• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Capture 1 vs Lr ASP default color processing

Capture 1 vs Lr ASP default color processing

February 3, 2016 JimK 5 Comments

This is the 32nd in a series of posts on color reproduction. The series starts here.

It’s been a long, long road, but I’m finally ready to address the question that started this serial discourse on color reproduction, to wit: “What are the differences between Capture 1 and Lightroom default color conversions of Sony a7RII files?”

If you’ve read the studies and explanations that preceded this post, you won’t expect a simple answer. If you haven’t, what follows may confuse you. I will attempt to explain a few things as I go along, but I encourage you to follow the link at the beginning of this post and at least skim the material.

The test conditions are as follows:

  • Sony a7RII
  • Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE macro
  • Two Westcott bicolor LED panels, set to 5000K and full power
  • ISO 100
  • The C1 free version that only supports Sony cameras, default profile, default control settings
  • Lr CC 1015 current version, default profile (Adobe Standard), default control settings
  • Both raw processors white balanced to the third gray patch from the right.
  • Files exported from both raw processors in Adobe RGB.
  • Reference is illuminated in (simulated) D50 light.
  • Color adaptation with respect to the D65 white point of Adobe RGB performed using Bradford.

The overall statistics, with the parts that I consider to be worthy of special discussion highlighted in green.

Lr ASP vs C1 stats

The first thing to notice — the first row with green highlighting —  is that the overall accuracy of the two raw developments are quite similar. C1 wins by a nose on Lab 2000 Delta E, and loses by a slightly greater amount on plain old Lab Delta E and a bit more than that on CIELuv Delta E.

The next is that the C1 image is substantially more chromatic than the Lr one. Both processors err in the aggregate on the side of oversaturation, as indicated by the mean non-gray CIELab Delta Cab and Cuv rows. These are CIELab and CIELuv chroma errors; a positive number is oversaturated, and a negative number means undersaturation. The Lr average oversaturation is modest, and the C1 number is substantially higher, though not extreme.

Neither raw processor is linear:

a7RII C1 5000K Ill D50 Ref Bradford21

a7RII Lr CC Adobe Standard 5000K Ill D50 Ref Bradford21

Capture One is on top, with the blue line being the measured luminance readings of the gray patch row versus the correct ones, and the red line being a linear response. Lr is below, with a very similar curve that boosts midrange contrast, depresses shadows, and rolls off highlights. In Lightroom, this behavior comes from the Adobe Standard profile. I don’t know enough about C1 to tell you what part of the program creates this effect. It is almost certainly deliberate on the part of the designers of the two software packages, and it causes the color errors to be larger than they otherwise would be, but probably makes typical images look better to most people.

Now we turn to which color patches have the largest departures from accuracy, as measured in CIELab Delta 2000.

a7RII C1 5000K Ill D50 Ref Bradford7

a7RII Lr CC Adobe Standard 5000K Ill D50 Ref Bradford7

The differences are not striking, and the above plots are only likely to be useful if you have particular colors whose accuracy is important to you.

Now let’s consider chromaticity differences. First, we’ll look at CIE u’v’.

a7RII C1 5000K Ill D50 Ref Bradford26

It’s a little hard to see, so we’ll zoom in:

a7RII C1 5000K Ill D50 Ref Bradford27

The reference values are the open circles. The squares are the C1 values, and the diamonds the Lr ones.

Take a look at the two bottom triplets, which correspond to the two blue patches. In the case of both C1 and Lr, the rendition is away from magenta, and towards cyan. C1 oversaturates both more than Lr, as is indicated by radial displacement from the white point.

Looking at the same data in the a*b* (chromaticity) plane of CIELab:

a7RII C1 5000K Ill D50 Ref Bradford29

The same management of the blues is apparent, as is C1’s greater shading of Caucasian skin tones in the red direction. C1 also makes the bright yellow patch a great deal more saturated than a strictly accurate interpretation. A C1 shift of the orange patch in the yellow direction is also striking.

And lastly, for those of you out there who speak CIELuv, the same chart in u*v*:

a7RII C1 5000K Ill D50 Ref Bradford30

And here’s the big question to those who wondered about the differences between C1 and Lr default processing: does the above data help, or just confuse?

The Last Word

← Some more color hills images Does Lr export color space matter in Macbeth testing? →

Comments

  1. Jack Hogan says

    February 4, 2016 at 1:04 am

    I have three main take-aways from this very informative series:

    1) The process of getting to here was eye-opening and an end in itself;
    2) No system is out to left field along any one dimension – this is good to know and also an end in itself;
    3) When it comes to color, as long as nothing is out to left field what really matters is how pleasing the final result is to you;
    4) Given the small differences in final results between the two software packages the choice of which to use seems to be truly subjective and depend solely on personal preferences and efficiency based on one’s typical subjects and workflow.

    Given the number of variables involved, could one come up with a qualitative metric such as ‘Excellent’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’, ‘Insufficient’? Is this what SMI attempts to do?

    Next question, now that you have isolated the software, is to isolate the camera: using the same raw converter, each camera with a proper profile, how does the D810, say, compare to the a7RII?

    Thanks for all this, Jim, truly brilliant stuff!
    Jack

    Reply
    • Jim says

      February 4, 2016 at 10:26 am

      Jack, the problem with comparing cameras is that we need to use a profile for each camera, and, if there are differences, we don’t know if it’s the camera or the profile or both. It’s still worth doing, but it’s not clear what to make of it.

      Jim

      Reply
      • Jack Hogan says

        February 4, 2016 at 11:27 am

        I hear you Jim. Can’t profiles be made to similar criteria? Dcamprof comes to mind http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/dcamprof.html

        Reply
  2. Eric says

    September 16, 2018 at 1:41 am

    I’m sorry, this is all very complicated to me. Isn’t Lab 2000 the best way of measuring inaccuracies in color today? If so, even if it wins by a nose but loses more in the other two methods, doesn’t it win in accuracy?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      September 16, 2018 at 8:59 am

      If you’ve got to pick just one, pick Lab 2000. I like to look at Luv, too.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.