Capture 1 has changed my thinking, or more specifically, it has raised my expectations from my processing output.
The area that most vexed me in the past was high ISO image making, especially in weak light using the EM1 Mk2. I had felt from day one that images were more “normal” from these cameras, lacking the “X” factor I had learned to love and rely on from the older EM5’s.
The older sensor (lacking on sensor AF pixels) seemed to make snappier and tighter looking images. This showed out especially in high ISO work where the noise was no less evident, but sharpness or at least the perception of sharpness could be retained when noise reduction was applied or even when it was not.
This was borne out for me with the Pen F. This camera had the last and possibly greatest Olympus* non-AF modified chip, producing worse technical noise reduction than the EM1 sensors (DXO mark), but sharper and more contrasty images. Images that could take a little noise reduction to taste.
Resigned to this, I looked to other fixes (EM1x, f1.8 lenses, lighting).
The last avenue of improvement has proven to be the most exciting and was forced on me by my version of Lightroom, which lacked ongoing support for the EM1x Raw files (partly my computers age limiting Lightroom’s upgrade path). Looking for options other than the DNG converter, I narrowed down the choice to Capture 1 and DXO.
Capture 1 was the winner simply because I tried it first as it looked to be the best all-rounder and it was a smooth, even revelatory transition. At twice the monthly rental, it needs to be good, but it is. DXO has better noise reduction, but not an equivalent work flow.
The other day I had a crisis of confidence in the new work flow and questioned my results, so I compared an image I was struggling with to a Lightroom one (I cannot show it as it is a child from work). Very quickly I was thrown back into the “avoid ISO 1600+” Adobe doldrums I had been experiencing before. There was a little shadow noise in the C1 file, but not much and it cleared up nicely.
The file was pleasant to the eye. A nice, happy head and shoulders portrait. Peaking out from under a hat on a sunny day without fill flash, the child’s eye lashes were roughly as sharp in each file, but there was a “veil” of gritty noise over the LR file. Removing it removed the detail.
The Lightroom file would have been (and has been) fine at normal size, but this was a slightly under exposed area of a file taken outside in daylight at ISO 400. It should not have had bad noise issues. The M43 sensor is smaller than other SLR sizes granted, but the quality out of an older EM5 mk1 was giant killing compared to respected industry work horses like the 5D mk2, so why are we putting up with destructive and obvious noise on a low stress file from a newer, pro, 20mp sensors in any format ten years later.
This image was shot deliberately under by about 1.5 stops. The ISO is 1600, so my expectations of considerable noise and reduced clarity on an M43 sensor are realistically high.
I then processed the RAW and JPEG files “by eye”, using only the exposure and sharpness/clarity controls to see if i could get a satisfactory image.
Top left is the C1 RAW, then the C1 JPEG, then lower left the LR RAW, then LR JPEG.
The major difference seems to be in the core processing.
The LR files are mushy and noisy from the get-go, which leaves you in the unenviable position of living with the gritty noise or adding to the mush to remove it. The C1 RAW’s have room for a little push and pull. You can add sharpness if needed and reduce noise a little without running straight into a processing wall. The JPEG’s are interesting. The EM1 mk2 in question has the latest firmware and the benefit to JPEG’s (only) shows. I almost prefer the LR JPEG to the C1 version, except that I know I pushed that one a little harder.
The processing ease and responsiveness award, I would give to the C1 RAW over the C1 JPEG (Large Super Fine), then The LR JPEG over the RAW.
The RAW’s above, C1 on the left. I am putting the C1 ISO 1600 files on par with the LR 400-800 ones. The LR files, on the EM1 mk2 RAW files from ISO 1600 up just seem to take on a plasticky, artificial look or low clarity “gritty” at the other extreme. The LR file has had more sharpening and localised clarity applied, to the best of my discretion, but to no avail. The reality is, if I do not want noise, I can remove it from the C1 file without losing too much detail. Even if a superior noise reduction option was used, the LR file has already lost the detail, meaning you would have to go via a sidecar NR programme first to retain it.
Another file about 1 stop under.
C1 RAW, the LR RAW and C1 JPEG. The C1 JPEG is more brilliant, but also less subtle.
The bottom of the cup in the LR file looks softer (all the same file), which is actually lost detail. The file also lacks colour punch, contrast and bite, while showing more luminance noise in the background. It is a little lighter and brighter, that feels nice, but the added contrast in the C1 file can be backed off and again there is more headroom to do so. I have tried to match files with some success, but the reality is, this combination starts behind the eight ball, so anything that can be done can, it seems, be bettered by C1.
Comparisons I have a chance to do with the EM1x and Pen F show the same. LR is slightly better with those cameras as they have sharper resolution on sensor, but C1 is better again. I would say an EM1 mk2 file processed in C1 compared to an EM1x file in LR would be roughly similar. The temptation to shoot LSF JPEG’s with C1 is strong, but I still like a deeper RAW file as a backup.
Other comparisons after a week of bulk work;
I missed the LR work flow at first until I found nearly identical or better work arounds in C1. I now find LR, with only a few exceptions, less user friendly.
Things are pretty close to good enough with a gentle pre-set applied.
The layer tool is vastly more powerful than the LR brush. Again I missed the simple and immediate control of some features, but C1 has more options so it’s slightly less streamlined flow is a small price to pay for nearly total layer control.
The controls in C1 are more precise, powerful on the whole and usually deeper in options.
The layer control can be used with any editing feature, while the LR brush only has some features. I have never bothered with PS layers, which I see as a graphic design tool, but the layers control in C1 is just like using the brush in LR, but with more control and less fiddly localisation.
The spot tool, that I found really frustrating in LR, is more predictable.
Ed (new find). My lenses are supported, something LR did not offer for most.
The trash gets removed from the disc directly, without the double step of clearing the computers trash.
There is a free instruction manual. It is huge, but free. This is combined with free tutorial videos offered in the programme when you hover over a feature.
I could go on, but suffice to say, I have acclimatised surprisingly quickly. It looks like the C1 engineers have aimed at LR with a mind to bettering it in as many aspects as possible in both output and work flow. From where I am sitting, my gear and needs taken into account, they have succeeded.
As a M43 user and I am sure if I shot Fuji also, I cannot in good conscience advise you use LR (or Adobe generally) over C1 unless your personal workflow requires it. Other brands may be different, but I would bet not so much. This again highlights the inequality many review sites manifest simply by adhering to the “industry standard” for comparison processing. Choice of processor can be as important as choice of camera brand.
Usefully, C1 also seems faster on my older and quite full computer and it loads faster also. It only slows down when I am synching large numbers of files to Dropbox or I have Lightroom open also!
I have been using the Lightroom printer work flow up until now, but this is a chance for me to switch to the Canon support system, which is much improved on the Pro 10s printer I have with profiles built in.
*Panasonic sensors, using a different AF process have often slightly sharper output (and with slightly reduced noise). The arguments for and against each AF system will probably never stop, but the reality is, the Panasonic G9 produces sharper files than the EM1 mk2 (using Adobe processing) all things being equal. The stronger processors in the EM1x and Mk3 have evened up the field and given Olympus the edge in AF, but my C1 files feel like i have reduced the gap to negligible.