Apologies if a similar question has already been posted here...

I have been converting 40D RAWs with Adobe Lightroom and occasionally with Bibble, and have been quite satisfied with the quality. However, when opening the same files with DPP 3.0.2, I noticed that the image quality, exposure and color tone is much better, and in effect reduces the amount of tweaking I would have otherwise need to do in LR and Bibble to get the image just right. Is RAW conversion better in DPP, or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide!

Cheers, Spyros

My experience exactly. High iso noise is beter too.

but image sharpening is crappy in DPP - too much snow.


You might want to check that all of the programs are using the same (and correct) monitor colour profile.

- Alan

I have noticed similar results using CS3, the 40D raws open up needing a very slight tweak of the blue hues ( they sometimes look very very slightly purple in bright skies).
In DPP the colours look spot on straight off, DPP seems to handle sharpening in a different way to CS3, but the results in a large file size look natural.
If you want to appreciably alter exposure , highlights , shadows etc, then CS3 does a very good job.
My approach at the moment is to view and batch convert in DPP, save and then open the images that need any further processing in CS3.
It would be intersting to hear other peoples ideas ?

I own Bibble, C1, DxO, CS2 and DPP. I've also used LR and LightZone. DPP almost always produces better jpgs. The only exception is blown-out highlights, which is where LightZone has an edge. I'm sure it's something like the early days of Windows programming where Microsoft didn't document thousands of calls to programmers.
I do exactly what brimo does - convert in DPP and tweak in CS2.

I'm not all that experienced yet, and I've only tried DPP and Camera Raw. I like what I see in DPP better than what I see in Camera Raw. I've been wondering myself about other possibilities...

I have tried them all and I like DPP the best for pure Raw conversion. I do the rest of my PP in PS.

The only thing I tweak in DPP is either WB or EC with no sharpening. Anything else is done in PS. I find the batch process quick and easy.

Jim

Jim Victory wrote:
I have tried them all and I like DPP the best for pure Raw conversion. I do the rest of my PP in PS.

The only thing I tweak in DPP is either WB or EC with no sharpening. Anything else is done in PS. I find the batch process quick and easy.

Jim

Ditto, hate the colors I get out of ACR.

brimo wrote:

My approach at the moment is to view and batch convert in DPP, save and then open the images that need any further processing in CS3.



RAW newbie here. Are you batch-converting to jpeg or tiff? Does it matter?

I believe CS3 and the like, or many of Adobe's softwares, ship with presets not ideal for everyone.
With work and experimentation with presets you can get Adobe's ware to open the same file pretty close to DPP.
But again, we all have our own tastes. I had a file I wish I could make better and just for fun I opened it up in ZoomBrowser. It did the best job (on that file) out of all the programs I have

I have CS3, DPP, ZB, ThumbsPlus and Gimp.

Thanks everyone for the very useful info. Consensus seems to be that DPP does a good job ok the conversion, but lacks the advanced features of other software like LR and CS3. Question: do TIFF files offer the same latitude for tweaking that RAW files provide, in terms of WB, dynamic range and exposure? If so, that at least solves my problem, insofar as I would convert with DPP and continue processing with LR or other software. Cheers, Spyros

Spyros D wrote:
Thanks everyone for the very useful info. Consensus seems to be that DPP does a good job ok the conversion, but lacks the advanced features of other software like LR and CS3. Question: do TIFF files offer the same latitude for tweaking that RAW files provide, in terms of WB, dynamic range and exposure? If so, that at least solves my problem, insofar as I would convert with DPP and continue processing with LR or other software. Cheers, Spyros

Would love to see answers/feedback regarding his Q. Is TIFF much better than jpeg, as far as the conversion file type to use for PP after converting from RAW?

Definitely batch convert to TIFF if you are planning to do further
editing/resizing in PhotoShop. The TIFF is lossless. JPEGs loose
some quality every time you do a file save.

New user new question on this topic--

I am confused (that is not hard for me with DPP and LR--

My question is does DPP perform non destructive edits to RAW files the same way LR does?

I edited a shoot with DPP and did a bulk save-(not a process to tiff or jpeg) but just saved the raws to the folder

I then looked at the same saved RAW files in LR and they were the pre edited ones before the DPP edits
Does DPP saves he edits stored the same way as LR does ?

--
Wayne

same here, i have notice huge difference between all raw software and DPP. i compare to be exact, aperture, lightroom and CS3. and i have notice much better image quality with DPP. especially when i zoom in i see much more details in DPP and it looks kind soft or a bit blur in the other softwares. i tried many times to convince myself that aperture is as good but its not working.

No, DPP does not do non-destructive editing. I believe that the reason you saw pre-edited versions in LR is because you were seeing the previews that LR stores in the catalogue so it doesn't have to actually grab the image.

If I like the shots out of the camera, I just put my sharpening at 3-5, then save as jpeg. I also use the DPP software for cropping, and resizing.

However, if I like a whole series, or even just one image and I want to do more with it, I convert to tiff, and then work on it in CS2.

That said, since I'm too damn stupid to figure out the action (I got as far as it saying to find the paths for your logo in illustrator, and I don't have illustrator, so I guess I cannot find the paths) I use paint, then paste my logo in...I guess it's not the most efficient, but it works

No, DPP does not do non-destructive editing.

DPP saves edits in sidecar files and writes out the converted file as a TIFF. It does not resave over the original CR file.

If you use Photoshop CS3 there is little if any reason to use a third-party RAW converter. ACR is an outstanding converter and its tight integration with PS is very valuable.

Dan

Spyros D wrote:
Apologies if a similar question has already been posted here...

I have been converting 40D RAWs with Adobe Lightroom and occasionally with Bibble, and have been quite satisfied with the quality. However, when opening the same files with DPP 3.0.2, I noticed that the image quality, exposure and color tone is much better, and in effect reduces the amount of tweaking I would have otherwise need to do in LR and Bibble to get the image just right. Is RAW conversion better in DPP, or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide!

Cheers, Spyros

danmitchell wrote:
If you use Photoshop CS3 there is little if any reason to use a third-party RAW converter. ACR is an outstanding converter and its tight integration with PS is very valuable.


Small point, but I think you got it backwards. DPP is the real, original RAW converter. All others, and I mean ACR specifically, are second choice or commonly called "third-party" converters.

I also think the whole point of the DPP comments is dialectically opposed to what you're saying. I use ACR exclusively, but I may go back and process some images in DPP to see if I can do better, and from what many have said for years, you can do better. BTW, I use specific camera profiles to make up for ACR's (CS3/4.5) inability to handle some colors well.

Spyros D wrote:
Apologies if a similar question has already been posted here...

I have been converting 40D RAWs with Adobe Lightroom and occasionally with Bibble, and have been quite satisfied with the quality. However, when opening the same files with DPP 3.0.2, I noticed that the image quality, exposure and color tone is much better, and in effect reduces the amount of tweaking I would have otherwise need to do in LR and Bibble to get the image just right. Is RAW conversion better in DPP, or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide!

Cheers, Spyros


I totally agree about DPP. I am a huge fan of LR, always have been, and it's ashame it's such a hassle going from DPP to LR. DPP does a great job interpreting .cr2 images when they are first opened there, plus if you use in camera Picture Styles they show up in DPP.

Gil

No. I don't have it backwards.

While it is true that DPP comes with the camera and can do a fine job of RAW conversion - even using the in-camera settings as a starting point if that is your thing - it does not integrate with PS as well as ACR.

With DPP you convert to a TIFF and then open that in PS. With ACR you do your conversion and the image opens as a smart layer direction in PS - and retains its link back to the original RAW (and settings you used) such that when you double-click the layer in PS it automatically opens it in ACR, lets you make changes, and immediately incorporates them into the PS file.

Your descriptions (DPP is "the real, original RAW converter" and "all others... ACR specifically, are second choice") are pretty meaningless and, I would argue, simply not correct.

ACR incorporates a very fine input sharpening function now as well. In a number of cases I prefer it to PS sharpening; in others I use the two in tandem. (The masking feature is very valuable.)

The bottom line is that you can produce excellent RAW conversions with any of a number of conversion applications as long as you know their interfaces/controls well. With that in mind, the clean integration into my workflow of ACR trumps any supposed "better conversion" from other apps.

YMMV.

Dan

jamesf99 wrote:
danmitchell wrote:
If you use Photoshop CS3 there is little if any reason to use a third-party RAW converter. ACR is an outstanding converter and its tight integration with PS is very valuable.


Small point, but I think you got it backwards. DPP is the real, original RAW converter. All others, and I mean ACR specifically, are second choice or commonly called "third-party" converters.

I also think the whole point of the DPP comments is dialectically opposed to what you're saying. I use ACR exclusively, but I may go back and process some images in DPP to see if I can do better, and from what many have said for years, you can do better. BTW, I use specific camera profiles to make up for ACR's (CS3/4.5) inability to handle some colors well.

I've tried a lot of software to convert my 40D raw files (DPP, ACR, LR, C1, Aperture...) and end up doing the following:

1 - Import the RAWs to Aperture only for catalog and selection purposes.

2 - Convert to TIFF 16 bits in DPP with just WB and Exposure adjustment and little to no sharpening.

3 - Everything else in Photoshop CS3.

I find that a image converted to TIFF 16 in DPP gives me the best file to work on Photoshop. Of course YMMV. I mainly shoot with a 40D + 10-22 (great combo by the way).

Other than colour in LR 1.x, DPP had nothing to recommend IMO. Pathetic interface, crude sharpening, didn't even tell you the WB temp. LR 2 now fixes the colour issues and can use camera profiles rather than ACR 4.4, and is infinitely better in every other area except maybe NR, which I do in PS anyway. The default sharpening setting for LR 1.1+ and ACR 4.1+ are hopeless, take the time to make some presets according to detail and ISO (and make use of the mask setting), and the results are excellent. LR and ACR have gone from having the worst sharpening algorithms (I stopped using them due to this) to the best IMO.

This topic came up several months ago and as I had never used DPP, always ACR, I decided to give it a go.

Despite numerous attempts with different types of images I could not get DPP to outperform ACR. It certainly gave an initial different look, although with only a few quick adjustments I could get ACR to produce a similar image. ACR's superior UI allowed for quick improvements to achieve a, in my eyes, better quality image for export to CS3.

The caveat on this though, I am not a paid professional and do not usually batch conversions. I select images for either print or web output and process individually. I shot a wedding for a friend of my daughter earlier this year and in addition to 500 high res images, produced a Wedding Book for the couple. Although all agreed it was first class, the amount of time spent would have earned me about $2 per hour. My workflow would have to significantly change for me to produce a high volume of images within a tight time frame.

I now convert RAW files in ACR 4.5 before outputting to CS3 for any local corrections or cloning work as a 16 bit PSD. I then flatten the image and apply output sharpening appropriate for the output medium (web or print) and save as a jpeg. Any further manipulation is performed on the PSD or, if an entirely different processing concept is required, with the RAW file in the non destrictive environment of ACR.

I used to use PKS sharpener for all sharpening, although with the improved sharpening tools of ACR (masking etc) I now use it for capture sharpening and PKS for output sharpening.

I am starting to transition to LR2, mainly for its database and next year when I get a printer, its superior printing tools.