Anyone Migrated from LR to Capture One or DXO?

[NEF Said]

Thanks for all the suggestions and advice folks!

I'm going to wait on LR, until Saturday, as there is only a 7 day trial. I'm familiar with LR6, so it'll be more of a "delta" evaluation.

 

[Palouse]

Here is a code that is good for Nik and DxO:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[NEF Said]

Here is a code that is good for Nik and DxO:

View attachment 1666696

Thanks Nick! I see Capture One has 25% off as well.

 

[Bart]

Paul,

I thought I'd make a quick comparison but as I expected, you can't activate the superior noise reduction Prime on a tiff file.
I wasn't sure because I never work with tiff's.
Best way to proceed, I think, is to work with the NEF file. Both in DxO - using Prime - and in C1. Creating an output in whatever format you prefer and comparing these output files.
If you want, you can provide the NEF file and I'll make a comparison as well. Only noise reduction, no white balance, straightening or anything else.

I think the JPEG and smaller size hides the noise, which one needs to see it at full size. It's not something I would have correct, especially for posting on the web, but it was the only thing I had handy, for a "noisy" shot.

Here is a dropbox link to the TIFFs, A being the original.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kksafrzrlwvk1ha/AADtPklXBta_OvLR8TKAEaDsa?dl=0

You can see the improvements on the wall, but other than the slight color differences, they were very close.

I noticed some differences in the writing on the glass, and the back edge of the mouse in the foreground. I tried to make those two the best I could with the adjustment knobs of the tools.

Again, subjective, and based on my (lack of?) skills with adjusting noisy images.

 

[NEF Said]

Paul,

I thought I'd make a quick comparison but as I expected, you can't activate the superior noise reduction Prime on a tiff file.
I wasn't sure because I never work with tiff's.
Best way to proceed, I think, is to work with the NEF file. Both in DxO - using Prime - and in C1. Creating an output in whatever format you prefer and comparing these output files.
If you want, you can provide the NEF file and I'll make a comparison as well. Only noise reduction, no white balance, straightening or anything else.

Sure! I added the original NEF file to the dropbox folder...

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/shz06zzazvzrgub/AAAxMcO9jsdkDewU2-hfUzEBa?dl=0

Thanks!

 

[Bart]

first a look at a detail at 100% without Noise Reduction:
definitely noise visible at this level.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

In DxO PL, HQ (Fast) as Noise Reduction:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Next, I created a jpg at 100% quality with DxO PL - Prime and with Capture One.
Nothing else changed or corrected and both software using the default settings. Which are not really far apart.

I opened both jpg files and zoomed in to actual size and placed them next to each other:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Now to get an idea of the impact of this, viewed full screen next to each other:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

For me, neither is 100% "perfect" and both still have room to be tweaked.
My vote is on the DxO PL though. An impartial vote I hope since I have and use both softwares.
Noise Reduction will always be a compromise between suppressing noise and keeping detail.
One software might have an idea about the best compromise and another software can have another goal.
The user is in the driver seat however

Sure! I added the original NEF file to the dropbox folder...

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/shz06zzazvzrgub/AAAxMcO9jsdkDewU2-hfUzEBa?dl=0

Thanks!

 

[NEF Said]

first a look at a detail at 100% without Noise Reduction:
definitely noise visible at this level.

View attachment 1666735


In DxO PL, HQ (Fast) as Noise Reduction:

View attachment 1666736

Next, I created a jpg at 100% quality with DxO PL - Prime and with Capture One.
Nothing else changed or corrected and both software using the default settings. Which are not really far apart.

I opened both jpg files and zoomed in to actual size and placed them next to each other:

View attachment 1666737

Now to get an idea of the impact of this, viewed full screen next to each other:

View attachment 1666739

For me, neither is 100% "perfect" and both still have room to be tweaked.
My vote is on the DxO PL though. An impartial vote I hope since I have and use both softwares.
Noise Reduction will always be a compromise between suppressing noise and keeping detail.
One software might have an idea about the best compromise and another software can have another goal.
The user is in the driver seat however

Thanks for the comparison! I like the zoomed in side by side. It look slike the DXO version is better in this comparison.

I got different results, with Capture One, with it being lighter and seeming less grainy, but maybe I altered the settings. Wondering if it would make a difference if, instead of defaults, the best settings are applied to each?

 

[NEF Said]

Thanks for the comparison! I like the zoomed in side by side. It look slike the DXO version is better in this comparison.

I got different results, with Capture One, with it being lighter and seeming less grainy, but maybe I altered the settings. Wondering if it would make a difference if, instead of defaults, the best settings are applied to each?

Actually, I'm wrong. The DXO was lighter and had less noise!

 

[Bart]

I'm sure each program could get better results tweaking the settings, @NEF Said.
After all, I don't think there is one setting that really fits all images perfectly.
The question is, how much energy and time are you willing to spend to obtain the absolute best result.
I don't have all that much high iso images and I'm perfectly happy with the result from DxO.
On the other hand, I do still use a camera that does not do well with higher iso and there as well, the results from DxO work wonders.
For that camera, I activate Prime on much lower iso levels than I do for the Df.
For the Df, I activate Prime for anything higher than 6400. For the other camera, Prime for anything above 1600.
I use C1 for a b&w only camera and any noise is looking more like grain so, I never worried about the noise reduction capabilities of C1.
In the last update of C1 a lot of attention was given to better noise reduction capabilities and then I did have to make a comparison of course

 

[NEF Said]

I'm sure each program could get better results tweaking the settings, @NEF Said.
After all, I don't think there is one setting that really fits all images perfectly.
The question is, how much energy and time are you willing to spend to obtain the absolute best result.
I don't have all that much high iso images and I'm perfectly happy with the result from DxO.
On the other hand, I do still use a camera that does not do well with higher iso and there as well, the results from DxO work wonders.
For that camera, I activate Prime on much lower iso levels than I do for the Df.
For the Df, I activate Prime for anything higher than 6400. For the other camera, Prime for anything above 1600.
I use C1 for a b&w only camera and any noise is looking more like grain so, I never worried about the noise reduction capabilities of C1.
In the last update of C1 a lot of attention was given to better noise reduction capabilities and then I did have to make a comparison of course

The comment about grain made me smile. Makes sense, how you handle the different cameras. I’m still trying to get used to the D750, which is really great at high iso from what I see so far.

tomorrow I’m going to download LR Classic and see how it has improved over LR6. I’ve got to try to objective; hard because I’m familiar with 6 (an advantage), but had agony with it a few times (a disadvantage), which left a sour taste in my mouth, and I’m nota fan of subscriptions.

Between DXO and C1, I’m pretty conflicted. They each have strong points that I like. Subjective and based on only looking at them for a few evenings...

DXO editing tools were very good, often with defaults working well. I like the local adjustments, denoise and B&W worked well, easy to find tools/intuitive. Performance was great. Didn’t handle two of my older MF lenses for lens correction.

The photo management was kinda basic, simple mapping to files. Easy understand. I couldn’t find ways to compare photos, especially while working on them, and didn’t see a way to add watermark images for output. Didn’t see a batch renaming for files that I’m used to. It doesn’t handle my Fuji raw files, unfortunately.

Overall, DXO shines as an editing tool, but is average as a management tool.


Capture One also seemed good at editing. I really liked the layers, Levels, and Luma range tool, and thought color management was really good. Given the large number of tools, it was not quite as intuitive, but I was easily able to use them. The large number of video tutorials made it easy to understand how to apply. It didn’t have lens correction for the three MF lenses, and I think one AF.

Photo management was very good. I liked the photo comparing and zooming, and ability generate multiple types of output at once, with image watermarks. Lots of ways to organize (a pro and con), search, and view photos. Renaming based on attributes for import and export was nice.

Overall Capture One was a strong editor, and very good management tool.

We’ll see if I can be unbiased at looking at LR.

 

[NEF Said]

Crazy start to the LR eval. I signed up for the photographer's version, and they downloaded and installed LR. I started playing with it, importing all the test photos I have, and the UI was totally foreign to me. I thought, wow, they really changed it.

Then, I tried to do red eye correction. I could not find the red-eye tool! I tried editing in PS, and it opened up my PS6. Going to my Adobe account, I did have the photography package, but they only D/Led Lightroom CC and not Classic. So I downloaded Classic, and PS.

I opened Classic and it found my LR6 catalogs, and the new LR catalog. It wanted to "upgrade" the catalogs, which would no longer be compatible with older LR, so I just picked the new catalog I had. Odd thing was that it had to "upgrade" that brand new LR CC catalog!

Another funky thing. I wanted to try HDR. First, I selected the files of the microscope on my desk, where I had different F-stop exposures. It read six photos and displayed them, with this display...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

If I deselected the 5th photo, it was fine. Later, I realized that the first photo, although taken of the same shot, that was the one that I took at 12,800 ISO (vs 8000). I didn't retry, but I did do HDR from within LR, using the correct 5 shots and it was fine.

Yikes.

 

[Walter Rowe]

I cannot remember whether LR CC Classic will copy your catalogs and upgrade the copies. You can always make your own copy before upgrading just to be safe.

 

[Butlerkid]

FWIW.....the Develop module of LR Classic is essentially the same as PS CC....................

 

[Mike Buckley]

FWIW.....the Develop module of LR Classic is essentially the same as PS CC....................

I assume you mean it's essentially the same as Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), not PS. Different interface from ACR but exactly the same engine.

 

[Butlerkid]

I assume you mean it's essentially the same as Adobe Camera Raw, not PS. Different interface but exactly the same engine.

The PS suite includes Bridge and ACR......

 

[Mike Buckley]

The PS suite includes Bridge and ACR......

It gets confusing because Lightroom's official name is Photoshop Lightroom. Adobe could have come up with a more confusing set of names but they would have had to try really hard.

 

[NEF Said]

I cannot remember whether LR CC Classic will copy your catalogs and upgrade the copies. You can always make your own copy before upgrading just to be safe.

They mentioned something about making a backup of the catalog, if you want to keep backward compatible one. When I had opened LR, I created a new catalog, and so when I opened LR Classic, I told it to upgrade only that catalog. Was just surprised that the newly created LR catalog was not compatible with the LR Classic one.

 

[NEF Said]

FWIW.....the Develop module of LR Classic is essentially the same as PS CC....................

It was very familiar (both good and bad) to LR 6.

 

[Walter Rowe]

They mentioned something about making a backup of the catalog, if you want to keep backward compatible one. When I had opened LR, I created a new catalog, and so when I opened LR Classic, I told it to upgrade only that catalog. Was just surprised that the newly created LR catalog was not compatible with the LR Classic one.

The LR CC (not Classic) is their “cloud” version and is different. It is designed to work primarily in the Creative Cloud ecosystem if I recall correctly. I honestly have never looked into it, but I think that is how it works. As you discovered, LR CC also has fewer features. To support those limited features and the Creative Cloud workflow, the storage format differs from the Classic database. Migrating from LR CC to LR CC Classic requires upgrading the database to support the additional features LR CC Classic offers (like your red eye reduction, etc) and different working model.

 

[NEF Said]

After the mess with HDR and versions of tools... I have some first impressions...

• The transform tool is really great, doing perspective adjustments (with a nice auto mode) and lots ability to tweak.
• Radial gradient was very nice, not as intuitive and easy to use as the one in C1, which was easier to adjust feather.
• Annoying (to me) was to have to constantly turn on and then off, the "show mask" using O key, to see where the mask was - even when using brush.
• The dehaze tool was super, used it on several of my shots of landscapes. added noise to the sky, but I could adjust that.
• The NR seemed to be pretty good as well. I tried to compare to DXO and C1, but would think I need to redo the compare from scratch to do it correctly. No auto (or default) setting, like DXO.
• Handles Fuji RAF files, and has full support for my MF lens (although for one, I think I had found a correction file and loaded it with LR6). That is one nice thing, that one could get corrections and use.
• Really annoying to have to switch back and forth between library and develop, if one wants to look at metadata (I was constantly switching as there is no lens correction for my Fuji, so I'd switch to check if it was shot with the Fuji). Would be nice if one could see that info (or keywords, etc). Not sure if possible.
• They had a ton of videos and walk through tutorials, but they were in LR CC not LR classic, so showed different tools - granted the concepts could be somewhat applied.
• Was pretty slow importing, compared to C1 and obviously DXO.
• Though use to it, the stacking of photos is nice, for collecting together focus stacking, HDR, or pano shots.
• It did a very good job on the HDR I had - seemed a bit more detailed than what I got from DXO.
• They don't have layers, like C1, which is really nice to see each effect and to be able to toggle on/off (and apply to other shots). However, there is a history tool that you can click on an adjustment and see the effect by toggling the before/after backslash key. Not anywhere near as nice.
• As with LR6, the auto tone tool is a good starting point (I was using it on import).
• It looks like LR Classic allows one to have several presets and export several at once. Not quite as versatile as C1 (with it's tokens as well), but pretty handy.
• There's Book, Web, Slideshow, and Location features, but I have no use for them, so didn't check.
• I did like the HSL and curve tool's ability to click on an adjustment, and then click on a location on photo and drag up/down to adjust. I found using that with HSL and adjusting hue, saturation, and luminance, was a much faster way than painting a mask over Theo's face and arms, to adjust the shots where he was under a red parawing (canopy) and was discolored. DXO has something similar with the local adjustment, those this seemed to be photo wide. Will have to check C1.
• Has compare, grid, multi photo view, much like C1, though not as flexible.
• Has presets, which are like C1 styles, and Nik libraries.
• Not sure if I'd make use of the Adobe Cloud, though did sound intriguing to be able to use the web based LR to adjust from another computer (like my work laptop, if on travel). As long as there is a way to pull it into my local system - I don't want to leave it there.

I'll poke around a bit more tomorrow, try to see if there are any other new things I may have missed, peek at more tutorials (as it is nice for all tool), and look at PS (as I rarely use it, will see if it has anything new and if somehow it is magically easier to use than PS6, which I found very hard to use).