Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 31, 2012, 12:38 PM   #1
Senior Member
HarjTT's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,555
Default Cap 1 v7 vs LR 4.x comparison

Another RAW conversion comparison, and this time Cap 1 v7 vs LR 4.3, and I'm planning on doing a Corel AftershotPro vs LR one as soon as I can get used to Aftershot.

Pics for the test were from the Olympics/Paralymics - E3 :

Left pic is Capture 1, the Right LR 4.3

You check the other pics in the gallery here:


Some none sports pics to be uploaded later today.

1. The first thing I noticed is the WB shows up differently in C1 - usually in sunny conditions its displaying it as 5250k where as LR usually states it as 4900. All of the pics are slightly warmer than those in LR.

2. The Capture 1 files with default setting + Luminous NR reduced to 25, have less noise/grain although that does include a NR in RAW setting thats being applied as part of the default setting and I've not got a clue what the difference between the two NR settings are.

3. The Cap 1 files - are sharper than those from LR. I've not been able to match the sharpness in LR without getting some ugly artifacts, although I'm assuming PS might do a better job and I've yet to get my head around the sharpening tools in C1. The C1 default sharpening settings are Sharpen 200 @ rad 1 doesn't seems to be really fine and doesn't introduce any artifacts where as with LR its set to Sharpen 40/detail 25/Rad 0.8

4. Cap 1 has a dedicated Oly E3 camera profile and 3 different film type curves that can be applied

5. File sizes - Cap1 seem to be on average 300-1M larger than the same pic from LR although thats not always the case where some of the LR files have been nearly 2MB larger.

6. Cap 1 - is slow, snail pace slow compared to LR and that's running on a fairly beefy Corei7/Windows 8 PC and is the only app that I've used on the system that can max the CPU out at 95% and cause the fans to kick in! I'm finding the speed and the UI difficult and there are options such as the comparison tool in LR that so far are simply not there. Its definitely not as easy to use or as feature rich as LR.

7. A good thing about this exercise or may be not, is that it made me look at my LR PP and adjust it - too much sharpening leading to a lot of noise/grain in the colour pics.

Next up is AftershotPro but I'd liek your opinion on what you think about the pp'd jpegs.

Last edited by HarjTT; Dec 31, 2012 at 2:46 PM.
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 31, 2012, 6:26 PM   #2
Senior Member
Steven R's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,932

Hi Harj: I looked at the shots on Smugmug, and think I slightly prefer the Cap1, but there is not enough different to be significant. Also sounds like the program is at a practical disadvantage if it slows down your computer that much.
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2012, 7:36 PM   #3
Senior Member
HarjTT's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,555

Hi Steve

Happy new Year to everyone from the Ol' Country !!!

I think the C1 files are closer to the OOC jpegs from the E3 and theyre definitely sharper without getting any of the sharpening artifacts that get thrown up when using LR/ACR.

The output from C1 has got me looking at all of my previous files and my PP settings and I think I've improved LR's output by a wee bit and realised where I was going wrong - the pics now have less noise/grain in the pics, although I'm having to apply some luminous NR where as before I wouldn't use it at all.

Going to work on a few more files in C1 and then take a look at AftershotPro.

LR's - library and performance beats C1 hands down but I like the look of the files from C1 so far.
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 7:24 AM   #4
Senior Member
HarjTT's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,555

Added a few more pics to the gallery inc. an ISO3200 pic for comparison.
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 11:04 AM   #5
BarefootPilgrim's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Westchester, Illinois USA
Posts: 39

Happy New Year Harj, Steven and all!

Also.... looks to me (from your first two pics in this thread) as if the skin tones are rendered a bit more naturally in C1 than they are in Lightroom, but skin texture seems a bit more "plasticy" in C1. Maybe an effect of the different white balance, but not sure that would make as much difference as I think I'm seeing. Or... it could just be the screen I'm looking at ;D ... Anyone else notice these differences?
-- Bob.
BarefootPilgrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 5:33 PM   #6
Senior Member
HarjTT's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,555

Happy new Year Bob !

Thanks for the comments and taking time to take a look at the pics.

It does look like C1 is just that wee bit better with skin tones and straight out of the bat. I had to recalibrate my display as I wasn't sure if what I was seeing on screen was right. I'm not sure why the WB seems to be so different between the 2 apps.

Not 100% sure about detail and the look with the C1 files - theyre getting 25 or more luminous NR being applied to them so that may be why they look a little plasticy. The ISo3200 shot has 25% LNR applied to it and on the whole I think LR did a better a job with that file - its full of fine grain and not smudge.

Blown highlights - I think LR does a better job at recovering them and at times may show that there are no over exposed parts to a shot where as C1 will.
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:07 PM.