Broken Arch

[Don Lacy]

I process my images in what I would call free form I have very few standard settings I use in either my Raw conversions or my PS work I let each image and my mood dictate the steps and adjustments that produce the finale image. I love how an image comes alive on the screen and I find the creative process of post processing to be as enjoyable as being in the field. I mention this because I recently downloaded DPP4 and wanted to compare it to ACR and used an image of Broken Arch to do this the only problem is when I was done I had two very different interpretations of the same image, which one is better I don't know I like them both. I will post the second image on the next pane.

Images were made with a Canon6D and the 16-35/4 IS at 16mm, f/14 at .3s, Manual mode, Evaluative Metered, ISO 200, tripod and this is a single frame.

[Don Lacy]

Here is the second image

[Diane Miller]

I don't think this kind of difference, which is mostly in saturation and contrast, tells you much about the two conversions. As much as I have compared the two, I haven't seen a difference like this.

As you said, every image is different and deserves a custom treatment. It's an interesting comparison and the one you ultimately prefer may lie in between the two. I would look at how close I can make each to my "ideal" and then look for subtle differences. In an image with good tonal range, they may be very small, residing mostly in shadow and highlight detail, noise (which can usually be dealt with in PS these days) and color correction. Both conversions should be adjustable to come much closer than these two.

If a LR/ACR image is subtly noisy (usually very fine-grained these days), but otherwise sharp, it is often helped by zeroing the NR slider to remove the slight default sharpening and doing final sharpening to the resized JPEG or print-sized image.

[Diane Miller]

Neither post has an embedded profile. That can affect appearance for some viewers. When I open both in PS and assign sRGB I see they have both been converted to that color space, so for me that's not affecting appearance because I have Firefox set to make that assumption. Many others won't.

[Don Lacy]

Neither post has an embedded profile. That can affect appearance for some viewers. When I open both in PS and assign sRGB I see they have both been converted to that color space, so for me that's not affecting appearance because I have Firefox set to make that assumption. Many others won't.
They should have a profile need to check my PS settings


I don't think this kind of difference, which is mostly in saturation and contrast, tells you much about the two conversions. As much as I have compared the two, I haven't seen a difference like this.
It tells me how each converter handles color since the same WB and picture style was used for both images. I am still playing around with DPP4 there is a lot I like but I still hate the interface and it is not as intuitive as ACR.

[Andrew McLachlan]

Hi Don, I can't comment on the different software used as I only use ACR...but I think you have two very nice versions of this image and my preference leans more towards the one in the second pane for its cooler appearance. It is -20 C outside right now so I guess I am in a cooler color preference mode at this time :S3:

[Morkel Erasmus]

I don't use DPP (Nikon user) so can't comment on choice of software. I've never felt the need to even explore beyond LR and PS actually.
I like both, but prefer the tonality/look of the rocks in the OP and the sky in RP.
Composition-wise, I would have liked to see a version where the tripod was set a bit higher (if at all possible) to show a tad more of the land behind the arches. Currently the intersection of the arch bottom rock and the distant rocks bugs me a bit - no deal-breaker but it is something I noticed.

[Diane Miller]

For me, the variation each exhibits in color for the "same" WB and picture style is not an important issue, unless you want to just accept the initial settings with a one-click conversion -- in which case, why not just shoot JPEG? Going from one of these images to the color equivalent of the other, in either converter, is just a matter of a few tweaks.

I wouldn't think about it as how each "handles" color, as the color either works with is the full range the camera captured, which is approximately the ProPhoto RGB gamut for halfway recent cameras. I think a better analogy is simply how each initially presents colors. And that can be altered significantly with the Camera Profiles and all the other color tweaks available. And I do agree that these various tweaks are easier to access in ACR/LR than in DPP. But I'm sure that the opposite is true for people who know DPP better than ACR/LR.

One issue with ACR/LR is that the default Camera Profile of Adobe Standard can overdo reds and yellows, at least for (some?) Canon Cameras. And yes, I think that's a flaw. But it's a minor one, and only a problem for some images. Your first one here could be an example of one. But for me, the color adjustments in ACR/LR, which are readily available and easily managed, overrule that as a concern. I assume your first image was ACR -- have you tried it by changing the Camera Profile? There are several choices there and some will be awful. Camera Neutral or Camera Faithful will be much closer to the second image. In the few images where overdone reds/yellows is an issue, I select the profile that comes closest to what I like and tweak colors from there, which I find very easy and flexible. And that profile can be set as an import default in LR. I don't know if that works from Bridge.

I'm curious -- have you had this much difference in comparisons with other images? And I wonder if it varies among different cameras?

For me, the significant differences in the two converters lie in two places:
The ability to pull our clean details in shadow and highlight areas
The handing of noise

In my comparisons, ACR/LR wins hands down in the first instance and the "lower noise" of DPP comes at the expense of a noticeable degradation of fine detail. In shots at high ISO, if I simply zero out the slight default sharpening in ACR/LR, I've reduced the noise considerably without smashing fine detail. And I can finish it off with Nik's Dfine or Neat Image. Of course, that's with a sharply focused image to start with, and one that doesn't need exposure to be raised a lot.

I expect to be pilloried for these observations. I'm not advocating one converter over another (and there are certainly others to consider). I'm simply urging people who are considering the differences to try a comparison for themselves, looking at the significant factors at 100%. Color differences are not significant. They are easily managed. Image detail differences are more complicated and to me they are very significant.

And ACR/LR has some very useful extras such as the Graduated Filter, Adjustment Brush, Clarity and Vibrance, which are working on the full tonal and color overhead of a raw image.

[Don Railton]

Hi Don

I prefer the rocks in the first and the sky in the second, however I think you could likely create either image from either converter...the differences in grain etc produced by the two processes would be difficult to judge on these small JPEGS and I think could only be effectively evaluated on full sized images. Regarding the image I am with Morkel again in that I want to stand on tippy toes to see a little more of the FG immediately behind the rock, apart from that its appealing.. I see it as two stone lizards kissing actually...

Diane,
Am I right in thinking that the 'camera profile' sets the 'in camera' jpeg conversion parameters to whatever you choose (for those that shoot in jpeg), and has no influence on the raw data exported from the camera..? Oops... Just reread and I think you are talking about a camera profile in ACR. Never been there..

DON

[Diane Miller]

Don, yes, it's the "same" profile as the camera uses for JPEGs, accessed in the 8th tab of ACR (Camera Calibration) and the bottom tab in LR's Develop Module. And yes, it is only a starting point for raw conversion.

Just look at the profiles, don't touch the color sliders below them. I rarely need to change the profile, but when I have an image with too-saturated colors, choosing something like Camera Faithful or Camera Neutral always brings things back into a range where I can easily fix the colors to my satisfaction back in the Basic tab or the 4th one over, HSL. It's important to fix major color flaws in raw conversion, before they are pasted into a PS file with too much saturation, where you can't reduce it -- same idea as you can't reduce too much contrast.

Arash has pointed out in some earlier thread that these profiles are only Adobe's guess, since they don't have the inside information that DPP has. But, as I said above, colors are infinitely malleable in either converter, it's just a matter of whether you want to spend an extra 10-15 seconds moving a few sliders. So Adobe's guess has always proved quite adequate for me as a starting point.

[Don Railton]

Thanks Diane, will check tonight..

[dankearl]

I think either one is fine and could be manipulated to look like the same photo from the same file.
I know nothing about DPP, being a Nikon person.
Nice scene and a cool arch.