I posted this on the post processing forum but no takers, anyone here help?
"It might be me getting to grips with things but I think (at this early stage) I`m seeing slightly better images from the Canon software. It seems to handle noise better without destroying detail.
Anyone who has done extensive testing care to share"
abqnmusa wrote:
use whatever software makes you happy
I have DPP 3.11.31 and Adobe Photoshop CS6
CS6 is easier to use
so far, DPP produces the better images
Personally, I have never been able to get ACR to out-perform DPP for RAW conversion image quality
+1 for 5D2 and 5D3 RAW files but I found ACR to be superior for 7D files.
What I saw over the weekend was that ACR raws showed more noise when sharpening in CS6 after conversion. I must admit I don`t enjoy using DPP as much as ACR though. I did used to use LR so maybe I`ll download it and give it a try. What about Capture One?
yes, I have always seen ACR produce more noise with 5D II and now 5D III
I also like DPP processing
I use photoshop for other editing after the RAW conversion in DPP
dave chilvers wrote:
"It might be me getting to grips with things but I think (at this early stage) I`m seeing slightly better images from the Canon software. It seems to handle noise better without destroying detail.
Over the years I experimented with enough of the RAW converters (ACR is the raw converter included with Photoshop, by the way, not a standalone product) to come to the conclusion that if you know what you are doing you'll be able to do fine conversions with any of them.
I no longer use the current version of DPP, though it is installed on my computer, but I have to tell you that I seriously doubt that DPP will be better at noise reduction, much less "better able to hand noise without destroying detail." The Adobe NR engine (used in a variety of their products) does a really excellent job and is sufficiently configurable to deal with some fairly complex situations.
If you have Photoshop, with its ACR software, use that for the tight integration with Photoshop as much as for anything else. If you don't have Photoshop (current version of v.5) at this point, consider Lightroom.
I prefer the images from LR to DPP. Also, I prefer it for the things it will do that DPP won't. But, it is hard to live with the speed (or lack thereof). I have read that some PC's are faster than others with it, with little regard to Ram etc. Even some pc's with major ram and processors run slow with it, and some with less than I have run great. Eventhough, with my 5D3 I prefer the results from LR to DPP, for speed when converting a hugh batch of files, I find it faster to rate them thru DPP then move only the ones I want over to LR for my minor editing and cropping. If I can discover why LR is running so slow for me I would use it for all my processing unless I need to do heavier editing or posters, then PS6. I am surprised that people are preferring the results from DPP to LR.
ACR for me, at least when using Adobe's Canon-specific camera profiles.
I have been a fan of DPP in the past. In particular, I have long preferred Canon's color rendering to Adobe's.
However, Canon seems to have changed the DPP processing algorithms somewhere along the line recently (to match in-camera processing?) in two ways that I find detrimental to image quality:
1. The default sharpening method for newer camera bodies is now a type of USM that produces noticeably more highlight ringing and halo artifacts, resulting in an overprocessed look.
2. There seems to be some form on NR being applied that seemingly cannot be disabled. DPP appears to be "cooking the RAW bits" to reduce noise in the image at higher ISOs, resulting in a "mushy" grain pattern (even with NR turned off)
Of these, at least the sharpening can be reverted to the classic "sharpness" method; however, this cannot be made the default, so it is necessary to remember to apply this to every image. The mushiness in the grain cannot be fixed, however.
In addition, I sometimes see evidence of maze artifacts on certain bodies, particularly the 7D.
On the positive, I still find that DPP totally eliminates moire in certain images that sneaks through in ACR. Also, Canon's "color blur" lens correction filter does a much better job of reducing LOCA (magenta/cyan fringing) when shooting lenses such as the 100 f/2 wide open.
I still use DPP at times for low ISO images, but I find that ACR images look much more natural and unprocessed at higher ISOs (to my eyes).
Noise complaints are always blown out of proportion. Half the time you won't notice it unless you're actively looking for it.
Organization and saving time beats marginally better IQ at 100% pixel view.
But that's just me, my pictures are not being printed in magazines (and even if they were, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference at those sizes) ... So maybe those who need the utmost best IQ (for whatever reason they may claim) might have a different opinion.
Indeed and what about new 64 bit DxO 7.5. DxO has some very nice features last I tried but that was v7.1 and 7.5 is supposedly much better. I find Capture is very and overall close to LR. LR is probably better for noise, C1 for detail. I much prefer LR's highlight and clarity, they've worked wonders with LR4. If C1 v7 can improve in a few key areas it'll be very nice.
DPP is a suckyworthy thing to use, but it can get good results. But I find it's not consistently better than LR. Sometimes it is sometimes it's not and it takes me 5x as long to work a RAW image. The new DLO module is good but needs a lot of grunt.
Basically I use LR4 until I hit an image that I think should be better and then try C1 and DPP.
No one program is perfect, but LR has best workflow followed by C1. If true I believe DxO has also improved greatly. Need to try the 7.5.3 trial.
I make extensive use of Michael Gray's LR presets in my work (especially the Kodachrome ASA 10 presets I helped him cook up), so LR has been my standard for a long time (since 2008). I resort to DPP when I want to present a client photos that have minimal 'artistic input" from me, and just make use of the normal pre-cooked "Canon Look"-but that is the only time. DPP may or may not be "a more accurate" raw converter for Canon files, but how often do you want that generic look?
I notice than no body mentions Chris Breeze`s excellent programmes, I`ve been using Breeze Browser pro since I don`t know when as my main viewing platform. After a shoot I get a cuppa tea and sit back with the slideshow running with finger poised over the tab key(which tags the images you like) for later ref. There is nothing like seeing a FF slideshow of your images where Chris has incorporated some post processing to give you a pretty good idea as to how your images might look after you work on them. Depending on the exposure etc you might want to convert your raws in ACR or any of the other programmes talked about above but where an image is somewhere near the mark then I see time and time again that his conversion or even proofs are at least a match for other progs and even surpass them. There are a number of adjustments in pre conversion and even lens corrections.
Couple this to the generally polite and helpful way in which Chris and his wife Sue respond to questions and problems and the relatively low cost of the programmes I have found it a must have. You can download a trial for free and it is well worth a go IMHO.
BTW I have no connection with Breeze Sytems what so ever other than a very satisfied customer that wants to share.
dave chilvers wrote:
Thanks for all your replies and suggestions.
I notice than no body mentions Chris Breeze`s excellent programmes, I`ve been using Breeze Browser pro since I don`t know when as my main viewing platform. After a shoot I get a cuppa tea and sit back with the slideshow running with finger poised over the tab key(which tags the images you like) for later ref. There is nothing like seeing a FF slideshow of your images where Chris has incorporated some post processing to give you a pretty good idea as to how your images might look after you work on them.
You can do something similar in LR. It gives you are virtual Light table of your images and you can look at as them in any number of rows of images. You can tag them as keepers, rate them with a number, stars, numbers or colors. There is also no need to have converted TIFFs or other files hanging around since your edits are just non destructive commands layered onto the original files.
