fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 4

6 … 8 9 end

Archive 2007 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #1 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Thanks Cogitech. I did in fact select "Perfectly Clear" first and then choose HR and Fill. I guess thats just one of the quirks you figure out as you use the program. I'm sure eventually these things will be addressed. These plug ins your using seem far superior to whats built into Bibble. So much so that Bibble would do themeselves a favor by purchasing them and permanatly including them in their software.

What I have learned from all this is that I can no longer use ACR for my "capture sharpeining" and because Adobe Lightroom uses the same RAW engine, the sharpening is for all intents and purposes "broke" in that progam. It really needs to be addressed. DPP and C1 Pro can do it right, so whats the issue with ACR?

Eyeball made a really great contribution I feel a few pages back. After spending a lot of time in both DPP and Bibble today, I went back into ACR and started with his settings. I would have never thought that such dramatic settings as -2 for Expsoure combined with extreme settings of Brightness and Contrast could result in a decent conversion. I turned all noise reduction and sharpening off(well, ACR obviously still does some sharpening just as Cogitech found because when I applied the same amount of sharpening in PS on the "non sharpened" ACR image as I did with the non sharpened Bibble image, the sharpening was way too much and had to be lessened quite a bit). I then later sharpened in PS using first the "Reduce Noise" filter with all settings at "0" except "Sharpen Details" at "50". I then ran a Smart sharpen. That takes care of both the micro details and the edges.

Here are the settings I used, mostly from Eyeballs previous post:
WB: 5200, Clarity: 15
Tint: 11, Saturation: -15
Exp: -2.05, Split Toning tab: Highlihts- HUE: 56 SAT: 8
Recovery: 9, Split Toning tab: Shadows- HUE: 35 SAT: 11
Fill: 28, Camera Profile Tab: Red Primary: HUE: -15, SAT: 25 (to fix the reds)
Blks: 0, Everythng else set to 0
Brightness: 96
Contrast: 50

Here is the final crop for ACR which I tried to match to the above DPP and Bibble crops. So all the crops from today represtent tweaking in all three programs. Because DPP can read the complete Picture Style and camera calibration out of the RAW file and seems to offer better built in RAW sharpening, I still think it has the edge "out of the box" so to speak:
http://www.gibranstudio.com/ACRFinal.jpg

Oct 23, 2007 at 04:19 PM

Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #2 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Keeping tabs on the thread I think my thoughts so far would be as follows:

- 90% of the dialogue has been about differences in sharpening. "Detail" has been mentioned also but I think what most folks are claiming as detail is really more intense sharpening.

- ACR does introduce jaggies and those are easily seen at 100%. Most of the jagginess seems to come from the "Detail" slider (you can hold down the Alt key while making adjustments to all the sharpening sliders and you will see why I say that). Whether that jagginess is a significant concern for prints is possibly a debatable point. I did a test swatch at 300 ppi and I think I could see them but I had to look pretty close. For anyone interested, here is a pretty good thread over at Luminous Landscape that discusses some of the issues related to ACR and sharpening: LL - Camera Raw Capture Sharpening One of the participants in that thread is Jeff Schewe. Jeff has collaborated with Thomas Knoll and his team at Adobe. Jeff is also co-author with the late Bruce Fraser on the soon-to-be-released Camera Raw book. Towards the end of the thread Jeff gives what Adobe originally considered the standard values for capture sharpening. Hopefully, Adobe will continue to work on those jaggies for a future release. As it stands, seems like a lot of people would like to see them return to the simpler sharpening slider from v3.

- Regarding "capture sharpening", those people that already have PS or LR always have the option of holding off and doing both capture and creative sharpening in the main application. I think you could argue that a "3-level" sharpening in DPP goes a little beyond "capture sharpening" but if you are looking for a raw converter that takes you from raw to final image, then that is probably what you need.

- One thing that I think works against Adobe too on the sharpening front is sort of psychological. ACR only shows sharpening at 100% or greater magnification. Bridge is worse than that since it doesn't show sharpening at all in its previews plus the previews are based on a low-rez version of the image. So your first impressions in Bridge/ACR is "bleh" and your first impressions from DPP, Capture One, and others is "wow". I have PS, DPP, and C1 so I have had (and occasionally still do have) those reactions when I go from one to the other. I suspect that sooner or later Adobe will react to this. I know they get complaints about it.

- Some of the other differences such as shadow, highlights, and color I think are less dramatic. It really becomes pretty hard to make objective comparisons, too, unless you are shooting colorchecker and resolution charts. There are just so many variables and differences in the way each package controls those variables.

- ACR seems to not be the prime choice if color accuracy is your utmost requirement but that can be compensated for somewhat if you want to play around with the camera calibration sliders. It's also worth remembering that there have always been films that were popular but not perfectly accurate where color was concerned. I can remember comparison articles in Pop Photo showing some warmer, some cooler, some more saturated, etc..

- So anyway, if you already have PS or LR, I don't think you have to feel like you're doing sub-standard work if you're using ACR for your conversions, particularly if you wait to do your sharpening in the main app.

- On the other hand, if you don't already have PS/LR and don't need their more sophisticated manipulation/DAM capabilities, there is certainly no compelling reason to get them just to get the ACR engine. There are "free" alternatives like DPP and cheaper alternatives like C1 or Bibble that can do as good or better in terms of picture quality as shown by this thread.

I'm not trying to put a cap on the thread or anything - I just wanted to sum up my thoughts so far. It has been an interesting thread and has made me question my workflow and assumptions.

P.S. and off topic to Tariq:

I am curious why you use Colormatch as your colorspace. I probably agree with you that "sRGB is a joke". But it seems to me looking at the specs that ColorMatch is only slightly less "funny" . Why not AdobeRGB or ProPhoto? Both have significant more coverage of the real-world color gamut than either sRGB or ColorMatch.

Oct 23, 2007 at 09:33 PM

Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #3 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Eyeball wrote:
- ACR does introduce jaggies and those are easily seen at 100%. Most of the jagginess seems to come from the "Detail" slider (you can hold down the Alt key while making adjustments to all the sharpening sliders and you will see why I say that). Whether that jagginess is a significant concern for prints is possibly a debatable point. I did a test swatch at 300 ppi and I think I could see them but I had to look pretty close.

There seems to be something in ACR with either the RAW conversion engine or the slight default sharpening in the RAW conversion(with sharpening at 0) which causes the jaggies as is evidenced if you were to make large prints and sharpen later accordingly. If you look at the DPP version even with the sharpening set to 3, those diagonal lines are smoother than ACR with post sharpening in PS.

Eyeball wrote:
- So anyway, if you already have PS or LR, I don't think you have to feel like you're doing sub-standard work if you're using ACR for your conversions, particularly if you wait to do your sharpening in the main app.

I use LR to prepare a few hundred images at a time on a regular basis. If I had to set up a separate action in PS to run all those images through just to properly sharpen them, then all of a sudden LR becomes much less useful. Knowing that those images are not receiving the very best possible RAW conversion and sharpening before they go to the client bothers me. Yes, we Photographers are an anal bunch and perhaps no one else, including the client, would notice, but it still bothers me enough to consider a change. I mean heck, why not just shoot jpeg then. I shoot RAW to get the best out of my images.

Eyeball wrote:
P.S. and off topic to Tariq:

I am curious why you use Colormatch as your colorspace. I probably agree with you that "sRGB is a joke". But it seems to me looking at the specs that ColorMatch is only slightly less "funny"

. Why not AdobeRGB or ProPhoto? Both have significant more coverage of the real-world color gamut than either sRGB or ColorMatch.

ColorMatch just simply works and works well for me. Years ago, I read everything I could find on color calibrating my system by Bruce Fraser, Andrew Rodney, ect. I tested and tried AdobeRGB 1998, BruceRGB as well as ColorMatch. What I found was that the Gamut of ColorMatch most closely matched that of my Monitor and Printer and was the easiest to accurately calibrate because of that. I use an NEC 2080UX and an Epson 9600 and I daily must color match Artist Paintings for reproduction. ColorMatch just seems to work the best with this equipment and my working methods. Monitors and Printers are getting better every year so I'm sure when I upgrade to a monitor and printer which can reproduce the Gamut of ProPhoto RGB(and does not cost $10,000!), I will make the switch. I know some monitors are claiming to now reproduce almost the whole AdobeRGB gamut.

To quote Bruce Fraser from a very early article:
"# There's no such thing as an ideal working space: There are always trade-offs involved. If you understand the trade-offs, you'll be in a much better position to make an intelligent choice of working space.
# No working space will, by itself, magically make your prints match your monitor, or your monitor match your original. To match up your colors, you need to use the appropriate ICC color profiles for your capture device, your output device, and your monitor, to convert the data going into or out of the working space. The working space is simply a safe place for your data to live as you take it from capture to output."

Taken from here:
http://www.creativepro.com/printerfriendly/story/6541.html

Anyway, I think everyone must do their own testing and find what works for them.

Oct 23, 2007 at 10:47 PM

shirozina
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #4 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Been playing with Bibble - definatley see the sharpening in ACR/C1/DPP now.
Although if you set the 'perfectly clear' option it seems to add some and increase the jaggies. I must spend more time with this convertor but my first reaction is to turn every option off and do all the colour, tone and sharpening in PS.

Oct 24, 2007 at 05:04 AM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #5 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

shirozina wrote:
Been playing with Bibble - definatley see the sharpening in ACR/C1/DPP now.
Although if you set the 'perfectly clear' option it seems to add some and increase the jaggies. I must spend more time with this convertor but my first reaction is to turn every option off and do all the colour, tone and sharpening in PS.

Again, Perfectly Clear is meant to be an instant fix. It applies sharpening, colour, contrast, hue, etc. enhancements all at the same time. It is not intended to be used with other options.

Tip: Don't use it

Oct 24, 2007 at 07:09 AM

Eyeball
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #6 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Tariq Gibran wrote:
I use LR to prepare a few hundred images at a time on a regular basis. If I had to set up a separate action in PS to run all those images through just to properly sharpen them, then all of a sudden LR becomes much less useful.

I played around with the LR demo once but I don't have the package. Doesn't it have it's own creative/output sharpening controls (without round-tripping to PS)?

Oct 24, 2007 at 08:13 AM

Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #7 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Eyeball wrote:
I played around with the LR demo once but I don't have the package. Doesn't it have it's own creative/output sharpening controls (without round-tripping to PS)?

It does and they are the exact same as in ACR 4.2. It uses the same RAW engine and sharpening.

Oct 24, 2007 at 08:41 AM

jonboring
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #8 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Tariq - So what is your new WF based on this research? Are you using DPP or Bibble ? Do you use those as just raw converters to TIFF to get to PS? Or do you do additional post work in it? What settings have you settled on for the raw conversion ?

For fine art prints, I am using DPP to generate the TIFF and then do all the rest of the post work in PS. I set the style to "faithful" and all the other sliders to the neutral position and sharpening turned off. I assume I am getting some sharpening from DPP even with the control set off. I do adjust the exposure in DPP if necessary. Then in PS, I do the typical post work ... levels ... curves ... etc. I mainly do b&w so color correction for me is converting to b&w. I am using the new b&w adjustment for that.

Do you suggest additional sharpening or post work in DPP/ Bibble ?

Oct 24, 2007 at 10:27 AM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #9 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

shirozina wrote:
Been playing with Bibble - definatley see the sharpening in ACR/C1/DPP now.
Although if you set the 'perfectly clear' option it seems to add some and increase the jaggies. I must spend more time with this convertor but my first reaction is to turn every option off and do all the colour, tone and sharpening in PS.

Make sure to have a look at the possibilities that Sean's plugins offer before passing judgment. Bibble doesn't suck on its own, but the plugins certainly do make it *much* better.

http://www.nexi.com/147

Oct 24, 2007 at 10:47 AM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #10 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Oct 24, 2007 at 10:48 AM

shirozina
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #11 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

I've spent the best part of a day testing and processing RAW files for a job - I've settled on C1 4 (Beta). Even though it has default sharpening it is giving me the best balance of image qualities at the moment. I just hope thay make it compatible with XP64 when the finaly release a full version.

Oct 24, 2007 at 11:51 AM

Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #12 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

jonboring wrote:
Tariq - So what is your new WF based on this research? Are you using DPP or Bibble ? Do you use those as just raw converters to TIFF to get to PS? Or do you do additional post work in it? What settings have you settled on for the raw conversion ?

For fine art prints, I am using DPP to generate the TIFF and then do all the rest of the post work in PS. I set the style to "faithful" and all the other sliders to the neutral position and sharpening turned off. I assume I am getting...Show more →

Jon, today I'm starting work on about 7 paintings for reproduction. I'm going to try them with DPP for the conversions and see how it goes. I am re-thinking my RAW conversion workflow after seeing what DPP can do with a Canon 5D file and I have not settled on a new workflow yet. I think you had asked me about doing the interpolation/resizing directly out of DPP a while ago. I'm testing that and so far it seems like DPP does a better job then using PS directly but I have to do some more tests. For taking a 5D image up to 20"x30" with foliage, I think I'm seeing that ACR even with sharpening off and then taking the image up is much worse then DPP. ACR seems to be introducing many more artifacts and some of these may be what I saw in that M8 thread with foliage.

Oct 24, 2007 at 12:03 PM

PShizzy
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #13 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Bottom line: For picture quality, DPP kicks ACR's ass. I understand how both work, and I've used ACR and tools light Lightroom and Bridge and Photoshop for years (well, year for Lightroom, but years for Bridge and Photoshop).

As for speed, DPP is definitely slow and cumbersome to use. But geting used to it really makes a big difference. learning to copy and paste recipes (think lightroom develop setttings or camera raw preferences ) can really help, along with knowing how to mark images with 1,2, or 3 checks.

Normally what I do is tweak the beginning image in a scene (or one with a White Balance card) for white balance exposure and nothing else. I avoid the RGB area like the plague. NR has been set to 0, and I don't even like picture styles (that one is a personal pref). I set to neutral, 0 sharpness saturation and contrast, and thats it.

I copy the recipe from this image and paste it into the rest of that "scene", where they should all share the same basic look. At this point, I give keepers 1 check.

I do this for every scene, and it's fairly quick. If I take 500 pictures, with an average of 5 images per scene, I'm only tweaking about 100 photos. And maybe this is just me, but since I leave everything vanilla, tweaking takes me a few seconds (mostly perfecting the white balance)

Now, where it gets slow (But hey, it's all relative.. Lightroom is no hare to DPP's turtle.. and who won that race?) is the rendering out.

I just hit the select all checkmarked 1 command, And then hit the batch process command. I let the computer process all the images, while I go do something more productive, anything from a meal, to going to sleep. Just depends on the files.

What I do love about other tools, specifcally Lightroom, is the versatility of the tool. Whereas I'm very spartan with DPP, I have a tendency to go crazy with lightroom, adding vignettes, trying split tones, messing with the curves, etc. I guess that's the idea behind the tool, in my eyes. DPP is more of a rendering tool, while Lightroom is more of a darkroom type tool. Photoshop, of course, is more like a full fledged print studio, where they can render and do darkroom edits, as well as adding graphics and other non photographic bits.

Just my take though. I'd be glad to offer up some comparisons of my work with DPP and Lightroom or ACR.

Max

Oct 24, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Nailing the color right off with DPP with these reproductions I'm working on, someting which rarely happens with ACR. My setup are two DynaLite heads with Umbrellas and diffusers. Shoot Macbeth ColorChecker Renditon chart. White Balance in DPP using "Faithful" and all other sliders at "0" except "Sharpness" which I like at "1" or "2" for capture sharpening. I could also see using "-1" for contrast occassionaly. Then some slight level tweaking in PS after cropping. Very Neutral color and perhaps too neutral for anything else but repro's.

Oct 24, 2007 at 02:54 PM

Pondria
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #15 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Here is the area which I think is most telling in this image as far as both highlight and shadow detail is concerned as well as sharpness. This is out of DPP with some tweaking to the tone curve. When I manipulate this file in ACR and Biblble(which I'm new at so perhaps it could be done mutch better), The two stacks of containers do not seem to have the distinct variation in brightness and tone between one another that DPP can give and there appears to be ever so slightly more detail in those containers with regard to...Show more →
-- I am posting the image at the top of the reply for easy comparison.
http://www.sesee.com/Photo/Exports/_MG_8446.jpg
-------------------------------
Enjoyed the thread. First of all, some perceptions need to be corrected. Every RAW converter should have the capability to "calibrate". Once "Calibrated", every camera and every raw converter should generate the same images except the extreme colors. Isn't it the definition of "Calibration" ? So the notion that one raw converter creates better colors than the other is a wrong expectation.
I don't use DPP simply because it doesn't have Calibration. Sure, it may give you visually pleasing colors. And if that is what you want, go ahead. Nothing wrong. But if you want to bring the discussion about "correct" colors, we need to establish whether we have "control" on what we want to do.
Posted above is the shot from your RAW image processed with a "calibrated" ACR. No sharping applied. Yes, it is dull. And that is what you actually saw at the port

But it should be noticeable that fine mid tone details are preserved. For instance, look at the face of the crates. You will see the edges of the wood pieces which were washed out in your processing.

Oct 24, 2007 at 09:28 PM

PShizzy
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #16 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

So the notion that one raw converter creates better colors than the other is a wrong expectation.

Pondria, what about the fact that Canon's CR2 is proprietary, and Adobe really doesn't have access to ALL of the info that goes into a CR2.

What you see as Canon processing the colors for a pleasing look, I see as Canon using their tool to properly and completely represent the image that their sensor captured.

I see ACR as incomplete (though still very good) reverse engineering.

The beauty of having a RAW file though, is that we can each create our own look with whichever tools we please. I've used, and will still continue to use LR, ACR, and DPP. Each has it's own purpose in my mind, and depending on what I need to accomplish, I've no problems using any of them to get the job done.

Max

Oct 24, 2007 at 09:54 PM

alba63
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #17 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

What I do love about other tools, specifcally Lightroom, is the versatility of the tool. Whereas I'm very spartan with DPP, I have a tendency to go crazy with lightroom, adding vignettes, trying split tones, messing with the curves, etc. I guess that's the idea behind the tool, in my eyes. DPP is more of a rendering tool, while Lightroom is more of a darkroom type tool. Photoshop, of course, is more like a full fledged print studio, where they can render and do darkroom edits, as well as adding graphics and other non photographic bits.

Hi there, since I have my Canon (5d), I started researching and messing with different converters, I had even thought about getting a Mac for RAW developer (I didn't do it finally), I tried alternative lenses for better color etc, quite crazy.

I agree that DPP does a lot of pics better than Photoshop/ LR and Silkypix (which introduces quite funky colors), on the other hand it is not very versatile for correcting exposure. In controlled lighting no problem, but outdoor shots with contrasty light challenge the Canons easily due to DR limitation, that's where the basic curve tool of DPP is not enough, the highlight slider of LR is very strong, as are fill light and all the other 3000 correction tools. I can make BW conversions with LR that are not possible with other tools. Unfortunately LR often creates too much noise in the file, which is the opposite of C1 which gives fabulously clean shadows and files. It's just that the user presets are the best in workflow I have seen in RAW converters so far. .

On the other hand with my little Fuji S5 pro, whatever Tamron Zoom lens and converter I choose, the look of it, even in JPEG, is better than the best Canon conversions 80% of the times easily. The highlights are difficult to blow out (largest DR of any DSLR) and Fuji colors are the best (= photogenic) of any digital camera (MF backs not counted in, because I don't know them). Unfortunately the resolution of the S5 is not very high, but for many situations enough. The WB in mixed light is lightyears above my 5d's and also the exposure metering of my 5d is messed up half of the time. 1d series is probably better in this respect.

Bottom of the line: For Canon I choose C1, LR or DPP according to the nature of the file, so far there is not "the best" for all...

regards, bernie

Oct 25, 2007 at 05:26 AM

shirozina
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #18 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Current calibration methods for cameras are not very good - they sample very few areas of the gammut of capture and thus are a big compromise in many areas.I would not place great weight on the ability of a convertor to either accept calibration or not have any calibration built in.

Oct 25, 2007 at 07:33 AM

Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #19 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Pondria wrote:
Once "Calibrated", every camera and every raw converter should generate the same images except the extreme colors.

In a perfect world perhaps but unfortunately the reality is that ACR and DPP are not using the same RAW conversion algorithim and tuning. Even if one matches the color, contrast, sharpeing, ect, the resulting pixels differ. Easily seen by taking two resulting images from both converters, resizing them both up identically and then examining the results. The ACR image will have more artifacts.

Pondria wrote:
I don't use DPP simply because it doesn't have Calibration. Sure, it may give you visually pleasing colors. And if that is what you want, go ahead. Nothing wrong. But if you want to bring the discussion about "correct" colors, we need to establish whether we have "control" on what we want to do.

Well, actually DPP does in fact provide for calibration. One can calibrate the 5D directly AND DPP will read this camera calibration automatically beyond just WB. ACR does not read this additional information and thus must provide for calibration in the program. Again, evidence of Canon's Proprietary RAW file format being used to its fullest.

Pondria wrote:
Yes, it is dull. And that is what you actually saw at the port

How does one obtain this "third eye" to see what another sees without actually being there?

Those containers had a variation of tone between them which I mentioned earlier. Your ACR rendition has them all looking identical. The DPP version is more accurate to my memory of the scene. We all see differently, even standing right beside one another looking at the same thing!

Oct 25, 2007 at 09:05 AM

Pondria
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #20 · ACR vs Canon DPP, What a difference

Re: Whether Canon is taking advantage of proprietary info in the raw data...
Certainly I do not know for sure. However, I doubt. Canon is not competing with Adobe in SW business. Actually, Canon's best interest is to help Adobe so that Canon images look the best out of ACR and PS etc.

Shirozina,
My calibration routine involves all 24 patches in the Macbeth chart. The patches in the 3rd row are pretty saturated. Can you elaborate on why their gammut coverage is insufficient ?

Tariq,
I should apologize that I challenged your first hand experience

When "color, contrast, sharpening" are matched, how the pixels can differ ? It seems that I am missing something here.

Can you identify where in the scene DPP version has more "variation of the tone between the containers" than my ACR version ? I see the opposite.

And I didn't know that DPP supported calibration. I should try that. Thanks !

Oct 25, 2007 at 02:08 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 9 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 9 end