Lightroom vs Aperture vs Capture One Pro

[d2creative]

I just downloaded the free 30 day trial of Capture One Pro. Which incidentally is the most expensive of the 3 and has the least amount of features.

I've done a few tests over the last couple of days and C1 seems to consistently give better results. Sharper, cleaner images with better tonal range. I've tried applying just minor tweaks in each software and I've tried not applying anything... just exporting to photoshop. Either way I get the same results.

Has anyone else compared the three and ended up with the same findings?

[brian.austin]

Nope.

I run a PC so Aperture was out. I was looking for much more than a RAW converter (I use the Collections to Web Gallery to publish workflow quite a bit) so I settled on LR.

Make sure that you're comparing LR's latest version of 1.3.1 to the others. I don't know what the trial version is.

[d2creative]

Yeah, i have the latest full versions of all except for aperture 2.0.
Only CP is a trial version and it is the latest.

[Mr. Pickles]

Not having a Mac, I never tried Aperture. The latest version of it is discussed by Raist and others in our own four-thirds forum. They like the newest quite a bit.

I heard a lot of people (Nikonians mostly) say great things about Capture One Pro, but they did complain about their "slowness' to update and the price.

Like Brian, I use Lightroom. I have used it since its beta form. I didn't like the beta as well as RSP, but it grew on me and once I saw a couple things from RSP make it into LR, it got a bit better. The latest version is heaps better than the beta was. I actually like LR quite a bit. It does a lot of stuff and it isn't that hard to figure out (but it isn't easy, either).

[d2creative]

Yeah, i agree. Lightroom is the awesome, and so is Aperture. I've been using Lightroom since the first beta and Aperture since it's first release. No doubt they are great packages with tons of time savers and features that are worth their weight in gold. C1 is not very intuitive at all and it is very basic in comparison. Heck, it's downright confusing.

But what I'm speaking to here is their raw conversion engines. For whatever reason, C1 is giving better results. All the other adjustments that aperture and lightroom offer can be done in photoshop if you know what you are doing. So if you strip them down and look at just their raw conversion, this is were I'm seeing a difference. Right now I'm wishing I could take the raw conversion of C1 and throw it into one of the other two to make the best all around package.

[Mr. Pickles]

I think that for a lot of people, and I mentioned Nikon shooters before, it does have a nice RAW Engine. I believe some Olympus shooters liked it and the conversions also.

I think it is a balancing act. Form, fit, function vs the end result. I find it hard to believe that with LR or Aperture that you can't get any image look you could with other RAW converters. But I can see, have seen, that some are easier to get there than others.

I like LR's ability to save presets because once you use it and figure out what works best for your tastes and images, you can save a preset and apply it to images on upload. That gives a good starting point for your post processing work.

Still, the best and easiest to get "manufacturer recommended images" come from their own software, but it comes with a price in less features, speed, or other things.

[cyclohexane]

I used to be really high on Capture One LE and the files it gave me; the cleanliness was unreal compared to other RAW converters I was using (namely, ACR and Nikon Capture NX). At lower ISOs, however, the difference wasn't nearly as pronounced. I was a big fan of Capture One's speed over other software at the time, but the gap's gone now.

Capture One ended up falling behind, and with the addition of Photo Mechanic it really didn't fit into my new workflow. With the newer cameras, I find Nikon Capture NX to produce the best file, though I'm working in RAW less and less...

Never have been a big fan of Aperture; I was thought it seemed to have more style in it than substance as a RAW converter, with the magnifying glass and all that.