Opening RAW image file in CS6 directly or use raw converter 8.0

[Shantanu Ambulgekar]

Hello All,
What is the best practice while opening a RAW image (.CR2 file for Canon) which is just downloaded from camera?

What I follow is -
1) Right click the image and click on "open in PS CS 6"
2) Image loads into canon raw converter wher you get options to adjust the image, crop it, all things which you can do are available there.
3) Now, here is my actual dilemma - Do I need to save it by clicking at left hand side button which read "save image" or do I need to open it by clicking "open image" button?
4) What are the differences between saving it and again opening it in PS compare to directly opening it by clicking "open image"

Kindly guide.
Is it helpful to use canon raw converters ? If yes, how ? Can anyone explains it?

Thanks a ton in advance,

[Diane Miller]

I think Canon's Adobe Camera Raw is excellent -- the same engine that is in Lightroom with a slightly different interface. It is much more powerful and flexible than Canon's converter, in my opinion. Many of the reasons I see for using the Canon DPP indicate the user just doesn't understand ACR/Lightroom's development settings. So if people want a simple but limited adjustment process, that's fine. User choice.

ACR is acting as a helper program for Photoshop, so the dialog is asking if you want to open it in PS with the adjustments you have made, or just save the adjustments you made for later use. You shouldn't open it in PS without first making the raw settings the best you can. After opening it in PS you an also go back tot he raw file, change the settings further, and then open that new version in PS -- it will be given a different name. If you save it without opening, when you open it again you can further adjust the settings. They are all non-destructive, even cropping, which means you can change them at any time until you actually open in PS, at which time the adjustments are glued in.

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Diane , well i just have to make a protest note ........ LOL.
I am a confidently DPP user with experience of all sorts of raw engines . If you say i do not understand the development settings in ACR/LR ......... mmmhhh i do not feel good about your words . And other pro users of DPP will think the same way i guess. You are right by saying ACR/LR is more powerful than DPP , but mainly with fancy stuff that many users do not need .
From my personal view i.e. the HL and SH recovery is not as good if pushed further .

But wait for LR 6 becoming better with the so important face detection , that makes it really stand out against DPP , what a useful tool it becomes :S3:.

BTW do you know that the 2012 engine is applying a HL recovery to each and every image , even if you do not wish , only way around this is to use the 2010 engine :eek3:. I am asking myself if i want this ??

In the end we all have to choose our own preferences right , and i am more than happy with DPP even more with DPP4 , and i am able to work with the development tab very flawless :bg3: in ACR .

And yes it is simplicity of DPP that works for me , as i make my main adjustments in PS when it comes to tonality .

Cheers Andreas

[Diane Miller]

I didn't say someone who chooses to use DPP by definition does not understand the ACR adjustments. I said many users who espouse it don't.

Of course I'm aware of the automatic recovery thing. That was a widely-praised major improvement in Process 2012. I'm much more interested in dynamic range than face recognition, and a raw file has much more potential tonal range recovery than a rasterized PS file.

I've tried DPP extensively for many years and could post many examples where both DPP3 and and now DPP4 (used according to the directions espoused here) create flat tonalities in certain areas of some images, in which Process 2012 brought out significantly more detail. So I've made my decision and I simply would like people to have a chance to do the same for themselves.

End of discussion.

[Andreas Liedmann]

Diane this not a discussion ,if you say end of discussion , but that is your way .........

Regards Andreas

[arash_hazeghi]

Many of the reasons I see for using the Canon DPP indicate the user just doesn't understand ACR/Lightroom's development settings. So if people want a simple but limited adjustment process, that's fine.



with all due respect that's absolutely wrong, rather it indicates user doesn't undrestand how to use DPP. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it for discussion.

[arash_hazeghi]

I've tried DPP extensively for many years and could post many examples where both DPP3 and and now DPP4 (used according to the directions espoused here) create flat tonalities in certain areas of some images, in which Process 2012 brought out significantly more detail. So I've made my decision and I simply would like people to have a chance to do the same for themselves.

End of discussion.

Diane, I doubt if you have mastered DPP, last time we spoke you couldn't even get to install on your system. And what you say about flat tonality makes zero sense to me. Why don't you make your RAW files available and I will show you how to process them with DPP? Then see if you can match or exceed the results with LR.

Re "End of discussion", if you are not willing to objectively discuss, then why start a discussion at first place, in your original post you categorically called folks who use DPP ignorant. Mind you, some of the world's best photographers use DPP with great results.

I strongly believe LR is not great when it comes to RAW conversion quality as I have proven many times by examples in the avian forum, many of which were not my own photographs. Poor colors, soft and grainy output, mushy shadows are a few things to call... I also believe LR interface is cumbersome and it is really slow as well, I have processed thousands of images with DPP with 0 issues so far. So my opinion is polar opposite of yours but I would never call LR users stupid or ignorant.

Thanks

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Diane,

When you say, "So if people want a simple but limited adjustment process, that's fine.," it sounds as if you are talking about DPP 3 something.... I can assure you that there is absolutely nothing limited about the adjustment process in DPP 4.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Shantanu,

2) Image loads into canon raw converter where you get options to adjust the image, crop it, all things which you can do are available there.

What is a Canon RAW converter???

3) Now, here is my actual dilemma - Do I need to save it by clicking at left hand side button which read "save image" or do I need to open it by clicking "open image" button?
4) What are the differences between saving it and again opening it in PS compare to directly opening it by clicking "open image"

Not sure where your images is or what program you are using but you need to convert the image to a TIF file and save it somewhere, preferably to the same folder that contains the RAW file. From there, you open it in Photoshop and optimize it.

Is it helpful to use canon raw converters ? If yes, how ? Can anyone explain it

I have been using DPP to convert my RAW images to TIF files for several years. DPP 4 is a huge improvement over the various versions of DPP 3. I have been using it since it was released. Arash and I collaborated on an eGuide. You can see that here: https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=396

As far as learning to optimize your images in Photoshop I can recommend my Digital Basics File. It has helped thousands of folks learn to improve their images in Photoshop. Learn more or purchase here: https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=252

a

[Eric Dienesch]

i dont like dpp either 3 or 4 now, but i have checked 4 only a few times and i did not recognize a real improvement in this case in dpp 4 there, ok you can do more, but its still not so fine as i can do with the acr.

For that i prefer the adobe camera raw (often only lightroom acr, sometimes CS6).
CS 6 is only needed, when i want or have to do special changes in parts of the picture, if/when i need masks and leveling.

i my (personal) opinion you can make much more sensitive changes with the lightroom acr (or Photoshop acr), than you can do so in dpp.

Most of the time it is for me so, that i want to make only the raw changes, but nothing else.
I am trying to avoid making too many "interventions" , ok thats my aim. :e3


Only my 2 Cents :bg3:

[Andreas Liedmann]

but its still not so fine as i can do with the acr.

Hi Eric i would like to know what that means , just for the sake if interest .

Cheers Andreas

[Eric Dienesch]

Hewllo,

how can i explain it correct, (sorry for my written english) ?

when i compare the possibilities that dpp 3 (or 4) and the acr offer to me, the acr allows me to make finer changes in almost every section of image processing.
The steps are smaller, that takes an effect on the photo,
For example the lights and shadows controller in dpp are very rugged (say it so?), inlightroom you can do much more smaller steps to change the lights in the direction that you want to.
the same for pre sharpening, the same for dynamic.

it is only my personal opinion. lightroom (or bridge) has even more advantages, like the catalogue and catchword system, so its easier to make all in one programm for me etc.. but thats out of discussion ;)

[arash_hazeghi]

In order to make this thread meaningful and objective I offer to convert a RAW file provided by any BPN member, with optimal parameters in DPP4. Then I will leave it to others to convert it with LR . We can compare the 100% crops to see which one is better at pixel level. The only criteria is that the file needs be sharply focused.

If you just open DPP and click convert you are not going to get a great output as the default parameters are not great. You need to learn how to use it first, before making a statement about it.

[arash_hazeghi]

Hewllo,

how can i explain it correct, (sorry for my written english) ?


For example the lights and shadows controller in dpp are very rugged (say it so?), inlightroom you can do much more smaller steps to change the lights in the direction that you want to.
the same for pre sharpening, the same for dynamic.



That is incorrect.

for e.g. DPP 4 allows HL/ shadow adjustment from -5 to + 5 in 0.1 steps. That is 100 steps, I doubt if you need finer adjustment than that, you will not see it on the screen.
Same with sharpness, DPP allows a sharpness setting of 0-10 in 0.1 steps, that is 100 steps.

There is no such thing as "pre-sharpening". The sharpening that is applied in DPP is applied during demosaic process, it is one of the most critical parameters.

hope this helps.

[Eric Dienesch]

Hey arash, you are right.. there are 100 "Steps"..
i`ve said that i did not have used dpp4 often..and when i used it mostly with the mouse and pull/push the controller.
In that case there are only 10 steps ( i didnt note the comma) and than it`s not fine.. my fault :e3

i will train and practise with dpp 4 a little bit (with hopefully thousands of pictures i like to get next week in Florida) :bg3:
Thank you !

[Diane Miller]

I've been busy this morning but I will post the requested examples soon. And just for the record, it is amazing to me that you would twist this statement: "Many of the reasons I see for using the Canon DPP indicate the user just doesn't understand ACR/Lightroom's development settings" into "in your original post you categorically called folks who use DPP ignorant."

My desire to end the discussion was to avoid such twisting of words that are so common in discussions like this one. You might wish to confine yourself to facts.

After an initial failed effort, I realized DPP4 would not install because my OS was Lion. You should be pleased to know that I upgraded to Mountain Lion specifically so I could evaluate DPP4, with great hopes for it. Unfortunately, by my standards it hasn't lived up to that hope. Details to follow.

[David Cowling]

Wow! It's getting difficult to see through the flying feathers here!
I use both ACR and DPP4, DPP4 for preference as I find it renders colours and tonality more accurately. I also think that it deals better with sensor noise making it easier to remove in PS. However, there is one instance in which I think ACR is better; in my endeavour to get as much light as possible on the subject by using ETTR I sometimes go slightly over the top, not a complete white out but just a few blinkies, and I find that even at -5 in highlight control I sometimes cannot recover all the highlight information, whereas the highlight slider in ACR deals with this easily. Just my small input into this fascinating topic.

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi David thanks for your little input , i too find this an interesting discussion .
To overcome your "problem " just make two versions and blend them together with a luminosity mask in PS and you can stick to DPP´s better rendition , just a quick tip from my side as i have the same ETTR issues from time to time :wave:

Cheers Andreas

[David Cowling]

Thank you for that information Andreas, do you mean one copy from DPP and one from ACR and blend?
Arash made a point in his critique of "Grebes Rushing" in Avian by saying something to the effect that " Linear Burn in DPP will bring out the highlight details" I don't quite understand how you can do this. Perhaps Arash can pick up on this?

[Andreas Liedmann]

David you make your edits to your image in DPP and send it to PS .Go back to PS and make edits for the HL by massive underexpose so that you do not have any clipping and have details in the whites . Send the second copy to PS and copy it on top of the "good exposure " . Now blend the better highlights onto the BG by using a luminosity mask on the second layer .

There is no linear burn in DPP , what Arash is referring to is the "linear tone curve " in the Gamma Tab of DPP 4 . If you click into the check box you will get a dark nasty looking image with no tone curve applied . Then comes the same procedure , you need two copies , one with the linear tone curve and one with a standard or neutral tone curve (picture style ).

When you have both versions open in PS you need to copy the HL from (linear ) to the "normal " image .

Hope you understand .

Cheers Andreas

[David Cowling]

Thank you Andreas, all very helpful information for me.

[arash_hazeghi]

Wow! It's getting difficult to see through the flying feathers here!
I use both ACR and DPP4, DPP4 for preference as I find it renders colours and tonality more accurately. I also think that it deals better with sensor noise making it easier to remove in PS. However, there is one instance in which I think ACR is better; in my endeavour to get as much light as possible on the subject by using ETTR I sometimes go slightly over the top, not a complete white out but just a few blinkies, and I find that even at -5 in highlight control I sometimes cannot recover all the highlight information, whereas the highlight slider in ACR deals with this easily. Just my small input into this fascinating topic.

Hi David,


Andreas explained it well (thank you :S3:) but let me add more

I will post an example of high light recovery with DPP4 soon. Actually -5 setting should already pull a bit more detail than ACR. The ACR highlight recovery may appear to tame highlights better but if you look carefully it turns whites into grey making the image look a bit unnatural to the trained eye.

A very effective trick for recovering highlights that look completely blown in DPP is the following

1) do a RAW conversion with normal HL recovery and send the TIFF to PS
2) do a linear RAW conversion (I can explain what this means in detail if anyone is interested but to keep it simple just click on linear). You will now see detail in the highlights that are virtually invisible to any other software, but the image will be very dark. Send this TIFF file to PS too
3) copy-paste the normal image on top of dark image, select all, then click mask --> reveal selection. choose black from the color palette and then paint over the highlights carefully with 20%-50% opacity brush to reveal the detail in the over-exposed areas. you have to be careful watching for whites not to become too grey (unnatural). play with the opacity of the brush if needed.
4) blend the layers and you are done.

you will be surprised how much detail was recovered

BTW, with DPP you don't really have to worry about noise that much so I'd be careful at the time of capture not to blow up the highlights if you like to do ETTR. you can always fix noise, but if highlights are totally blown (saturated pixels) it will have no cure.


If you had any particular image in mind please post it so I can work on it as an example for this thread when I get a chance

Hope this helps

[Andreas Liedmann]

Arash nothing wrong with your way of doing this ......... from my POV i only see the brushing not as an elegant way of doing this .
I for myself use the luminosity of the image to isolate the HL and apply the mask with ease to the second layer ....... and i have a wonderful naturally fading of the tones .No need for brushing /change opacity of the brush / fiddling with the mouse or pen . And on top of that if you blur the mask with (very important !!) surface blur /median or dust and scratches at low radius you will receive very detailed recovered whites .

And the best thing is it is repeatable , you can even create an action for this , just adjust opacity to taste .

Just my 2cents

[Diane Miller]

I’m always eager to find the best tools for photography, both hardware and software, and I have tried DPP on many images over many years, hoping to see good results from the claims that it does the best job of interpreting Canon raw data due to inside information. I have used your guides to conversion along with Canon’s documentation for both DPP3 and DPP4.

When DPP4 came out I upgraded my operating system specifically so I could use it, and made extensive comparisons with ACR in hopes that the new version would be more to my liking than DPP3 was. In my opinion it still lags significantly behind ACR. I have used both DPP and ACR going as far back as 2004, for the Canon 20D, 5D, 5D II, 5D III and 7D II. (I strongly prefer the Lightroom interface over the one that accompanies Photoshop, but the underlying conversion engine is the same so I will refer to both as ACR.)

I’ll have to go against the grain here and say I find DPP is not superior to ACR in noise control. Both remove noise at the cost of detail. ACR gives me more control over the process and a tighter grain pattern, which I find more pleasing and easier to work with in Photoshop, where my preferred NR tools reside.

But a more important issue to me is tonal detail and in my experience both shadow and highlight recovery are noticeably better in ACR. To really see the differences, here is a problematic image. In images that are optimal to begin with there are smaller differences in the two converters, but I do like the ability to recover the occasional less-than-perfect image as best I can with the greater tonal overhead in the raw converter before resorting to working on the more limited tonalities once an image has been rasterized in Photoshop.

Here is an image I shot a few months ago. I had only recently gotten the 7D2 and went to a nearby duck pond to gain some more experience with the autofocus and high ISO performance, mostly in hopes of some flight shots. There were only a few ducks within reach, the light was dismal with heavy haze and as I came up to the pond from the parking lot I was facing a low sun. I started to walk to the other side of the pond, not yet having taken the time to set up exposure, when two mallards began copulating nearby. I decided to shoot quickly with the settings I had (ISO 800, 1/1250 at f/9, 100-400 II at 200mm) in spite of the bad lighting. The image is underexposed and certainly not a keeper but serves well to compare DPP and ACR.

The examples are cropped to fit within the size allowed here and exported with no resampling. The profile set in the camera was not recorded, nor does it matter in raw conversion. You recommend in the guide to set the camera to Standard. Mine are usually set to Faithful because I prefer that rendition of the image on the LCD screen for evaluating blinkies. In DPP that setting can be changed to your recommended Faithful in the Basic Adjustment tab, under Picture Style dropdown, which I did for this comparison. In ACR it can be changed in the Camera Calibration tab, which I did here.

The first image below is DPP4. In accordance with the recommendations in your guide, Luminance NR was at 4.5 and Chrominance NR at 5. I increased Brightness to 2.17 then made slider moves in the Advanced section to work on tonal detail. I tried many combinations and wound up with Contrast at -2, Shadow at 1, and Highlight at -3. Color tone and Color saturation were left at 0.

I began with your recommended settings of Sharpness at 3, but increased it to 4 when I saw how flat the image was coming out. It only made a small difference and even this much began showing artifacts. When I tried to bring the hot highlights down by lowering the Contrast and Highlight sliders, the dark areas became even flatter. I have converted many images in DPP and this is not an unusual result. I suspect it would similar for many people using DPP. Maybe an expert could improve this somewhat, but I was able to do much better with three simple slider moves in ACR with much less juggling than in the DPP conversion.

150433


The image below is from Lightroom. I increased the Exposure to 1.15, brought the Highlights down to -100 and increased the Shadows to +71. Everything else was left at the defaults, including Sharpening and Noise Reduction. The Detail tab has the default settings and the Curve is linear. Three simple slider moves brought out good detail from underexposed areas, which plague many of us in our typical nature shooting. There is some fine-grained noise, a penalty for bringing up underexposure. It can be mitigated to some extent in the Detail tab and further in Photoshop, but I left it at the defaults here. Note the much better control of highlights here (the female's head and the male's bill) without heroic measures.

150434

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Diane thanks for posting the comparison , what you call detail is just simply a ton of noise , from my POV .
By reading your description of edits within both DPP and LR , i would rather bin this image than invest time for useless editing . Ending up with a file that is looking recovered in both HL and shadows .

Why don`t you post a well exposed image .............. it is a key to a great output ........ in both LR and DPP.

You can send me the raw and i would try to make a better output with DPP , just send me the file via DB or WeTransfer .

Cheers Andreas

[Diane Miller]

As I pointed out, I didn't post it as an image worth salvaging. I posted it as an example of the differences in capabilities of DPP and ACR for handling tonalities. I find that difference very useful in many images that are good to start with but have some areas that are darker than desirable, such as the underside of wings or shadows in sun.

[Andreas Liedmann]

Diane from my POV you have the wrong approach for dealing with this , i personally would never push my images to such extremes in any raw converter in one step . Can´t be any good .

In this case i would double process the image and blend it together in PS ,take the best from both worlds (HL /SH) and i am good to go .

[Diane Miller]

I'm not trying to salvage this image. As should be very clear from my text, I'm using an extreme example to show that DPP may not be the only game in town and that ACR may have some abilities in pulling out tonal detail that should not be dismissed.

I certainly have done double conversions, along with other HDR-type techniques, but with the advent of Process 2012 in ACR (LR 4 and PS CS6) I have found them to be virtually unnecessary. That's how powerful the Shadows and Highlights recovery is now in ACR.

And even with "good" images to start with, I find the power of those sliders to be valuable and welcome. I'm not trying to change anyone who has their mind made up, but I think a lot of people who are inexperienced with raw conversion deserve to hear a balanced viewpoint.

[Andreas Liedmann]

Diane ,i or others did not say that DPP is the only game in town !!!
It is just one Raw Converter amongst many others , i do use as second Capture One from time to time :w3, also giving me better results in terms of tonality , color and detail compared to the Adobe module . But this is just my personal view of things and if others like to stick to i.e. LR/ACR well that is fine with me.

Actually with the HL /SH slider in all raw converters you have no control what is affected and what not :2eyes2:, cause the people behind the software say what is HL/SH .So i stay mostly away from those sliders , and make it in more targeted in PS with the nice lumo masks created by Tony Kuyper´s panel .

And it is not about this image , we all have images that are not shot perfect , or simply the dynamic range of the camera is too small to get everything on the sensor and we have to deal with this. Then comes the software into play and the operator of the software . It is just a question do i want the best result with a bit of work , or do i want the quick ........ well this looks nice ... version ? I prefer for my images the long way, that is one reason for going with DPP .

In the end the operator has to be happy with the software he/she uses and feel comfortable with it . But i would avoid a general negative comment regarding any piece of software , all have their pros and cons .

[arash_hazeghi]

I’m always eager to find the best tools for photography, both hardware and software, and I have tried DPP on many images over many years, hoping to see good results from the claims that it does the best job of interpreting Canon raw data due to inside information. I have used your guides to conversion along with Canon’s documentation for both DPP3 and DPP4.



Daine, Did you see my original request?

Please provide the RAW file. You are not using the correct conversion parameters for DPP as I had suspected. I can do better than that.

And the ACR output just looks awful with so much noise. I am surprised you call that better, by the time you apply any NR the image will look terrible.



Thanks

[Diane Miller]

Is there some secret to the correct parameters that is not in the guide? All anyone can do is follow what you recommend.

One way to show up the differences in the two converters is to push things with a difficult image. The noise is a side issue to the tonal flattening.

[arash_hazeghi]

Is there some secret to the correct parameters that is not in the guide? All anyone can do is follow what you recommend.

One way to show up the differences in the two converters is to push things with a difficult image. The noise is a side issue to the tonal flattening.

Diane,


I am going to ask one more time, please provide provide the RAW file so we can have a fair comparison. You did not follow the directions and what you say makes zero sense to me.

Maybe you don't want to provide the RAW file for some reason?

thanks

[Diane Miller]

I was hoping that first I could get the message across that this isn't about what you can do with a difficult file. It's about what the average user can do with one.

To answer your question, what I don't want to do is deal with your curt rudeness. If you want to continue in a civil fashion, you can find the file here: ftp://ftp.sonic.net/pub/users/elmiller

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Diane took the liberty and edited the file in DPP 4 send to ps for cropping and convert to SRGB.

Cheers Andreas

[Diane Miller]

OK -- so what settings? I find juggling the sliders is less than intuitive although I'm very familiar with doing what should be similar adjustments in LR/ACR, with immediate good results.

[Andreas Liedmann]

What does it mean.......... OK ! ?

WB - daylight
EXP - +1,0
Pict Style - standard
Contrast - -2
SH - +2
HL - -2
Sharpen - 3
L NR - 3 even if i would go for 0 on my own images ( i start using DPP NR at 6400 iso if well exposed ETTR)
Ch NR at default
Lens correction at 50

White point 245 /Black point 5 , fur further editing in PS without clipping and detail in both HL and SH .

I do not understand what is the difference of wanging sliders in DPP or ACR , wanging is wanging !!!!
Funny i think i get immediate good results in DPP for further editing in PS , and i would do the same with ACR conversion sending a flat (tonal) file to PS.
If i want to have a better file to start with i would have invested more time in this file , but this was made quickly :S3:.

Cheers Andreas

[Diane Miller]

Thanks, Andreas. What it means is for further information for understanding how to use the adjustments. Numerous readings of the available guides (with careful notes) and a lot of work to try to find the best adjustment (and that's with considerable background with raw adjustments in ACR/LR) obviously didn't get me a good result.

I'll go back and re-convert with those settings when I get a minute. It's not about whanging sliders, it's about how easy it is to whang them in different converters and get good results. Which depends, of course, on how familiar one is with the software -- and how intuitive it is for a new user.

I certainly agree that contrast should not be too high coming into PS, but many people want to get a very close result in the raw conversion, and I suspect very few of the general population here want to resort to luminosity masks if they can get a raw conversion that doesn't need them. As software improves the role of Photoshop is moving away from larger tonal adjustments, which are now easier in raw converters, into more subtle adjustments.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks for posting the RAW Diane,

This is my version, it's close to Andreas's file but I corrected for contrast and saturation as well. Notice how the highlights on the mallard's beaks that were blown in your conversion (pane #24) have been recovered. the whole thing took less than one minute for me.

150469


Also for the record, this is Diane's original exposure. Like Andreas, for me personally this file is a delete given this much underexposure with the 7D. Nevertheless the fact that DPP can pull up the shadows to this extent without introducing much noise at all pretty much settles the argument here.


150470

[Andreas Liedmann]

Diane i slowly think you are talking about people who want to have easy access and stunning results within just a click of a button or some slider moving , well this is DPP and ACR not made for from my POV . Both are made for getting the best results out of a raw file . And for that you have to learn the software, and DPP is not more difficult than others from my pOV .

And you can get very close results in the same way as ACR, Capture One , Aperture , Iridient Developer ,DXO and so on . In every software you should read the manual or watch a tutorial to get the most out of it. If one is not willing to do so , well this person should stick to iPhoto or something similar with some presets .

With hindsight after opening your file ( all your settings has been saved ) my initial thought was how can someone like you , who writes tutorials and publish them , push the exposure that much that all details got completely lost in the HL and even in parts in the 1/4 tones ??????? To me it is a miracle .

And i forgot who of the people you think do not understand DPP, quickly will go beyond pixel level ( that is what we did with this really large crop ) to view their images ? This crop is far too much for most of the cameras to get a decent image on screen not even thinking about a print of this crop .

So this are my thoughts .

Regards Andreas

[arash_hazeghi]

This is a comparison for an image that I consider a keeper in my book. It's a female Merlin, we had fast moving clouds when photographing her, and this frame was underexposed by 1/2 stops. I converted this file with DPP 4.15 using the exact setting explained in my guide and then tried ti match it with ACR. Below is what I got. Despite what is was said a few times in this thread, it doesn't take fiddling with sliders etc. to get a good output from DPP. In fact I just made the adjustment once then copy-pasted to a bunch of images.


150473

Shot with Canon 1D-X and 600 II + 1.4X III. ISO 2000. 1/2000sec at f/5.6 hand held.

The DPP conversion is sharp and clean, no visible noise and the colors/WB comes out right on the money with no adjustment. With ACR, same file looks softer and grainier. The colors are off too (dull and lacking). No matter what you do, you cannot match the DPP's sharp clean look in ACR, more sharpening will make it even noisier and less sharpening makes it softer. You may be able to match the colors but you have spend a few minutes fiddling with the adjustments.

And this is the final file, converted with DPP, re-sized and sharpened for web in PS

150474

I hope this thread was instructive

[Diane Miller]

Diane i slowly think you are talking about people who want to have easy access and stunning results within just a click of a button or some slider moving , well this is DPP and ACR not made for from my POV . Both are made for getting the best results out of a raw file . And for that you have to learn the software, and DPP is not more difficult than others from my pOV .

And you can get very close results in the same way as ACR, Capture One , Aperture , Iridient Developer ,DXO and so on . In every software you should read the manual or watch a tutorial to get the most out of it. If one is not willing to do so , well this person should stick to iPhoto or something similar with some presets .

With hindsight after opening your file ( all your settings has been saved ) my initial thought was how can someone like you , who writes tutorials and publish them , push the exposure that much that all details got completely lost in the HL and even in parts in the 1/4 tones ??????? To me it is a miracle .

And i forgot who of the people you think do not understand DPP, quickly will go beyond pixel level ( that is what we did with this really large crop ) to view their images ? This crop is far too much for most of the cameras to get a decent image on screen not even thinking about a print of this crop .

So this are my thoughts .

Regards Andreas

The large “crop” here was simply a zoom to 100% or 1:1 -- at the pixel level, not beyond it. I find that an excellent way to evaluate image quality as various corrections are made. It is also the way to show details in the small image of web post.

As I stated, I used the information available to me for the DPP conversion. If better information had been available about how to balance the sliders, that is what I would have used. DPP is so widely touted here as The Answer to the best raw conversion, and claimed to be unquestionably superior to ACR. Maybe it’s not that simple if the corrections are not intuitive. In my experience with LR/ACR, you can do an overall balanced exposure correction first and then have a lot of leeway to do shadow and highlight corrections. From your comment about pushing the exposure, it sounds like that doesn't work as well with DPP.

Let’s try to control our insults here. This is beginning to sound like the second grade playground. The little boys’ side.

[Andreas Liedmann]

Agree to look at 100 % for evaluation :bg3:, nothing wrong with it .

But this is my 100 % or 1:1 .......... well who is right ?

I have named so many options as raw converter , not saying there is only DPP to be correct !! , for my canon files and for my workflow it is the best , yes !!!! And if others cannot handle their cr2 files with DPP , good then they should go and do somthing else nothing wrong it as long as they are happy with the output.

I am just asking how does it come that you have a different 100% than i have ?

[Diane Miller]

Thanks for posting the RAW Diane,

This is my version, it's close to Andreas's file but I corrected for contrast and saturation as well. Notice how the highlights on the mallard's beaks that were blown in your conversion (pane #24) have been recovered. the whole thing took less than one minute for me.

150469


Also for the record, this is Diane's original exposure. Like Andreas, for me personally this file is a delete given this much underexposure with the 7D. Nevertheless the fact that DPP can pull up the shadows to this extent without introducing much noise at all pretty much settles the argument here.


150470

The “argument” here (if you wish to view it that way – I don’t) was about the ease of converting a difficult image with DPP vs LR/ACR, based on the information I have been able to glean about how to use DPP.

Your conversion is a little better than mine from DPP but still shows more tonal flatness than I would have expected from all I have read about DPP. I strongly prefer the greater tonal detail of my LR/ACR conversion in this admittedly difficult case, even at the expense of noise. The noise will be much less obvious in a full-sized image compared to this 100% view, and is more easily dealt with in PS than is the smashed look of too much NR in the conversion.

I stated clearly that it was shot on the spur of the moment with far from ideal settings. The reason I didn’t delete the image is solely that I saw it as a good opportunity to explore the possibilities of DPP.

[Diane Miller]

This is a comparison for an image that I consider a keeper in my book. It's a female Merlin, we had fast moving clouds when photographing her, and this frame was underexposed by 1/2 stops. I converted this file with DPP 4.15 using the exact setting explained in my guide and then tried ti match it with ACR. Below is what I got. Despite what is was said a few times in this thread, it doesn't take fiddling with sliders etc. to get a good output from DPP. In fact I just made the adjustment once then copy-pasted to a bunch of images.


150473

Shot with Canon 1D-X and 600 II + 1.4X III. ISO 2000. 1/2000sec at f/5.6 hand held.

The DPP conversion is sharp and clean, no visible noise and the colors/WB comes out right on the money with no adjustment. With ACR, same file looks softer and grainier. The colors are off too (dull and lacking). No matter what you do, you cannot match the DPP's sharp clean look in ACR, more sharpening will make it even noisier and less sharpening makes it softer. You may be able to match the colors but you have spend a few minutes fiddling with the adjustments.

And this is the final file, converted with DPP, re-sized and sharpened for web in PS

150474

I hope this thread was instructive

But of course you can also copy and paste adjustments from one image to a set using ACR and LR.

And the color differences shown here (which are primarily contrast differences) certainly appear to be well within the reach of a simple ACR correction. Having sliders for Blacks and Whites in addition to Shadows and Highlights gives huge (and simple) flexibility.

Possibly you are neglecting the Tone Curve dialog. It's default is Linear since it's easier to add contrast than remove it. Adjusting the Curve from Linear to Medium Contrast gives a significant punch to colors. And of course ACR/LR gives access to Vibrance and Clarity (midtone contrast) which are not in DPP.

[Diane Miller]

Andreas, mine were cropped to just under the allowed size limit here and exported from LR with no resizing. That should display in a browser (assuming no zoom there) at 1 pixel in the image to 1 pixel on the screen.

[Don Lacy]

Hi Diane, Your link to the raw file no longer seems to be active could you re link it or send the file to me at lacydon@comast.net
Thanks

[Diane Miller]

It's still there -- I just checked.

[Don Lacy]

Tried two different browsers both are unable to connect to server.

[Diane Miller]

I can connect, and Arash and Andreas got the file. No idea what the issue could be -- probably your ISP rather than the browser. it's too big to email.

[Andreas Liedmann]

Diane to finish this from my side , i think it is fair to do so , you have your vision of a well processed image which contains a lot of noise (what you call detail) and i have mine , mine just differs to a great extend from yours . And that is OK .
As i stated before , one has to be happy and feel comfy regarding his/her raw converter and if one is happy with the output ....... fine. We just have also different ways of judging technical things and maybe also a different level of high quality output :bg3:. And that is ok too from my side .

Thanks for this interesting discussion here , i did find it very civilized nothing wrong with it to talk straight .

Cheers Andreas

[nick clayton]

I have read this thread with great interest. I am a DPP4 user who uses Arash's / Artie's guide, I had a go at converting Diane's RAW file which came out similar to Arash's result. This thread has indicated to me that ACR produces a result with a lot more noise so I won't be changing any time soon. It has also demonstrated that some people who criticise DPP4 simply can't use it to the best of it's ability.

[Don Lacy]

So far this thread has been informative and pretty civil and I hope beneficial to the members. After getting my security firewall corrected from my IP service I was able to download Diane's Raw file and had a go at it with ACR the Raw converter I am most familiar with since I thought Diane's conversion was overdone I then converted in DPP4 using Andreas values except the DLO of 50 since for some reason I could not find the info for the new 100-400 for comparison to my efforts. First off let me make a couple of observations I think Arash conversion was the best out of the three presented and better then what I was able to do in ACR this does not surprise me given his skill and knowledge of the program. I think I was able to pull better tonal values with my conversion then what i got using Andreas values but his was clearly better controlling noise. With a little more work in PS I was able to get closer to Arash version but his was still better at the 100 pixel level. I then work both files as I would if I was presenting the image for critique on this sight I treated each image as their on separate files and was not trying to match them exactly but using the same steps and layer adjustments. I will let you decide which finale version you prefer. I would like to make one caveat about ACR since the 7D II is a new camera it is more then likely the longer the engineers at Adobe have time with the camera they will improve the conversion of the Raw files with future updates. One last final though as I always say use your on eyes to form your own opinions you do not need an expert to tell you what you are seeing just make sure you're using a good monitor thats calibrated. It is also more then likely their will be no one concession as to the best image and that has a lot to do with how we as humans individually see color and spatial patterns because I don't care what anyone else says that dress on the internet was white and gold not blue and black:bg3:

[Don Lacy]

Here are the converted finale images I hope Diane does not mind I took the liberty of using her image to this step. I was pretty surprised at the final output which came out better then I would have thought considering the 2 stop underexposure of the Raw which goes to prove how Canon has improved their banding issues with their sensors.

[arash_hazeghi]

But of course you can also copy and paste adjustments from one image to a set using ACR and LR.

And the color differences shown here (which are primarily contrast differences) certainly appear to be well within the reach of a simple ACR correction. Having sliders for Blacks and Whites in addition to Shadows and Highlights gives huge (and simple) flexibility.

Possibly you are neglecting the Tone Curve dialog. It's default is Linear since it's easier to add contrast than remove it. Adjusting the Curve from Linear to Medium Contrast gives a significant punch to colors. And of course ACR/LR gives access to Vibrance and Clarity (midtone contrast) which are not in DPP.


I am not neglecting anything Diane,

Color difference has nothing to do with contrast. There two separate qualities.

FYI, ACR doesn't have linear RAW conversion capability. Linear means just a pure de-mosaic without a tone curve, i.e. retaining original RAW value. Only DPP can do that.

Also I have used ACR quite extensively in the past with both Nikon and Canon cameras and I still use ACR for my Fuji XT-1 camera. Vibrance slider makes the image look over-saturated and cartoonish looking IMO. Actually, all of those sliders are redundant IMO making the image look over-processed and unnatural.

Have you ever asked yourself, if the WB and color rendition are accurate at first place why do you need all of those sliders? If you want more punch you can simply just increase saturation. Having too many settings is not helpful necessarily, it's a like a car with too many buttons on the dash...

As I have said many times before, ACR uses the same generic algorithm for all cameras, being it a Nikon D7K or a Canon 1D-X or an Olympus mirror-less camera. It neglects the specific properties of each camera's image sensor, color filter and optical low pass filter, all of which are included in manufacturer's RAW conversion algorithm. It then tires to make up for this shortcomings by an array of settings and sliders. It also uses very crude noise reduction algorithm.

I think someone did a comparison of Nikon's Capture NX and ACR and pretty much reached the same conclusion on this or another forum.

BTW, I did not like your comments in pane #33, nothing that I said was rude. As you saw yourself, without the RAW file the wrong conclusion was made.

You can stick to your ACR or whatever you like, it's your choice. But in future please be more careful when talking about DPP, especially before having mastered it.

Thanks

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Don i had NO further edits done in PS to my RP , just for clarification , as said above i bring all images quite flat into PS for further and final editing .

THanks Andreas

[Don Lacy]

Hi Don i had NO further edits done in PS to my RP , just for clarification , as said above i bring all images quite flat into PS for further and final editing .

THanks Andreas

Sorry just reread your post it says fur further editing in PS missed the fur part

[Andreas Liedmann]

Don i just send this file to PS for cropping and downsampling , nothing more done to my RP , but no problem

[John Guastella]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that in the ACR vs. DPP merlin comparison photos shown in panel 40, the DPP conversion has less overall detail than the ACR conversion. This is clearly shown in the reduced feather detail in the DPP conversion, not only at the edges of the feathers, but in their interior. Feathers have texture; in the posted DPP-converted image this texture has been lost.

So, although the DPP conversion shown as an example has resulted in a lower level of noise, it appears to have done that by sacrificing sharpness.

John

[Diane Miller]

That balance between noise and detail is what I've been observing consistently. When noise is close to the frequency of fine details such as in feathers, how difficult is it to separate them? With the tools we have (even those that DPP uses), apparently very difficult. At some point, lowering noise smooths out detail. That may or may not be desirable, in different images and with different users.

And re the comment, "ACR doesn't have linear RAW conversion capability. Linear means just a pure de-mosaic without a tone curve, i.e. retaining original RAW value. Only DPP can do that." Well, the various astrophotography programs (Nebulosity, etc) do it, for a wide variety of cameras, so I would assume that Adobe could do it.

[Don Lacy]

Don i just send this file to PS for cropping and downsampling , nothing more done to my RP , but no problem
again sorry I removed that statement from my post.

[DickLudwig]

That balance between noise and detail is what I've been observing consistently. When noise is close to the frequency of fine details such as in feathers, how difficult is it to separate them? With the tools we have (even those that DPP uses), apparently very difficult. At some point, lowering noise smooths out detail. That may or may not be desirable, in different images and with different users.

And re the comment, "ACR doesn't have linear RAW conversion capability. Linear means just a pure de-mosaic without a tone curve, i.e. retaining original RAW value. Only DPP can do that." Well, the various astrophotography programs (Nebulosity, etc) do it, for a wide variety of cameras, so I would assume that Adobe could do it.
I would also note that there seems to be slightly better tonal separation using ACR in the posted images. To me this is extremely important as I do B&W's where tonal separation is very important when creating an image that doesn't have a lot of contrast and keeping detail in the shadows is difficult. A little noise is not the worst thing in the world, after all for years we always had to deal with grain whenever a faster film was used and no one gave it a second thought.

[arash_hazeghi]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that in the ACR vs. DPP merlin comparison photos shown in panel 40, the DPP conversion has less overall detail than the ACR conversion. This is clearly shown in the reduced feather detail in the DPP conversion, not only at the edges of the feathers, but in their interior. Feathers have texture; in the posted DPP-converted image this texture has been lost.

So, although the DPP conversion shown as an example has resulted in a lower level of noise, it appears to have done that by sacrificing sharpness.

John

I am sorry but that's not what my eyes are seeing. Folks confuse noise with detail as Andreas mentioned too. There is no extra "texture" in ACR but just uniform coarse grain (it's called white noise).

We have different eyes apparently when it comes to such details. Some folks are even OK with noise or can't even see it.

[adrian dancy]

For me, referring to panel 40, there is without doubt more detail in the ACR conversion. I am not confusing detail with noise, the noise is evident. The fine structures of the fanned out wing feathers that overlay the breast feathers can be individually seen and counted, whereas in the DPP4 conversion the detail has been nearly lost and the fine structures cannot be counted. The stripe behind the eye has taken on a very noticeable mushy appearance in the DPP4 conversion. The general effect is noticeable elsewhere in the image but not as marked as the examples I have pointed out. That is not to say that the DPP4 conversion is bad and I can certainly see that many will prefer it, indeed it has a lot going for it, as presented. It's a personal choice and it is wrong in my view to conflate perception with those who are 'OK with noise' and those who 'don't even see it' if the intention was to infer that those who are OK with noise have something wrong with them or that their opinions should be valued less. This subject is a gift for the application of prejudice and confirmation bias and I think it would be healthy if we all bear that in mind.

[arash_hazeghi]

I disagree with all you say about noise or detail in the image. Noise is not a personal thing it can be measured.

However regretfully, I am not inclined to discuss this or any other topic more with you and that is because you have been making too many similar posts on this website for a couple of years now (too many condesating comments towards me or just saying something negative to show that you disagree as an avid expert photographer) without even paying us the courtsey of a small membership fee or posting a single photograph or any other meaningful contribution to the site. It makes me believe you pursue a different goal here.

Regards

[Diane Miller]

OK -- here's another example. This is a perfectly-exposed image in soft light so virtually no adjustments were needed in either converter. Canon 7D2 at ISO 800.

DPP adjustments made in strict accordance with your guide. Nothing done in the Advanced panel, which apparently I have no clue how to use. ACR adjustments very simple -- slight raising of Shadows, a little Clarity and Vibrance, and some basic NR settings, which I didn't resort to in the mallard example. Nothing drastic or heroic here. I can provide screenshots of the settings. Cropped way in and enlarged to show detail here, because we're talking about how important the inside information of DPP is with regards to sensor data. (Sure, we don't normally need that kind of enlargement, but if we're talking about true IQ -- things like noise and detail -- instead of what shows in a web-sized JPEG, why not look under the rug?) Both exported from LR, which is so handy for things like this.

ACR/LR:

150558

DPP:

150559

It may not be easy to see here but the DPP file, at its default settings except for the recommended settings for the 7D2 at ISO 800, shows sharpening artifacts around the beak and some slight color artifacts on the lower beak. You will also notice that the noise and detail are virtually the same. The only NR/sharpening settings in ACR are modest: Luminance NR from default of 0 to 24, Sharpening from default of 25 to 40.

What does this closeup view mean? That ACR can virtually match DPP for noise reduction, with detail retention.

I could care less what anyone chooses for a converter -- if DPP works for you, fine. But don't tell me (or some newbie) it's flat-out superior to ACR/LR.

[arash_hazeghi]

Please post the RAW file and again I will show you the optimal DPP conversion just like your first example.

Your DPP conversion is not good, You can do better than that. I am not sure you can make any conclusion from it.




As far as telling people what to do, I never told you or anyone that one "must" use DPP. I recommend it, especially to beginners because they can get better results easier. But that's my recommendation and I back it up with my images. I don't make negative comments towards people who use ACR, rather I compare tools.

On the other hand this is what you said.

Many of the reasons I see for using the Canon DPP indicate the user just doesn't understand ACR/Lightroom's development settings.

I maintain that the above is wrong and to some degree condensating to the many users who use DPP (I think more than just me told you this). You directed your negative comments towards a group of people, rather than the tool.

Thanks

[adrian dancy]

Arash,

With all due respect, you have (it seems) not read my comments or understood them. I would agree noise can be measured and that would be your expertise, but equally, I can see detail in your image which has been clearly supressed by the DPP4 conversion and it seems others have too. We choose to differ on the point and that should be the end of the matter for us. It then becomes a matter for others to view the images and form their own opinion. You seem to have ignored the fact that I have also given the DPP4 version merit.

For the record I have on repeated occasions agreed with your comments where posters have submitted images for critiques. I have previously commented on your images submitted for critique and my comments have by and large been very positive. I have not commented on your more recent images which all seem technically good with some minor exceptions. I have not offered a critique on your images recently since with some of them, whilst very good, may have contained some matters which you would perceive as negative and I have formed the view that you do not deal with criticism well. My position as a member limits the contributions I can make in any one month and now I have been compelled to waste one of them by having to justify myself.


I have stated before that my place here on BPN is simply as a punter. I do not have an agenda, I claim no expertise on anything here, though I am not without some level of expertise in some matters. I have no images, books or DVDs to sell, I have no tour company to lead or promote. I have no truck with those that have...it's how the world turns. I'm just a humble voice who might utter when occasionally a contrary view needs to be taken. That's it pure and simple. I don't like being lead down a path I do not agree with. I agree with much of what you say but not all, and in some respects I have a different philosophy to image making but largely I have kept quiet about it. No big issue.



I am saddened by your remarks concerning my membership. I have introduced paying members to BPN and suggested to others in the bird photography community that they should look drop in on BPN. There is no requirement to pay for membership and I do not have to account to anyone as to why I am not a full member. On one particular occasion I may have taken the opportunity to complain about your conduct when you bordered on defaming me. At the very least you departed from the BPN rules regarding conduct towards others. I did not complain about you when perhaps I should have. I also recall on another occasion you attempted to moderate me for having made some off topic remark when it was you who started the off topic conservation. I have to say, I think if anyone has an agenda, it is you...not me.

All the best

AD

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash,

With all due respect, you have (it seems) not read my comments or understood them. I would agree noise can be measured and that would be your expertise, but equally, I can see detail in your image which has been clearly supressed by the DPP4 conversion and it seems others have too. We choose to differ on the point and that should be the end of the matter for us. It then becomes a matter for others to view the images and form their own opinion. You seem to have ignored the fact that I have also given the DPP4 version merit.

For the record I have on repeated occasions agreed with your comments where posters have submitted images for critiques. I have previously commented on your images submitted for critique and my comments have by and large been very positive. I have not commented on your more recent images which all seem technically good with some minor exceptions. I have not offered a critique on your images recently since with some of them, whilst very good, may have contained some matters which you would perceive as negative and I have formed the view that you do not deal with criticism well. My position as a member limits the contributions I can make in any one month and now I have been compelled to waste one of them by having to justify myself.


I have stated before that my place here on BPN is simply as a punter. I do not have an agenda, I claim no expertise on anything here, though I am not without some level of expertise in some matters. I have no images, books or DVDs to sell, I have no tour company to lead or promote. I have no truck with those that have...it's how the world turns. I'm just a humble voice who might utter when occasionally a contrary view needs to be taken. That's it pure and simple. I don't like being lead down a path I do not agree with. I agree with much of what you say but not all, and in some respects I have a different philosophy to image making but largely I have kept quiet about it. No big issue.



I am saddened by your remarks concerning my membership. I have introduced paying members to BPN and suggested to others in the bird photography community that they should look drop in on BPN. There is no requirement to pay for membership and I do not have to account to anyone as to why I am not a full member. On one particular occasion I may have taken the opportunity to complain about your conduct when you bordered on defaming me. At the very least you departed from the BPN rules regarding conduct towards others. I did not complain about you when perhaps I should have. I also recall on another occasion you attempted to moderate me for having made some off topic remark when it was you who started the off topic conservation. I have to say, I think if anyone has an agenda, it is you...not me.

All the best

AD

I have read your comments. You show up to comment on certain threads only, mostly to post negative comments towards me.

As for image critique, it doesn't make sense to me that you would post critiques on the avian forum from a position of authority without having posted a single photograph yourself.

Regarding membership, if you are using BPN for a couple of years and not paying a dime to help us keep it running, you have no respect for us. The membership fee is so small, it is hardly a burden on anyone. If you don't get anything from it why waste your time posting? Fortunately the new membership rules will eliminate this kind of abuse.

regards

[shane shacaluga]

Keeping to the noise vs detail theme on both convertors. (lets please keep on topic as its a very informative discussion without the need for personal attacks etc)

From the latest 2 images from Diane, what i immediately notice is the difference in the birds iris and under the beak.

This would be noise/grain in my opinion. I suppose that noise/grain, from a distance is not visible as such but will act like small pixels and will add to the appearance of detail and contours. It would however cause problems at the time of sharpening i suspect.

As a Nikon user I am still undecided whether Capture NXD or ACR is best but this discussion helps.

Regards

[adrian dancy]

Arash

With respect I think you are being ridiculous. You post on many threads I post on a few. I have on many threads and critiques agreed with you. Occasionally, you have made or expressed opinions and comments that I have found hard to swallow...so I have disagreed with you. That's all. I have sometimes disagreed with others. As I said above ....I am just a punter with no special expertise and nothing to prove.

I may have good reason not to become a full member...you should not make assumptions. If I disrespected BPN why would I invite others to join?....rhetorical. I will not engage with you any further with what is a side issue.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash

With respect I think you are being ridiculous. You post on many threads I post on a few. I have on many threads and critiques agreed with you. Occasionally, you have made or expressed opinions and comments that I have found hard to swallow...so I have disagreed with you. That's all. I have sometimes disagreed with others. As I said above ....I am just a punter with no special expertise and nothing to prove.

I may have good reason not to become a full member...you should not make assumptions. If I disrespected BPN why would I invite others to join?....rhetorical. I will not engage with you any further with what is a side issue.

I still think that you don't really contribute to the website in a positive manner, I don't believe we have gained any contributing time-full time members as a result of your activity here. FYI, after three months of posting the trial memberships will expire and posting privileges will cease. You may want to consider becoming an active member and contribute to the BPN or might as well stop posting now.

regards

[arash_hazeghi]

Keeping to the noise vs detail theme on both convertors. (lets please keep on topic as its a very informative discussion without the need for personal attacks etc)

From the latest 2 images from Diane, what i immediately notice is the difference in the birds iris and under the beak.

This would be noise/grain in my opinion. I suppose that noise/grain, from a distance is not visible as such but will act like small pixels and will add to the appearance of detail and contours. It would however cause problems at the time of sharpening i suspect.

As a Nikon user I am still undecided whether Capture NXD or ACR is best but this discussion helps.

Regards

Shane,

Diane did not use the best conversion in DPP. If she posts the RAW file, I'll provide a better comparison.

As for noise vs. detail, it depends. If the noise pattern is tight when you do calibrated noise reduction it will have minimal impact on detail. However if noise pattern is coarse or if it has banding nature, it will impact detail when you apply NR. Sharpening aggravates noise as you noted.

As for "noise act like small pixels and will add to the appearance of detail and contours" I don't really understand what you mean, all pixels are small and removing noise doesn't affect number of pixels in the image. Adding noise doesn't impact detail either, it just makes it look grainy.

As for NX2 vs ACR, I think if you search on the net you will find that most prominent Nikon users prefer Nikon Capture, here are a few examples. James Shadle had posted some examples here (granted now they are old).

here are a few links

http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/is-capture-nx-d-good-enough.html

http://www.richardpeters.co.uk/blog/2010/11/18/photoshop-vs-nikon-raw-conversion/


When I had Nikon back in 2008 I used to use ACR but I had much trouble rendering D700 files which turned out to be a common problems back then, so I gave it up, I even submitted some examples to Adobe Support back then, never heard back.

https://forums.adobe.com/message/2714723

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/468122?tstart=0

Later Adobe blamed Nikon for encrypting their WB data as an excuse for not being able to render the colors correctly. Sorry I no longer use Nikon so can't answer specific questions about it



Best,

[Diane Miller]

When a thread degenerates, as this one has, to the point of a poster who makes a legitimate point or states a rational opinion being attacked on a personal level, it's gotten ridiculous. I hope Adrian will forgive my butting in with a request that he tell you why he hasn't joined.

In the meantime, I have better things to do. I have convinced myself that I'll happily remain with Lightroom.

[Daniel Cadieux]

I never thought personal choice of preferred software would be so divisive! To me it's the same as Canon/Nikon, Coke/Pepsi, PC/MAc, Tomato/Tomahto...use whatever is available to you, or that you are most comfortable with, or gives off the best results for your tastes (or a combo of those). You give one raw file to 10 different competent people and you'll get 10 slightly differing results whatever software is used.

It's all in the way you use it. I'm a LR user, I use the vibrance and clarity sliders quite often, and never has one of my images been critiqued as looking un-natural. Moderation is key to most sliders/buttons. I personally love the results I get from LR. As for DPP, Arash has some of the most stunning bird photographs on the net with excellent processing to go with them, so obviously DPP is no slouch as far as software goes. If you are not sure which is best for you, give them both a try...DPP is free for Canon bodies, and LR has a free trial period (I believe it still does?)

I'm not singling out anyone here but: This thread has had tons of good info so let's keep it on topic, keep emotions in check, and hope to get even more excellent stuff out of it....thanks.

[Ian Wilson]

Thanks everyone for a most interesting discussion. However, I wish for a little more rigour in the posting of images for comparison. Could we please have a comprehensive list of numerical values for the adjustments that have been made. For example, DPP users, please note the values for brightness, WB, SH, HL, saturation, input black, mid-tone and white point exposure values, output black and white point DNs, luminance NR, chrominance NR, DLO parameter, sharpening and similarly for ACR users. This will be very helpful for members confused about 'default' settings and 'recommended' values. Regards, Ian

[arash_hazeghi]

When a thread degenerates, as this one has, to the point of a poster who makes a legitimate point or states a rational opinion.

I don't think anyone attacked you, we just attempted to debunk the misinformation and in the process demonstrate how to use DPP properly.

Also, was this the "rational opinion" you are referring to?

Many of the reasons I see for using the Canon DPP indicate the user just doesn't understand ACR/Lightroom's development settings.

This thread has not degenerated, it has just become noisy. I will happily convert more RAW files with DPP so members can compare with other RAW converters and decide for themselves.

PS. I agree with Daniel that a skilled photographer can get excellent results with any software they use, especially if they don't focus primarily on high ISO's that are often required for flight.

Regards.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks everyone for a most interesting discussion. However, I wish for a little more rigour in the posting of images for comparison. Could we please have a comprehensive list of numerical values for the adjustments that have been made. For example, DPP users, please note the values for brightness, WB, SH, HL, saturation, input black, mid-tone and white point exposure values, output black and white point DNs, luminance NR, chrominance NR, DLO parameter, sharpening and similarly for ACR users. This will be very helpful for members confused about 'default' settings and 'recommended' values. Regards, Ian

Hi Ian,

If you have a particular image in mind, please send me the RAW file and I will happily provide the DPP conversion parameters. We can compare the end result with ACR.

You are absolutely right, the the recommended/default values are just a baseline, every image is different and requires a bit of fine tuning. Images that are grossly underexposed like Diane's example require different parameters.

best

[Sandy Witvoet]

I am a somewhat neophyte in PP (have used both) ... but what Daniel posted makes the most sense here to me. (also thanks to everyone for a certainly spirited discussion!)

[Ian Wilson]

Hi Ian,

If you have a particular image in mind, please send me the RAW file and I will happily provide the DPP conversion parameters. We can compare the end result with ACR.

You are absolutely right, the the recommended/default values are just a baseline, every image is different and requires a bit of fine tuning. Images that are grossly underexposed like Diane's example require different parameters.

best

Thanks Arash for the offer to process one of my images. Unfortunately, I am in the middle of packing for a one month birding/photography trip to Africa, departing tomorrow. I hope some other members will have time to submit a test image for comparison. Regards, Ian

[Diane Miller]

I don't think anyone attacked you, we just attempted to debunk the misinformation and in the process demonstrate how to use DPP properly.

Also, was this the "rational opinion" you are referring to?

Many of the reasons I see for using the Canon DPP indicate the user just doesn't understand ACR/Lightroom's development settings.

This thread has not degenerated, it has just become noisy. I will happily convert more RAW files with DPP so members can compare with other RAW converters and decide for themselves.

PS. I agree with Daniel that a skilled photographer can get excellent results with any software they use, especially if they don't focus primarily on high ISO's that are often required for flight.

Regards.

It wasn't ME that I was referring to as being attacked. Refer to panes 68 and 71.

[shane shacaluga]

Doesnt anyone have a tricky file they would like to submit!