Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: The View on July 09, 2008, 03:25:02 pm
-
With my new Canon 40D, I wonder if I should adapt my workflow.
Do I win anything if I use Canon's own software for RAW conversion, and then import into LR?
Are those differences in RAW conversion just that some software brings the converted RAW closer to JPEG appearance (which I wouldn't want, as I prefer a more neutral starting point).
Or is there some real quality difference in using Canon's conversion software provided with the camera?
-
DPP ist superior in color reproduction. ACR neeeds to be calibrated, and according to some of those, who did that, the color is still not as good. DPP is faster than ACR.
ACR is better in other aspects: workflow, and the palette of adjustments.
There is a very important difference, which may be decisive in certain workflows: DPP stores the adjustments in the raw file, while ACR creates a sidecar file (forget about the dumb rubbish of storing the adjustments in ACR's data base).
Some users dislike the sidecar files, but
1. think of archivation. What do you want to archive? I archive the unadultered orginal before any adjustments, and I archive the adjustments on their own. I don't want to re-archive the large raw files because I cyhange the adjustments.
2. multiple adjustments. Neither DPP nor ACR allows for different sets of adjustments of a single raw image. This sucks. However, I can copy the sidecar files, thus saving a certain set of adjustments, and then make other adjustments.
Note, that ACR saves the adjustments in the DNG-format raw file, except if the file is read-only (then a sidecar will be created).
-
The OP is asking for a comparison with LR, not ACR. So no sidecars unless you want them for some reason - the data is stored in LR's database.
LR does allow multiple alternative renditions, via both virtual copies and snapshots (concepts which need pulling together). Only the latter are stored, if you want, in the xmp or dng. There is already at least one way of swapping snapshots outside of LR.
As for the colour reproduction issue, that's only a matter of opinion and many would disagree with you.
John
-
The OP is asking for a comparison with LR, not ACR
I am not sure if this surprizes you, but LR is using ACR.
So no sidecars unless you want them for some reason - the data is stored in LR's database
I mentioned the sidecar files, for I find them an advantage compared to DPP (and compared to storing the adjustments in a data base).
LR does allow multiple alternative renditions, via both virtual copies and snapshots (concepts which need pulling together). Only the latter are stored, if you want, in the xmp or dng
Are you sure, that multiple adjustments can be stored in XMP format? I don't think so, but I am not sure of that.
As for the colour reproduction issue, that's only a matter of opinion and many would disagree with you
1. It is not a matter of opinion, that the color reproduction of ACR differs very much from that of DPP.
2. Adobe acknowledges, that a calibration should be done.
3. Those, who have done it, confirm, that the result is better, but still not the same as DPP.
4. I have yet to see one, who prefers ACR's uncalibrated colors to DPP; you might be the first one. However, there are many (like myself), who are either lazy, or don't appretiate the accurate color reproduction as much as some others do.
How far the above is true is confirmed by the upcoming features, which allow for multiple color profiles.
-
Of course I know LR uses ACR, but your comments specifically use the term ACR, not LR, and mention features specific to it such as the use of sidecars, which are of marginal value in the context of LR. Give me a database anyday - anything other than sidecar hell.
You might want to check out the latest specs re DNG or examine LR's sidecar or XMP metadata output - LR was saving multiple snapshots (sadly not VCs) some time before the spec came out. To see what I mean, create some snapshots in LR, then save out the metadata and open it in Bridge or a text editor. I've seen at least one Bridge application that can swap snapshots (via Bridge scripting).
You can always find a few Nikonites who'll swear by Capture NX or Canonites who'll sell their mothers for DPP, but the vast majority? Plenty of top Canon-using pros couldn't give two hoots about navel-gazing, calibrating their cameras, or DPP. Even if the camera makers' apps did produce better output, in any case what counts nowadays isn't so much pixel peeping individual files, but how much of a shoot you can get to your hopefully exacting quality standards in the time you've got for bulk post processing. We've got to factor in volume / efficiency too.
John
-
DPP ist superior in color reproduction. ACR neeeds to be calibrated, and according to some of those, who did that, the color is still not as good. DPP is faster than ACR.
ACR is better in other aspects: workflow, and the palette of adjustments.
There is a very important difference, which may be decisive in certain workflows: DPP stores the adjustments in the raw file, while ACR creates a sidecar file (forget about the dumb rubbish of storing the adjustments in ACR's data base).
Some users dislike the sidecar files, but
1. think of archivation. What do you want to archive? I archive the unadultered orginal before any adjustments, and I archive the adjustments on their own. I don't want to re-archive the large raw files because I cyhange the adjustments.
2. multiple adjustments. Neither DPP nor ACR allows for different sets of adjustments of a single raw image. This sucks. However, I can copy the sidecar files, thus saving a certain set of adjustments, and then make other adjustments.
Note, that ACR saves the adjustments in the DNG-format raw file, except if the file is read-only (then a sidecar will be created).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206744\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So you mean that the interpretation of the data from the sensor is superior in DPP.
I noticed that an image improved by simply opening it in PS. Any change ACR works different in the environment of PS than in the environment of LR?
-
Even if the camera makers' apps did produce better output, in any case what counts nowadays isn't so much pixel peeping individual files, but how much of a shoot you can get to your hopefully exacting quality standards in the time you've got for bulk post processing. We've got to factor in volume / efficiency too.
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So, John, you mean, that the interpretation of RAW data to form an image is pretty much the same from all the RAW processors? And the tiny differences you get over as you do adjustments anyway?
I repeatedly read that DPP renders details and color tones better, so you start out with more and better data. What would you say to that?
-
In this test by dpreview DPP show better detail and sharpness in RAW conversion.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page18.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/page18.asp)
-
You can always find a few Nikonites who'll swear by Capture NX or Canonites who'll sell their mothers for DPP, but the vast majority? Plenty of top Canon-using pros couldn't give two hoots about navel-gazing, calibrating their cameras, or DPP. Even if the camera makers' apps did produce better output, in any case what counts nowadays isn't so much pixel peeping individual files, but how much of a shoot you can get to your hopefully exacting quality standards in the time you've got for bulk post processing. We've got to factor in volume / efficiency too.
It is obvious, that the proportion of digitally illiterate is very high on the LL forums, but equating the desire for color fidelity with pixel peeping is a bit if a stretch even here.
-
I noticed that an image improved by simply opening it in PS
Now that is quite surprizing. Improved compared to what?
DPP applies all the in-camera settings (contrast, sharpness, WB, saturation, color tone, Highlight Tone Protection), ACR applies only the WB.
If I add to this the fact, that ACR makes an auto-adjustment of "exposure", which can ruin the image, but does not say a word about it, then I can only say: stay awa from ACR until you don't understand, what it is doing.
-
By "an image looks better" by opening it it PS I meant exporting it from LR to PS.
It opens, and looks more vivid and more nuanced.
I just installed DPP and found out, that it has Adobe RGB as the widest color space. No ProPhoto color space. Isn't that a bit limiting?
-
So, John, you mean, that the interpretation of RAW data to form an image is pretty much the same from all the RAW processors? And the tiny differences you get over as you do adjustments anyway?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Pretty much, and personal preferences differ with regard to converters' default renditions, even if they are meaningful anyway. With something like LR, you're also talking volume - so how many images can you finish to a high standard?
John
-
If I add to this the fact, that ACR makes an auto-adjustment of "exposure", which can ruin the image, but does not say a word about it, then I can only say: stay awa from ACR until you don't understand, what it is doing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not sure if I follow you here.
I've adjusted several thousand images in LR, and never found exposure "auto-adjusted".
Actually, I think the LR approach of only taking the WB from the camera settings quite good.
The only thing that really made me rethink LR were the repeated statements about better color rendition and detail in DPP. (this is why I posted the link to dpreview, and it's only one of many notes that I found on the web).
This better detail representation and sharpness, is it on the data level, or is it just more presharpening done by DPP (so, if I worked the details panes in LR, I'd get exactly the same result?).
-
found out, that it has Adobe RGB as the widest color space. No ProPhoto color space. Isn't that a bit limiting?
Well, I convert all images in ProPhoto, 16bit and keep them so up to the point, when I decide for a presentation copy (for printing or Internet). However, most users start out with sRGB, which is smaller than aRGB.
I've adjusted several thousand images in LR, and never found exposure "auto-adjusted"
LOL, the point is, that it does not show this adjustment.
Raws files of which camera have you converted?
Actually, I think the LR approach of only taking the WB from the camera settings quite good
So do I, but the majority of users posting about this issue are expecting the raw converter to honour the in-camera settings. (This is not "LR approach" but "ACR approach", just like the auto-adjustment.)
This better detail representation and sharpness, is it on the data level, or is it just more presharpening done by DPP (so, if I worked the details panes in LR, I'd get exactly the same result?).
I don't understand the question; what is "on the data level"?
Btw, ACR is better in sharpening than DPP; you need only to look at the options.
-
If I add to this the fact, that ACR makes an auto-adjustment of "exposure", which can ruin the image, but does not say a word about it, then I can only say: stay awa from ACR until you don't understand, what it is doing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please explain.
Sure, there is an 'auto' settings feature in LR (and ACR) but that doesn't mean you have to use it. Do you think there is something else going on 'under the hood'?
-
Do you think there is something else going on 'under the hood'?
What's your camera?
-
What's your camera?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206899\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
5D, 1DsM3, D3 (loaner).
For the purposes of this, the Canons will suffice.
-
5D, 1DsM3, D3 (loaner).
The auto-adjustment is
5D: +0.25 EV at all ISOs
1DsMkIII: +0.35 EV, probably at all ISOs, but I don't have raw samples for all
D3: - 0.5 EV at ISO 100, +0.5 EV at all other ISOs.
This adjustment may cause apparent clipping, or or may hide true clipping (as far as one can talk about "true clipping" in the raw processor, because that is far from the raw clipping).
If you want to see the image as "normal", you have to adjust "exposure" in the opposite direction.
-
Well, I convert all images in ProPhoto, 16bit and keep them so up to the point, when I decide for a presentation copy (for printing or Internet).
Raws files of which camera have you converted?
So do I, but the majority of users posting about this issue are expecting the raw converter to honour the in-camera settings. (This is not "LR approach" but "ACR approach", just like the auto-adjustment.)
I don't understand the question; what is "on the data level"?
Btw, ACR is better in sharpening than DPP; you need only to look at the options.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But if DPP can only do Adobe RGB, how could you convert to ProPhoto (that extra gamut isn't there). It's like converting from a "lower" color space to a higher.
I converted Pentax so far, and it will be Canon (40d) from now on.
Then, what camera settings do you mean? All those color, sharpness, etc. settings are for JPEG only. RAW is RAW, the pure data directly from the sensor - that's what I meant with "data level".
-
Regarding the auto adjustments, that means LR would counterbalance certain camera model's tendency for e.g. underexposure in a Pentax?
That adjustment seems to be rather minor to me.
But what do you say to that sharpness comparison at dpreview?
Is DPP really sharper, or could you go at this same sharpness level by going to the detail panel in LR? After all, it's non-destructive...
-
I've tried various versions of DPP as I purchased new Canon bodies - 10D, 1DMkII, 1Ds MkII, 20D, 40D (current) and 1DsMkIII (current). I still come back to ACR and now LR as the workflow is much better and the conversions are fine.
I've purchased and viewed many times the excellent tutorials by Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe. These guys produce some of the best images I have ever seen and they use LR and ACR exclusively. Yes, I realize that Schewe is a consultant to Adobe, but I think that he would use the best tools available because he seems to be a perfectionist and technically savvy.
In cruising web sites of various top notch digital photographers, I cannot find a single one that uses DPP. All of the DSLR shooters are using Aperture, LR or ACR. I guess the poor workflow of DPP is a big problem for working pros.
Since learning how to use LR and ACR, the images that I produce are great and the integration with Photoshop is excellent. So I think that I'll stick to what the best photographers are using.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
I have noticed that I capture color outside off Adobe RGB that my printer can print.
I dont think it make day and night diffrence. But I always feel it is nice to keep all your information you captured in print.
-
But if DPP can only do Adobe RGB, how could you convert to ProPhoto (that extra gamut isn't there)
I am using ACR most of the time. Perhaps you misunderstood my posts: I was not favouring DPP but explaining the advantages and disadvantages.
DPP stores the adjustments in the raw file, that's enough for me not to use it except for "utility" purposes.
Regarding the auto adjustments, that means LR would counterbalance certain camera model's tendency for e.g. underexposure in a Pentax?
No, it has nothing to do with underexposure. It is rather a "unification" of the ISO setting. Many if not most camera's ISO values are off, for example ISO 100 should be called ISO 118, but the manufacturers don't want to acknowledge that.
Nevertheless, the automatic adjustment is a total nonsense; it can ruin the image. (and it is much more than what I listed above, for some cameras and ISOs).
The 40D is a particular case: @ ISO 100: 0 EV, @ ISO 125: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 160: -0.11 EV, @ ISO 200: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 250: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 320: -0.11 EV, etc.
These adjustments are for "compatibility": Adobe did not analyse the camera properly at the very beginning, the handling of the raw data was way off. I reported the error, and it has been corrected (the clipping levels were assumed incorrectly), but now the auto-exposure adjustment "makes up" for the previous error, i.e. the result is incorrect again.
But what do you say to that sharpness comparison at dpreview?
Is DPP really sharper, or could you go at this same sharpness level by going to the detail panel in LR? After all, it's non-destructive...
DPP is not "sharper". It does not sharpen too strong, and it should not. Anyway, the sharpening control of ACR is superior to DPP, for those, who want to get the final product from ACR. I am using it only for slight capture sharpening, the rest comes much later in PS.
-
Just to "toss a *&^% in the punchbowl" here, I think my DXO converted files have better sharpness at high mag that either DPP or Lightroom versions.
-
In cruising web sites of various top notch digital photographers, I cannot find a single one that uses DPP. All of the DSLR shooters are using Aperture, LR or ACR. I guess the poor workflow of DPP is a big problem for working pros.
Since learning how to use LR and ACR, the images that I produce are great and the integration with Photoshop is excellent. So I think that I'll stick to what the best photographers are using.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am very comfortable with the LR workflow, and I wanted to make sure if I didn't miss out on some quality just out of being comfortable with a workflow I acquired when I switched to digital.
-
DPP stores the adjustments in the raw file, that's enough for me not to use it except for "utility" purposes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LR stores it in the file when exporting, if I'm not mistaken. Or is it a sidecar-file?
No, it has nothing to do with underexposure. It is rather a "unification" of the ISO setting. Many if not most camera's ISO values are off, for example ISO 100 should be called ISO 118, but the manufacturers don't want to acknowledge that.
Nevertheless, the automatic adjustment is a total nonsense; it can ruin the image. (and it is much more than what I listed above, for some cameras and ISOs).
The 40D is a particular case: @ ISO 100: 0 EV, @ ISO 125: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 160: -0.11 EV, @ ISO 200: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 250: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 320: -0.11 EV, etc.
These adjustments are for "compatibility": Adobe did not analyse the camera properly at the very beginning, the handling of the raw data was way off. I reported the error, and it has been corrected (the clipping levels were assumed incorrectly), but now the auto-exposure adjustment "makes up" for the previous error, i.e. the result is incorrect again.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In which way does it/can it ruin the image, and what can I do about it?
DPP is not "sharper". It does not sharpen too strong, and it should not. Anyway, the sharpening control of ACR is superior to DPP, for those, who want to get the final product from ACR. I am using it only for slight capture sharpening, the rest comes much later in PS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Did you take a look at that dpreview comparison I linked to? Why does the DPP rendition look sharper there? It is just a matter of import settings, LR/ACR being more conservative with it?
-
I'm generally looking for a better understanding of what a RAW converter does, and how it works, and why some are better than others.
Would someone have a good link to a website?
How does the quality of a RAW converter compare? Is it like different scanners produce different quality scans, with more or less detail, sharpness, color information?
Or is it like a better or worse microphone? Or is it just a mathematical file, and all RAW conversions are equal. And the differences you see are only basic settings after conversion? (I guess the answer to the last is no, and that there are poor RAW conversions).
-
In which way does it/can it ruin the image, and what can I do about it?
If you exposed properly, a positive adjustment "creates" overexposure, just like when you are moving the "exposure" slider. A negative adjustment makes the image appear darker.
You can counteract the effect with the same amount of adjustment, in the opposite direction. In fact, the best is to always start out that way.
Did you take a look at that dpreview comparison I linked to? Why does the DPP rendition look sharper there? It is just a matter of import settings, LR/ACR being more conservative with it?
You can make it sharper with ACR as well. The main difference is, that DPP applies the in-camera settings, sharpening as well, but ACR does not. This means, that if the defaults of ACR are not "equal" to the in-camera setting, then you have to make explicite adjustment in order to achieve comparable result.
I'm generally looking for a better understanding of what a RAW converter does, and how it works, and why some are better than others
I don't venture into comparing different raw converters; there are quite a few out there. However, the way to understand what and how they are doing is IMO through understanding the nature of the raw data. Rawnalyze ist one way to achieve that:
General description, downloading (http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/Rawnalyze.htm)
User's guide with many examples (http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/RawnalyzeGuideAll.htm)
-
DPP's widest gamut color space option is "Wide Gamut RGB" (I think you have to go to the Adjustment -> Work color space menu). This is comparable to ProPhoto RGB in terms of gamut size, and quite a bit bigger than Adobe RGB.
Current Canons have the default in-camera setting of the Standard Picture Style, which applies a higher level of default sharpening than what CR applies. This is largely why the default rendering in DPP looks more detailed than CR's default. If you use CR and prefer higher levels of default sharpening, you can increase the sharpening level and either (1) save that adjustment as a new default for your camera or, similarly, (2) create a preset with that increased sharpening which can be applied easily to large groups of images.
The View, here's an article (not sure how up-to-date it is) that has a discussion of raw converters in various areas: http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverte...wconverters.htm (http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/rawconverters.htm)
RAW conversions are definitely not equal. The starting point is the same, but the end results are different. As a loose analogy, consider the musical score created by a composer and then given to a pianist. All pianists get the same score, but all performances are different.
-
As a loose analogy, consider the musical score created by a composer and then given to a pianist. All pianists get the same score, but all performances are different.
Excellent analogy. Another good one is, that the raw data is the undeveloped negative.
-
Excellent analogy. Another good one is, that the raw data is the undeveloped negative.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Still do not understand how you are going to ruin the raw image as it can be corrected .
-
Still do not understand how you are going to ruin the raw image as it can be corrected .
It does not ruin the *raw image*, it ruins the *result of the conversion*, which too is an image, isn't it.
-
It does not ruin the *raw image*, it ruins the *result of the conversion*, which too is an image, isn't it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207201\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not wanting to be scarcastic I just think of ruined as utterly destroyed or beyond recovery . I admit I am new to digital photography but have used RSP and now LR and just thought that sounded strange about you saying using LR can ruin the image and should almost be used with caution .
-
just thought that sounded strange about you saying using LR can ruin the image and should almost be used with caution
Not LR but ACR, and I don't think I said "caution"; however, one has to be aware the way ACR is treating the raw files.
The adjustment is not always peanut:
D50, D70, D100: -0.75 EV
D200, D2X, D40: -0.5 EV
and it goes up to +2 EV with certain cameras.
-
Not LR but ACR, and I don't think I said "caution"; however, one has to be aware the way ACR is treating the raw files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So LR does not apply these adjustments, but ACR does? That is not my experience - if this was the case then they would look slightly different in exposure given the same settings. AFAIK LR and ACR are one and the same.
-
Not LR but ACR, and I don't think I said "caution"; however, one has to be aware the way ACR is treating the raw files.
The adjustment is not always peanut:
D50, D70, D100: -0.75 EV
D200, D2X, D40: -0.5 EV
and it goes up to +2 EV with certain cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If I add to this the fact, that ACR makes an auto-adjustment of "exposure", which can ruin the image, but does not say a word about it, then I can only say: stay away from ACR until you don't understand, what it is doing
Do you mean stay away , beware, use almost caution until you do understand what it is doing
-
AFAIK LR and ACR are one and the same.
ACR is a plug-in of PS and LR. I stressed, that ACR is doing this, because the same is happening in PS, as well as in the DNG conversion (the result of the conversion has to be the same, no matter if the native raw file or the converted DNG will be used by ACR).
-
Do you mean stay away , beware, use almost caution until you do understand what it is doing
Well, my point was not that one should not use ACR. I find ACR a very good raw converter However, if one is not be aware of what is happening, it can have bad consequences.
Imagine, that someone does not know, that his ISO 800 shots get boosted by 2 EV: one will regularly underexpose, because the "normally" exposed images look burned out. The other side: if -0.75 EV is applied, one would increase the exposure by bias, which would lead to factual clipping (saturation of the raw pixels), but remain hidden in ACR.
-
I don't venture into comparing different raw converters; there are quite a few out there. However, the way to understand what and how they are doing is IMO through understanding the nature of the raw data. Rawnalyze ist one way to achieve that:
General description, downloading (http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/Rawnalyze.htm)
User's guide with many examples (http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/RawnalyzeGuideAll.htm)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207121\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks. But unfortunately it's Windows only.
-
DPP's widest gamut color space option is "Wide Gamut RGB" (I think you have to go to the Adjustment -> Work color space menu). This is comparable to ProPhoto RGB in terms of gamut size, and quite a bit bigger than Adobe RGB.
Current Canons have the default in-camera setting of the Standard Picture Style, which applies a higher level of default sharpening than what CR applies. This is largely why the default rendering in DPP looks more detailed than CR's default. If you use CR and prefer higher levels of default sharpening, you can increase the sharpening level and either (1) save that adjustment as a new default for your camera or, similarly, (2) create a preset with that increased sharpening which can be applied easily to large groups of images.
The View, here's an article (not sure how up-to-date it is) that has a discussion of raw converters in various areas: http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverte...wconverters.htm (http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/rawconverters.htm)
RAW conversions are definitely not equal. The starting point is the same, but the end results are different. As a loose analogy, consider the musical score created by a composer and then given to a pianist. All pianists get the same score, but all performances are different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Looks like that detail and sharpness advantage dpreview noticed was due to the settings in DPP. Panopeeper mentioned something similar.
Well, I guess I didn't choose all that bad by choosing LR when it came out. I just want to understand how good a musician the LR pianist is, and if he can play the notes that I shot well.
-
Where can I get the data for the autoadjustments for the Canon 40D?
And how can I switch these off?
-
Where can I get the data for the autoadjustments for the Canon 40D?
I listed them, did not I? And anyway, you have no reason to use the 1/3 and 2/3 stop ISOs. Start with 200, and increase it by full stops if necessary, up to 1600.
And how can I switch these off?
You can't; as I posted above, you have to "counteradjust".
-
Actually, the adjustments for the 40D are only a quarter of an opening, so I think that's neglectable.
-
I did a comparison.
DPP gets better detail and color right out of the box.
LR/ACR has more sliders, and it badly needs it. You can get within a distance of the DPP conversion, but...
... LR/ACR processed images look blunt in comparison. DPP is much better in smoothness, color, detail.
Too bad, I liked the LR workflow. But the whole software is flawed at its core, at image quality. It's simply not letting you get the maximum quality out of your shots, and actually hurts image quality.
So, for workflow advantages, you take a hit at image quality.
-
Produce a look that you like in LR, and then Alt/Option click the Reset button in Develop. The button text changes to "set default" - ie your out of the box comparison.....
-
DPP applies all the in-camera settings (contrast, sharpness, WB, saturation, color tone, Highlight Tone Protection), ACR applies only the WB.
If I add to this the fact, that ACR makes an auto-adjustment of "exposure", which can ruin the image, but does not say a word about it, then I can only say: stay awa from ACR until you don't understand, what it is doing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just reread that.
Sharpness, color saturation, contrast settings... that's actually only for JPEGs, if I am not mistaken. If you choose RAW shooting, all of these don't apply.
-
I just installed DPP and found out, that it has Adobe RGB as the widest color space. No ProPhoto color space. Isn't that a bit limiting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My mistake. Wide gamut is only slightly smaller than ProPhoto RGB. It has advantages in the primary colors, so I found out.
-
In cruising web sites of various top notch digital photographers, I cannot find a single one that uses DPP. All of the DSLR shooters are using Aperture, LR or ACR. I guess the poor workflow of DPP is a big problem for working pros.
Since learning how to use LR and ACR, the images that I produce are great and the integration with Photoshop is excellent. So I think that I'll stick to what the best photographers are using.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I simply cannot believe that.
"Various", how many is that?
"Various" is not a statistically viable term.
How many websites did you find where the photographer displays what software he is using?
None.
Because the workflow is usually kept private.
So I must really ask you, how you get to your personal conclusion.
It's of no use for anyone to use ready-made arguments, pre-fab argumentation, that is put together just in different permutation.
Bud, don't see this as critique. I guess we all try to fulfill our work goals and tend to grab "solutions", which are processes, based on convictions of what is true and good, that often are not defined.
-
I just reread that.
Sharpness, color saturation, contrast settings... that's actually only for JPEGs, if I am not mistaken. If you choose RAW shooting, all of these don't apply.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207530\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
DPP understands any in camera settings and applies them when it converts the raw data, hence your out of the box finding, but you can override them, while with JPEG they're baked in.
-
I simply cannot believe that.
"Various", how many is that?
"Various" is not a statistically viable term.
How many websites did you find where the photographer displays what software he is using?
None.
Because the workflow is usually kept private.
So I must really ask you, how you get to your personal conclusion.
It's of no use for anyone to use ready-made arguments, pre-fab argumentation, that is put together just in different permutation.
Bud, don't see this as critique. I guess we all try to fulfill our work goals and tend to grab "solutions", which are processes, based on convictions of what is true and good, that often are not defined.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The simple fact of the matter is this:
And I would pre-emt this by saying I was a heavy DPP user and espoused its virtues prior to adopting Lightroom.
Simply put the workflow in DDP sux - period. In a straight RAW conversion DPP will produce better colors than ACR or LR- I dont think there is any real question about this. BUT! All things are not straight....
ACR and LR will give you far greater control and latitude than DPP - and hence with a little work a superior result that more closley matches the creative vision of the photographer. The level of control offered in ACR and LR simply makes them THE best creative tool for the job.
Does DPP have its place?
Of course it does. Its probably the best free RAW converter for Canon files out there. But - its workflow is abysmal and it offers simplistic control that cannot even begin to rival ACR and LR.
For the creative photographer looking to match his RAW file to his creative vision then ACR and LR are bang for buck the best.
-
It's not about bangs and bucks.
It's about the smoothness of tones, the quality of detail.
And in this area LR/ACR simply falls behind.
I see a RAW image as exactly that: as RAW. I want a good, basic image, that I can work on in PS.
I see PS as the image editor to go after what you saw when you did the shot, not the RAW editor.
The RAW editor is for creating the best basis, with as much information as possible contained.
-
It's not about bangs and bucks.
It's about the smoothness of tones, the quality of detail.
And in this area LR/ACR simply falls behind.
I see a RAW image as exactly that: as RAW. I want a good, basic image, that I can work on in PS.
I see PS as the image editor to go after what you saw when you did the shot, not the RAW editor.
The RAW editor is for creating the best basis, with as much information as possible contained.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207542\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well thats where we differ.
I see the RAW conversion tool as the opportunity to do as much as possible via meta data edits creativley to the file before conversion to Tiff.
I only covert to Tiff for any pixel level editing.
I did my own comparisons of DPP v. ACR/Lightroom and found ACR/Lightroom vastly superior from a workflow perspective. And since I always have to adjust something before conversion to Tiff I prefer Lightroom for the workflow advantages.
If you feel DPP offers better color and tone so be it - but dont beleive for a second that the same quality [or better] is not acheivable through ACR and Lightroom.
Please remember - I am a Lightroom convert. I am sure if you do a search you will find old posts from me talking about the advantages of DPP.
Bottom line for me - Lightroom is the tool of choice.
-
I see the RAW conversion tool as the opportunity to do as much as possible via meta data edits creativley to the file before conversion to Tiff.
(...)
I did my own comparisons of DPP v. ACR/Lightroom and found ACR/Lightroom vastly superior from a workflow perspective.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, LR is better for workflow. That's easy to see.
But I prefer using adjustment layers in PS, and I'm just getting into the advanced stuff you can read about in Real World CS3.
If you feel DPP offers better color and tone so be it - but dont beleive for a second that the same quality [or better] is not acheivable through ACR and Lightroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just re-imported the last shoot. I erased the conversions to DNG.
The image quality is much better when using the original Canon RAW files.
Converting to DNG ruins your images.
I will go and continue my tests. Regarding my work process, even after bigger shoots I find my images of interest very quickly, and then focus on those, doing a fairly large number of versions.
-
It's about the smoothness of tones, the quality of detail.
And in this area LR/ACR simply falls behind.
I would be very interested if you have an example RAW file (i.e., one that you can post and share for us to try) that shows this difference. I am guessing you are not applying the sharpening/masking settings in CR properly.
-
Converting to DNG ruins your images
This is definitively incorrect. I doubt that you can produce an example for even a tiny difference in the result between processing the native raw file vs the DNG in ACR.
-
This is definitively incorrect. I doubt that you can produce an example for even a tiny difference in the result between processing the native raw file vs the DNG in ACR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I threw out the DNGs and re-imported the images staying with Canon RAW CR2.
Much, much better.
-
I would be very interested if you have an example RAW file (i.e., one that you can post and share for us to try) that shows this difference. I am guessing you are not applying the sharpening/masking settings in CR properly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207600\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I erased the DNG files.
You could see the files staying in Canon RAW format were much better. You could even see it in the thumbnails (with LR's out of the box conservative settings).
And it was easy to bring the image to live, while the other, converted to DNG files were soggy, had bad color and detail.
Panopeeper says, it can't be, but I see it here, and I just downloaded without any presets ( I don't use presets) and I also kept the basic out of the box-adjustment of LR with black level to 5, etc...
-
I think you are misleading yourself with some uncontrolled experiment. There is *NO* inherent difference between processing of a native raw file vs. DNG.
However, it is possible, that the default setting for the 40D CR2 is different from that of the DNG. It is possible, that LR saved and applied settings, which you do not see. to be sure, you should load an *unadultered* CR2 and the converted DNG in ACR through Photoshop, see that all adjustments are the same and convert both of them in TIFF. Overlay one over the other in a "difference" mode layer and if you find some difference, pls upload both the CR2 and DNG.
-
I think you are misleading yourself with some uncontrolled experiment. There is *NO* inherent difference between processing of a native raw file vs. DNG.
However, it is possible, that the default setting for the 40D CR2 is different from that of the DNG. It is possible, that LR saved and applied settings, which you do not see. to be sure, you should load an *unadultered* CR2 and the converted DNG in ACR through Photoshop, see that all adjustments are the same and convert both of them in TIFF. Overlay one over the other in a "difference" mode layer and if you find some difference, pls upload both the CR2 and DNG.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207738\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm going to do that. But it has to wait a few days. That's why I was a bit stressed out, as shoots were coming in, and I produced flat and soggy files with my new camera.
(I checked my camera settings: quality is on RAW, not on sRAW).
-
I erased the DNG files.
You could see the files staying in Canon RAW format were much better. You could even see it in the thumbnails (with LR's out of the box conservative settings).
And it was easy to bring the image to live, while the other, converted to DNG files were soggy, had bad color and detail.
Panopeeper says, it can't be, but I see it here, and I just downloaded without any presets ( I don't use presets) and I also kept the basic out of the box-adjustment of LR with black level to 5, etc...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207731\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are certainly doing something wrong here. Thumbs from CR2 files mostly look flat and lifeless becuase they are based on the jpeg previews generated by the camera. Of course if you crank up the sat, sharpness, etc in the camera then they might look OK but they are still camera-baked jpeg previews.
Bring a CR2 into LR, adjust it to where it needs to be and the save out as a DNG and the thumbs generated in DNG aware software reflect those adjustments. The same is not true for straight CR2 file in apps like IView, PhotoMechanic and all the web software. like Dreamweaver etc.
There is no 'loss' converting to DNG, that's not the way it works. If the colours change it's because you are not doing it correctly. Have another look at your workflow and you'll see that this is true.
Also, as Andrew Rodney has said, "do the heavy (tonal) lifting in RAW" and do the pixel level stuff in PS. There are advantages to this as you are working on the RAW data not an exported TIFF. PS is less colour-accurate in curves adjustments than the RAW converters.
It's a bit like scanning film - better to do the tonal edits in the scanner software and then do the pixel stuff in PS.
-
I've been using LR since the first beta test version. It rocks.
Last month I replaced my Canon 1Ds Mk II with the new Mk III model. I installed DPP that came with the camera on my MacPro to give it a try. After a few hours of a very frustrating experience with the software, I came to conclusion that the quality was no different, but the workflow was so terrible when compared to LR that the DPP software is functionally unusable. I uninstalled it and I continue to use LR 1.4.
The first time that I used DPP was with my Canon 10D about 5 years ago. Quite frankly, I'm amazed that with all of the technical savvy and resources that Canon has, I find it unbelievable that they can not produce better software. It's almost like their engineers have never tried LR, ACR/Bridge, Capture One or any of the other 3rd party RAW converters to see what the state-of-the-art is out in the real world.
I've played with the LR 2.0 beta and it adds some very cool features. I don't trust it for my final images so I'm looking forward to the production release to upgrade.
Cheers,
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
You are certainly doing something wrong here. Thumbs from CR2 files mostly look flat and lifeless becuase they are based on the jpeg previews generated by the camera. Of course if you crank up the sat, sharpness, etc in the camera then they might look OK but they are still camera-baked jpeg previews.
Bring a CR2 into LR, adjust it to where it needs to be and the save out as a DNG and the thumbs generated in DNG aware software reflect those adjustments. The same is not true for straight CR2 file in apps like IView, PhotoMechanic and all the web software. like Dreamweaver etc.
There is no 'loss' converting to DNG, that's not the way it works. If the colours change it's because you are not doing it correctly. Have another look at your workflow and you'll see that this is true.
Also, as Andrew Rodney has said, "do the heavy (tonal) lifting in RAW" and do the pixel level stuff in PS. There are advantages to this as you are working on the RAW data not an exported TIFF. PS is less colour-accurate in curves adjustments than the RAW converters.
It's a bit like scanning film - better to do the tonal edits in the scanner software and then do the pixel stuff in PS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I actually imported a DPP RAW conversion into LR, and put it next to a LR/ACR conversion. No difference.
ACR/LR seem to take control over another RAW converters' conversions, if that is at all possible.
-
But still, when I look at the DPP conversions, they appear smoother, have better detail and light quality.
It's easy to get spoiled with the ease of use of LR.
While every photographer has his own preferences, LR just seems to wash out the material appearance of things (and skin) and haze the light to a point where it loses quite a lot of its descriptive and poetic qualities. It's not as "there" as in DPP.
I may take a look at beta 2.0, if the download is still available. Maybe some of the technology of RAW shooter premium, bought by Adobe, shows up and change things.
-
But still, when I look at the DPP conversions, they appear smoother, have better detail and light quality.
It's easy to get spoiled with the ease of use of LR.
While every photographer has his own preferences, LR just seems to wash out the material appearance of things (and skin) and haze the light to a point where it loses quite a lot of its descriptive and poetic qualities. It's not as "there" as in DPP.
I may take a look at beta 2.0, if the download is still available. Maybe some of the technology of RAW shooter premium, bought by Adobe, shows up and change things.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
DPP has Canon Proprietary software so the raw file will be different and has more saturation . I remember with RSP people said the image changes to a dull color after a second . I have RSP its sharpening out of box blows away DPP and LR or ACR but you still had to really tweek it to get the picture compared to DPP.It is supposed to be like that in LR and you have to change it to get a good quality .
-
DPP has Canon Proprietary software so the raw file will be different and has more saturation . I remember with RSP people said the image changes to a dull color after a second . I have RSP its sharpening out of box blows away DPP and LR or ACR but you still had to really tweek it to get the picture compared to DPP.It is supposed to be like that in LR and you have to change it to get a good quality .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure you need to tweak. The out of the box-appearance is not what I am referring to.
It is the style/quality/nature of the LR conversion. Certain basic decisions have been made by engineers that will design the direction and character of a conversion. You can tweak within these parameters.
If your desired result lies out of this zone, you need to go and look for a different raw converter.
My personal opinion is, that current "workflow tools" are too much focused on ease of use and convenience, and leave out where top quality work is concerned.
Like in film, where you needed to find the right developer, paper, film emulsions, filters you need to find its equivalents in the digital photographic work process.
I found out weaknesses of ACR/LR. I need to find a chain of tools that gives me a better quality light, and which gives - excuse the poetic term - a higher sense of "materialness" and presence to what is in an image.
-
Sure you need to tweak. The out of the box-appearance is not what I am referring to.
It is the style/quality/nature of the LR conversion. Certain basic decisions have been made by engineers that will design the direction and character of a conversion. You can tweak within these parameters.
If your desired result lies out of this zone, you need to go and look for a different raw converter.
My personal opinion is, that current "workflow tools" are too much focused on ease of use and convenience, and leave out where top quality work is concerned.
Like in film, where you needed to find the right developer, paper, film emulsions, filters you need to find its equivalents in the digital photographic work process.
I found out weaknesses of ACR/LR. I need to find a chain of tools that gives me a better quality light, and which gives - excuse the poetic term - a higher sense of "materialness" and presence to what is in an image.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=207912\")
There is a guy on POTN that said he found Sliky pix better.Maybe try it or Bibble .
I got LR free since I had RSP .
[a href=\"http://bibblelabs.com/]http://bibblelabs.com/[/url]
http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/ (http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/)
-
There is a guy on POTN that said he found Sliky pix better.Maybe try it or Bibble .
I got LR free since I had RSP .
http://bibblelabs.com/ (http://bibblelabs.com/)
http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/ (http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=207921\")
POTN and RSP are possible secret abbreviations. Can you fill me in, or would you then have to kill me?
Here is a nice overview.
[a href=\"http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/pages/whitebalance3.htm]http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverte...itebalance3.htm[/url]
Look at the face of the ACR girl. It's almost like blurred.
Yes, I'm convinced now that ACR's/LR's RAW conversions don't satisfy me.
Capture One Pro and BreezeBrowserPro look better. The latter is out of the game, as it is Windows only.
There is also RAWdeveloper, but I have to check it out first.
-
This photographer got so frustrated with commercially available RAW converters, he wrote his own.
It's free, and check it out. Free here means "work of passion", and he will not charge you for downloading it. He developed this software in cooperation with another professional photographer.
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html)
-
This photographer got so frustrated with commercially available RAW converters, he wrote his own.
It's free, and check it out. Free here means "work of passion", and he will not charge you for downloading it. He developed this software in cooperation with another professional photographer.
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=208008\")
Mac OS X (10.4 or 10.5 only I do not have them.
[a href=\"http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php]http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php[/url]
POTN is a great site a forum ,the best for Canon IMO
RSP is Raw Shooter Premium, RIP
Michael Tapes is working on another raw converter too .
-
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverte...itebalance3.htm (http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/pages/whitebalance3.htm)
Look at the face of the ACR girl. It's almost like blurred.
Yes, I'm convinced now that ACR's/LR's RAW conversions don't satisfy me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you bother the READ the text, the author says: "It is important to remember that these images are presented as constructed from each RAW converter's default settings. These images are not representative of the best image that each RAW converter is capable of producing."
Setting each app to "Defaults" an NOT adjusting for optimal results is only testing what the application can do at default. Which is where your opinion fails to valid.
Becoming knowledgeable enough to properly use a variety of raw processors is unlikely. If YOU can't get the best out of Camera Raw/Lightroom, there are two obvious reasons...one, it can't be done because the software is deficient (which is what your opinion is based upon) and the other is that YOU don't have a clue how to get the best out of Camera Raw/Lightroom in terms of image quality.
Basing your opinion upon a test that tests the various processes at default is ignorant. It means that you are accepting at face value, that none of the processes have the ability to move beyond the default settings.
Yes, at "default" Canon's DPP does a better job of processing Canon raw files than Camera Raw and Lightroom. CR/LR support over 170 different raw file formats. DPP only has to support Canon raw file formats. Which will do a better job at default? DOH...
On the other hand, knowing what all the sliders in CR/LR do and being able to use them expertly will produce optimal results well beyond the "default"...
You might want to bone up a bit on actually using CR/LR and ignore the "compare at defaults" tests of others...
-
I agree with that. You're best off just picking a program and learning that really well.
ACR/LR gives you a lot of control that DPP doesn't. It is pretty easy to hang yourself with that control. This is particularly true when playing with clarity and the assorted detail tab sliders.
-
This thread interested me enough to try out DPP with my 30D and Rebel files. The user interface isn't half-bad, and it's true that it is much better with default white balance. I also found the automatic chromatic aberration/ purple fringing reduction pretty effective. However, white balance can easily be adjusted with LR, as well as chromatic aberration/purple fringing reduction.
I also found that chroma noise reduction was not as effective as LR with my high ISO files... it appears more conservative than LR even at higher settings (which some might like, but I find it lacking).
However, I find the basic sharpening lackluster. It is simply not versatile enough to handle capture sharpening the way that LR 1.4.1 can. DPP's sharpening reminds me of LR 1.0's sharpening, albeit with even less precision.
Exposure wise, there was no highlight recovery function that I could find. There is the possibility of achieving somewhat similar results with its curves function, but I find it far too fiddly when comparing it to LR's HR and parametric exposure sliders.
It is also interesting that Canon's own DPP raw converter is specialized for CRW and CR2s, yet it refuses to even display my Canon G9 CR2 files. It is understandable if Canon intends for DPP to be used with their DSLRs, but I don't see why they wouldn't include the G9 at the very least, considering that many people who have DSLRs may also have a compact they carry around. And, it is the same proprietary RAW format! LR handles all my RAW files, from every single Canon compact (and DSLR) that I've owned.
All things considered, DPP has very limited capabilities when compared with lightroom... simply on the RAW development level, all other workflow bells and whistles aside.
-
This thread interested me enough to try out DPP with my 30D and Rebel files. The user interface isn't half-bad, and it's true that it is much better with default white balance. I also found the automatic chromatic aberration/ purple fringing reduction pretty effective. However, white balance can easily be adjusted with LR, as well as chromatic aberration/purple fringing reduction.
I also found that chroma noise reduction was not as effective as LR with my high ISO files... it appears more conservative than LR even at higher settings (which some might like, but I find it lacking).
However, I find the basic sharpening lackluster. It is simply not versatile enough to handle capture sharpening the way that LR 1.4.1 can. DPP's sharpening reminds me of LR 1.0's sharpening, albeit with even less precision.
Exposure wise, there was no highlight recovery function that I could find. There is the possibility of achieving somewhat similar results with its curves function, but I find it far too fiddly when comparing it to LR's HR and parametric exposure sliders.
It is also interesting that Canon's own DPP raw converter is specialized for CRW and CR2s, yet it refuses to even display my Canon G9 CR2 files. It is understandable if Canon intends for DPP to be used with their DSLRs, but I don't see why they wouldn't include the G9 at the very least, considering that many people who have DSLRs may also have a compact they carry around. And, it is the same proprietary RAW format! LR handles all my RAW files, from every single Canon compact (and DSLR) that I've owned.
All things considered, DPP has very limited capabilities when compared with lightroom... simply on the RAW development level, all other workflow bells and whistles aside.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use RAW converters for capture sharpening only, and do the rest in Photoshop, which allows me selective sharpening with masks.
The real beauty in DPP is the RGB tab with its curves panel. It lets you vary the color mood of the image without restrictions, very comparable to Photoshops' curves, and non-destructively.
The skin tones are beautiful in DPP, and so is the tonal response. I had only over a week of practice with DPP, but the results so far are very promising. I also get much quicker to where I want.
Like with every software, you need some time to get optimum results.
PS: I heard about the G9 thing. Did you load DPP from an older CD, or did you upgrade to the latest version?
-
It's completely fair to say that you need time to get optimum results... but I figure that if I have a handle on LR (which has far more parameters that can be easily adjusted), I'm better off sticking with it. I'm not saying that it's not possible to produce good shots with DPP, but that I simply can't adjust all my RAW files on it and get satisfactory results solely with DPP (you seem to admit yourself that Photoshop is required for satisfactory sharpening).
My question to you is this... how do you handle aggressive instances of highlight recovery with DPP?
I'm using DPP 3.4.1, which was the latest version when downloaded. God knows I wouldn't bother with Zoombrowser for G9 support... it would be smart of Canon to have a DPP-type converter that supports their DSLR Raws as well as popular prosumer compacts.
I shoot mostly nature shots, and do not require a beautiful skintone response.
The skin tones are beautiful in DPP, and so is the tonal response. I had only over a week of practice with DPP, but the results so far are very promising. I also get much quicker to where I want.
Like with every software, you need some time to get optimum results.
PS: I heard about the G9 thing. Did you load DPP from an older CD, or did you upgrade to the latest version?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
It's completely fair to say that you need time to get optimum results... but I figure that if I have a handle on LR (which has far more parameters that can be easily adjusted), I'm better off sticking with it. I'm not saying that it's not possible to produce good shots with DPP, but that I simply can't adjust all my RAW files on it and get satisfactory results solely with DPP (you seem to admit yourself that Photoshop is required for satisfactory sharpening).
My question to you is this... how do you handle aggressive instances of highlight recovery with DPP?
I'm using DPP 3.4.1, which was the latest version when downloaded. God knows I wouldn't bother with Zoombrowser for G9 support... it would be smart of Canon to have a DPP-type converter that supports their DSLR Raws as well as popular prosumer compacts.
I shoot mostly nature shots, and do not require a beautiful skintone response.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
DPP isn't a secret juice, it's a RAW converter that I happen to like best at the moment (before researching C1 pro and DxO).
DPP with its RGB tab with "curves" is just what I like.
Highlight recovery: I take care with my exposure time, and actually never used the recovery slider a lot. I noticed it is not 100% disconnected from other image tones, and affects the light quality of an image negatively.
If I had serious trouble with the lights of an image: I just came across RPP (Raw Photo Processor), which can handle highlight recovery as well.
Yes, the Image Browser/Zoombrowser is useless. It's somehow connected to the download of images through the EOS utility, and this is the only reason why I haven't already deleted this useless piece of software.