[Andrew Rodney Participant Posts: 405]

Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

on: November 3, 2023 at 1:10 pm

Some people keep showing examples of noise in images and provide a high ISO setting as if the two were tied. The noise is the result of underexposure, not the ISO setting. The relative amount of noise changes with exposure. Underexposure results in more noise.  An ISO 100 image can have far more noise than an ISO 800 image! Suggesting ISO equals noise is like suggesting that a 105mm lens causes noise while a 24mm doesn’t. The two have nothing in common. Here’s an example below to prove this, but anyone can run a similar test. The ‘normal’ ISO 100 image is exposed based on the camera meter recommendation (and that is where ISO comes into play as a recommendation, sometimes utterly wrong for exposure). The same exposure but at ISO 800 is a bit less noisy! But it isn’t noisier! The ISO 100 image two stops overexposed is far, far noisier! Because ISO doesn’t matter here, exposure does.
125th at F8 at ISO 100 and 125th at F8 at ISO 1000 are the same, identical exposure. What the ISO might do after capture (exposure) depends on the sensor/camera design. We can dive into ISO invariance if desired.
I keep having issues embedding images into this forum, so you’ll have to examine the examples by clicking on links:

http://digitaldog.net/files/100vs800iso.jpg
http://digitaldog.net/files/ISOExposureNoiseReality1.png

Do we need to crank up the ISO while sometimes underexposing to brighten the image? Yes, we do. Under low light or to capture action, etc. But it is essential to understand when and why the noise increased. High ISO doesn’t equate to more noise. ISO isn’t a part of exposure. It takes place after exposure.

Did push-processing transparency film that was underexposed produce more grain, and was that sometimes necessary? Yes. So, you are shooting in a low-light environment. Your incident meter tells you when set to ISO 100, the ‘recommended’ exposure is 15th of a second at F2.8. But your lens is F4 wide open, and you want to shoot at a 30th of a second to reduce movement. You’re two stops down from the goal.

Of course, you can under-expose those two stops by shooting at F4 at a 30th of a second. You can brighten up the image in the raw converter by two stops or so. OR you can up the ISO two stops and shoot at F4 at a 30th of a second, and yup, you’re two stops underexposed. And you do not need to brighten up the image by two stops in the raw converter. So, in either scenario, what’s gained or lost in terms of noise?
A superb video if that method of examining the topic is preferable:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=il28la8DRCU

Lastly, Dan and going full circle with C1/LR/ACR: NONE provide a raw Histogram! That’s the Histogram of the rendered raw. It tells you nothing about exposure. You need a raw Histogram for that information, so go directly for RawDigger. https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/beware-histogram

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)”

[Andrew Rodney]

Re: Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

Reply #1 on: November 3, 2023 at 2:28 pm

Kevin Raber wrote:

As Andrew says . . . ETTR – expose to the right.

Not what I would say, but rather, expose optimally for the raw data. Not a lie provided based on differing image data (a JPEG).

For others:

Articles on exposing for specifically and only raw:

Home

http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/

The Optimum Digital Exposure

http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/mystic-exposure-triangle
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/red_flowers_photography_to-see-the-real-picture
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/exposure-for-raw-or-for-jpegs
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/beware-histogram
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range

 

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)”

• This reply was modified 6 months, 2 weeks ago by Andrew Rodney.

[Oliver Ritter-Wolff]

Re: Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

Reply #2 on: November 18, 2023 at 3:14 pm

Hi Dan,

As I’ve already reported here, I worked with Capture One for a long time. When Lightroom came onto the market, I switched to it because of the very good DAM functions. However, I continued to use C1 in parallel, as I had the impression at the time that the RAW converter was better than Adobe’s for some files, especially the Fuji X-files later on.

When Adobe switched to the subscription model, I only continued with Capture One and also transferred my database there. Unfortunately, the DAM functions have never been brought up to the level of Lightroom. I also had two major problems with the database and other issues with C1. I reported the problems here.

The new pricing and licensing policy was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. I then went back to Lightroom and set up my old database again and imported the photos that had been added in the meantime.

I have not regretted switching back, on the contrary. Lightroom runs absolutely stable with two databases containing almost 200,000 photos. Only Fuji X-Files show the famous worm artifacts, but this can be avoided by converting these RAW files to DNG beforehand with the Iridient Transformer.

Lightroom has developed enormously in recent years. Masks, AI denoising and much more leave hardly anything to be desired. There are significantly more plug-ins than for C1. In a comparison of RAW converters, C1 and LRC are hardly any different. You get very good and similar results with both programs.

In my view, C1 has made a big mistake with its less than customer-friendly policy and has not done itself any favors.

Although I still have C1 on my computer, I haven’t used it for a long time because there is no need for it. Instead, I use LRC to redevelop older images, as the new possibilities are very beneficial here and also breathe new life into older photos.

Oliver

https://www.riwodot.de

https://vero.co/riwodot

https://www.instagram.com/riwodot/

• This reply was modified 6 months ago by Oliver Ritter-Wolff.

[Eric Brody Participant Posts: 66]

Re: Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

Reply #3 on: November 19, 2023 at 9:21 pm

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Likewise, if it sounds too horrible to be true, it probably isn’t.

I do not know Mr Donovan but honestly have a hard time understanding how two well regarded RAW processors can produce such different results with the same file, (notwithstanding Mark’s excellent questions). Like Mark, I do not shoot at ISO 10,000, but use 6,400 and occasionally 12,800 and have found that the LR Classic denoise function does an excellent job. Many years ago I tried out C1 and it just did not work out for me though it seems to work well for many others.

My issue is the inflammatory tone of the OP’s initial comments…”The photos looked like they were shot in a sandstorm!  So much noise!  For my documentary work, I shoot in the ISO 6400 – 10,000 range.  Lightroom’s image quality at high ISO is SO BAD!!!” It is hard to read such a comment without challenge. I do not work for Adobe, but have used Lightroom Classic and Photoshop for a long, long time and have found Lightroom to be both a superb RAW processor, especially with the advent of the new masking tools, and world class cataloging tool.

This is not meant as an ad hominem attack but rather as a simple plea to be reasonable and non-inflammatory. In the internet world, extreme comments may garner clicks but do not advance our knowledge. I have learned a lot from Mark and Andrew over the years, and appreciate their comments.

 

[Kevin Raber Silver Member Posts: 1295]

Re: Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

Reply #4 on: November 19, 2023 at 9:38 pm

One way to understand is to see.  Maybe the OP will post some examples so we can see what is being talked about. Maybe once the forum sees the samples there might be some suggestions regarding what they are seeing.

 

Kevin Raber
Owner and Publisher of photoPXL

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 948]

Re: Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

Reply #5 on: November 19, 2023 at 10:21 pm

I’m now using the penultimate version of Lightroom Classic on my Mac Studio Ultra M1. I was photographing numerous night scenes several weeks ago that required using ISO 6400. To avoid blowing highlights I exposed not entirely to the right, so probably a bit of under-exposure relative to the norm. I was using a Sony a7r4. I am now processing these photos and have two findings in respect of noise: (1) the photos are not very noisy out-of-the-box, but blown up to 100% on display there is visible noise. (2) Lr’s “Denoise” tool is excellent. It reduces the visibility of the noise drastically (in fac t on 13 x 19 inch prints it’s not visible) while preserving fine image detail. I’ve tested plenty of noise reduction applications over the years and this is by far the best to date. I can’t compare with Capture 1 because I don’t have an equivalent up-to-date version given the commercial trouble and the fact that I don’t need it. However, as a general observation, what matters isn’t the starting point out of the box. Different application builders have different taste in what they present to the user as the default raw file development. The important part is what the application allows one to do with the photo after it opens in the raw converter, and what the quality of the results is in the hands of users who know what they are doing with said application. In this regard Lightroom, especially with the AI stuff it is packing in,  has become quite phenomenal, noise reduction included.

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 948]

Re: Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

Reply #6 on: November 20, 2023 at 12:36 pm

I should add in regard to these night scenes, the ones I’m working on just now are of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin lit up for the recently held Festival of Light. The site was densely packed with people and it was impossible to get a completely unobstructed view of the illuminated gate. There would always be the odd person taller than me with a cell-phone on a stick making photos. Well OK, that’s what we’re all there to do, so unavoidable. Leave it to the marvels of post-capture processing to clear them out of the way and show what the scene would look like without them. That is the power of the new Generative AI Fill in Photoshop 2024 (the latest called <25.1 Release>). It repairs in mere seconds what could take me from half to an hour to do manually because the necessary fixes are complex. The reason I mention all this here is that I normally do all my post-capture work in Lightroom Classic and only resort to Photoshop for edits that Lr can’t handle, such as this sort of thing. One major advantage that makes Lr the stand-out raw processor is the quality of its integration with Photoshop. This has improved considerably over the years to the point that it is becoming quite seamless. For example, the workflow with these photos is to first make Upright, Denoise and Sharpen edits in Lr, then click <CMD-E> which immediately opens the edited raw file in Photoshop where I use Generative Fill to remove the obstructions and replace them with genuine-looking replacement material in less than a minute. Click <Save>, and the corrected photo re-opens in Lightroom beside the original raw file as a TIFF file. You do need an Internet connection for Generative AI Fill to work. The point is that there’s nothing else on the market with this kind of high-quality integrated processing power at one’s fingertips.

[Andrew Rodney Participant Posts: 405]

Re: Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

Reply #7 on: November 20, 2023 at 12:43 pm

Generative AI is indeed impressive and useful, but we need to keep in mind the low-resolution limitation that Adobe can (and hopefully will address). The 1Kx1K limitation may change in the future. Much has to do with the demand on the Adobe servers.

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)”

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 948]

Re: Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

Reply #8 on: November 20, 2023 at 1:09 pm

Even better will be when they produce a version that does not require Cloud processing. I believe they have this in mind, because in their Question/Answer page on this feature they say: <Yes, in order to use generative AI in Photoshop at this time, you need to be connected to the internet.> (Emphasis mine)

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 948]

Re: Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

Reply #9 on: November 20, 2023 at 1:34 pm

Andrew – if I understand this correctly, the limitation applies to the area being filled, so let us say my full resolution raw file is 9504 x 6336 (Sony a7r4), and let us say my selection of the material to be filled is about 10% of the image size – i.e. in this case no more than about 950 x 633 pixels; then I’m within the resolution limit of the Fill tool and I shouldn’t lose anything.

[Andrew Rodney Participant Posts: 405]

Re: Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

Reply #10 on: November 20, 2023 at 1:37 pm

I’m not sure noncloud processing will ever happen, as much of the AI uses Adobe Stock for generation.

Yes, the limitation is per selection, and 1Kx1K is then created. You could use multiple selections.
Adobe is aware many want the limitation raised. It never hurts to let them know:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/how-do-i-write-a-feature-request/idi-p/12386378

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)”

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 948]

Re: Thoughts on Capture One and Lightroom

Reply #11 on: November 20, 2023 at 2:32 pm

Thanks for the confirmation Andrew.

[Author]

Posts