Indeed, that makes a lot of sense Tariq. It also sounds to me like DPP is by far the best solution for copy work, considering the immediate colour accuracy.
davidearls wrote:
Thanks to EVERYONE who has contributed to this thread, with special thx to Tariq for launching it. These are the threads that really make FM interesting.
I started following this one about a week ago and just didn't have time to install the DPP upgrade. Finally got there this morning, and I like what I see so far. I tried DPP 1.6 when I had my 20D and it was a convincing argument for ACR. Since then I've moved on to a 1DsMkII, and DPP has improved considerably - beyond ACR, at the least. Sorry, cogitech, the Bibble gods aren't moving me yet...
Just printed my first image from DPP processing - I tried the same image in both ACR and DPP and couldn't get anywhere near the DPP image with ACR. I've been using ACR for the past three years, so I'm not a noob blundering around (well, I am with DPP).
I print every image I end up being satisfied with - perhaps one in five hundred, perhaps less, who knows. The slightly slower workflow, then, doesn't bother me, the only thing I do in batch is deletions. Thk the lord I don't do sports or weddings! I'm ruthless with the Epson P5000 - but a lot of things are easy to get by with cursory examination.
I'm moving my RAW processing over to DPP based on what I've read here, but more because of what I see - thx again, Tariq, without this thread I would have kept on walking by - ...Show more →
You are right Tariq - 'Faithfull' is the most colour accurate - it's specificaly for images shot under 5200k lighting. I've updated the image to show this rendering - less intensity on the red is most obvious.
I have to say, I tried DPP recently for a big low-ISO 20x30 print and found less CA, less noise, and could saturate the colors without clipping much easier. But I still upressed and sharpened in PS.
However last time I tried high ISO stuff in DPP the noise was out of control compared to Adobe. Hot pixels everywhere, nasty crinkly artifacts. Adobe's artifacts were at least subtle and not objectionable (to my eyes)
Hi people!
I’m new on forum. My experience… I was 2 months ago step up from H1 to Canon 400D and from day one using DPP only. ACR just can’t do those colors right, although have better work environment. Yesterday I’ve download Capture One 4 beta 2. Results are…well I’m not so shore about DPP as number one for me.
PS
One question. When I set my Canon 400D to faithful, under 5200K, he is trying to get identical colors as we can see it with eyes. Is that mean that faithful is recommend just for light on 5200K? What happened when temperature is not 5200K and I using faithful? Is it better choice neutral?
The new DPP 3.2 can be downloaded at the link pasted below. What's interesting about it (to me) is that it has automatic chromatic aberration correction for a lot of Canon lenses, automatic color blur correction, and automatic distortion correction. These new features work with older cameras too (like the 5D) though you have to guess the focus point using a slider. At least in the one image I tried it with, it was pretty easy to guess the correct slider position to minimize CA because you get a 100% preview, so I just moved the slider until CA disappears. Here's the download link:
I've just been playing with it - the lens correction feature is nice but unfortunatley it's deactivated with non Canon lenses so not much use for all us 3rd party leica, OL, CZ etc users. Jaggies still are a problem on thin angled lines with the 5D so I'm staying with C1 4 for now.
Harvey Moore wrote:
Just did some comparisons, DPP 3.2 v ACR 4.2
On an image with power lines, telephone lines, and an angled roof, @100% view saw some very minor jaggies with DPP, with ACR 4.2, no jaggies.
5D 50L @f8
Thats quite interesting and opposite of my findings on the images I have tested and it brings up a queston and possible explanation. Perhaps due to different RAW de-mosaic algorithims between the various RAW converters, the angles at which jaggies will show up will vary between say DPP and ACR. I'm starting to believe this may be the case and that whether or not jaggies show up with certain diagonals will be dependant on the specific angle/RAW developer combo. If so, in a way this is a good thing as it means that if there is a problem with one converter and jaggies, we may just be able to use a different converter to solve the issue with a specific image.
Going from memory (which is sketchy at my age), this same image had a mild to severe case of jaggedness with ACR 3.7
You may be right Tariq, but that would be a nightmare to manage converters based on jagged edge properties, and those things follow Murphy's Law of inverse proportion.
btw, here is the lens list for distortion corrections and exceptions in DPP 3.2
The only no-go for me is the 5D-50L combo, and of course no non Canon lenses
EF 14mm f/2.8L USM
EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM*1*3
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM
EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
EF 50mm f/1.2L USM*1*4
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
EF 85mm f/1.2L USM
EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM*2*4
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM*1*3
EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6
EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II USM
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS*3
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS*3
*1 Lens aberration correction functions cannot be used for the image taken with the combination of the lenses*1 and EOS 5D camera, since it is incompatible.
*2 Lens aberration correction functions cannot be used for the image taken with the combination of the lenses*2 and EOS 5D camera whose firmware version is 1.0.5 or older, since it is incompatible.
*3 Lens aberration correction functions cannot be used for the image taken with the combination of the lenses*3 and EOS 30D camera, since it is incompatible.
*4 Lens aberration correction functions cannot be used for the image taken with the combination of the lenses*4 and EOS 30D camera whose firmware version is 1.0.4 or older, since it is incompatible.
I pre-ordered the Bruce Fraser/Jeff Schewe book and camera RAW and CS3 back in August. It was scheduled for an early October release. End of Sept, the release got pushed back to Nov. Just got an email from Amazon this morning, and the release date has been pushed back again, to mid-December.
Ben Willmore's "uptospeed - CS3" was obviously written using an earlier iteration of an ACR4 beta, because it doesn't cover all the new commands in ACR4, but it doesn't matter, because I'm now going with DPP.
shirozina wrote:
I've just been playing with it - the lens correction feature is nice but unfortunatley it's deactivated with non Canon lenses so not much use for all us 3rd party leica, OL, CZ etc users. Jaggies still are a problem on thin angled lines with the 5D so I'm staying with C1 4 for now.
Bibble has distortion correction and they don't discriminate. On top of that, you can send the developers sample shots from any lens you own and they will profile it for you and add it to the next release. The CZ21 is already there, for instance.
er...sorry if this is bleedingly obvious, but I used DPP for the first time, why is it that my RAW files come out all grainy like there's a layer of sand or something over them? It seems to have something to do with sharpening levels, but why doesn't the JPGs at the equivalent sharpening level have these...artifacts?
Dawei Ye wrote:
er...sorry if this is bleedingly obvious, but I used DPP for the first time, why is it that my RAW files come out all grainy like there's a layer of sand or something over them? It seems to have something to do with sharpening levels, but why doesn't the JPGs at the equivalent sharpening level have these...artifacts?
Thats weird. Sounds like the preview look before the image has had time to finish converting. So, the processed files look like this as well? All the settings in your camera which are used for JPEG should also be being used for the RAW DPP conversion automatically unless you have changed some preferences or settings. Hard to say without seeing what your doing. Your not making any additional adjustments in DPP to the curve, exposure, brightness, saturation, sharpnes, etc.?
I tested 4 versions from 2 to 3.2. I could not see much of a difference. The newer version creates warmer photos. Faithful though looks a bit more detailed in the reds IMO
some of the photos I developped were pixel to pixel the same with version 2 and 3.2
I also used an ISO 1600 file developped at +0.5 and compared NR on and off images, again not much of a difference there, almost no loss in IQ at low NR. Maybe I should add that I did not have a lot of noise to beginn with an this particular shot
I used my 24-105 to correct distortion and corners at 24mm, the image suffered but it was ok for me. I would not recommend it for best image quality of course.
I am on a Mac and maybe I just discovered the last advantage over a PC on it?
