I try to still shoot whenever I can) when people had to trust you.  BUT....  I want the gig, so I dance the dance...

anchev wrote:
Everything depends on how one approaches photography. Personally I don't believe in things like brainstorming, group creativity etc. Either you do it or someone else does and you just set the light and press the button.

I agree with you to some extent on both of these statements, unfortunately, for me at least, it doesn't always work that way.  Hell, even working on my own personal work, there is a team of creatives that I'm working closely with to create the final image.  My background came from indie/student film (cinema) before I got into still work.  So for me, it is always a bit of a collaborative process, even though it is my vision that needs to be executed.  Having said that, if you work with an advertising agency here in the states (or even with a small manufacturer who hires you directly) you will have to deal with brainstorming and group-think.  I'm lucky to often be in the position of being the one who drives that process (smaller, regional clients) but no one is ever going to let me just do whatever I want.  Even a small campaign for a local manufacturer is going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars.  No one here is going to spend that without having any creative input.  If you get to do that, I'm quite jealous.

anchev wrote:

Everything depends on how one approaches photography. Personally I don't believe in things like brainstorming, group creativity etc. Either you do it or someone else does and you just set the light and press the button.

I think you're confusing a kind of creative purity which I get, and usually admire, with environments where it's absolutely necessary to have creative input that you'd have no way of understanding. There are other people on set who do their jobs as well as I do mine, and sometimes better, and I can't possibly divide my energies equally to both jobs. On commercial catalog shoots, for example… you'll have an art director from the brand who will know the entire campaign, and how each piece has been styled, layered and shot for an as yet unpublished editorial. She'll have insights you can't possibly account for or absorb. I'm thankful for and sometimes at my best when I've got a few extra pairs of trusted eyes watching for things. At the same time it's not the only way to work and I do love flying solo when the project permits.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

If you are the only one on the backside of the camera, then it makes no difference whatsoever.  However, if you have other creatives on your team or, even more importantly, client-side creatives on your side of the camera, then you need a methodology for showing them work in real time.  While no one would use all of the retouching tools in Capture One to finish something as complex as an advertising image, it is necessary to be able to apply an approximation of the final result as the images come in so that the client feels comfortable.  C1's onion skinning is also very helpful in allowing for text overlays (such as for a magazine or catalog cover).  Also, C1's capture pilot makes it incredibly easy to hand off an iPad to the client who can see the images come in in real time and rate them in real time as well.  Backup at time of shooting is also nice.

You make a very good point... working with a client and a team while shooting changes the game. Presentation is everything.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

If you are the only one on the backside of the camera, then it makes no difference whatsoever.  However, if you have other creatives on your team or, even more importantly, client-side creatives on your side of the camera, then you need a methodology for showing them work in real time.  While no one would use all of the retouching tools in Capture One to finish something as complex as an advertising image, it is necessary to be able to apply an approximation of the final result as the images come in so that the client feels comfortable.  C1's onion skinning is also very helpful in allowing for text overlays (such as for a magazine or catalog cover).  Also, C1's capture pilot makes it incredibly easy to hand off an iPad to the client who can see the images come in in real time and rate them in real time as well.  Backup at time of shooting is also nice.

I heard that C1 is powerful at working on skin, texture, smoothness without a cakey feel... I have not tried it to that extent. I know how to manipulate skin in LR to get a decent result but it requires a composite of 2 layers to get a very fine effect. Interested how C1 is superior in that effect...

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
If you are the only one on the backside of the camera, then it makes no difference whatsoever.  However, if you have other creatives on your team or, even more importantly, client-side creatives on your side of the camera, then you need a methodology for showing them work in real time.  While no one would use all of the retouching tools in Capture One to finish something as complex as an advertising image, it is necessary to be able to apply an approximation of the final result as the images come in so that the client feels comfortable.  C1's onion skinning is also very helpful in allowing for text overlays (such as for a magazine or catalog cover).  Also, C1's capture pilot makes it incredibly easy to hand off an iPad to the client who can see the images come in in real time and rate them in real time as well.  Backup at time of shooting is also nice.

KARELEA Photo & Makeup wrote:
I heard that C1 is powerful at working on skin, texture, smoothness without a cakey feel... I have not tried it to that extent. I know how to manipulate skin in LR to get a decent result but it requires a composite of 2 layers to get a very fine effect. Interested how C1 is superior in that effect...

It is very good, especially with creating a more even tonality, but bear in mind C1 is geared toward mostly "small moves."  Larger moves are better handled in Photoshop.  You're not going to do a full beauty retouch in it, but that isn't always the goal either.  If, for example, you were shooting middle school portraits in volume, C1 would offer a fantastic workflow.

If you are doing a full beauty retouch, then using C1 as a raw converter (especially with it's localized adjustments) can offer you a great starting point (though you may find yourself utilizing multiple conversions to craft a single image).  Having said that, I have almost zero experience in Lightroom, so maybe it offers the same functionality.  I shoot a Leaf system, so I'm accustomed to working in C1 for that reason.

anchev wrote:
I just meant that words are loosing their meaning. A group of people combining things is not creativity, it is combining existing things, usually following a style, i.e. a known, established pattern. In that sense it is not creating anything new. It has its commercial rationalism and a team work must sync and tools are needed to aid this, but calling everyone who participates in some process of combining visuals "creatives" is really just a word. Obviously even the cleaners and truck drivers contribute to the process of creating a movie but the creativity I am talking about is something entirely different. I hope that clarifies.

I understood what you were saying, I'm simply pointing out that when dealing with a commercial client, or even an editorial client, even the small ones, collaboration on creative vision is often a requirement.  Sometimes, it's not even "creative" but legal that forces a change - this happens all the time.  Sometimes it's a brand's desire to appeal to the largest common denominator that dumbs down the creative.  Sometimes is their fear of offending some demographic.  Fashion photographers in NYC probably don't have to worry about that as much, I wouldn't really know.  But if you're shooting a national package good brand for a small ad campaign (something I have done) you are going to be getting a LOT of creative direction.  In fact, in many cases, your job is simply to execute and you make your mark in the small details rather than the overall vision.  Do you think that all directors of major motion pictures get to make exactly the movies they want to with no interference from studio executives on the money/producing side?  Unless your name is Spielberg or Scorsese it's highly unlikely. 

This is why personal work is so important, not only from an artistic/cathartic standpoint, but from a marketing standpoint as well.  It is through your personal work that clients or potential clients can see who YOU are and what YOUR vision is.  In my case, it often works against me!  Art clients: "your work is too commercial."  Commercial clients: "your work is too artsy."  At the end of the day, I just produce what I produce, and hope some people find value in it. Some have/do and for that I'm grateful.

I'm not a player in this industry, talk to Bob Randall if you want that perspective.  I'm just a small time guy, trying to convince small companies and ad agencies that the kind of work I produce can help them.  But even there, in that small time arena, even with my best friend OWNING a small advertising agency, I have to change what I'd like to do and take creative direction.