Olivier Vinot wrote:
Hi there, my workflow change from Ligthroom to Capture one (i shoot more tethered now). I'm looking for convert one of my LR presets to Capture One, trying to be as much precise i can, because is part of a long project i need to continue and can't have visual différence.

I do some research but just found LR >> ACR but not for LR >>C1

Any suggestions ?

Regards,
Olivier

You will always have visual difference if you switch raw converters. Both ACR and C1 have built in curves which you cannot control or cancel. So the best way to avoid problems for the particular project is to continue the way you started.

If you want to be really precise and care about image quality - never do any color grading or filtering in the raw converter. Use it only for WB and exposure adjustment. Color grading should be your last step in the post processing, not the starting one. IOW you don't need presets. When shooting tethered all you have to check is focus and correct exposure (no channel clipping).

anchev wrote:
You will always have visual difference if you switch raw converters. Both ACR and C1 have built in curves which you cannot control or cancel. So the best way to avoid problems for the particular project is to continue the way you started.

If you want to be really precise and care about image quality - never do any color grading or filtering in the raw converter. Use it only for WB and exposure adjustment. Color grading should be your last step in the post processing, not the starting one. IOW you don't need presets. When shooting tethered all you have to check is focus and correct exposure (no channel clipping).

I would say yes and no.  As a retoucher, you are absolutely correct. But sometimes a photographer has to create a "look" on set while shooting tethered, not for him or herself, but for the client.  The nice thing about C1 is you can create a preset, apply it to every shot that comes in, and then create new versions from the final selects without it.

Let's say, for example, you're going to shoot a low-key portrait in medium contrast black and white.  In order to maintain as much image data as possible, you shoot to the right (being careful not to clip) knowing that you will reduce overall exposure in post.  These are things you can keep in mind when shooting, however, a client may not be able to understand or "see" that in their mind.  In this case, it's very handy to create a preset that mimics what you will eventually be doing as a way of previewing the shots in real-time.

It sucks that it has come to this and, honestly, it's one of the reasons why I preferred film (no one looking over your shoulder telling you how to do your job).  But, it is quite helpful at times.

After you've completed the shoot and your work is backed up, by all means output the file and complete the workflow as you suggest.  I do maintain a set of film presents for C1, as I prefer their contrast curves.  I always output one file that has the look baked in, then a number of other raw conversions to give me the most flexibility possible.  These all come together to create the final.  But that's if you're doing heavy compositing/retouching/ad work.  For standard work done by most here, a well created preset might be all they need.

Olivier Vinot wrote:
Hi there, my workflow change from Ligthroom to Capture one (i shoot more tethered now). I'm looking for convert one of my LR presets to Capture One, trying to be as much precise i can, because is part of a long project i need to continue and can't have visual différence.

I do some research but just found LR >> ACR but not for LR >>C1

Any suggestions ?

Regards,
Olivier

You can't, they work completely differently.  You need to do it by hand/eye.  Fortunately, C1 has a far superior tool set for this.

anchev wrote:
@Giacomo Cirrincioni

I know very well this popular yes and no but a client must be informed that real time color grading is not within the capabilities of any professional and in fact attempting that at shoot time actually puts the photographer in a situation where he is unable to evaluate properly the technical aspects of exposure - which is the one and only thing that will do the final look right.

It is also technically wrong to suggest that such scenario is relevant because one shot may need certain adjustments which another one may not. So it is really an incorrect requirement for a client to put to the vendor and what needs to be done is to explain that to the client, not try to do wrong things just to satisfy wrong expectations.

Also it is worth mentioning that both ACR and C1 are quite crippled in terms of advanced color work, no matter how many people may claim the opposite.

I find as long as I or a digi-tech create a preset for each lighting setup, there is nothing that hinders my ability to create a correct exposure.  If you can convince clients to forego that, my hat is off to you.  We should all be so lucky.  I have found it isn't usually possible.

Yes, color grading is limited, but not every type of photographic work is going to be graded to the extent you are talking about.

Olivier Vinot wrote:
I do some research but just found LR >> ACR but not for LR >>C1

because lightroom and adobe camera raw are made by the same company with the same raw conversion engine. it's like are trying to say, i shot this with kodachome and now am switching to fuji film and want to use a filter to have the exact same colors; not going to happen.

either use the same process for the particular job that requires the same color or recalibrate

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4 … _Card.html

lr, acr and c1 all have options to export sidecar files which make the preview process non-destructive and editable before converting from the raw format. there is no disadvantage to adjusting during import. however, c1 has more tools to adjust specific colors.

some clients have very poor or nonexistent visual cognition. they must see the image close to the final. plus it provides them confidence in the final outcome. it does not necessarily mean that every point of the image looks exactly like the final. so generally, the preview must only need to approximate the final. with the current technology it is possible to do that and still retain the maximum flexibility needed for final edits and adjustments. it is possible to get very close with recalibration, it's just not a simple conversion.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I find as long as I or a digi-tech create a preset for each lighting setup, there is nothing that hinders my ability to create a correct exposure.

But how are you going to create correct exposure if there is a look which cuts away 5-10% of the blacks for example? Impossible. You cannot see it, you cannot watch it on histogram if that look is applied. There is no way to measure the result of what you are doing.

If you can convince clients to forego that, my hat is off to you.  We should all be so lucky.  I have found it isn't usually possible.

It is simply being honest with a client. It is very easy to take a client to the studio and took 2-3 tethered shots demonstrating what I explained above. Then they will know for themselves. Plus after all - if you work with a client with crazy expectations, nothing good will come out of that as usually even more crazy expectations come after the first ones.

anchev wrote:
But how are you going to create correct exposure if there is a look which cuts away 5-10% of the blacks for example? Impossible. You cannot see it, you cannot watch it on histogram if that look is applied. There is no way to measure the result of what you are doing.

1) Everything is metered - everything.  Many of my setups use 10+ lights.

2) Even after metering I dial in the exposure for that setup.  I'm not walking around with a camera shooting whatever angle hits my fancy over and over and changing the lights over and over.  Much of what I do is like still life (and, in fact, I still do quite a bit of still life).  The model may change poses somewhat, but always within an existing framework that has already been accounted for.  The preset is applied after the fact.  Often times, if I know I only need to nail one shot, the lighting and testing is done the day before anyone else gets on set.  It's already been accounted for.  If I change the setup, I remove the preset and start over.  Unless I'm trying to nail the exact look in-camera so that it's essentially finished when I snap the shutter, I don't need to peak into the file to get the exposure I need.

3) I shot LF chrome film for almost 20 years, I don't need any more of a preview than a polaroid gave me - and that was more about contrast than anything else.  Honestly, if you meter properly, you don't even need that, but it is very handy for creative purposes.

anchev wrote:
It is simply being honest with a client. It is very easy to take a client to the studio and took 2-3 tethered shots demonstrating what I explained above. Then they will know for themselves. Plus after all - if you work with a client with crazy expectations, nothing good will come out of that as usually even more crazy expectations come after the first ones.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you.  I don't know if you understand what I'm saying, or rather, the American Market.  If you try to tell that to some of the editors I've worked with, even is you are sweet and accommodating, they will tell you "I don't have time for that, just get it on the screen."  If you press it and say no, you won't work with them again.  And everyone talks.  People hire people that make their lives easier, everything else comes second (at least here).

anchev wrote:
It is simply being honest with a client. It is very easy to take a client to the studio and took 2-3 tethered shots demonstrating what I explained above. Then they will know for themselves. Plus after all - if you work with a client with crazy expectations, nothing good will come out of that as usually even more crazy expectations come after the first ones.

1. they are not "crazy" expectations if they have seen other photographers do it.
2. it's not that difficult to do with the state of the tools - and they keep getting better
3. define "honest", most of the clients from ad agencies are all very experienced. they know what is possible and what is not.
4. they can just hire someone else who can do it instead of you

anchev wrote:
@Giacomo Cirrincioni

I understand very well what the market is saying. And I am absolutely certain that nobody can measure (predict) 1 day earlier the model going 50cm closer to the camera for a few shots and that resulting in a wrong histogram although "the look" resulting from a strong curve or sth else may be "good" (just a rough example). Also nobody can change the physical laws of nature just by offering a certain amount of money. If the person holding the coins says "The Earth doesn't spin" just because he doesn't want to understand it - well... serve that person if you want and see if life becomes easy. But that's not a retouching or a photographic question any more.

Ok.

In fact, now that you mention it, I wonder how we did it with film?

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
1. they are not "crazy" expectations if they have seen other photographers do it.

Doing the wrong thing N times doesn't make it right. This is like the workers putting floor tiles saying "I have been doing it this way for 20 years" and still putting them unevenly. They consider themselves always right because they are experienced. But the tiles are still uneven.

2. it's not that difficult to do with the state of the tools - and they keep getting better

Still waiting to see LUT support in LR. Oh wait... Adobe rather adds another "smart" tool

3. define "honest", most of the clients from ad agencies are all very experienced. they know what is possible and what is not.

Honest (not quoted) is one who deals fairly, truthfully, free from deceit. It doesn't need experience to see that the sun is rising, still it is true.

4. they can just hire someone else who can do it instead of you

That's what everyone is afraid of, isn't it? After having heard that 5000 times one accepts it as something dreadful.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
In fact, now that you mention it, I wonder how we did it with film?

I don't know. Did you apply look presets while shooting tethered with film?

anchev wrote:
I don't know. Did you apply look presets while shooting tethered with film?

You seem to be missing the point.  Bear in mind, I started out agreeing with you!  But yes, god forbid, sometimes circumstances aren't what YOU (or I) think they should be.  go figure.

I chose the "preset" when I selected the film...

My point was many amazing photographers were able to do amazing work without tethered shooting, without a histogram, without checking for if the light changed an eighth of a stop due to a slight movement.

And yes, depending on the kind of work you do, you most certainly can pre-light a set, and be dead nuts on - only making minor tweaks if called for.  Photographers and film crews having been doing it for decades.  I've helped light film sets where they shot on 35mm film - video assist was for shit, but guess what, it all came out perfect. 

I understand you have your working methodology, and that's fantastic, it works for you.  I'm simply suggesting that others have working methodologies based on what they need to do.  There's no reason to be so dogmatic about it, is there?

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
You seem to be missing the point.  Bear in mind, I started out agreeing with you!  But yes, god forbid, sometimes circumstances aren't what YOU (or I) think they should be.  go figure.

I chose the "preset" when I selected the film...

I am not missing the point. I just left it to you to come to this yourself - with film that is inevitable. But digital doesn't restrict you to this.

My point was many amazing photographers were able to do amazing work without tethered shooting, without a histogram, without checking for if the light changed an eighth of a stop due to a slight movement.

And yes, depending on the kind of work you do, you most certainly can pre-light a set, and be dead nuts on - only making minor tweaks if called for.  Photographers and film crews having been doing it for decades.  I've helped light film sets where they shot on 35mm film - video assist was for shit, but guess what, it all came out perfect.

Perhaps you have worked with film much more than I, so you know quite well that film gives you more room for mistakes. It doesn't clip as straightly as digital sensor, it rather "curves" the exposure first. Also the DR of digital has just recently started to catch up with that of film. So really - it is quite different as a medium and not quite what the OP is asking for.

I understand you have your working methodology, and that's fantastic, it works for you.  I'm simply suggesting that others have working methodologies based on what they need to do.  There's no reason to be so dogmatic about it, is there?

I am not trying to stop anyone from doing anything. I was just explaining the physical/technological facts related to that. A dogma is a belief that is never questioned, not a fact that one explores in depth. In that sense a client insisting on real-time grading never questions if that is correct, so that is the dogmatic approach.

Olivier Vinot wrote:
http://www.oliviervinot.fr/wp/festina-lente-galerie/

That is beautiful!

The only problem i have with LR is that it take too much time for previewing the shoots.
I have to stick with for the next 5.000 portraits i have to do .

For this particular setup you really won't have any of the problems which we discussed above. I haven't used C1 since version 5 and I don't know if it supports LUTs (which is the right way to do "presets") but if it does - I can try to make a 3DL or CUBE file for you if you send me your LR preset.