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.
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:
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.
Following is my perspective, and I am certainly willing to believe differently from others with better knowledge and perspectives than mine.
First, I doubt if many people on FM actually understand the electronics and algorithms used to process the signals and bits. I certainly know I don’t.
Second, I don’t think there is “truth” out there. By that I mean I don’t believe the image presented by DPP for Canon or NX2 for Nikon is inherently more “accurate” than anything else. The Canon and Nikon engineers are manipulating the data to what they believe is “best” – most pleasing or whatever. If you like what DPP does better than ACR that is fine – I just don’t believe you can state with confidence it is “more accurate.” They all play with white balance data, colorimetric interpretation, gamma correction etc. to arrive at an image they want.
I have been using ACR 4.5 since it came out. I have used my GretagMacbeth ColorChecker with my camera (under both 2800 degree K and 6500 degree K lighting) to generate an ACR profile for my camera (it’s pretty easy to do).
Now in ACR 4.5 I have the following profiles:
• ACR 2.4
• ACR 4.4
• Adobe Standard beta 1
• Camera Faithful beta 1
• Camera Landscape beta 1
• Camera Neutral beta 1
• Camera Portrait beta 1
• Camera Standard beta 1
• And a custom profile for my camera that I made
And if that were not to my liking, I could tweak any of these profiles to make them do just about anything (certainly from a color perspective) that I would want.
I generally prefer the ACR custom profile for my camera over the others, and over DPP - but I have the flexibility to do just about anything I want to in the ACR profiles.
Specifically see:
- Tutorial 5 "Automatic Adjustments Using a Color Checker"
- Tutorial 6 "Dual-Illuminant Automatic Adjustments Using a Color Checker"
If you have a different perspective glad to hear it!
I do think that DPP is a very good converter, and I use it quite often. However, for me there is not that big a difference in color, or anything else between DPP and ACR.
On the left is a tiff converted with ACR 4.4 profile applied. In the middle is a tiff from ACR with 'camera standard' as profile, and on the right is a tiff from DPP with 'standard' shot profile applied.
To my eyes at least, there is only a minuscule difference in color between the middle and last conversion. Definitely NOT something to write home about.
Using the ACR 4.4 profile provides a less saturated image, and is somewhat faded in a sense, but I use this quite often to convert neutral colors.
Which is better, for me, or my workflow?
I use both quite often actually. On my Laptop I use DPP mainly, and do not do much editing on it, as I hate LCD screens. (And no, I have an excellent laptop thank you. But CRT is better to my eye.)
On the PCs I use ACR, as I go straight into editing from there, and much easier to do that with ACR as apposed to DPP.
I've found that depending on the file in hand, raw converters are not equal. So either you keep the entire arsenal of available converters and try them all on the file to see which produces the best result, (this is what I used to do a few years ago), or for sake of simplicity, just use one converter that gives you very decent results for most of the cases, DPP. ACR can be better for some files, others will look better when converted with Bibble, but DPP will always provide you with at least a "good" conversion. I've noticed that the latest versions do not keep the highlights well and there has always been a problem with bright light sources that produces color moire. Canon has also a hidden gem that many people seem to completely ignore, RIT.
I have not done and AB comparison yet but I usually convert to DNG file when importing to lightroom and adjust in lightroom. I just dinked with some CR2 files I have around and am totally impressed with the quality of the DPP software - I have not used canon software since my 10d years ago.
Not to hijack the thread, but do you folks think that the LR sharpening is not that good??
I for some reason think that even BBPro (in addition to DPP) are better at sharpening. I am not good with PS3 so don't tell me to use that... please...
