Long time user of Cap One and I have around 5000 images in a Capture One catalogue. Most of which are processed, tagged and rated, but not exported at this time so still in the raw format and the adjustment etc, stored in the catalogue.
What would be the best way to get them into DXO?
Any thoughts appreciated.
Welcome to the forum, @chris002
C1 catalogs are just that: catalogs. The original files are somewhere on your drive, let’s assume that they are all in a tree structure that roots itself in “PhotoArchive”
Now, you open PhotoLab and point it to any folder of “PhotoArchive” and PhotoLab will start to catalog the files in its database and read metadata from the files and associated .xmp sidecar files.
Notes
There is no way to bring the edits across.
When I transitioned from C1 (20) to DXO I used both programs for a short time until I finished the outstanding projects in C1. Finish those, export the JPGs and start using DXO for new work.
Which means “in both directions”. So, @chris002 if you ever come to a conclusion like “DxO is not necessarily better than C1” or you are missing C1 functionalities PL doesn’t have, going back also means “doing the editing work again”.
C1 and PL can work on the raw files stored on your hard drive. I am assuming you are using a referenced catalog in C1.
You don’t get the same range of tools/capabilities that you have in C1 but you can also export a dng from DXO for final editing in C1.
To get your files into Photolab isn’t an issue - just point Photolab to where they are, but as said above getting your processing adjustments across won’t happen.
I would probably keep that installation of C1 (or is it on the subscription model?) and assign it to do any further edits / exports of your existing archive. Then if you are determined to switch, I’d process files in PL going forward, thus beginning a new period archive.
Many thanks @platypus
All makes sense, so can I assume if that if I export as Tiff files, DXO will pick up the metadata and the changes made in Cap One?
Mind, I will lose the ability to edit in DXO to the extent I would be able to with Raw files.
TIFFs exported by C1 (or any raw developer) reflect all the changes done in C1 (or any…) and DPL will see exactlyy what you saw in C1 - except for differences that depend on how images are read internally (working colour space, rendering of possibly out-of-gamut colours, presets that you apply in DPL etc.)
DPL’s key features will be wasted on these TIFFs. only RAW files from supported gear will uncover DPL’s gems. If your gear is not fully supported (or not at all), you might as well stay with C1 - but I suppose you want to change because of C1’s new licensing/support modalities.
If you buy new cameras or lenses all the time, DPL might turn out to be a source of frustration rather than of joy. It’s advisable that you check your current and planned gear through the page I linked to above.
I have C1. To me it makes more sense to edit the raw file in DXO-Photolab. C1’s noise reduction or lens corrections are not in the same league as DXO.
You also have the option in C1 to use the “Open With” command from a C1 session or catalog to open the raw file in DXO, benefiting from DXO noise reduction and lens corrections, do major tonal changes in DXO and then export a Tif or dng which will sit alongside the raw in the C1 catalog.
Well, some lens corrections of C1 are simply better, just because they are available or also selectable between C1 or manufacturer’s profile. I had a lot more frustrations with PL with endless waiting for a lens profile or incorrect EXIF writing/reading. And I don’t care about better lens profiles as long as my lenses are not supported by PL. True, C1’s lens profiles are not always top notch - but the ones of my lens manufacturer Sigma are. So, it very much depends wether a lens is really supported (meaning, a certain Sigma lens is noz constantly confused by PL to be a Leica lens…).
And @IanS if it’s your cup of tea to pingpong between RAW converters to use one feature of converter A and another of converter B to do major tonal changes in PL, I suspect a bit that you don’t understand how to do them in C1. But I might be wrong…
I use DXO for the noise reduction and lens corrections. While you are in DXO it is a matter of choice whether you do major tonal corrections, so that you can assess noise which becomes visible or just do the basics and export to dng. Does C1 have more editing tools and much better local adjustments, then yes. C1’s luma curve (change contrast without impacting colour) , ability to use all controls (that makes sense) locally, levels, superb advanced colour editor, masks that you can refine and feather etc makes editing easy.
Many thanks to you all for your input.
Currently, on Cap One 22 and do not want to get into subscription based at all, much rather purchase and update occasionally when tools warrant it. Hence, me looking at DXO. On the face of it, Cap One has its advantages over DXO but based on what I see so far it looks like an excellent alternative in the long term.
Point taken about using exported Tiff files not being an option. Exporting from DXO as DNG to Cap One seems a good option, can I assume it works the other way around as well?
Overall, it feels like I stick with Cap One, open with DXO when work can be completed there, then exported. Long term, I hope DXO does not follow the subscription route.
Excellent forum, thanks again.
I believe it’s a good thing not to put all eggs in one basket. I was very happy at the time I came in touch with DxO two years ago, when C1 had a huge gap in terms of unsupported Lumix cameras. Now this gap closed and improved compared to DxO, but PL5 will remain on my computer, as well as Iridient developer and Affinity Photo.
C1 does have the advantage but DXO is making excellent progress although I feel tremendous development effort has been expended on DAM capability which hopefully is now pretty much complete and the local adjustment tools and basic image editing tools will now be further enhanced.
I can’t see any reason to export a dng to DXO as the dng’s are not raw files merely a tif in a dng wrapper so that you can’t use DXO’s class leading noise reduction.
You’re looking into your crystal ball, talking about PL 10 or 11? It all depends what one is expecting from a contemporary DAM, but my verdict remains than DAM-wise DxO has close to nothing to offer.
I agree with your assessment, but I hope they have pretty much sorted metadata handling between different applications. I just hope they have more understanding now of what a huge development resource sink implementing a dam is and now concentrate on image editing.
They deserve every bit of hope they can get 
Depending on what you need. For me to be able to search for Keywords are normally sufficient the way I have structured my archive. For others, may be not…
I’m so glad for you, being happy with the minimum. And probably never suffered the evilness of a DAM, which needs a bit of skill and comprehension for referenced files. Unburdened with the experience of Capture One and it’s catalogs. Keep on staying away from DAM.
I have used my fair time on different DAMs… Lightroom for years and after that Digikam before I found out that I don’t really need an advanced DAM anymore.