DPP better than ACR?

[Bullfrog]

Ok, I obviously don't know what I'm talking about.

(quote);
Actually it's not about accuracy in terms of what you get out of the raw processor. You can use the Macbeth as an accuracy test as I pointed out (my display and my print look the same). You can use it to white balance in different ways which again, isn't about accuracy. It's a visual reference for one. It's something you can include in shots where the illuminate may be on the odd side suggesting a way to white balance or build a DNG profile depending on your goals. You don't have to use any such target to get a pleasing image. It might make getting there easier, might not. (unquote)

Yes, ok, here we go (sorry) . The MacBeth accuracy test is still a mystery to me - but (accepting I'm opening myself up to a ton of ridicule) - the point I have been stuck on is:
- if the image you print is different than the image on your screen - HOW do you know if its the screen or the printer.

I downloaded your image from your website as a Jpeg.  I then imported it into Photoshop CS5 - and printed my image .  The fact that I'm viewing your test image on my software means I'm perhaps seeing it differently than you because of the software.  

Anyway, the colours on the screen within CS5 (I used the internet sRGB workspace) were not 100% match for the colours on the print.  Some (memory here but I still have the print out) were significant - in other words blue instead of green.  Some were tonal variations (lighter or darker hues of the same colour).

The stupid question of the day is:  How do I know what to fix?  Or does it matter - meaning, the point is not which one is wrong, the point is both agree.

I still have the print out which was done BEFORE x-rite calibration. I then went out and bought x-rite computer monitor calibration and recalibrated.  Viewing the image on screen against the printed one (using Canon profile for the paper I chose to print it and not a custom profile since I don't know how to to that) - it was still different.

I think at that point I abandoned ship   because my troubleshooting skills stop there.  


I don't know what I don't know.  If there is an obvious or glaring stupid thing I'm doing - feel free to point out.  I also realize I may be diverging off topic, and if this is the case, apologies. I will accept re-direction to another thread /forum if that is more appropriate.

Now on Passport - I see.  I confess, I just am blank because as you stated, its a pre-requisite to creating a DNG profile - and I'm not there yet.  It is I think therefore important for me to start with learning how to create a DNG profile  and until I do that I cannot appreciate the value of this tool.

[digitaldog]

Yes, ok, here we go (sorry) . The MacBeth accuracy test is still a mystery to me - but (accepting I'm opening myself up to a ton of ridicule) - the point I have been stuck on is:
- if the image you print is different than the image on your screen - HOW do you know if its the screen or the printer.

You have to hunt down the cause of any mismatch. It could be either.

The colours on the screen within CS5 (I used the internet sRGB workspace) were not 100% match for the colours on the print.  Some (memory here but I still have the print out) were significant - in other words blue instead of green.  Some were tonal variations (lighter or darker hues of the same colour).

With this reference image, OR a synthetic Macbeth, you know it's not the RGB values in the document. If you output the Macbeth such it matches the original, that's a good sign and the mismatch is then likely to be display calibration (or the preview portion of the ICC print profile).

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

Now on Passport - I see.  I confess, I just am blank because as you stated, its a pre-requisite to creating a DNG profile - and I'm not there yet.  It is I think therefore important for me to start with learning how to create a DNG profile  and until I do that I cannot appreciate the value of this tool.

Agreed, get a good screen to print match, using a reference image and then worry about DNG profiles.

[Bullfrog]

If you output the Macbeth such it matches the original, that's a good sign and the mismatch is then likely to be display calibration (or the preview portion of the ICC print profile).

Edited because I should have checked the link.
The image I unzipped here viewed on my windows Operating system (not a browser and not CS5) is very close to the print out - meaning the colours are the same but the tonal variation is different .

Which tells me my luminosity (or calilbration) is off (I think) because for example her sweater is darker on the zipped file than my print out (which is lighter pink vs deeper shade )

Anyway, its helpful to get this link (below) and now I will go back and calibrate tonight and re-check my settings.


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

Many thanks again Andrew for your patience with this tedium. 

[Vladimirovich]

and you're working on a profile on top of this.

but with Adobe PE we are always working on top of some base profile (as Eric Chan noted somewhere that will save a user from grave errors caused by improper setup of the target/light/etc - that what makes creation of dcp profiles somewhat more "easy" for an average Joe vs creation of "icc" profiles, because an average Joe will build on top of existing profiles - usually from Adobe itself, just replacing LUTs that are providing post matrix color transforms color corrections)... we heard that roundtrips are not handled properly in PE, so you need to take proper extra steps to avoid accumulations if you can't do all changes in one session.

[digitaldog]

but with Adobe PE we are always working on top of some base profile

Yes you are. The quality of it is up to debate as is the need for the edit compared to rolling your own profile in the first place. As I see it, two different tools and processes. Making a custom DNG profile is pretty easy and fast. That may be all that's needed. It's all I've needed. Editing a profile is a different process, for a different need.

[Steve House]

...
As a disclaimer - when I print an image and compare it on screen - its visually very very close using the canon profiles and using the sRGB colour space and very very close to the DPP raw image which I believe (right or wrong) is the most accurate version viewed within the DPP software itself (not PS).  As you may recall I asked you about using colour space on my camera and your suggestion was to stay with sRGB - so my raw shots are taken with that.

I  realize sRGB has a more limited gamut and wondered about switching to Adobe - but since you are an expert - and I'm not - I went with what you said.  

One nagging thing is - landscapes.  I wonder if I'm clipping my colour range by shooting in sRGB but again, I'm not drawing from a deep well of technical knowledge -so when you said go sRGB (it won't matter ) I accepted it.  

...

If you are shooting raw it doesn't matter what color space you shoot in, the raw file is just that, raw data from the sensor.  Color space comes into play when that raw data is rendered into an image, thus the camera's color space setting has no effect on the camera original file unless you shoot in JPG or TIF.  What it DOES effect in the camera is the image you see on the camera's LCD panel as that displayed image is produced from a temp JPG.  Likewise it will effect the histogram on the camera as that too is based on raw data rendered into jpg.  If you shoot raw+jpg it will effect the jpg file but not the raw portion.

[Peterretep]

Texshooter, my main specialization is architectural and interior design photography. In using both DPP and ACR I've found DPP out performs ACR hands down in regard to interiors. However it has been a couple of years since I've worked with ACR so to be fair I should look into it again. Exteriors from ACR generally look a bit better, especially skies. One thing that bothers me about ACR is on the pixel peeping level . Files from DPP look crisp at close inspection whereas ACR's have more of a not crisp smushed (how's that for tech talk?) look. So yes, I"m a very happy DPP user.

Peter Montanti

www.mountainphotographics.com

[texshooter]

Texshooter, my main specialization is architectural and interior design photography. In using both DPP and ACR I've found DPP out performs ACR hands down in regard to interiors. However it has been a couple of years since I've worked with ACR so to be fair I should look into it again. Exteriors from ACR generally look a bit better, especially skies. One thing that bothers me about ACR is on the pixel peeping level . Files from DPP look crisp at close inspection whereas ACR's have more of a not crisp smushed (how's that for tech talk?) look. So yes, I"m a very happy DPP user.

ACR does look a bit more "mushy." i'm going to build a custom camera profile, so hopefully that fixes it.

[madmanchan]

DPP applies more sharpening by default than ACR.  If you want crisper images from ACR, increase sharpening and/or clarity.

[eliedinur]

ACR does look a bit more "mushy." i'm going to build a custom camera profile, so hopefully that fixes it.

Is there a connection between the camera profile and image sharpness?

[xpatUSA]

Is there a connection between the camera profile and image sharpness?

According to my copy of ACR (V5.4 running with Adobe PSE6) there is not a connection. By that, I can report that changing the camera profile does not change the sharpness slider settings. Interestingly, the settings under the first tab don't change either, not even the white balance.

[Vladimirovich]

I can report that changing the camera profile does not change <... removed...> the settings under the first tab don't change either, not even the white balance.

http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936925

[eliedinur]

Is there a connection between the camera profile and image sharpness?

I have to admit that my question was passive aggressive. The camera profile sets fundamental color rendering; from hints dropped by Eric and the observation that hue shifts are not caused by the sharpening, I think it likely that the sharpening is calculated in L*a*b* space and applied only to the luminosity. There can be no connection. Which is unlike DPP in which a Picture Style is a package that ties together a profile and a heightened sharpening setting. Of course it is easy to create a preset in ACR that does the same, but that is a connection that is imposed by the user and not inherent in the profile.

[xpatUSA]

http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936925

The link shows a screen from a later version of ACR than 5.4, and probably not with PSE6. I reported on my version:

According to my copy of ACR (V5.4 running with Adobe PSE6) there is not a connection.

First image profile ACR 2.4, second image profile Camera Vivid (see histograms):



What was the version of ACR in your link and what was the application, e.g. PS/CS/LR ?

[Vladimirovich]

are you sure your .dcp profiles are different matrix wise ?

PS: camera raw version is visible in youtube video (see the top of the screen)

[xpatUSA]

are you sure your .dcp profiles are different matrix wise ?

The profiles came with ACR 5.4. They're not mine. The histograms are different if that means anything.

I did try a profile I had made myself from a ColorChecker card shot. There was still no change in the first tab.

How does someone check matrices in a .dcp file?

[Vladimirovich]

The profiles came with ACR 5.4. They're not mine.

OK - are you sure that those 2 profiles are different matrix-wise (the matrices used for WB'ing in ACR) ?

How does someone check matrices in a .dcp file?

dump the content using dcptool from SandyMc into xml ... then it is human readable.

[xpatUSA]

OK - are you sure that those 2 profiles are different matrix-wise (the matrices used for WB'ing in ACR) ?

Not being able to check them, of course I can not be sure.

[to check matrices], dump the content using dcptool from SandyMc into xml ... then it is human readable.

Perhaps 'eleid' would find that useful, but I haven't played with .dcp's in over a year. I don't use them at all, nowadays.

Thanks anyway . . .

[madmanchan]

Is there a connection between the camera profile and image sharpness?

No, there is not.  The choice of profile in the Profile popup in the Camera Calibration panel affects color (and possibly tone) only. 

For the topics of image detail and apparent sharpness, try the sliders in the Detail panel, as well as the Clarity control in the Basic panel.

[Vladimirovich]

No, there is not.  The choice of profile in the Profile popup in the Camera Calibration panel affects color (and possibly tone) only. 

any plans to allow that a-la "baselineexposureoffset" (like "baselinenoiseoffset", "baselinesharpnessoffset") ? what if I remove AA filter from my camera ?