Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: kevs on June 16, 2007, 08:58:26 pm
-
When I started Raw few years ago, I tested, DPP vs, PS, vs Capture One, and decided that the great interface of PS beat out the others. I did not notice huge differences in quality. But after looking at recent images on my 5D, I called my Canon rep and said, "what the deal on the black (shadows) with this camera, it's a horrow show of poterization. He said try DPP. I tried this clunky software I had not used in years and the blacks looked fine.
I'm really puzzled. I like the interface of CS3 much more, it's integrated with Photoshop and I have no desire to learn DPP, but, I don't know, I'm real confused right now.
-
If you want to simulate the effect of DPP on your shadows, try setting blacks to 8-12...that will step on your images kinda like DPP will.
-
The most incredible thing about DPP is the sharpening, if you have a 1DsII it's like getting a new camera. Color is nice too.
Generally speaking, DPP does a better job than anything else I've seen, at least on 1DsII files. But it's so clunky that I hardly use it anymore, never on batches.
Edmund
If you want to simulate the effect of DPP on your shadows, try setting blacks to 8-12...that will step on your images kinda like DPP will.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Jeff:
I don't want to use DPP anymore than you do. I think the interface of CS3 raw is just unbelievably great. actually I don't use the interface much now honestly, I just batch everything to TIFF and tweak in PHotoshop, but I can't ignore the horrid blacks I'm seeing in hair, clothes, and backgrounds. I thought it was the camera, but look, here is ACR hair:
[img=http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5324/cs3hairea7.th.png] (http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cs3hairea7.png)
Here is DPP hair (both on default setting with no tweaks)
[img=http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/9822/dpphairkv0.th.png] (http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dpphairkv0.png)
Ero:
did not understand this,
"he most incredible thing about DPP is the sharpening, if you have a 1DsII it's like getting a new camera"
You don't want to sharpen in DPP, right? that should be done later, no?
-
Get the very latest DPP, v3.0.1.5.
Use the new "Edit Images Window."
Much improved interface. Borderline intuitive. Stick with it for a few sessions.
I use it most of the time to convert raw to 16 bit TIFFs for futher edits (mostly minor or where I want to use a mask). Canon 1D Mark II files, DPP is better than Camera RAW 4.1, Lightroom, or Capture1. Batch processing is not fast, but not torture either.
-
Paul:
so you have done thorogh test against ACR and discovered this?
Is it just the blacks or other shots as well?
If blacks/ shadows are not prevelant, does ACR do as good or better in some ways than DPP.
I really dig ACR (Jeff), so I'm trying to hang on.
How could Adobe engineers, not figure out how to make files as well as Canon, or does Canon have the special sauce Adobe can't get.
-
Jeff:
I don't want to use DPP anymore than you do. I think the interface of CS3 raw is just unbelievably great. actually I don't use the interface much now honestly, I just batch everything to TIFF and tweak in PHotoshop, but I can't ignore the horrid blacks I'm seeing in hair, clothes, and backgrounds. I thought it was the camera, but look, here is ACR hair:
[img=http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5324/cs3hairea7.th.png] (http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cs3hairea7.png)
Here is DPP hair (both on default setting with no tweaks)
[img=http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/9822/dpphairkv0.th.png] (http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dpphairkv0.png)
...
Perceptions are funny things. One man's 'horrid' is another man's 'actually looks better to me'.
Go figure.
George Deliz
-
kevs,
It’s all a matter of personal taste. Each person has different priorities. For me, an important factor is time to process about one hundred raw files and end up with near printable 16 bit tiffs. DPP color fidelity, sharpening, and shadow/highlight recovery are very good. The more I do this, the more I believe “less is more.” I’m not a fan of over processed photographs. For example, I like the way Michael R. works his photographs. His photographs look like photographs, not digital fantasy art. It all depends what “look” you are going for.
Yes.., PS3 camera raw 4.1 and Lightroom are great. Lots of flexibility. Very powerful. It’s just that most of the time DPP gives me what I want without a lot of fuss.
-
How could Adobe engineers, not figure out how to make files as well as Canon, or does Canon have the special sauce Adobe can't get.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Pretty easy actually...you did both processes at "default", correct? Well, DOH...
Camera Raw supports (I think) over 130 cameras at present (over 10 camera makers-and a few that are no longer supported by the companies)...DPP supports only their Canon cameras. So, at "default" which do you suppose will have better defaults?
That's the whole problem of comparing application defaults, it's the friggin' default, ya know? Whose gonna use them at default?
When I compare the two images you posted, I noticed right off, they didn't match. The Canon version was darker...what do you suppose Canon is hiding in the darker rendering? Noise...
The only way to compare raw processors is to become profficient in both, get the image to be it's best and both and note how long it took to do so...than make your choice.
Comparing raw processors at the "default" tells only what the images look like at default-which isn't the way you are going to USE the darn thing, right? So, it's pretty much a waste of time to do.
-
George, I agree with your philosophy there, but how could the ACR one look better to you? it's got all that yukky posterization, noise etc. the DPP is smoother.
Yes Jeff, both defualt. Ok, seeing your point. Yes, if I boost the contrast of this image in ACR, the Blacks, in fact become less noisy or posterized, or whatever we call it.
-
So I'm wondering is best strategy to make a preset for when you have lot of blacks?
And so Jeff, others, confident quality can get from ACR is just as good as DPP (even though they make software and camera)
Also, any opinions on 5D, could be camera, is it good with shadows? thanks.
-
George, I agree with your philosophy there, but how could the ACR one look better to you? it's got all that yukky posterization, noise etc. the DPP is smoother.
Yes Jeff, both defualt. Ok, seeing your point. Yes, if I boost the contrast of this image in ACR, the Blacks, in fact become less noisy or posterized, or whatever we call it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't see any posterization on my Spyder calibrated monitor, just looks like good shadow detail.
The DPP version looks blocked up to me by comparison. As Schewe pointed out moving the ACR blacks slider a few notches to the right would probably give a similar effect.
George Deliz
-
Interesing George, I now see what you are saying about the subjectiveness of it all. So you find ACR files are every bit as good as DPP's? I'm going to start new thread on defaults, but would like to know what you do for defaults. that file still look horrid to me. I would love to send it to you if that interest you.
-
Kevs,
You want to get even more confused, try the Canon Raw Image Task and compare to DPP. I have found that there are times that DPP makes a better file for me, sometimes ACR 4.1, sometimes Raw Image Task, sometimes Capture One.
Don't let anyone tell you that one piece of software is good for all images, because it's simply not true. Everyone has different taste with what their images should look like, and each of these software packages interpret the data differently. I personally have found that DPP is the best most of the time.
By the way, for the PC users of DPP - You can start multiple batches on a set of files if you have many... if you have multiple processors/cores, you can make the PC version of DPP use ALL of the processors and cores by opening the equivalent # of batches. I have a dual core/dual opteron system and if I have 60 images to batch, I split them up 15/15/15/15 and ZOOM they get finished FAST. Sure it's kind of a pain in the butt, but the little initial prepwork results in a HUGE time save.
*steve
When I started Raw few years ago, I tested, DPP vs, PS, vs Capture One, and decided that the great interface of PS beat out the others. I did not notice huge differences in quality. But after looking at recent images on my 5D, I called my Canon rep and said, "what the deal on the black (shadows) with this camera, it's a horrow show of poterization. He said try DPP. I tried this clunky software I had not used in years and the blacks looked fine.
I'm really puzzled. I like the interface of CS3 much more, it's integrated with Photoshop and I have no desire to learn DPP, but, I don't know, I'm real confused right now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123216\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I use ACR, for three reasons: the seamless interface with Photoshop, batching, and the color calibration. All I have to do is set white balance properly, and the color is very true-to-life accurate, and I can shoot with multiple cameras and get consistent color between my Canon 1Ds DSLR and my Olympus SP-350 P&S. (Try that with DPP!) I can't remember the last time I used Photoshop for color correction of anything I shot. It's a HUGE time-saver.
I NEVER use default settings, and agree with the sentiment that comparing RAW converters with all default settings is only a comparison of the default settings, and not really a valid comparison of the converters.
I don't sharpen or de-noise during RAW conversion, except for light light color noise reduction to reduce colored speckle chroma noise. Neat Image and Focus Magic and my sharpening actions take care of those tasks.
The most important thing is to know how to use the tools. If you're getting crappy blacks from ACR, look in the mirror to see where the problem lies. You have the shadow setting, the curve control, and the exposure control to adjust shadows. The curve control is especially powerful and useful. Learn to use it, and you'll have no reason to complain.
-
Pretty easy actually...you did both processes at "default", correct? Well, DOH...
Camera Raw supports (I think) over 130 cameras at present (over 10 camera makers-and a few that are no longer supported by the companies)...DPP supports only their Canon cameras. So, at "default" which do you suppose will have better defaults?
Comparing raw processors at the "default" tells only what the images look like at default-which isn't the way you are going to USE the darn thing, right? So, it's pretty much a waste of time to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree. After several years of using ACR I gave up hoping for the best from it. I have got better files than ACR using Raw Developer, Capture One and DPP, with very little effort. How come I can make anything except ACR give me decent files ?
Let me say this more bluntly: ACR gives you a good workflow integrated with Photoshop. You can process hundreds of files with it it fast. I use it regularly for big jobs. But you want quality ? Look elsewhere. A sprinter is not likely to make a good weightlifter.
Edmund
-
The only way to compare raw processors is to become profficient in both, get the image to be it's best and both and note how long it took to do so...than make your choice.
Amen.
But the simple fact is, DPP does a better job on Canon raws than ACR hands down, however only as respects detail... Color is better with DPP out of the box, but if you take time to calibrate your specific camera to ACR then color is far superior -- near perfect IMO -- from ACR.
That said, here's the real rub for me: Whle DPP generates a significantly more detailed image to start with, it can't withstand much in the way of additional sharpening in the workflow or it falls apart and goes over-the-edge "digital". By comparison, I can detail sharpen an ACR covnersion in CS -- and in fact have specifically cut back on my ACR default sharpening to accomodate this -- and end up with a far better file from a detail point, being highly detailed, yet smoother overall, and having a more organic look.
Each to their own, but the combo of ACR and CS works great for me.
Cheers,
-
Jack, I have Canon 5D, what should I do to optimize my conversions in ACR, I have no idea.
-
Jack, I have Canon 5D, what should I do to optimize my conversions in ACR, I have no idea.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=126603\")
I use a somewhat extended version of the Bruce Fraser method and I don't have it written up. Here is a paraphrased version of the Fraser method by Eric Chan which is probably the easiest/best option: [a href=\"http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/acr/]http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/acr/[/url]
Cheers,
-
That said, here's the real rub for me: Whle DPP generates a significantly more detailed image to start with, it can't withstand much in the way of additional sharpening in the workflow or it falls apart and goes over-the-edge "digital". By comparison, I can detail sharpen an ACR covnersion in CS -- and in fact have specifically cut back on my ACR default sharpening to accomodate this -- and end up with a far better file from a detail point, being highly detailed, yet smoother overall, and having a more organic look.
Each to their own, but the combo of ACR and CS works great for me.
That's pretty much my experience as well. I've color calibrated ACR to get basically perfect color from all of my cameras; I can't remember the last time I had to color-correct a RAW in PS. All I have to do is set the WB properly and everything else falls into place. That is a HUGE time saver right there.
I don't do any sharpening during RAW conversion; I use Focus Magic, then my own sharpening actions. So the fact that other RAW converters can sharpen better than ACR does not trouble me, my preferred tools can beat any converter's internal sharpening anyway. The bottom line is that with my existing workflow I can match or beat what I can get from any other RAW converter, with regard to detail, color fidelity, or any other criteria.
-
So the fact that other RAW converters can sharpen better than ACR does not trouble me, my preferred tools can beat any converter's internal sharpening anyway. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You might be changing your mind regarding internal sharpening now that Camera Raw 4.1 has been released...for the purpose of capture sharpening, I would rank it pretty close to best of breed...
-
How long before output sharpening in LR matches input? Or is that too much to ask? It would be nice to not have to round trip files to other apps before printing.
-
You might be changing your mind regarding internal sharpening now that Camera Raw 4.1 has been released...for the purpose of capture sharpening, I would rank it pretty close to best of breed...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
While 4.1 is an improvement, it still isn't up to DPP in terms of total detail -- and I did need to adjust my ACR defaults to accommodate the new 4.1 sharpening... But again, it is a moot point with me since I prefer the final look within the ACR/CS workflow.
-
How long before output sharpening in LR matches input? Or is that too much to ask? It would be nice to not have to round trip files to other apps before printing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I really can't say (although I know) and I think people will be really happy when it happens...and some people will be surprised (although others not so much) when it happens...but I doubt it'll come in another "minor update". Camera Raw 4.1 and Lightroom 1.1 were special in that Thomas could, by virtue of the end of the quarter deadline, put new stuff in that wasn't in 4.0. Lightroom gets what Camera Raw gets...
-
You might be changing your mind regarding internal sharpening now that Camera Raw 4.1 has been released...for the purpose of capture sharpening, I would rank it pretty close to best of breed...
I haven't upgrades to CS3 yet; CS2 is working great for me and photography is not my primary focus in life right now. Life intrudes...
Have you tried using Focus Magic for capture sharpening? A round of radius 2, 25-50%, followed by a round at radius 1, 25-50% does an excellent job undoing the effects of the AA filter. Focus Magic isn't a magic bullet to fix focus errors, but it does a really excellent job as a capture sharpener.
-
Jack:
Is that really necessary? I've been processing few years with 1DS and 5d, never done all that, and things look pretty good out of the box.
-
Jack:
Is that really necessary? I've been processing few years with 1DS and 5d, never done all that, and things look pretty good out of the box.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126841\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I assume you are referring to the camera calibration... I would not say it is necessary if you are happy with the color you are now getting. However, many of us want to know we are as close to "perfect" as possible and calibrating your camera is one step towards that end. Moreover, the full calibration is not just about accurate color, it also linearizes the tonal scale; many of the ACR defaults hold back on the bright highlights, ostensibly to prevent clipping them.
At the end of the day, I have what I feel is very accurate color, especially in improved greens through cyans, and in my case I gained about 1/2 stop more total DR in my 5D conversions. The extra DR and more linear tonal scale does in fact render a flatter appearance to the final conversion, so this usually requires a more agressive curves (contrast) adjustment before final output -- but at least I have the data available at the onset to tweak to my liking.
Cheers,
-
I make camera profiles for third parties and I eat my own cooking
There seem to be at least two batches of 5D cameras floating around, with significantly different characteristics. It's possible that users are getting inaccurate color because of this.
Edmund
I assume you are referring to the camera calibration... I would not say it is necessary if you are happy with the color you are now getting. However, many of us want to know we are as close to "perfect" as possible and calibrating your camera is one step towards that end. Moreover, the full calibration is not just about accurate color, it also linearizes the tonal scale; many of the ACR defaults hold back on the bright highlights, ostensibly to prevent clipping them.
At the end of the day, I have what I feel is very accurate color, especially in improved greens through cyans, and in my case I gained about 1/2 stop more total DR in my 5D conversions. The extra DR and more linear tonal scale does in fact render a flatter appearance to the final conversion, so this usually requires a more agressive curves (contrast) adjustment before final output -- but at least I have the data available at the onset to tweak to my liking.
Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Jeff:
I don't want to use DPP anymore than you do. I think the interface of CS3 raw is just unbelievably great. actually I don't use the interface much now honestly, I just batch everything to TIFF and tweak in PHotoshop, but I can't ignore the horrid blacks I'm seeing in hair, clothes, and backgrounds. I thought it was the camera, but look, here is ACR hair:
[img=http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5324/cs3hairea7.th.png] (http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cs3hairea7.png)
Here is DPP hair (both on default setting with no tweaks)
[img=http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/9822/dpphairkv0.th.png] (http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dpphairkv0.png)
Ero:
did not understand this,
"he most incredible thing about DPP is the sharpening, if you have a 1DsII it's like getting a new camera"
You don't want to sharpen in DPP, right? that should be done later, no?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Comparing your examples my view is that the blacks on the ACR example are better with more graduation visible. The blacks in the DPP have blocked up. My preference is to hold back on the blacks at the raw stage and pull them in with a small levels adjustment in PS.
A slightly different point is that the the sharpness in your DPP example is much better than on ACR. Of course everything depends on the settings you used for the example.
On the subject of sharpening there appear to be somewhat divided views in this thread.
Years ago it seemed that the conventional wisdom was that you should switch off sharpening in the raw converter and do it later instead. I never believed that and found the final result was always better (to my eyes anyway) by sharpening as needed at the raw stage. The sharpening in the latest DPP (3.0 and upwards) is very good and the setting of sharpness = "3" gives a good appearance in both the APS sensor (20D etc) and full frame (5D). Focus Magic is great for fixing problems such as mild camera shake or "off" focus but is not a substitute for getting the sharpness right first time round during the raw stage. Anyone can do their own tests here and compare the alternatives. I'm not trying to upset anyone with the above view, merely describe which of the alternative workflows looks better to me. Final sharpening takes place either during the print stage (Qimage) or after resizing down for the web where Focus Magic (1px @50%) again does a great job.
For me the sharpest raw converter of all is the now-discontinued Raw Shooter Essentials. The detail it can extract is amazing and better than any other converter I've seen, even DPP. Unfortunately its colour with Canon images usually sucks (my eyes, your eyes may vary) so I rarely use it, except for images from my Panasonic LX1 where it does a fine job of noise reduction while keeping detail.
-
I use a somewhat extended version of the Bruce Fraser method and I don't have it written up. Here is a paraphrased version of the Fraser method by Eric Chan which is probably the easiest/best option: http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/acr/ (http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/acr/)
Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah I guess there may be no better alternative than creating a callibration preset. With that in mind, I just reread the part in Bruce Fraser's ACR book about calibrating ACR for one's camera...as well as the link you provided. Holy Headache Batman - that is a rather involved process fraught with error. No wonder I decided to skip doing that after readig it in Bruce's book!! Up to now I had been happy with the results in ACR 3.7 but a recent toying with Canon's DPP (proprietary software)lead me to realise that ACR 4.1 isn't rendering the same pleasing colours that DPP is.
ACR is vastly superior to DPP in many other respects (except price) and I will not abandon ACR. But darned if I am going to slog through the calibration process especially since the results can be skewwed due to the reflection of nearby objects (I live smack downtown so no grassless hills nearby).
People have presets designed for tungsten shots, presets for daylight shots. That's a lot of work - c'mon Adobe, I want to take photos, not become some digital software guru.
Surely there are other kind souls who have made their Canon 30D ACR presets available for others...a place where people compare and analyze their preset results. Anyone know if there is a website of these Canon 30D ACR callibration results? I know they won't be exact callibration for my 30D but surely they'll be better starting points for digital photo colour tweaking than the current initial RAW conversion.
Or am I a hopeless dreamer? Is there such great variation between 30Ds that other people's presets would be worse than the ACR 4.1 defaults?
-
Pretty easy actually...you did both processes at "default", correct? Well, DOH...
Camera Raw supports (I think) over 130 cameras at present (over 10 camera makers-and a few that are no longer supported by the companies)...DPP supports only their Canon cameras. So, at "default" which do you suppose will have better defaults?
That's the whole problem of comparing application defaults, it's the friggin' default, ya know? Whose gonna use them at default?
When I compare the two images you posted, I noticed right off, they didn't match. The Canon version was darker...what do you suppose Canon is hiding in the darker rendering? Noise...
The only way to compare raw processors is to become profficient in both, get the image to be it's best and both and note how long it took to do so...than make your choice.
Comparing raw processors at the "default" tells only what the images look like at default-which isn't the way you are going to USE the darn thing, right? So, it's pretty much a waste of time to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
After watching yours and Michael's Camera to Print this was made even more apparent. I'm really glad I bought it--though I do most of the things you went over, I picked up some valuable (for me) things--and I'm just on 13 LOL.
I rarely used ACR for RAW conversion since PS7 (when I bought the RC plugin) and have used 3rd party RCs--UNTIL ACR 4 and esp. 4.1 and now really don't use anything but..... Still--I wasn't quite happy--and have considered 'calibrating' my 5D but was never quite sure, even after reading one of Bruce's books. Now I will do it and feel my blacks will be better as well as the reds and greens. Love the tutorial and its been worth the money to me for things like this (BTW--I have used specific camera profiles for several years in C1 and RSP).
Diane
-
You might be changing your mind regarding internal sharpening now that Camera Raw 4.1 has been released...for the purpose of capture sharpening, I would rank it pretty close to best of breed...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Again, after watching Camera to Print--I'm even more convinced of using the sharpening in ACR for capture sharpening. I've been using it instead of PKS for that---and you convinced me LOL. Still use PKS for creative and output though.
Diane
-
For me the sharpest raw converter of all is the now-discontinued Raw Shooter Essentials. The detail it can extract is amazing and better than any other converter I've seen, even DPP. Unfortunately its colour with Canon images usually sucks (my eyes, your eyes may vary) so I rarely use it....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127554\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Couldn't agree more. Yesterday I compared RSP (still have a copy on my machine -don't know why) with LR 1.1, and RSP was sharper with less noise, especially at high iso. To be accurate, in every other parameter LR left RSP trailing badly.
Adobe seems to have gone it's own way with LR and from reading Jeff's comments this seems to be their avowed policy (nothing wrong with that IMO) but I can't help wondering why they bothered to buy RSP. The vibrancy slider is the only thing I can see that was copied, sorry Jeff, I mean influenced, by RSP.
-
I second the comments about the Camera to Print tutorial. Everyone reading this thread (except Jeff Schewe, of course) should buy the tutorial for 2 reasons: 1) Seriously improve your capture to print workflow and quality; and 2) Show financial support for Jeff Schewe and Michael Reichmann for sharing their vast experiences and for Michael providing the Luminous Landscape web site.
Personally, I have a Canon 1Ds MkII, 20D, 700is P&S, and a Panasonic DMC-FX50 P&S. All of the images produced by these cameras benefit from Lightroom and Photoshop CS3. Lightroom v1.1 has become my tool of choice for 90% of my images, even for jpegs from my P&S cameras.
Although I have played with printing from within LR, I still prefer ImagePrint 7.0 RIP for my final fine art images.
That's my 2 cents.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
In the last months I moved from ACR to DCRAW. A very different philosophy: I use DCRAW to get a high quality plain linear image with no adjustment applied at all, and with total control over how the development was done. In difficult or important images I can analyse in detail the histogram of this linear image to find out EXACTLY how many pixles, in which channels and in which areas are blown and test different hightlight recovery strategies if needed.
Then I transfer to PS all the non pure developing tasks: exposure correction, camera profile assignment (still in linear mode), colour profile conversion with gamma, contrast, saturation, noise reduction, sharpening,...
The only thing I miss from ACR is the colour noise reduction, which performed very well there. The rest is unnecesary for me and PS can do much better (for instance being fond of curves, ACR curves alter Hue while PS curves in Luminance blending mode are perfect preserving Hue).
I know this will be never a popular way to proceed, but for me is fine. I call DCRAW from many of my programs so I am used to deal with linear images that have some advantages. I like the concept!
-
I wish lazy writers would get to the gym. The way some of you throw around abbreviated language and ASSUME readers know what the hell you're talking about is rude, presumptuous, elitist, and...lazy. Every good writer knows, if you're going to write ACR, make sure your first reference is Adobe Camera Raw, at least on one post on every page. Thank you. It's not right to assume every reader knows what these abbreviations mean, regardless how often they're referred to on Luminous Landscape.
I shoot much beauty. As for kevs two samples, I think both are poor. I would question the aperture reading first. Hair detail is a leading challenge in digital. Blowing hair at 5.6 is near impossible!
Default settings are 95% useless in conversion. They're for lazy photographers. A true artist needs to get his hands in the recipe and on the controls. But I if I had to choose one of kevs' choices, the ACR version is my pick. Canon's software created lots of deep-mush black. Useless for my eye. I'd rather hang onto some highlight dimension in hair and deepen the darker tones manually, especially if the bulk of hair is out of focus. From an arm's length distance, I think the end result will look much better.
A good looking image is always determined by the eye of the beholder.
-
Yeah I guess there may be no better alternative than creating a callibration preset. With that in mind, I just reread the part in Bruce Fraser's ACR book about calibrating ACR for one's camera.... Holy Headache Batman - that is a rather involved process fraught with error. No wonder I decided to skip doing that after readig it in Bruce's book!! .... But darned if I am going to slog through the calibration process .... - c'mon Adobe, I want to take photos, not become some digital software guru.
Surely there are other kind souls who have made their Canon 30D ACR presets available for others...a place where people compare and analyze their preset results. Anyone know if there is a website of these Canon 30D ACR callibration results? I know they won't be exact callibration for my 30D but surely they'll be better starting points for digital photo colour tweaking than the current initial RAW conversion.
Or am I a hopeless dreamer? Is there such great variation between 30Ds that other people's presets would be worse than the ACR 4.1 defaults?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just looked on Amazon and the Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker Chart is $67. I can get an xray chart cheaper than that!! This is rediculous - you'd think Adobe could include a similar chart like this if their software requires one in order to get decent results.
This is rather a pain in the what'sits. Spending more money and time to try to get my expensive ACR to work properly.
How much does Capture One cost? Does it come with the camera profiles or do you have to do this song and dance as well in order to get them?
WTF - I guess there are no sites, threads, bulletin boards or forums where people share their calibration values? Seriously - this seems like a rather big ordeal and added expense. Nobody knows of where people post/share their ACR calibration results?
-
Perceptions are funny things. One man's 'horrid' is another man's 'actually looks better to me'.
Go figure.
George Deliz
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Note: I have not finished reading this thread to the end. Yet.
I agree with George here. I prefer the ACR image. There is much more shadow detail in the ACR image and not just a black expanse. If you want the smoothness of the DPP file just up the blacks in ACR. But, what if you want that shadow detail? Can you get it back as easily in DPP.
-
Note: I have not finished reading this thread to the end. Yet.
I agree with George here. I prefer the ACR image. There is much more shadow detail in the ACR image and not just a black expanse. If you want the smoothness of the DPP file just up the blacks in ACR. But, what if you want that shadow detail? Can you get it back as easily in DPP.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=131283\")
Actually DPP is more versatile than most people think - there isn't anything called a Shadow Recovery slider per se. But if one looks on the RGB Image Adjustment tab you have the ability to change the RGB graph to a Luminance graph. The bottom line of this graph can raised in order to draw detail in shadows. The top of the graph can be lowered to decrease highlights. Or maybe it is vice versa (I am at work).
I found out about this unknown tool from the online tutorials on the Canon.usa website
There's many tutorials. For some unexplained reason the Luminance curve tutorial is buried on the #3 selection under the Workflow tab (instead of the tutorial tab)
[a href=\"http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html]http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html[/url]
Go to >>> workflow tab >>>#3 'Advance editing of a folder of images' >>>>then select "RGB Image Adjustment tab" 3rd to last video
So DPP is a great tool but just isn't all that much fun or easy to play with. When you get it right the results are better than ACR. Problem is, it ain't always easy and it ain't always fun or quick getting the best results. The UI blows and the sliders are graduated and don't afford the fine tuning that one gets in ACR.
-
Actually DPP is more versatile than most people think - there isn't anything called a Shadow Recovery slider per se. But if one looks on the RGB Image Adjustment tab you have the ability to change the RGB graph to a Luminance graph. The bottom line of this graph can raised in order to draw detail in shadows. The top of the graph can be lowered to decrease highlights. Or maybe it is vice versa (I am at work).
Not sure if I was clear enough above.
In order to use the graph's lower bar to increase shadow detail in DPP, one must FIRST switch the graph from RGB to a Luminance graph.
-
thanks for comments. Is seems I'm safe to go back to ACR.
-
If you want to simulate the effect of DPP on your shadows, try setting blacks to 8-12...that will step on your images kinda like DPP will.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff,
In your response post to someone claiming that DPP is better than ACR, you stated "If you want to simulate the effect of DPP on your shadows, try setting blacks to 8-12...that will step on your images kinda like DPP will."
Can you clarify which setting you were talking about? Also, do you have any recommendations for default ACR or LR1.1 setting for the Canon 1DsMkII?
BTW, excellent job with Michael on the Camera to Print tutorial. I've watched it a few times since purchasing it earlier this week.
Thanks.
Bud James
-
Bud, Jeff was referring to Shadows in Camera Raw. The default setting is 5. Typically, many of us pull this back slightly to 3 for a variety of reasons, depending on the image. But one can always intensify the blacks in any image for many reasons by increasing the Shadows number.
-
Can you clarify which setting you were talking about? Also, do you have any recommendations for default ACR or LR1.1 setting for the Canon 1DsMkII?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In Camera Raw 3 and earlier, it was called Shaodws, now in Camera Raw 4 and Lightroom it's called Blacks. It's the black clipping adjustment...and no, no real idea on YOUR 1DsMII, for mine I default to 3 because I find 5 to be too strong. The last 10 steps of Shadows/Blacks are really large incriments between 0-10. You need to evaluate the settings very carefully. I use the option key while adjusting to see in the image where the clipping will be.
-
I have found after my own experimentation that DPP is far easier and faster to get good results than ACR when using Canon 5D RAW files.
It may well be that an image can be tweaked in ACR to produce what DPP does in a default conversion - but really.. who has the time when DPP will do it reliably and quickly everytime in 1/10th the time of ACR.
Its to be expected I guess - DPP uses Canons own algorithims - ACR uses Adobes. The Adobe engineers [as brilliant as they are] cant be expected to replicate Canons algorithims.
I spent a fair bit of time with LR and ACR trying to get good conversions - in the end I gave up - what took me less than a minute with DPP was 10 + minutes in ACR or LR.
I decided to use DPP for my conversions and then round trip through PS CS3 for any more detailed work - eg. I will go to CS3 to use Photokit sharpen for creative sharpening or output sharpening - never capture sharpening which I find DPP does a far better job of. This workflow works for me.
My only quible with DPP is it lacks features compared to ACR or LR. But then - it does have 'export to Photoshop' for those features.
-
I was never a big proponent for DPP. I use/used Capture One, RAWShooter, Lightroom, ACR, and Bibble. However, owning one of the first 1D Mark III's, I had few choices, at first, when processing RAW.
I've become a convert. Maybe not for everything, but certainly for the last few jobs. The DPP conversions seem cleaner and more detailed (at least with the Mark III). I did conversions with Lightroom, DPP and ACR on a recent editorial shot at 800 ISO. While the recorded white balance in DPP was ever so slightly redder (on skin tones), the images from DPP seemed snappier and sharper. (Yes, I apply a small amount of sharpening when processing ANY RAW files in ANY program.) While I love Lightroom's interface and plethora of adjustments, I loathe that I have to "import images" before working with them. I have no desire to use Lightroom as my DAM, but am forced to, at least in a limited way, if I want to use the processing characteristics at all.
-
My only quible with DPP is it lacks features compared to ACR or LR. But then - it does have 'export to Photoshop' for those features.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131590\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Once you find out about using the Luminence curve in the RGB tab (you have to switch it from the RGB curve to the luminence curve) you'll see ACR has even fewer features over DPP than you thought. With the luminence curve one can reduce highlights and increase shadow detail by raising the bar at the top and bottom of the graph. You can even set white point. Problem is the features' ease of use are far greater in ACR. DPP is powerful - but ACR is a joy to use. I hope Adobe finds a way to decode CR2 files better in the future. I usually get better results in ACR. DPP is hit and miss - but when it is a 'hit' the results are better than ACR.
-
When I started Raw few years ago
Wow so it was you that started Raw hey!
Acr is getting better and better I know use it for 80% of the time for processing, Even the LEAF files.
-
Once you find out about using the Luminence curve in the RGB tab (you have to switch it from the RGB curve to the luminence curve) you'll see ACR has even fewer features over DPP than you thought. With the luminence curve one can reduce highlights and increase shadow detail by raising the bar at the top and bottom of the graph. You can even set white point. Problem is the features' ease of use are far greater in ACR. DPP is powerful - but ACR is a joy to use. I hope Adobe finds a way to decode CR2 files better in the future. I usually get better results in ACR. DPP is hit and miss - but when it is a 'hit' the results are better than ACR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think this is a really good point that a lot of people who have tried DPP are not aware of - and its one if its greatest assets. The ability to set the luminance curve in the RGB tab makes it ideal for adjusting curves.
Personally - I find the luminance curve in DPP far more intuitive than ACR - but that maybee because I have spent so much time with it.
I think its worth pointing out that ACR has to cope with all of the RAW file formats out there. DPP specialises to its own - its therefore highly unlikely ACR will ever be as consistent as DPP with Canon Raw files.
I would love Canon to add a clipping indicator to DPP [ive emailed them about it a few times] as I find the clipping indicator in LR to be really useful.
-
I agree - the Luminence Curve is an incredibly powerful tool. However one can only blame Canon for most people's unfamiliarity with it. The tutorials hardly give it a proper mention.
I would love Canon to add a clipping indicator to DPP [ive emailed them about it a few times] as I find the clipping indicator in LR to be really useful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Once again Canon is to blame here. DPP is on it's third version and they have overlooked this tool. Yet my Canon 30D has a clipping tool on the LCD viewer - why can't they put one on DPP?