LR does not support the catalog to be on a NAS. LR was much slower on my aging PC (I read performance has been improved in the latest versions)ģ. Adobe switched to subscription only modelĢ. Just one more thing to add - LR is through subscription ONLY, while C1 offers both models, subscription based and standalone.Ĭurrently I am using C1 on a MacBook Pro and a PC.ġ. It is pretty clear that Phase One is fully committed to supporting the software, including timely updating (at least with Fuji, not so much with Pentax) and improving the overall product. If you set aside three hours to get to know it, you'll have a pretty good idea whether or not you will want to spend the time to really get to know it better. The C1 30-day trial is entirely unrestricted. Most of the people who reject C1 do so because it takes some time to get the most out of the software. Not so strong for noise reduction (but still better than LR), not good as a DAM (LR is better), unusual nomenclature and relatively long learning curve. I'm also in the Windows camp and been with C1 mostly for about five years (LR for three years prior to that) and C1 before the LR introduction.Īdvantages of the current C1 (v 11) are exacting color rendition and masking, very good clarity/definition, processing speed /stability, CA removal and perspective controls (keystoning). You get a lot of folks saying their preference is vastly superior to LR that they used previously, but this is a relatively low bar to clear - especially so when it comes to getting a natural X-trans look. You need to do your own investigation on which look you like better.It is entirely possible that you won't get a great analysis comparing the two because both are held in very high regard. For Web viewing, all four softwares can give you a decent image. Or maybe Iridient can’t handle the X-Trans II sensor of the X100s. I can’t believe it makes that much difference. I’m thinking it’s the noise reduction since the second image is at ISO 800. For the second set, it gave the worst output. For the first set of images, Irident seems to have the best output. I just don’t like the weird tint in the images, especially in the first image. But I think that’s because I’m so used to seeing Lightroom’s renderings. Detail wise, Iridient seem to pull more out. The skin tone looks better compared to the other software. But I still can’t get over that weird tint the image has.Ĭapture One wins. PhotoNinja’s version looks pretty good too. Is it the noise reduction that Iridient tried to give? I like Capture One’s output the best. Wow, for these images, Iridient looks the worst. Capture One Iridient Photo Ninja Lightroom Once again, you can click on them to get a better view. Capture One Iridient PhotoNinja Lightroom Once again, these are straight out of the camera using the software’s default settings. The settings for these are f/4.0, 1/250 sec at 800 ISO using my Fuji X100s. I can’t get over PhotoNinja’s weird colors though. The other three are about the same at its default settings. It looks like Iridient captures the details better. Hopefully, you can still tell the difference. For PhotoNinja, I had to take a screen shot again. You can click on them to get a bigger size. These are screen grabs from each software. They all have different tones to the image. Right away, you can tell these are different. Capture One Iridient PhotoNinja LightRoom The following images are shot at f/4.0, 1/125 sec, at 200 ISO with my Fuji X-E1. Since my trial license for PhotoNinja expired, I had to take a screen shot. But I want to see what gives me the best starting point. Sure, maybe if we fiddle with stuff, we can get almost identical outputs. The samples are straight out of the camera with no adjustments. So you have to figure out what gives you the best possible look that you’re going for. Sure, certain software can bring out details better. This isn’t just a pixel peeping exercise. I want the best RAW processor to get the best out of the X-Trans sensor. Why portraiture? Because that’s the style of photography I do. So I decided to try them and see how they handle RAF files for portraiture. There has been alternatives such as PhotoNinja, Iridient, and Capture One. We know that everyone complains about how Adobe handles Fuji RAF files.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |