Once again, after multiple rounds of testing, the medium format file exports averaged an improvement of between 30 to 35-percent.
The 16-bit TIFF export test on the previous version of Capture One completed in 1,236.2 seconds and the M1 version finishing in only 934.2 seconds for a difference of 301.99 seconds. Exporting 150 100-percent JPEGS in the previous version of Capture One resulted in an average export time of 1,360 seconds when the M1 version did the same job in just 1,008.6 seconds for a difference of 351.4 seconds. With the medium format Phase One photos, I found similar results. The TIFF export test for the Sony files produced similar results, with the previous version of Capture One exporting 16-bit files in 371.1 seconds and the M1 version exporting the same files in just 282.5 seconds for a difference of 88.6 seconds.Īfter multiple rounds of testing, the Sony file exports averaged an improvement of between 30 and 35-percent, which is pretty close to what the company claims in the release notes. On the previous, non-native version of Capture One Pro, that export of the Sony files took 412.5 seconds, while the new native M1 version did the same export in just 304.7 seconds, for a difference of 107.8 seconds. The Resultsįirst up was the export of 100 Sony a7R IV files in 100-percent JPEG and 16-bit TIFF output, and the results were impressive. Every benchmark is the average of at least three consecutive runs to adjust for any inconsistencies.
These were used in a series of imports and exports in both session and catalog settings on Capture One Pro version 14.1.1.63 and 14.2.0.136 and were run on a late 2020 model M1 Mac Mini with 16 gigabytes of RAM and a 2 terabyte SSD Drive. Only hope Adobe is as customer conscience of price hikes when it comes time to raise the LR bundle price.To test the various promises that Capture One Pro says its new version offers, I gave the program a sample set of 100 Sony Alpha 7R IV RAW files and 150 Phase One medium format RAW files (Phase One XF with the IQ3 100-megapixel back).
Three price hikes later and it is $12.99/m. Been with Netflix for oh.maybe 15 years and I remember moaning when it went up from $7.99/m. And even though most don't want to hear this, I consider the ten bucks a month a good deal. Honestly this and Netflix are the best things I subscribe to. If a new version comes out and there are issues, the huge base of subscribers let Adobe know right away and most issues are fixed quickly.
No longer waiting for months and months for Adobe to fix something. And I have 4 different LR catalogs of close to 200,000 raw images, so I put it to use and really could not be happier with how LR performs on my 27" iMac.Īdobe constantly updates the CC, PS, LR and Bridge bundle. It was the best thing I did, as now I no longer worry about getting new camera equipment and wondering if it will it work with LR, it just does. Like you I kept using my last stand alone versions of LR 6, but after a few years I gave up and paid for the yearly subscription of $9.99/m billed to a cc. (And still mourning the loss of Aperture.)Īs you can see there are not a lot of options to LR, especially for Mac, and none that are anyway near as good. So, I'd have to say I'm also looking for a decent Mac DAM. I've been using Luminar as my main image editor, and it's recently added what they call a DAM, but it is really more of a visual file system browser. I've recently been investigating Resource Space, which is an open-source web-based DAM, but I haven't successfully installed it yet. But it has absolutely the best access to metadata - you can manipulate any metadata fairly easily! (Including many that you didn't know existed.) It has tonnes of capabilities, but the UI is somewhat lacking. I'd have to say that, right now, GraphicConverter is my DAM. When I sent a bug report, they got back quickly and unsatisfactorily: "We don't have a Mac to test on - perhaps you'd like to become our tester!" I don't have a problem with that, but neither do I have time for that. I want to like digicam, but it is apparently "compile-only" compatible with MacOS. I've been playing with Neofinder, but it is more of a general-purpose file finder, and it lacks many image niceties. I've used ON1 for years, but with each update, it gets slower and slower on my ten-year-old Mac Pro.