How to get CS2 to look like C1?

[SeanKernan]

I like the way things look when processed in C1. It's subtle, but is there a way to get CS2 toreliably give a similar effect, i.e, a bit more contrasty, especially in the middle values?
S

[Gerry_Walden]

You have tried changing the contrast curve, haven't you?

Gerry

They each very differently render shadow detail, especially skin tones. If you like C1 then CS2 will always dissapoint until ACR gets better.

[SeanKernan]

I agree about the skin tones in shadow. Shadows in general seem more complex. I have played with the curves, but it is an approximation and never quite there.
I raise this question in part because I don't want to make DNG files of things I processed in C1 and then be unable to achieve the same efffect from an archived file.

[Alan_Ackoff]

Sean,

FWIW I've tried to get one raw converter to mimic another and at best you only get real close... kinda like using Astia to make a dupe slide of a Kodachrome original. I'd like to archive DNG files but since my current favorite RC (Canon DPP) won't process DNGs, I'm still archiving the CRW files.

Started reading 'The DAM Book' by Peter Krogh and his DNG based image management system makes sense... except with regard to image quality. I've got no argument with keeping metadata and previews in the archived DNG files. I'm a little surprised though that he has no problem with discarding the original raw files and archiving only the DNGs.

Guess I'm just not ready to make that leap of faith. I don't throw away my negatives after I scan them. Record companies still go back the their analogue masters... you finish the analogy.

Alan

[TerryDanks]

I tried C1 in mid 2004. I was convinced I liked the colours better than those from ACR in CS1. I made this assessment while processing a series of very specific shots taken in Utah's red rock country.

So I went back and reprocessed the shot of Arches National Park that led me to this conclusion. Did it in both CS2 and C1 Pro, then had a look, trying to not let myself know which was which.

There is still a difference, but it is not as I remembered it!

And this time I found the CS2 image preferable. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Since the original test ACR has been updated, perhaps two or even three times. That may, or may not, be the reason for my "change" in perception.

But too, this may be a completely personal issue. In any event, I no longer think C1 is "better" than CS2 in regard to image quality. In fact, I am not sure I could reliably tell the difference in a "double blind" test.

"Different," does not necessarily mean "better."

I do still like the layout of C1 Pro though. It seems much easier to select images and process them in a batch than in CS/ACR. The layout of the ACR GUI is glitzier and more attractive to my eye . . . but less utilitarian. The real reason to prefer C1 over CS/ACR seems to me to be more a matter of the workflow than any difference in the appearance of the final image.

Were it less costly, I would likely use it instead of ACR. In any event, thanks to the people at Phase One for a generous trial of their product.

[Uwe_Steinmueller]

>discarding the original raw files and archiving only the DNGs.

I also feel that we are not quite there yet.

Uwe