Capture One's technique is not quite like that. You set up one, then apply the the other highlighted thumbnails, which portion of the settings you want, then you can quickly click through the thumbnails with instant rendering of the settings to see if any should be overridden and then finally convert based on the settings. Where Capture One shines is things like weddings, events and portraits where you have a large number of images to convert that have close to, but not identical settings. Part of what makes it work is being able to quickly click between the thumbnails and see a large rendering instantly to compare between images. Things like matrix metering and TTL flash make the images close, but not identical in settings.
Applying a whole batch with identical settings would not cut it for me. Even Pentax PhotoLab can do that. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, April 15, 2005, 11:35:40 AM, you wrote: GD> On Apr 15, 2005, at 8:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> From: David Zaninovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Do you get more accurate colors, better sharpness and shadow/highlight >>> detail with Capture One than with Adobe RAW converter ? Or >>> the difference is only in speed, ease of use, etc.. >>> >>> What justifies the price of Capture One Pro ? >> >> Capture One Pro has the edge with batch processing. That's something >> that >> you can't do with Adobe RAW. >> >> So, if the shots are under similar conditions and you have a lot of >> them, >> you can basically set your parameters up on the first image in Capture >> One >> and transfer those parameters across to the other images as you're post >> processing them - this is handy if you're shooting events/weddings etc. GD> You do the same thing with Photoshop CS and Camera Raw using the File GD> Browser, actions, automate and batch features. I prefer the control and GD> rendering provided by Photoshop and Camera Raw. GD> Godfrey
