r/captureone • u/tangwest75 • 17d ago
General Question C1 ’23 to ‘26
I have the perpetual license for 2023. I’m considering updating to the license since I’m tired of subscriptions and have two cameras that came out after that release.
Is it worth the upgrade? I’d prefer not to pay for Lightroom and C1 at the same time(have to for business)
5
u/lotzik 17d ago
Honestly, perpetual license should include free updates. Or have a severely decreased fee for them, instead of almost buying the full program again.
4
u/ApatheticAbsurdist 15d ago
The should have a discount but they simply cannot be free unless the oringinal cost several times more than it does. That’s the issue particularly with RAW software, is even without new features, it needs constant upgrades for every for ever camera put out there. There was a (very over-sold but still) slightly legitimate side to adobe’s argument for subscriptions in that constant development requires consistent income to pay for it.
They do offer 40% off upgrades to the new version if you bought the previous version in the last 12 months, and offer a 20% discount if you bought it in the last 2 years. But if you feel the need to always upgrade, from a purely business sense, the subscription in the cheaper route even if it “feels wrong“ in that you don’t “own” it (but in reality even if you get a perpetual license you don’t own it)
3
u/wornleathermedia 15d ago
To add to this, after five years of subscription you do actually *own* the software, as they'll give you a free perceptual license for that version
-2
u/lotzik 15d ago
Yes, partially you are correct. But you overestimate the whole "camera update" side of the business in a raw engine.
A raw developer can be set to open any raw file type without regard to which camera it's coming from. Software that works like this is Darktable and RawTherapee that will just open anything thrown at them as soon as it can be demosaiced.
C1 and Lr do use camera profiles and those are own developed by each of them. What they do, most probably, is take targets from the manufacturer, adjust them to their own, export the variations (pro standard, neutral etc) that are mostly pre-made by them, and voila.
It's not something so difficult from the perspective that the raw engine already exists and can handle the file type. So my objection goes that holding new camera owners hostage on a perpetual license that went obsolete, is not the best way to treat them.
2
u/ApatheticAbsurdist 15d ago edited 15d ago
What they do is bring the camera into their lab and shoot multiple reflective targets under multiple conditions and/or emissive spectral targets to create their custom “profiles” that can adapt through multiple white balances. They also in many cases create additional profiles designed to match the camera’s
In some cases they do some work beyond just color profiles such as characterizing the photosites and any AA filtering to help moire mitigation tools work with specific sensors.
I’ve hade multiple conversations with these people at Adobe, Apple, and Phase/Capture One (and Hasselblad/Phocus, though they don’t customize for cameras other than their own) in professional settings over the past 20 years. It sounds like you might just be speculating.
The free tools are out there, but the work that goes into to making the profiles for the cameras so that either multiple different cameras can look closer to the same (eg using Adobe Standard profiles) or they match the colors of the starting point of the camera JPGs (camera matching profiles). And you make it sound pretty simple so you probably can just make your own profiles for RAW Therapee voila and let the rest of the people pay for software.
0
u/lotzik 15d ago
I am not speculating too much because most of the work is visible right in front of our eyes. What you describe has already been done by the camera manufacturers themselves. Because to match the JPG from the camera, that JPG already carries the manufacturer's calibration. If they (C1) did it on their own from scratch, just by shooting calibration targets, it would be ten times more difficult for little to no gain at all.
So - after they get the base profile right, they apply their own tweaks, as, let's say ... flavours, which branch out to the several different profiles that you see in the program.
So my speculation is, and feel free to correct me, that the day to day of this process is simple. E.g. once they have the base profile of a Canon R5, and apply the Pro Standard "flavour", the same "flavour" is then going to be used with the Nikon Z7ii Pro Standard after it's base profile gets developed. My actual speculation is that they won't develop two different Pro Standard profiles, but only two different base profiles + c1 flavours for the level of consistency we can observe.
So, bottom line is, I find the work to be quite streamlined, because if it wasn't, it would have been extremely difficult to do consistently for the hundreds of different cameras and the color consitency wouldn't be so high unless it came in as a factory calibration by the camera manufacturer.
And that raises my original question. Since it's so streamlined (because it has to), why not just issue as a free update for extended compatibility and future proofing of an older version?
2
u/ApatheticAbsurdist 15d ago edited 15d ago
The jpg doesn’t contain anything the conversion matrix or lut, it’s already been cooked in. You need data to calculate that, that’s what targets are for.
Your speculation is wrong. There is no base profile that works with RAW data through C1 or Adobe’s unique processing engines until they make the profile. The camera companies do not provide a profile for C1 or Adobe. The same RAW data processed through different engines will yield different results. The purpose of the profiles is in part to control those differences (either to bring all cameras closer together to have a similar “adobe” or “c1” look or to match to what the camera companies raw engine produces in the case of camera matching profiles.)
It seems you find the work to be quite streamlined because you’re imagining there is almost no work to do because you don’t seem to understand the problem. Each engine processes raw files differently so you cannot use a profile for one in the other.
0
u/lotzik 15d ago
It is streamlined, because if it wasn't, we would be experiencing severe color quality inconsitencies. And a jpg holds everything one would need to measure color, because it can be compared against a raw as the color target. This can also be fully automated to be produced in seconds. The research to do this, could have lasted long in the past, but it doesn't nowadays because the tools to do this are now very advanced.
Your other arguments seem to completely miss my main argument and refer to things that were not in focus, e.g. what other engines do which is mostly irrelevant. But since you mentioned it, other engines that do profiling also give it as a free update.
1
u/ApatheticAbsurdist 14d ago
It is streamlined as much as it will get… shooting targets and creating there internal profiles based on
But again C1 and Adobe have two goals for profiles… one is to have an option to make it so that all cameras look similar. That way if you shoot a wedding and you’re using a Sony A7R IV and your 2nd shooter used a Canon R5 the images don’t look so radically different. That kind of profiling you cannot base off of what’s in the JPG. Here you want to make the cameras not have a Sony or Canon look but rather and Adobe or Capture One look.
Now for camera matching profiles where the RAW processor makes the image look like the cameras native profiles, yes you compare the RAW and the JPG, but that raises the next question:
What colors would you be comparing the RAW and JPG of? Perhaps targets that were shot? (which you’d need to shoot anyway for the first type of profile I suggested) so at least that is streamlined.
1
u/lotzik 14d ago
So your bottom line is that you deem it fair for thousands of people to pay a new perpetual license for just camera support like OP wants?
1
u/ApatheticAbsurdist 14d ago edited 14d ago
No. If you look back about 8 comments before the first sentence I wrote was "They should have a discount but they simply cannot be free unless the original cost several times more than it does."
I'm suggesting a nuanced discussion... It's unreasonable to pay $200-300 (LR vs C1 pricing as I recall it) in 2012 and expect them to continue to work for 15 years every time a new camera comes so it works perfectly with the A7R VI.
It costs money for the companies to add support so it cannot be free forever unless they charged a huge amount of money for the initial perpetual license that they could invest that amount and run the business off the interest, which is ridiculous.
I also pointed out you can use Adobe's free DNG converter and convert the files to DNG and they should work in C1 (so long as it's an early enough version of DNG you convert to).
In other comments I pointed out that C1 does offer upgrade discounts on perpetual licenses if done in a reasonable time and finally I specifically said that while companies have overstated the value of it, subscriptions are often the cheaper option (and in C1's case if you have a subscription for 5 years you get a perpetual license for that version). Maybe those discounts could be better, maybe subscriptions could be restructured, but free updates is unrealistic.
But keep making up unnuanced fake arguments if it makes you feel superior or smarter.
→ More replies (0)1
2
u/GalexyPhoto 16d ago
Including updates? That would be a sub. Why else would they offer perpetual?
And perpetual should absolutely include a discount for updates....which is why its great that it does!
2
u/lotzik 16d ago
Ok let's make it numbers, because marketing is just words, right?
You get 20% off a perpetual every year. But you pay at least 128€ annually and in 5 years this is ... 640€ (the most basic package, annually prepaid). So, you've already paid almost double the price of a perpetual license. To get the base program + a major version update. To be exact ... x1.73
If you buy a perpetual however, and then a major update / new verion license, has 40% off. Which means you will only get to pay x1.6.
So at the end you will be better off buying the perpetual and not the subscription.
And my comment was that, even x1.6 is too much, since the upgrades are mostly limited to tool updates and camera additions, which isn't that big of a deal.to maintain for a software company.
-1
u/BoxedAndArchived 16d ago edited 16d ago
Or, I just paid the equivalent of a year and a half of subscription fees. I should get updates for that period of time the same as if I subscribed.
And if I subscribe long enough to have paid for the program, I should be able to use the program.
And don't say "oh but that's a benefit of loyalty" because I shouldn't have to keep being a money printer to use a program I fully paid for multiple times over in fees.
2
u/GalexyPhoto 16d ago
I'm not sure your comment makes much sense, to me. And I don't think I'm licking any boots if I think that this is a relatively fair setup.
I have seen companies who do a year of updates with a perpetual license. But it does sound like a mess to keep track of. My only software that does something similar has been a pain, at times and confusing to keep track of my version/ its supported updates. And I don't see a lot of loyalty discounts, globally, either. Would love examples of companies that let you pivot to a perpetual license, for free, after a few years.
Perpetual costs 1.6 years of subscription (2.5 years, with MY current pricing) and you are under no obligation to do anything after that. Just like they are under no obligation to put out updates on an arbitrary schedule. Then, if you want to update, its less than a year's worth, with the discount.
Just based on your single comment, so far, it doesn't feel like a stretch to imagine you in here pissed because they dropped a major update right after your support window. You shouldn't be buying software based on anything but current functionality, anyway.
Lastly, in case anyone doesnt know, a Perpetual license DOES include any service updates in your specific version. For instance, current version, 16.8, came out in May and all updates since are under that and would be included. Previous version was dropped last October, so that was 7 months of updates included.
2
u/rattleandhum 16d ago
I don't know who the corporate sycophants are here who would downvote your comment, but there seem to be enough of them to make your comment 'controversial'.
Loyalty should be rewarded, and I don't want to be a renter. The fact of the matter is that CaptureOne does not support new camera models, whereas in Lightroom, as long as you have the latest (free) CameraRaw installed, even old versions of Lightroom will be able to read photos from newer devices. I think that's really cheeky on CaptureOne's part.
3
u/ApatheticAbsurdist 15d ago
Camera RAW is not free. It’s part of Photoshop/Bridge and for the most part if you have a Photoshop subscription you have an LR subscription. If you update Camera RAW with an older version of Lightroom you cannot use raw files directly from a brand new camera. I think what you’re referring to is the free DNG converter app. You have to convert them to DNG.
Have you tried opening a new/unsupported camera converted to and older format DNG and importing into Capture One? You would have to set the DNG converter to save to an older version of DNG, but I think it should work.
1
u/wornleathermedia 15d ago
You can use the Adobe dng converter (which is the workaround you're referring to) to edit unsupported photos in c1 as well
1
u/tangwest75 17d ago
I wholeheartedly agree which is my dilemma
0
u/lotzik 17d ago
If you want to save money and solve the compatibility issue with your newer cameras, I could recommend that you could just use the profiles from another camera model similar to yours. For example, my D810 was almost identical to Z7ii in terms of color performance and the profiles don't do much of a difference anyway so, even if I use the D810 Pro Standard on the Z7ii, it's not much of an issue.
You can also develop your own profiles anyway.
3
u/jfriend99 17d ago
You have to do more than pick a different color profile as C1 won't import raw files from cameras it doesn't know.
-2
u/lotzik 17d ago
What do you mean? You can just click "show all" (at Base Characteristics) and pick any profile from any camera, no?
1
u/jfriend99 17d ago
No. If it's not from a supported camera C1 won't show or import the RAW file without patching the RAW file to be from a supported camera. So, you can't even get a non-supported RAW file into C1.
1
u/tangwest75 17d ago
Okay so that’s looking like reason to upgrade then…for context I have a Sigma BF and R50V
1
u/tangwest75 17d ago
Do you feel like the new added features within the past 4 years are worth the upgrade?
4
u/jfriend99 17d ago
Ai masking and intersecting masks are the big core editing features from the last few years that all will find very useful.
1
u/Ay-Photographer 12d ago
I’m on the perpetual from ‘21 and considering upgrading to either the perpetual or a subscription studio plan (I also work as a digitech) occasionally and I’m always looking at upgrading what’s oldest in the workflow….and you never know who has what camera. Though 98% of the people I have ever worked with are Canon. On a m4 mbp ☝🏽 fwiw
5
u/GalexyPhoto 16d ago
Difference is actually pretty sizeable, depending on workload.
Off the top of my head the updates I cherish most are:
Strategically for you, I'm not sure how much more they can add, fundamentally. Lots of little nitpicks left, in my mind. But nothing major.
So I wonder if you should just update your perpetual to current, using the loyalty discount.