Comparing RAW conversion with DPP, Aperture, C1, and LR

[thekev]

Yeah, I was loading it up as I submitted it.

I've felt the same about Gimp and Blender: Really powerful, but isn't there a FOSS UI guy somewhere in the world?

Oh I'm with you on this, although the versions I used of Gimp had a lot of trouble with larger images. Blender lacked a decent built-in renderer for a lot of years. There was a port of 3delight for it, but that requires knowing how to properly write shaders in RSL or via the Renderman API. They implemented a raytracer with a lot of potential, but I don't know if it's still in beta.

An issue may be that these programs have a lot of contributing developers, yet not enough strong designers. There's also the issue of cross platform interfaces, as these run on various flavor of Linux, Windows, and OSX.

 

[VirtualRain]

I downloaded Affinity Photo (beta) to play around with a bit today, and tried the same RAW conversions as with the apps above.


Affinity Photo RAW Conversion by Virtual.Rain, on Flickr

Here you can see that Affinity produces results closest to DxO from what I see... The reds are saturated and leaning towards magenta much like DxO. The image of the woman in the red hat is much brighter than other's which is interesting, because that image is actually underexposed.

So I started looking into what Affinity was doing to make it brighter. Looking at the histogram, it appears that Affinity is doing some kind of auto-Levels adjustment on the RAW conversion by default. This is not good IMHO as sometimes you may want the highlights under-exposed for a reason. I'd rather adjust it myself than have the app do it for me.

I confirmed this by loading a second image that was well under exposed... this image of Notre Dame. Note the first image is the original RAW (as seen in C1 or Aperture), the second is the result you get importing into Affinity. The problem with this auto-levels is you now have little latitude to adjust anything.

Oh, and their shadow and highlight sliders are horrible. Perhaps even worse than Aperture.


5DM32683 by Virtual.Rain, on Flickr


Affinity Photo by Virtual.Rain, on Flickr

I've attached copies of the histograms for both Affinity and C1 showing what Affinity is doing to the image on import. These are for the woman and Notre Dame respectively. Note the empty space in the highlights area in C1 and how it's non-existent in Affinity.

 

[msh]

I, too, am searching for the best all around RAW converter. I shoot Panasonic and Nikon raw. I own LR5 but am now demoing C1 and DxO against SilkyPix (for Panasonic) and Capture NX-2/NX-D (for Nikon). I also have Aperture but haven't used it in a while as it was subpar with Nikon raws and now obsolete.

I haven't gotten to the Nikon raws for comparison yet but here is a sample Panasonic raw using LR5, C1, DxO and SilkyPix (Panasonic's OEM raw converter). (Note: all converters were set at their default settings).

C1 and LR appear very close. Notice the yellows on the bottom of the right wall: LR5 and C1 show them quite yellow while DxO is a little paler and SilkyPix is white. DxO seems to capture more details from that yellow highlighted area but at the sacrifice of washed out reds elsewhere. I don't really know which is more accurate. C1 appears the most detailed.

Anyway need to test a lot more - especially with Nikon - to reach any conclusions but I am afraid from what I have read that there may be no one raw converter that is best for all images. [BTW, this is an image of the bar at the Oxford Hotel in Denver].

DxO:

SilkyPix:

LR5:

C1:

 

[Cecco]

A bit late to this thread ...

But anyhow here are my 5 cent on this:

Results strongly depend on the camera you use. One app that does best default RAW conversion on one manufacturer's RAWs may give mediocre result on another manufacturer's RAWs.

Some weak or missing feature in Aperture is a non-issue with some camera. Aka. missing lens-correction is a non-issue for Micro-FourThirds cameras as they have lens-correction data in the RAW and Aperture is applying that correction. Weak noise reduction is a non-issue for a Sony A7R with it's stellar ISO capabilities (where you have much less noise).

Differences in color, saturation, contrast can usually be leveled with tweaking the appropriate sliders. Saved as a present and applied on importing pictures, things look much more similar.

Currently everyone is hunting for the best RAW converter and I'm puzzled, that long year Aperture users speak about Apertures RAW conversion as it would be absolute crap after they've switched to Lightroom or Capture One. I don't buy this. While you often might see a difference when pixel peeping side by side, many, if not most picture are only viewed on mobile devices or posted online and the quality Aperture produces is more than adequate for these.

Picture quality is one thing, speed, user interface, asset management and additional tools (slideshow, book, maps, faces etc.) is another thing, that is important to a workflow. While both Capture One and Lightroom can give you better picture quality, both have serious drawbacks in other areas. Capture One is painfully slow, has a weak asset management and almost no additional tools. Lightroom has a static, poor user interface. With dual monitors it becomes almost unusable.

Don't want to talk anyone to stick with Aperture. At some point in the future you will be forced to leave it. But at the time being, I still get the job done much faster in Aperture with occasional round-tripping to plugins. Plus I don't have to spend days or weeks to transfer my Aperture libraries to Lightroom or Capture One.

 

[simonsi]

Differences in color, saturation, contrast can usually be leveled with tweaking the appropriate sliders. Saved as a present and applied on importing pictures, things look much more similar.

Currently everyone is hunting for the best RAW converter and I'm puzzled, that long year Aperture users speak about Apertures RAW conversion as it would be absolute crap after they've switched to Lightroom or Capture One. I don't buy this. While you often might see a difference when pixel peeping side by side, many, if not most picture are only viewed on mobile devices or posted online and the quality Aperture produces is more than adequate for these.

Picture quality is one thing, speed, user interface, asset management and additional tools (slideshow, book, maps, faces etc.) is another thing, that is important to a workflow. While both Capture One and Lightroom can give you better picture quality, both have serious drawbacks in other areas. Capture One is painfully slow, has a weak asset management and almost no additional tools. Lightroom has a static, poor user interface. With dual monitors it becomes almost unusable.

Don't want to talk anyone to stick with Aperture. At some point in the future you will be forced to leave it. But at the time being, I still get the job done much faster in Aperture with occasional round-tripping to plugins. Plus I don't have to spend days or weeks to transfer my Aperture libraries to Lightroom or Capture One.

I for one never said Aperture was crap, just that Capture One did better RAW conversion. I also view the overall picture quality, not by pixel peeping. It also matches all the asset management features in Aperture that I used. I also don't find C1 slow, but many things could cause slowness in your install.

YMMY and obviously does, good luck with continuing to use Aperture, given Apple's update cycle you may only be months away from having to delay OS updates to maintain Aperture working. Given that Aperture won't be developed further, it matters not whether Aperture continues to be used by anyone.

 

[JDDavis]

A bit late to this thread ...

But anyhow here are my 5 cent on this:

Results strongly depend on the camera you use. One app that does best default RAW conversion on one manufacturer's RAWs may give mediocre result on another manufacturer's RAWs.

Some weak or missing feature in Aperture is a non-issue with some camera. Aka. missing lens-correction is a non-issue for Micro-FourThirds cameras as they have lens-correction data in the RAW and Aperture is applying that correction. Weak noise reduction is a non-issue for a Sony A7R with it's stellar ISO capabilities (where you have much less noise).

Differences in color, saturation, contrast can usually be leveled with tweaking the appropriate sliders. Saved as a present and applied on importing pictures, things look much more similar.

Currently everyone is hunting for the best RAW converter and I'm puzzled, that long year Aperture users speak about Apertures RAW conversion as it would be absolute crap after they've switched to Lightroom or Capture One. I don't buy this. While you often might see a difference when pixel peeping side by side, many, if not most picture are only viewed on mobile devices or posted online and the quality Aperture produces is more than adequate for these.

Picture quality is one thing, speed, user interface, asset management and additional tools (slideshow, book, maps, faces etc.) is another thing, that is important to a workflow. While both Capture One and Lightroom can give you better picture quality, both have serious drawbacks in other areas. Capture One is painfully slow, has a weak asset management and almost no additional tools. Lightroom has a static, poor user interface. With dual monitors it becomes almost unusable.

Don't want to talk anyone to stick with Aperture. At some point in the future you will be forced to leave it. But at the time being, I still get the job done much faster in Aperture with occasional round-tripping to plugins. Plus I don't have to spend days or weeks to transfer my Aperture libraries to Lightroom or Capture One.

I'm not sure you're giving C1 or LR a fair shake there. I was an ardent Aperture user from the day it was first released. I was always very happy with it's features and capabilities and with NIK plugins it met all my needs. Without Apples decision to end Aperture and move to Photos I never would've left. There were some things Aperture did very well and speed and organization was some of them. I thought it handled my D90 .NEF files just fine. Eventually, though even I had to admit that Aperture was starting to lag behind, development wise, from it's competitors. I don't know why, but it did not handle my D750 .NEFs as well as it did the D90. Even without comparing it to other RAW converters it was evident to me. I was also using NIK almost entirely for edits as the latest NIK updates really left Apertures capabilities behind. Aperture was mainly being used for the DAM.

I spent a good bit of time with C1 Pro 8 and LR5 before I adopted C1 Pro 8. There are pros and cons to both but speed has never been an issue with either for me. In the end I didn't like LR5s user interface but I thought it handled the D750 RAW just fine and in a better fashion than Aperture. I've been using C1 for a few months now and once I learned the ins and outs of it I believe it is a more powerful DAM (but more complicated) than Aperture, IMHO it produces a better RAW conversion than Aperture (for my D750), it has more organic editing tools such as local adjustments and the color editor and I like how it applies the effects of my choices better than Aperture. In comparison Aperture seems harsh. Also, my NIK plugins work just fine with C1 Pro so I haven't lost anything there either. Granted, C1 Pro takes longer to learn, especially the asset management part, and Aperture (and LR5) have better export options for integration with social media and online libraries but in the end I would not want to go back to Aperture in it's present state.

Yes, rebuilding my entire library in C1 is going to take a long time. Especially since I'm not using the library import function but going project by project. Unless you're sticking with Photos (which is fine if it meets your needs) then you're going to have to do it at some point anyway.

Both LR and C1 offer a free trial of at least a month. For anyone looking to make a decision I'd recommend utilizing the entire trial period and really getting to know the software through heavy use before making the leap.

 

[Brari]

Cecco, I do think that you have a point, but it all depends on your situation what choices you make. You indeed have to consider the whole package. A great RAW converter alone isn't enough.

I've been a long time Aperture user and, considering the whole package, am very happy with it. Great DAM, good RAW convertor, great editing options, very important integration with OSX and iOS, pretty fast.

Since Aperture is end-of-life, I want something else. Aperture will probably work for the next years (look at iDVD), but integration with OSX/iOS will become an issue. Since Apple's solution is Photos and that's, for me, not a solution for RAW convertion and editing, I have been looking for alternatives. I do need the integration with OSX/iOS, so I will use Photos in the future. I might stick with Aperture for now, because it's an 'easy' migration from Aperture to Photos.

I'm not going to wait for the Aperture functionality to die, so I'm migrating to another program that is stable for RAW convertion and editing options. I will import the end results into Aperture/Photos and use that for the DAM and integration with OSX/iOS. Reason is that there is no alternative for the integration-part besides an Apple program (Aperture/Photos).
That's why I have been looking for a program to be the best in RAW and editing alone. As far as I've seen that's Capture One Pro 8.
I'm very happy with the RAW conversion and the editing options are much better than what is possible with Aperture. A real joy to learn

 

[MCAsan]

You don't need C1P for a great raw converter. In my Mac I have the Apple OS raw converter used by Photos, Aperture..etc. I have the Adobe raw converter that is part of Lightroom. And I have the DxO Optics raw converter that is a fully integrated plugin to LR; it returns a DNG file to my LR library.

For me the integration of plugins is a huge advantage that only Aperture and Lightroom have. In LR I can stay with the Adobe raw render or transfer the raw file to DxO for raw adjustments like their killer noise reduction. When I am finished in DxO the plugin returns a DNG filter and puts it in the library beside the original raw file. I can then use either the original raw or the DNG version to send to any LR plugin. These days I am down to only using Perfect Photo Suite as my finish editing plugin. I used to have and have now removed Helicon Focus, Photoshop, Pixelmator, and the Nik Collection. When I have completed with my final editing in PPS, it returns a editable layered PSD file back to my LR library. I can reopen that PSD at any time are redo a layer or filter in the image's stack.

I am sure C1P is an excellent program. IMHO Phase One needs to step up and and acknowledge that they do not now or ever will, provide all the tools photographers want to use on an image. Therefore they need to provide for a totally integrated workflow between their DAM and plugins.

 

[JDDavis]

You don't need C1P for a great raw converter. In my Mac I have the Apple OS raw converter used by Photos, Aperture..etc. I have the Adobe raw converter that is part of Lightroom. And I have the DxO Optics raw converter that is a fully integrated plugin to LR; it returns a DNG file to my LR library.

For me the integration of plugins is a huge advantage that only Aperture and Lightroom have. In LR I can stay with the Adobe raw render or transfer the raw file to DxO for raw adjustments like their killer noise reduction. When I am finished in DxO the plugin returns a DNG filter and puts it in the library beside the original raw file. I can then use either the original raw or the DNG version to send to any LR plugin. These days I am down to only using Perfect Photo Suite as my finish editing plugin. I used to have and have now removed Helicon Focus, Photoshop, Pixelmator, and the Nik Collection. When I have completed with my final editing in PPS, it returns a editable layered PSD file back to my LR library. I can reopen that PSD at any time are redo a layer or filter in the image's stack.

I am sure C1P is an excellent program. IMHO Phase One needs to step up and and acknowledge that they do not now or ever will, provide all the tools photographers want to use on an image. Therefore they need to provide for a totally integrated workflow between their DAM and plugins.

I'm all in on C1 Pro now as I like the interface better than LR5 (to the point that it was a deciding factor) but I agree with you that Phase One could do great things for their market for C1 Pro by building in more integration with other services and plugins. Obviously their market was originally the MF Phase One system crowd but now they are clearly supporting numerous users/manufacturers. I think they are headed that way as round-tripping with plugins like the NIK suite is pretty much there in the current version. The only difference in round-tripping with NIK between Aperture and C1 Pro is how it's initiated and that's just style. The result is the same...an edited TIFF beside you're original file in the library. It would be nice to retain the ability to go back and edit layers or change edits but that's a NIK issue not a C1 issue. Coincidentally that might come as Google's upgrade to Snapseed know allows you to go back and change individual edits. I will say that I use NIK less now because I am more satisfied with what I'm able to do organically in C1 Pro (in comparison to Aperture).

Personally, I do wish they (or someone) would build a Zenfolio upload plugin for C1 Pro.

 

[phrehdd]

Just a few peanuts from the gallery -

Some camera makers' RAW files render better than others with a given software. In my case, I find that Fuji X files do great with Capture 1 and Photo Ninja and not as well with Aperture or Lightroom under various photo taking conditions (high ISO or difficult lighting).

I would suggest people consider their camera make and its respective RAW file as the focus and not suggesting that a given software application is the best for all types of RAW files.

Last - Ideally, you may want to take a proper colour chart and greyscale and use that to run various tests from ideal ISO to extremes and then biased light sources etc. This might give a far better indication of what can be done "technically" with an application being tested. Often, an app may seem like a poor player but the truth is that some minor adjustments need to be made and the results improve dramatically. (Just note that at times there could be trade offs).

--------
As for Capture 1, great application and totally agree with others that a bit more development should be done with a) DAM and b) use of 3rd party plugins.

 

[simonsi]

IMHO Phase One needs to step up and and acknowledge that they do not now or ever will, provide all the tools photographers want to use on an image.

Why would they need to do that?

Will Adobe be making a statement that they will, now and for ever more, be producing all the tools a photographer will ever need?

Nonsense. Users should and will continue to evaluate products on their capabilities, C1, LR etc aren't Photos, being bundled with another product needing to reassure a captive audience that it will continue to meet their needs...

Frankly I'm quite pleased that I don't need to use the previous plugins I needed with Aperture, so there are benefits for me there too.

Just like a camera choice, there will be personal preferences, some find Nikon ergonomics superior to Canon for them, some will find LR's UI better than Aperture for them, some will find C1s DAM better than LR for them etc etc

It is never as easy as X's features are better than Y's, users simply do not use all the features of every product they buy...

 

[VirtualRain]

I am sure C1P is an excellent program. IMHO Phase One needs to step up and and acknowledge that they do not now or ever will, provide all the tools photographers want to use on an image. Therefore they need to provide for a totally integrated workflow between their DAM and plugins.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I use to round-trip from Aperture to NIK all the time, but that was primarily because of Aperture's weaknesses, not NIKs strengths. In C1 I have yet to round-trip to NIK in the last few months. So I might suggest that if you're round-tripping a lot, you really need a better RAW converter.

As for Phase One's priorities with C1, as of December they can support round-tripping, just the same as Aperture. That work is done. I'd like to see C1 continue to improve and enhance their tools and performance.

Adobe has lots of room for improvement as well, as does DxO. There is no perfect RAW converter out there... choose the one with the least compromises for you and get on with it.

----------

Plus I don't have to spend days or weeks to transfer my Aperture libraries to Lightroom or Capture One.

You're going to be faced with this issue at some point, and the longer you delay it, the more work you're going to have to do. The sooner you switch, the less you'll have to migrate later.

ps. I decided not to import anything except my most recent month's worth of photos when I switched from Aperture to C1. Flickr is where all my finished photos live... and that won't change. If I find I need to rework an old photo... I'll reimport the original RAW from my archives into C1, but that will be extremely rare. I'd rather reshoot something than dig out an old RAW to re-process it.

 

[MCAsan]

So I might suggest that if you're round-tripping a lot, you really need a better RAW converter.

So totally within CiP how do someone stack multiple raw images to give a huge depth of field ? Are there layer tools tou pick the areas from each image to merge into a new image?

How about HDR or Panos? Will CiP merge multiple exposures of the same scene to create a larger dynamic range with adjustable compression? Will it take multiple images and put them into a new wider canvas?

While LR will not do the layer DOF or HDR layering, it is my understanding that LR6 will do pano of multiple images into a larger/wider image canvas. It will be interesting to see LR6 do that.



I guess LR will continue to be my default DAM. I will use DxO Optics and PPS plugins as needed. If others can get all their post processing needs met in C1P or any other single product/app, good for them. The key is to know your own requirements and how to match those to the strengths and weaknesses of the many different DAMs and editors out on the market.

 

[VirtualRain]

So totally within CiP how do someone stack multiple raw images to give a huge depth of field ? Are there layer tools tou pick the areas from each image to merge into a new image?

How about HDR or Panos? Will CiP merge multiple exposures of the same scene to create a larger dynamic range with adjustable compression? Will it take multiple images and put them into a new wider canvas?

While LR will not do the layer DOF or HDR layering, it is my understanding that LR6 will do pano of multiple images into a larger/wider image canvas. It will be interesting to see LR6 do that.



I guess LR will continue to be my default DAM. I will use DxO Optics and PPS plugins as needed. If others can get all their post processing needs met in C1P or any other single product/app, good for them. The key is to know your own requirements and how to match those to the strengths and weaknesses of the many different DAMs and editors out on the market.

Yeah, fair enough. Not trying to start a war. Agreed there are some things that will always require round-tripping.

However, one thing that struck me about what you said earlier is that you round-trip to DxO for NR... I was under the impression that LR's NR was the best out there... are you saying DxO is even better? If so, that's a significant statement. How does it compare to LR in that dept?

 

[MCAsan]

DxO does a better job on my ORF raw files with noise reduction in very dark areas, especially with longer exposures. It is not a critical item. But especially for a B&W image, every bit helps.

 

[Ray2]

A bit late to this thread ...

But anyhow here are my 5 cent on this:

Results strongly depend on the camera you use. One app that does best default RAW conversion on one manufacturer's RAWs may give mediocre result on another manufacturer's RAWs.

Some weak or missing feature in Aperture is a non-issue with some camera. Aka. missing lens-correction is a non-issue for Micro-FourThirds cameras as they have lens-correction data in the RAW and Aperture is applying that correction. Weak noise reduction is a non-issue for a Sony A7R with it's stellar ISO capabilities (where you have much less noise).

Differences in color, saturation, contrast can usually be leveled with tweaking the appropriate sliders. Saved as a present and applied on importing pictures, things look much more similar.

Currently everyone is hunting for the best RAW converter and I'm puzzled, that long year Aperture users speak about Apertures RAW conversion as it would be absolute crap after they've switched to Lightroom or Capture One. I don't buy this. While you often might see a difference when pixel peeping side by side, many, if not most picture are only viewed on mobile devices or posted online and the quality Aperture produces is more than adequate for these.

Picture quality is one thing, speed, user interface, asset management and additional tools (slideshow, book, maps, faces etc.) is another thing, that is important to a workflow. While both Capture One and Lightroom can give you better picture quality, both have serious drawbacks in other areas. Capture One is painfully slow, has a weak asset management and almost no additional tools. Lightroom has a static, poor user interface. With dual monitors it becomes almost unusable.

Don't want to talk anyone to stick with Aperture. At some point in the future you will be forced to leave it. But at the time being, I still get the job done much faster in Aperture with occasional round-tripping to plugins. Plus I don't have to spend days or weeks to transfer my Aperture libraries to Lightroom or Capture One.

About time. People looking for the perfect converter for them need to consider their camera, their subjective preferences (natural, screaming sharp, etc) in terms of a developed end product and their needs. I shot Nikon for decades, then switched to Fuji XTrans. Of the all-in-one PP apps, C1 delivered the hands down best initial renders (as long as one did not mind a little creative interpretation of colors). Aperture delivers very good initial renders and walks all over C1 in terms of ease of use, DAM and speed.

At some point I'll have to switch. But with Aperture, C1 and LR loaded on my Mac, Aperture gets 99% of the work. C1 does get used on occasion. Great converter for me but the interface and DAM leaves me cold and C1's support has been non-existent to useless in my experience.

 

[VirtualRain]

About time. People looking for the perfect converter for them need to consider their camera, their subjective preferences (natural, screaming sharp, etc) in terms of a developed end product and their needs. I shot Nikon for decades, then switched to Fuji XTrans. Of the all-in-one PP apps, C1 delivered the hands down best initial renders (as long as one did not mind a little creative interpretation of colors). Aperture delivers very good initial renders and walks all over C1 in terms of ease of use, DAM and speed.



At some point I'll have to switch. But with Aperture, C1 and LR loaded on my Mac, Aperture gets 99% of the work. C1 does get used on occasion. Great converter for me but the interface and DAM leaves me cold and C1's support has been non-existent to useless in my experience.

Interesting... I find the interface and DAM capabilities between Aperture and C1 very similar, there are some subtle differences but I don't think anyone would agree it's accurate to say Aperture "walks all over" C1? How so?

 

[simonsi]

with Aperture, C1 and LR loaded on my Mac, Aperture gets 99% of the work. C1 does get used on occasion.

But the question isn't what do you use now, its which will you use when Aperture no longer functions...

Aperture and C1 have very close DAM features and functions but everything is influenced by how YOU find the ergonomics, I just can't get on with LR...

 

[JDDavis]

Interesting... I find the interface and DAM capabilities between Aperture and C1 very similar, there are some subtle differences but I don't think anyone would agree it's accurate to say Aperture "walks all over" C1? How so?

My .02 . At first I was a bit turned off by C1 Pro's DAM and missed Aperture for that reason. Through mainly trial and error I've gotten to know C1 and how it's catalog works as well as the User Collections (virtual catalog). I now feel that C1 Pro's DAM offers a bit more flexibility in organizing and is, in total, a more powerful DAM than Aperture. Now, there are some features that Aperture wins at that I feel are "nice to have" but easy to live without and they revolve around integration with the OS and other Apple applications as well as integration with social media.

I think Aperture did a really nice job of making fairly complicated organization schemes easy for the non-pro. It's what Apple is good at. I feel C1 Pro is a bit harder to learn but worth it for me since my library is becoming better organized and with keywords, metadata and the User Collections you can really assemble images any way you want. I know you could do this as well in Aperture but I've become a fan of C1's methodology.

I think my overall assessment as a long time user of Aperture of C1 Pro 8 is that it's a bit expensive and harder to learn but I feel it's taken my editing and organizing to another level and so I think it's completely worth the effort to learn. As Aperture users move on they have to decide what best suits their needs but I would encourage everyone to spend the entire trial period test driving new software like C1 or LR and then make a decision.

 

[Ray2]

Interesting... I find the interface and DAM capabilities between Aperture and C1 very similar, there are some subtle differences but I don't think anyone would agree it's accurate to say Aperture "walks all over" C1? How so?

Aperture's DAM is far easier to use, keywords, flags, organization. Aperture's metadata displays in both the viewer and grid are more informative and can be customized. No hunting around looking for info about an image. Aperture's look and the amount of "air" on its panel is a big plus for me. Speed wise there's no comparison. I'm dealing with D800 and XTrans files and Aperture imports them and builds previews much faster than C1 on both new and old Apple hardware. Running C1 in a managed environment with 30,000 images is minutes to open versus Aperture's couple of seconds. I would not use C1 in a managed environment. No hard rationale here but many crashes with v7 and at least a couple with v8 suggest I'd rather recover from a crashed referenced library than a managed one.

----------

But the question isn't what do you use now, its which will you use when Aperture no longer functions...

Aperture and C1 have very close DAM features and functions but everything is influenced by how YOU find the ergonomics, I just can't get on with LR...

Nor do I get along with LR. I've used it extensively when Apple was late coming up with XTrans support and I happily left LR when Apple finally delivered, over a year later.

I have no idea what I will use. A serious contender is moving from a library approach to a browser and doing my own organization. For my Fuji's, better converters are available than those offered by the big 3. Perhaps PSE, Graphic Converter or Photo Mechanic plus Iridient or C1 sans DAM. I'm in no rush. Aperture isn't going anywhere in the foreseeable future.

 

[VirtualRain]

Aperture's DAM is far easier to use, keywords, flags, organization.

"far easier"? Are you saying Aperture is way easier for you (as a power user) or it's easier and less intimidating for a beginner? The former I have trouble believing, the latter I could understand. I think a power user should have zero trouble using either app, and would actually welcome the customization and flexibility that added bit of complexity in C1 provides.

I think flags are better in C1 (6 colours) each of which can be assigned their own keyboard shortcut making it just as easy as Aperture and more flexible.

As for organization, they are very similar whether you choose managed or referenced. There are subtle differences that may appeal to one kind of workflow (or stubborn user) more than another, but nothing that would classify one as "far easier" than the other in my view. I actually think Capture One's Catalog model is superior to Aperture's Library/Project structure but I might just be stubborn.

Now I don't use keywords, so I'll give you that one (although I must wonder if you're exaggerating with that as well).

Aperture's metadata displays in both the viewer and grid are more informative and can be customized. No hunting around looking for info about an image.

I'm not sure what metadata you could see in Aperture's grid view beyond rating and flags (that's all I need), but both apps offer a tab for meta data and powerful sort, search function, and smart albums.

Aperture's look and the amount of "air" on its panel is a big plus for me.

That's a new term I've not heard in describing a UI? What is "air"?

While we're talking UI, I like the customization that C1 offers to tailor your workspace and save those as workspace presets. I have one for culling, one for editing single screen, and one for editing on dual screens.

Speed wise there's no comparison. I'm dealing with D800 and XTrans files and Aperture imports them and builds previews much faster than C1 on both new and old Apple hardware. Running C1 in a managed environment with 30,000 images is minutes to open versus Aperture's couple of seconds. I would not use C1 in a managed environment.

I'll give you that. Aperture performance is beat only by their new Photos app and both Capture One and Lightroom are an embarrassment in comparison. However, the new 8.2 version of C1 solved a couple of serious performance issues for me on 4K displays to the point where performance is pretty transparent now (I don't notice it anymore). We'll see what LR6 brings shortly. At any rate if Apple is using some proprietary API, shame on them for not sharing, and if not, shame on Phase One and Adobe for not doing a better job optimizing performance.

No hard rationale here but many crashes with v7 and at least a couple with v8 suggest I'd rather recover from a crashed referenced library than a managed one.

C1 has been extremely stable for me, but that's no excuse for not maintaining regular backups of your catalog, library, or whatever database is housing your image and adjustment data... And even if you're running referenced, there's still a database of metadata and adjustments that can get corrupted. I personally like having everything in a single container file I can move around, archive, backup, etc. and Aperture and C1s Library and Catalog are simple container files that are still home to a folder structure that's completely accessible through the file system. So, managed vs unmanaged is more alike than you might think.

 

[VirtualRain]

My .02 . At first I was a bit turned off by C1 Pro's DAM and missed Aperture for that reason. Through mainly trial and error I've gotten to know C1 and how it's catalog works as well as the User Collections (virtual catalog). I now feel that C1 Pro's DAM offers a bit more flexibility in organizing and is, in total, a more powerful DAM than Aperture. Now, there are some features that Aperture wins at that I feel are "nice to have" but easy to live without and they revolve around integration with the OS and other Apple applications as well as integration with social media.

I think Aperture did a really nice job of making fairly complicated organization schemes easy for the non-pro. It's what Apple is good at. I feel C1 Pro is a bit harder to learn but worth it for me since my library is becoming better organized and with keywords, metadata and the User Collections you can really assemble images any way you want. I know you could do this as well in Aperture but I've become a fan of C1's methodology.

I think my overall assessment as a long time user of Aperture of C1 Pro 8 is that it's a bit expensive and harder to learn but I feel it's taken my editing and organizing to another level and so I think it's completely worth the effort to learn. As Aperture users move on they have to decide what best suits their needs but I would encourage everyone to spend the entire trial period test driving new software like C1 or LR and then make a decision.

Agreed it's expensive. Maybe I'm being a bit hard on Ray2 above about his comment that Aperture is "far easier" as you seem to be saying something similar. I guess I agree that a newbie to photography might find Aperture a bit less intimidating than Capture One on first sight (maybe just because of the grey vs black UI or named tabs vs icon tabs), but we're all seasoned Aperture users here, so I'm surprised C1 would be viewed as more difficult than Aperture by this group... I felt right at home and really liked the added flexibility, tools, and capability I discovered in C1 that I hadn't realized I was missing.

 

[simonsi]

TBH whether C1 or Aperture is "better" in any way is moot.

The question is about ease of transfer and migration to any of the available options.

Personally I found the RAW processing better, less round-tripping required to the Macphun suite, easy DAM transfer and easy UI to learn.

Tip - you can set shortcuts (I use T and Y) to move left and right on tool tabs.

Combined with almost unlimited options to configure tabs and tools on those tabs, it is easy to setup the UI how you want - and save it as a Workspace, and have multiple Workspaces set up for different tasks. So if the UI isn't to your liking....change it

----------

C1 has been extremely stable for me

Me too. LR crashed on me once in trial...not enough to draw any conclusions from.

Course an app than won't load, can't crash just sayin'

 

[maflynn]

Personally I found the RAW processing better, less round-tripping required to the Macphun suite, easy DAM transfer and easy UI to learn.

The Raw handling is phenomenal, but I found the DAM capability to be lacking in C1. Perhaps I didn't give it enough of a chance (though most will say I kept beating a dead horse by vacillating over what use instead of Aperture). I had trouble organizing my images, and retrieving them in a way that I could with AP and LR. Ultimately this is what caused me to stick with LR. Instead of changing how I had to do things to fit the program, I could fairly easily organize LR and have it work for me.

 

[JDDavis]

The Raw handling is phenomenal, but I found the DAM capability to be lacking in C1. Perhaps I didn't give it enough of a chance (though most will say I kept beating a dead horse by vacillating over what use instead of Aperture). I had trouble organizing my images, and retrieving them in a way that I could with AP and LR. Ultimately this is what caused me to stick with LR. Instead of changing how I had to do things to fit the program, I could fairly easily organize LR and have it work for me.

It's interesting that designers and users tend to fall into "camps" I guess it would be impossible for human designers to design something that doesn't reflect their own bias towards a particular way of approaching something (that seems a bit obvious to say). I found it very difficult to organize in LR. I don't mean difficult in that I lacked the cognitive ability to do it just difficult to match how I wanted to organize and interface with that org structure with how LR does it. I was impressed with LRs editing and RAW conversion capabilities and with tweaking one or the other I could make the same image practically match in both C1P and LR. It was a really kind of a wash in converting/editing capability. After weeks of use what became clear to me was that I was more comfortable and enjoyed the UI of C1P more, to include the DAM capabilities.

It's like trying to pick two cameras of near equal capability or between two manufacturers. It comes down to which one feels best and which one you think you'd enjoy using more. You do really have to give it some time and effort though. I believe that is more true with C1P than it was with Aperture.