Evaluating a RAW file processor is a slippery slope. As I'm fond of saying, the RAW file is not the "digital negative", it's more the digital "latent image", an unprocessed source of all the image information, available to the photographer to process to taste. The negative, after all, has already been processed, right? And then there's that matter of taste.

The slippery slope comes from that issue of taste... you really need to look at processing RAW files in the context of what you prefer, what you like, rather than what is "best", or "more accurate". Think about film here. If accuracy was the key feature of a film, why would we have so many different emulsions? Every film, and RAW processor, renders the photograph differently, so the key to choosing is to find the one that works best, for you.

I find that I start with Adobe Camera RAW as the standard against which I measure most other processing software. It's the most common, it does a very good job making acceptable files from most cameras. The defaults are completely acceptable starting points for processing, and a good place to work from in comparing other software. My strategy is going to be to pull a test file into Camera RAW and process it at the default settings, and do the same with C1 Pro 4, and see how they compare.

I'm simply going to open the file, use the defaults, and click the gray patch on the ColorChecker to set the white point. Above, is the C1Pro screen, below is the ACR screen.


There are more differences between the two methods than I expected. Based on my last testing, I've always thought of C1 to be a fairly conservative, middle-or-the-road philosophy to file processing. Phase likes to keep to a less-saturated, by the numbers target, almost a flatter file. What I'm seeing here is a strategy more committed to the Phase philosophy- an accurate, and yet "snappy" file. Here's what I mean...



Here are my two files in Photoshop (processed as TIFFs). The first, most obvious thing we're seeing in the Photoshop file on the right, is what seems to be an overall cast of yellow, as seen most clearly in the bulletin board color. Even the grays, which I clicked as neutral, seem to be favoring a warm tone. Strangely, though, the red patch on the target looks more magenta than the C1 file- a common issue with many cameras, and one that affects skin tones... if red has a magenta shift, then Caucasian skin will not be quite so nicely rendered. The Adobe file may feel "prettier", by being warmer overall, but the Phase file seems more accurate.

I always think of music and speakers here. Do you want a speaker system that makes your favorite music sound best? ...or do you want speakers that are perfectly accurate, and reproduce the music exactly as it was recorded? The debate rages on...

Now here is something that was a little bit of a surprise to me. These comparisons, again the Phase on the left, the Adobe on the right, show a significant difference in sharpening levels at the default.



Phase has always gone for a snappy, sharpened look. The earlier versions of C1 played this down, but it seems like they've gone back to the original premise- an aggressively sharpened file looks better at first impression than a more conservative sharpening. At least, now, you can turn it down or off. Back in the early days, you couldn't.

The interesting thing is that it does look nice, on type, and with fine detail. However, take a look at this. Same deal, Phase on the left.



Here's where the aggressive sharpening bites you. What should be a nice continuous tone of gray has become grainy. The file sharpening has grabbed artifacts in the file and emphasized them to the point that the file now seems to be almost noisy. For every action... you know the drill.

My conclusions? You really have to decide what package brings you closer to where you want to end up, finally. For me, in a commercial environment, I'm more concerned with how the file looks, fast, with minimal processing. Because of the color accuracy and the initial sharpness impressions, I'm certain that the client will be more impressed with the Phase files, and, of course, I can always turn the sharpening settings down. For the highest quality, non-commercial processing, I'd probably do Adobe, figuring I'm at a more flexible starting point, and I can also use my Smart Objects in the RAW workflow... but that's for files that I'll fuss over for weeks.

Phase One has done a great job. The package is now a mature, full-featured system, they've been listening to the users, and C1 Pro continues to define what a RAW processing workflow should be. Try it our yourself, they give you a 30day download, and also keep in mind every camera model will give you a little different result. What I've seen with my little Canon G9 here, you may see differently with your Nikon D700.

Above all, use the right tool for the job.

Phase One Capture One Pro can be downloaded, with a simple registration, here.