Problem is: the term "workflow" starts with "work"…
The default rendering with DPP or Canon’s Zoombrowser or even in-camera conversion is often perceived to be better compared to (the default with) a third-party Raw converter – at least in some aspects such as in particular color reproduction.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That was my thinking originally, until I callibrated ACR for my camera....It isn't 'work' if the UI is intuitive, it becomes fun, not work. For me DPP is work, ACR is fun. IMHO DPP's controls are crude blunt instruments compared to the myriad of fine tuning options with ACR. For me, once ACR was callibrated to my 30D, it rendered as good, if not better, than DPP or Zoombrowser.
Your mileage may differ.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188818\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As for a further comment, this one by Eric Chan is cross-quoted from the [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24097&st=100]Clarity thread[/url]:
>> DPP, NX, and most of the vendor software perform non-linear hue twists that are apparently based more on the vendors' notions of what people want to see (i.e., the color rendering style) rather than being colorimetric or 'accurate'. No matrix is going to reproduce this.<<
Or, if of interest, see this recent discussion
here.
Peter
--