I've got experience with both capture one and aperture. Capture one is really tailored towards profesional studio photographers, using tethered capture, with phase one backs etc, rather than supporting things like geotagging etc.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Alternatives to Aperture (What are your plans?)
- Thread starter JDDavis
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've got experience with both capture one and aperture. Capture one is really tailored towards profesional studio photographers, using tethered capture, with phase one backs etc, rather than supporting things like geotagging etc.
That makes sense, now that you mentioned it, and I have no need for the tethered ability that C1 brings to the table.
Yes, when v 1.4 came out. it is a raw image processing system. I think they use the Raw Therapee engine as the baseline foundation.
The software offers non-destructive editing, similar to that of some other raw manipulation software. Rather than being immediately applied to raster data of the image, the program keeps the original image data until final rendering at the exporting stage (the adjustment parameters made by a user are however visible in real-time). The program features built-in ICC profiles, GPU acceleration (based on OpenCL), and supports most common image formats.
What attracted me was its new capability for local editing using masks. There are five mask types available: brush, circle, ellipse, bezier path, and gradient. All are resizable, allow fade-out radius for smooth blending and can have their opacity controlled. I found it cumbersome and buggy.
It is not an equivalent replacement for AP3, but rather an open source approach generally equivalent to the Develop Module of LR5. If you use an older camera there are perhaps profiles included. Users of newer cameras may find their unit is not supported yet.
Last edited:
Not finding the Capture One application so bad for use with Nik. I generate a TIFF from the RAW, and then export using their "recipe" to the same folder as the original, and set say dFine2 as the application to open it. dFine2 opens, I do some stuff, then I save and it saves back in the same spot a la how LR does it. I do a synchronize folder and LR has C1/dFine2'd tiff. All the metadata seems to transfer fine; I guess C1 writes to the tif.
If you don't use Aperture or LR in addition to C1 as I do, I imagine you'd have even less steps, although you have to reimport to get the tif into C1, which I find a bit clumsier than LR's synchronize.
Might be better to actually use a jpg or whatever final format you're most likely to use; I'm still experimenting.
If you don't use Aperture or LR in addition to C1 as I do, I imagine you'd have even less steps, although you have to reimport to get the tif into C1, which I find a bit clumsier than LR's synchronize.
Might be better to actually use a jpg or whatever final format you're most likely to use; I'm still experimenting.
I hate Tiffs, they take up so much space
I see what you're doing and its not bad. I do think its an extra step (processing in C1, then exporting/importing to a DAM application for asset management).In the end, I question if I'd continue those extra steps as time goes on, or would I see the path of least resistance.
I was actually looking for folder sync feature in c1 like in Lightroom so once filled the files could be found in c1 album. Do you know where to find it?
Also would u kind explaining your round back trips workflow after editing somewhere else back to c1 please?
I have and use LR, but have been very angry at Adobe for the past months because of their sloppy programming.
Last January I finally decided to migrate my LR4 library from my old desktop PC to LR5 on my MBP. I had always done my editing on a PC thus far, but decided it was time to bring over the one last thing I had been doing on a PC and jump the Windows ship entirely.
As life goes, a few things prevented me from actually doing the migration until March, and I was incredibly surprised to find out that several Adobe products don't work on a Mac OS X case-sensitive file system. Photoshop and Premiere don't even install, and some features of Lightroom don't work (e.g. the Maps module). Because the 30 days were already over I couldn't even get a refund.
This issue has apparently been going on for years. I found threads about it as far back as 2007, with users complaining. But today such a design decision does not make sense any more, when ALL other apps I use on Macs do work. Speaking with some developers they all pretty much confirmed that it would not take very long to correct, QA and release even a quite hefty app like Photoshop. So what's keeping Adobe?
Therefore, be careful about Adobe products. I won't rebuild my drives because of them and I'm still on the fence about what I'm going to do.
Last January I finally decided to migrate my LR4 library from my old desktop PC to LR5 on my MBP. I had always done my editing on a PC thus far, but decided it was time to bring over the one last thing I had been doing on a PC and jump the Windows ship entirely.
As life goes, a few things prevented me from actually doing the migration until March, and I was incredibly surprised to find out that several Adobe products don't work on a Mac OS X case-sensitive file system. Photoshop and Premiere don't even install, and some features of Lightroom don't work (e.g. the Maps module). Because the 30 days were already over I couldn't even get a refund.
This issue has apparently been going on for years. I found threads about it as far back as 2007, with users complaining. But today such a design decision does not make sense any more, when ALL other apps I use on Macs do work. Speaking with some developers they all pretty much confirmed that it would not take very long to correct, QA and release even a quite hefty app like Photoshop. So what's keeping Adobe?
Therefore, be careful about Adobe products. I won't rebuild my drives because of them and I'm still on the fence about what I'm going to do.
The majority just use what's presented, including myself for the format type for the hard drive.
Last edited:
Everybody is talking about third party image editing solutions. But what about the software made by the camera manufacturers, like Canon or Nikon? I shoot Canon and I'm seriously considering just going with Canon's Digital Photo Professional since it offers a lot of compelling features including good noise adjustments and lens corrections. Maybe link it to the new Photos app somehow so I can still have images in the Apple ecosystem...
Now you can have DXO as a LR plugin.
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography...workflow-dxo-optics-pro-9-and-adobe-lightroom
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photography...workflow-dxo-optics-pro-9-and-adobe-lightroom
Simples!
I used Photoshop & Bridge for years before moving to AP.
Missed out on a lot of things but kept round tripping to PS to solve any problems.
So - No AP means that I return to PS5 alone and reset my automatic setup and off we go again.
Relocating the library took a time but was effective and now I am back I think where I should have stayed in the first place.
SIMPLES!!
I used Photoshop & Bridge for years before moving to AP.
Missed out on a lot of things but kept round tripping to PS to solve any problems.
So - No AP means that I return to PS5 alone and reset my automatic setup and off we go again.
Relocating the library took a time but was effective and now I am back I think where I should have stayed in the first place.
SIMPLES!!
You might want to watch the 100 ways movies about LR vs Bridge & ACR. Between LR and plugins like Nik and Perfect Photos I never opened Photoshop...no need.
http://kelbyone.com/100ways/
http://kelbyone.com/100ways/
I think it might be possible to export edited images from DPP into, say, the new Photos App, where I am sure you will be able to create slide shows, publish books, etc. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Thanks for the info about the plugins, btw. Good stuff.
Export the original raw file and a final TIF, JPG, or PSD into Photos should not be a problem. The problem comes in Photos seeing and trying to import the sidecar that has the edits that were done to the raw file to create the final image. That is the same problem set we have today between any two raw processors such as Aperture and LR.
Apple may solve that for importing raw images and edits from Aperture and iPhoto into Photos. I sure hope so. But between companies....I will be shocked if Adobe pulls that off to seamlessly and fully import raws with edit history from Aperture and iPhotos into LR. I guess that would be at least LR 6 by then.
Apple may solve that for importing raw images and edits from Aperture and iPhoto into Photos. I sure hope so. But between companies....I will be shocked if Adobe pulls that off to seamlessly and fully import raws with edit history from Aperture and iPhotos into LR. I guess that would be at least LR 6 by then.
Horses and Courses
I know PS and I'm too damned lazy/old/tired to learn another pile of "look at me" software.
No one to push me 'cept me.
etc etc - it aint broke etc etc
Get the picture? If your happy why start again trying to be happy?
I know PS and I'm too damned lazy/old/tired to learn another pile of "look at me" software.
No one to push me 'cept me.
etc etc - it aint broke etc etc
Get the picture? If your happy why start again trying to be happy?
Plugin does not support the 1000's of RAW files I converted to DNG when I converted to Lightroom. Might have to rethink DNG.And you can't get your raw file out of DNG if you went for the smaller linear DNG format. I stopped using DNG and keep to the native raw files.
http://williambeem.com/the-dng-trap/
http://williambeem.com/the-dng-trap/
Luckily I still have most of my RAW files. They are still in Aperture except for the last couple of months.
Personally, I'll simply continue with Aperture, and see how Photos develops; it does seem to be shaping up as a bit of a repeat of FCP/FCP X, so I wouldn't be surprised if Photos winds up as a full replacement, possibly with the addition of extra plugins.
I doubt I'll move to LR, as I don't tend to enjoy Adobe's UX - Aperture feels much more "natural" to me. C1 looks interesting, but I'd have to check out how, if at all, it fares on the asset management front - my libraries tend to reach 50-80GB before I archive them off to the RAID.
I doubt I'll move to LR, as I don't tend to enjoy Adobe's UX - Aperture feels much more "natural" to me. C1 looks interesting, but I'd have to check out how, if at all, it fares on the asset management front - my libraries tend to reach 50-80GB before I archive them off to the RAID.
I know PS and I'm too damned lazy/old/tired to learn another pile of "look at me" software.
No one to push me 'cept me.
etc etc - it aint broke etc etc
Get the picture? If your happy why start again trying to be happy?
Pain and suffering are their own rewards.