Thanks for the feedback. I had been considering upgrading my old
version of about 4 years ago since the upgrade was only about $50. But
I pulled the old one up and tried it out and realized I didn't
understand how it worked any more. As best I recall I didn't need any
instruction at all to use most of the control panels on ACR. Operation
was simply intuitive. Your feedback just ended the hesitation and put
the nail back in Phase One's coffin for me.
Chuck Norcutt
Joel Wilcox wrote:
> Weather here did not permit great outdoor fun, so I concentrated on
> photo work at the computer. I decided give the new Viewer a try and
> to take advantage of the fire sale on PhaseOne's CaptureOne -- which
> is touted by the Schnozz as the ne plus ultra of raw converters for
> Olympus.
>
> First, Viewer. If you don't have Studio 2, get Viewer 2. I can't
> tell the difference in operation or result. I want the $100 back I
> spent on Studio. If there is something Studio does that Viewer
> doesn't, I haven't found it or needed it, apparently. If you like
> Olympus for its color palette, this is the holy city. I'm not a big
> fan of batch processing raw files -- it's just not how I work -- so
> sorting and selecting with FastStone Image Viewer is just about
> perfect. Set up Studio or Viewer as an external editor in FS and it's
> easy to take the image right into Studio or Viewer, tweak it gingerly,
> and then adjust settings to open the image in Photoshop or whatever
> when you are done with Studio/Viewer. This takes a dozen clicks or so
> per image, but it's OK for me.
>
> CaptureOne I just don't understand. I really looked hard for the one
> or two features that would put it over the top. I do like it better
> than Lightroom as it fits my way of working better. It seems like it
> excels in situations where one has multiple images from the same
> setting at roughly the same exposure. Set up the recipe for one shot
> and batch the others. But they all do this, right? I guess I like
> the fact that it doesn't have a separate Library, but it does put
> folders all over the place, to which I object somewhat, although I
> could live with it if the result were truly better than the
> alternative.
>
> It has the ability to use different color setups. For example, I can
> use the generic E-3 setup for the E-3, and the result looks just about
> exactly the same as the result coming out of Studio. Bravo for that.
> Or I could select ACR or the setup for the E-1. If anyone likes ACR,
> it is available. I guess one could experiment endlessly with using
> E-1 or other profiles with the E-3. Haven't tried Canaan color yet,
> but I guess one could try that too.
>
> Within the color dialogues there is the ability to adopt different
> versions of the color to approximate the characteristics of film. The
> default seems to be "film standard" and there is an exaggerated
> version of this as well as a thinner version. There is also "linear."
> Film standard, the default, seems best to my eyes, or at least the
> one that matches Studio best. It is perhaps within these color
> dialogue settings that CaptureOne achieves its superiority, but it all
> seems like a pig in a poke to me.
>
> Naturally, PhaseOne, Lightroom, even Studio want to be the place where
> you do all of your image management. I am a tough customer because I
> just want to bring the image into Photoshop the best it can be and
> without harm for final tweaks. I might be tempted to finish up with
> Capture One because it integrates highlight/shadow adjustment, noise
> reduction, and sharpening very nicely into the process. But so does
> LR, no? Also Studio? The problem for me is that Capture One (and the
> rest too) doesn't do any of these things as well as dedicated
> products, particularly noise reduction and highlight/shadowing
> rendering. The tools are sufficient if the need is modest, but in
> those cases I probably wouldn't bother. The highlight/shadow tool in
> my very old version of PS is so much more subtle in use and effect.
> If the problem were worth the attention, I simply wouldn't use
> CaptureOne as my tool, knowing that there are better tools for the
> purpose. It ends up being a set of pointless features for me. Why
> include them if they are not top drawer?
>
> But in fairness, I don't fault Studio for including such tools. But
> apples for apples, CaptureOne doesn't improve on Studio for me in
> terms of any feature I would take home to mama.
>
> I am hoping someone can help me understand better how to get more out
> of CaptureOne. I've bought it now, so I guess I'll keep it around,
> but it's a blue Monday of buyer's remorse. Maybe that free thingie
> that comes along with it will cheer me up.
>
> Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|