DPP better than ACR?

[texshooter]

What I'm about to say might get me rebuked as a heretic, but I think Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) raw converter gives better out-of-the-can results for Canon raw files than does Adobe's Camera Raw  (ACR). I just tried DPP and was blown away. I can't get the same quality out of ACR. I'd like to know if I'm the only heritic out there. This leads me to ask, is it possible to do edits in two raw converter programs? If so, can and how do I go about converting my raw file in DPP and then reopening it in ACR for further edits. I like the smart object conversion feature in ACR, as well as ACR's other bells and whistles, but as far as the basic raw conversion goes, I like DPP better.

[Schewe]

This leads me to ask, is it possible to do edits in two raw converter programs? If so, can and how do I go about converting my raw file in DPP and then reopening it in ACR for further edits. I like the smart object conversion feature in ACR, as well as ACR's other bells and whistles, but as far as the basic raw conversion goes, I like DPP better.

No...and you would realize that this is impossible if you think about it...

ACR/LR and DPP don' have any relationship between each other...nothing about DPP (or any other raw processors) could have any interrelationship with any other raw processor. How could it? DPP uses the Canon SDK, ACR/LR uses the Adobe SDK. Nothing about one relates to the other.

Actually, you might be right about "out of the can" default rendering of DPP and ACR/LR because, well, DPP is designed to make raw captures look like what Canon thinks your images should look like. Adobe renders raw files as "normalized" default raw files that has zero to do with any Canon "looks".

You won't be castigated as a heretic but more likely as ignorant of what you think you understand...vs. what you you don't understand. And if you understand raw processing better, you would realize this. And no, you'll never get to use Smart Objects and DPP processing. Not possible (and you would realize thins if you understood raw image processing).

[sniper]

You could save out the DPP version as a tiff and open that in ACR, not the same as opening a raw but close-ish.

[eliedinur]

DPP has good color because it uses good camera profiles, but the loss of DR (no recovery ability, highlights clipped to prevent false colors rather than taking pro-active correction measures, poor NR that in effect raises the DR floor) disqualifies it as far as I'm concerned. One nice feature that it does have which I would like to see in LR/ACR is the option to output linear conversions, which can be used in a blend to get all of the available highlight detail.

[Dinarius]

Have you tried switching from Adobe Standard to Camera Neutral in the Camera Profile tab in ACR?

Also, in the HSL/Luminance tab, slide the blue slider 15-20 to the left.

But, best to try this with a shot of an X-Rite colour checker.

Whatever you do, I'm pretty sure you'll find Camera Neutral a better starting point than Adobe Standard.

D.

[texshooter]

DPP has good color because it uses good camera profiles

Something tells me that if I were to make my own camera profile, say with the X-Rite Colorchecker DNG profiler, I could get ACR's interpretation closer to DPP's, but I don't think such a custom camera profile would match 100% when it comes to contrast and sharpness. Custom camera profiles only address hue, luminance, and saturation. I'm sure Canon's DPP camera profiles are more complicated than what I can make myself.  I guess I'll have to try it and see what happens.

And as far as doing the RAW conversions in DPP and importing a TIFF into ACR, I'm assuming I can still benefit from non-destructive parametric editing by converting it to a smart object in ACR and opening it into Photoshop. I understand it's not the same thing as converting a RAW file into a smart object, but a smart object is a smart object, whether the source file is RAW, TIFF or JPEG. Again, an assumption on my part.

[Dinarius]

texshooter,

Would still like to know what you think of ACR (Or LR) Camera Neutral vs DPP. Uncannily similar, in my view.

D.

[eliedinur]

Custom camera profiles only address hue, luminance, and saturation. I'm sure Canon's DPP camera profiles are more complicated than what I can make myself.  I guess I'll have to try it and see what happens.

Canon (DPP or in-camera) uses "Picture Styles" which are preset packages that contain a profile plus contrast, saturation and sharpening settings. However, the P.S. can be modified quite easily by changing the contrast, saturation and sharpening elements either in-camera or by pushing sliders in DPP. Even the profile can be altered with the Picture Style Editor software supplied by Canon.

In LR/ACR these parameters are independent but can be bound together in a User Develop Preset. You can start with selecting one of the DNG Camera Profiles that are designed to simulate the various P.S. profiles used by Canon. They are not identical (considering that they had to be reverse-engineered, that would be too much to expect), but they are quite close and, as Dinarius writes, work quite well. Next you have to find basic settings for Contrast, Saturation/Vibrance and Sharpening that fit your taste or (if that is what you really want) imitate DPP. Create a Develop Preset, give it the name of the Canon P.S. to which it correlates and set it to be automatically applied at import to LR or file opening in ACR.

Making your own profile instead of using one of Adobe's Camera Profiles is, of course, a possibility, but I think you will find that you derive the most benefit from a Color Checker profile when it is made for specific and unique lighting conditions, while for sunlight and non-specific artificial light they do not give much added value beyond Adobe's profiles.

[Tim Lookingbill]

texshooter,

Would still like to know what you think of ACR (Or LR) Camera Neutral vs DPP. Uncannily similar, in my view.

D.

These views are based on a static unedited starting point to base a comparison. It doesn't indicate what DPP vs ACR/LR color engine given a particular working space (i.e. ProPhotoRGB/AdobeRGB) will do to the color editing the image.

Might try an experiment by first converting a copy of the Raw image in DPP to a 16bit tiff as is, no editing, locking in the default look that may or may not look better than ACR/LR's default.

Open tiff in ACR/LR and apply an extreme Contrast adjustment. Now do the same to the original Raw in DPP and see if there's a difference. Of course make sure working/output spaces chosen in each app are identical for the tiff and Raw in DPP.

[Vladimirovich]

if I were to make my own camera profile, say with the X-Rite Colorchecker DNG profiler, I could get ACR's interpretation closer to DPP's

I doubt that... it (XRite OEM software) does not allow to edit any LUTs, does it.

[Dinarius]

These views are based on a static unedited starting point to base a comparison. It doesn't indicate what DPP vs ACR/LR color engine given a particular working space (i.e. ProPhotoRGB/AdobeRGB) will do to the color editing the image.

Interesting point. For me the crucial point is how quickly Camera Neutral gets an X-Rite Colour Checker to correct Adobe 1998 values, whereas Adobe Standard is way off.

D.

[texshooter]

texshooter,

Would still like to know what you think of ACR (Or LR) Camera Neutral vs DPP. Uncannily similar, in my view.

D.

Nope, not even close. ACR is way too blue. I don't know where ACR gets their camera profiles from, but certainly not from anyone who knows the workings of the CR2 format. But I'm use to this sort of thing, such as with manufacturers' provided paper ICC profiles. Par for the course.

[Dinarius]

Nope, not even close. ACR is way too blue. I don't know where ACR gets their camera profiles from, but certainly not from anyone who knows the workings of the CR2 format. But I'm use to this sort of thing, such as with manufacturers' provided paper ICC profiles. Par for the course.

Which is why I wrote above that you have to move the blue luminance in HSL about 20 points to the left.

With respect, "not even close" is a gross exaggeration.

The proof of the pudding is in the X-Rite CC, IMHO.

D.

[texshooter]

Which is why I wrote above that you have to move the blue luminance in HSL about 20 points to the left.


D.

I did move the hue slider. The color balance improves but still not as good as DPP. I don't want better. I want best.

[Dinarius]

Camera Neutral gets you into a position where, using an X-Rite CC, a profile can be created for a given light set-up.

One can then enjoy the vastly superior features of ACR over DPP.

D.

Ps. Adjusting blue Luminance is more important than Hue, I think.

[Redcrown]

One important point I don't see mentioned in this thread...

The Adobe profiles can vary considerably on different camera bodies. For example, the Camera Faithful profile for a Canon 1Ds is quite different than the Camera Faithful profile for a Canon 5D3.

So when someone mentions the strength or weakness of a particular Adobe profile, ask what camera body.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Interesting point. For me the crucial point is how quickly Camera Neutral gets an X-Rite Colour Checker to correct Adobe 1998 values, whereas Adobe Standard is way off.

D.

Adobe Standard is way off for my Pentax K100D PEFs as well, but I see where and how off it acts on real scenes. I'm not much interested in what it does to a CC chart which I only use for custom profiles which on their own sometimes do awful things to real scenes that Adobe Standard will fix mainly with regard to clipping.

Adobe Standard is REALLY good at taming high contrast overly vibrant scenes on my PEFs that a custom profile will amplify (i.e. blooming from over saturated flowers).

But working in ACR has been like sculpting clay for me where I've gotten to understand on an intimate level how the tools effect hue/sat/lum to the point I can screw the image up choosing Adobe Standard and make it look identical to how it looked with the custom profile which I'm assuming is behind your Blue HSL adjustment tip.

Most folks don't want to work that much and expect the defaults to do most of the heavy lifting. I do the above so I can see what is going on under the hood with regard to how the tools effect the image because I shoot under a lot of available light, quite a bit of it no where near D50.

[digitaldog]

So when someone mentions the strength or weakness of a particular Adobe profile, ask what camera body.

Which also illustrates that the same camera body may differ from lot to lot. It's not like Adobe has built their profiles using dozen's of samples or wants to make a crappy profile. Probably worked well for them but is that profile representative of all said bodies? Probably not as we find people who build their own DNG profiles almost always report a better result than using the 'canned' profile.

[nma]

Which also illustrates that the same camera body may differ from lot to lot. It's not like Adobe has built their profiles using dozen's of samples or wants to make a crappy profile. Probably worked well for them but is that profile representative of all said bodies? Probably not as we find people who build their own DNG profiles almost always report a better result than using the 'canned' profile.

Your point is well taken but doesn't exactly the same logic apply to Canon DPP or brand X conversion? After all, they too use but one canned profile and assume all the cameras are the same. So, how does that explain the observations about DPP?

[digitaldog]

So, how does that explain the observations about DPP?

I can only assume... My assumption would be that DPP, which is a Canon product only has to worry about Canon bodies, no other camera manufacturers. Canon should know the actual spectral sensitivity of their own sensors, everyone else has to make assumptions of the native raw color space.

But my main point was about the differences between a canned profile and a custom profile within a single raw processor by Adobe. I suspect that if someone were to build a custom profile for DPP, it might show further improvements over the canned profile (leaving aside the issues of building and using ICC camera profiles).