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

    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      How does one make sure that Fuji's image correction is turned on to correct barrel and pin-cushion distortion on a GFX 100 or GFX100S when using the GF20-35? Is it only applied to the jpegs and not to the raw files? (I was surprised to discover the barrel distortion on the GF 35-70mm lens.) I normally shoot in raw with jpeg back-up and use the raw files, which I convert either in Affinity Photo 2 when editing with that program or in Raw File Converter Ex 3.0 by Silkypix if I wish to process the image in Photoshop CS6. (Adobe DNG is also a possibility.) Thank you for the help. Trevor
×
×
  • Create New...