Jump to content

Iridient vs. Lightroom vs. Capture One

oldfashioned1536
 Share

Recommended Posts

aceflibble Collaborator

aceflibble

Posted
Posted

They do different tasks. There is not "best".

Capture one is lovely for tethered shooting and it is pretty good for working with presets and batch-exporting multiple copies of the same image for different purposes. It's not very good for cataloguing and organising all of your photos, however, and it's not as robust for full image editing as Lightroom and Iridient. Generally you use Capture One alongside other software. I don't know anybody who uses Capture One by itself.

Iridient is the most robust raw file processor. If you like to shoot raw and play with wildly different exposure values and highlight recovery and everything else like that, Iridient is what you want. It's not too hot for anything else, though.

 

Lightroom is a solid all-rounder with the most expansive organisation options. The raw processing isn't quite as good as Iridient in terms of the extremes you can go, but it's more than good enough for people who like to get everything how they like it in-camera and don't make too many corrections to their raw files later. The preset and export functionality isn't as powerful as Capture One, and the tethering ability is far behind Capture One, but its editing tools are more expensive.

Many professionals will use all three. Capture One to shoot tethered, Iridient to actually process the raw files and then Lightroom to organise everything. Most amateurs will only use Lightroom since it can kind of do a decent-enough job of every task by itself.

I wouldn't advise anybody uses only Capture One or Iridient by themselves because they're not really meant to be all-in-one solutions like Lightroom is. If you can only get one piece of software or only want to use one, go with Lightroom. Then if you do a lot of studio shooting, pick up Capture One, and finally if the things you photograph require lots of fine-tuning—something like fashion, for example—get Iridient.

 

 

For Fuji cameras specifically, I'd say don't bother with Capture One at all because Fuji's tethered support is awful anyway. For Iridient, it's a draw with Lightroom. If you like or need to spend a lot of time tweaking your raw files, Iridient is more robust. If you shoot .JPG or you don't edit your raws all that much, go with Lightroom. You'll probably find you end up using both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
x-tc Community Regular

x-tc

Posted
Posted

I wish that Iridient was avalable for Windows (10)  And I'm not the only one    :)    :angry:

Regards,

Jan

Iridient is based on the Apple OS X/iOS RAW Engine API.  Just get Apple to port it to Windows and you are golden.  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
jlees Apprentice

jlees

Posted
Posted

Hi oldfashioned1536,

I agree with aceflibble there is no best, you just have to get what you need. And this might need some trial and error (best before breaking the piggy bank)

Coming from Aperture because S. Jobs inheritors killed it, I downloaded Lightroom, Aftershot, DxO and Capture 1 on thirty day trials and 'played' with them to see what suited me best.

So I would suggest you do the same, however I do not know if Iridient is available on a trial basis.

Hope this is useful.

Best regards

Jeremy

 

FWIW : I opted for Capture One, which I now use exclusively, and to date have no complaints but this is me. But others may have different experiences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Max_Elmar Enthusiast

Max_Elmar

Posted
Posted

Iridient is based on the Apple OS X/iOS RAW Engine API.  Just get Apple to port it to Windows and you are golden.  :lol:

To quote graflex: "Iridient provides the option to use the MAC OS raw demosaicing. However it also provides two additional X-Trans demosiaicing algorithms that do not rely on the OS API."

 

This is an important distinction. If Irident had only "MAC OS raw demosaicing" there would be little point to it, really. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • George_P
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By George_P · Posted

      I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      First post here but long time fuji shorter. I use the XT2 with the 23mm f2 / 35mm 1.4 / 16-80mm f4 I'm considering the 23mm f1.4 r (Non-WR) About me: - I shoot black and white only. - I like macro details to wide open landscapes and everything in-between. - I shoot mostly for art, intrigue and creativity of the image. My question - is the 23mm f1.4 going to offer me any meaningful difference over the f2 for the above scenarios Thanks and sorry for bringing it up again...
×
×
  • Create New...