50D raw conversion

[Terry Sohl]

I just bought a 50D, and am just wondering about your experiences with raw file converters. Seems from what I've read, the packaged DPP does a much better job of than does CR, my preferred converter.

Anyone with much experience yet? Do you recommend DPP over CR at this stage, pending a (probable) update for CR down the road?

Just haven't ever been a fan of DPP in the past...

[Chris Starbuck]

Hi Terry.
Not a lot of experience so far, but a quick observation. While the DPP user interface and overall capabilities are much cruder than Adobe Camera Raw, DPP is the only raw converter (currently) that will make use of the in-camera high-ISO noise reduction settings during raw conversion for the 50D. ACR doesn't, and hence isn't able to do as good a job on noise reduction. Don't know if Adobe will ever update ACR to make use of those settings, and even if they do, who knows whether they'll implement the same algorithm as Canon? For my 20D I always did NR in ACR, but now with the 50D I'm using Nik Dfine 2.0 (as a plug-in for Photoshop CS4). I haven't really evaluated whether DPP produces any visible difference in image quality from ACR other than noise. I tend not to do a lot of adjusting in the raw conversion, other than exposure and white balance (and previously, noise reduction), so I prefer ACR for it's greater flexibility and better integration with Photoshop, especially with CS4 - now ACR lets you open the file as a Smart Object in PS, which allows you to alter the raw conversion settings later, from within PS, without having to completely start over.

[Alfred Forns]

Fully agree Chris !!

Terry I like to have a couple of options for converting but mostly use only one LR (ACR). One converter might give you better shadow detail, other better looking reds, other ability to reduce noise etc. ACR has gotten better and better with new features particularly related to local adjustments.

My favorite if it wasn't for the work flow would be Nikon's NX.

[Doug Brown]

I'm a big fan of Lightroom 2 but I don't like the way that it handles 50D files. The DPP interface is terrible. I've actually started shooting RAW + JPEG for high-ISO situations; I keep the RAW file on my hard drive, but will often use the JPEG in post-processing.

[Doug Brown]

ACR 5.2 just came out and my initial impression is that it does a better job than the previous version with 50D RAW files.

[Robert Amoruso]

Terry,

I use Breezebrowser Pro and ACR for conversions. I have not tried ACR on my new 50D files but used the latest alpha version of BBPro and was quite happy. DPP not used yet and I am still figuring out what will work best.

[Dave Phillips]

I have converted a few with Capture One and it's just as good as I've seen.....maybe better, but I like C1 colors.
DPP is good as it initially applies your in-cam pic style

[Gus Hallgren]

Hi Doug:

Curious when you received ACR 5.2 as I just got a 129.1 mb update when I opened CS4 tonight for the first time today with ACR 5.2 incld.

Regards

Gus

BTW: I guess NM comes before AZ with Adobe :D

[Jack Faller]

I have been using ACR 5.2 and apply Dfine 2.0 either in two rounds or using its internal masks that can be constructed through control points. This
allows greater control of the amount of noise reduction and where it is applied than DPP. DPP does give the impression of better noise reduction even if all NR is turned off. IMO it is applying significant NR even though it shouldn't be. In any event you can achieve similar results with ACR and using a plug-in like Dfine 2 in PS. So far, it appears to me that you really need more NR than you can get from ACR alone for ISO 800 and above with a 50D.
In summary, I prefer the ACR +NR plug-in for PS to using DPP.

[Kerry Perkins]

I have shot thousands of pictures with my 50D and have used both DPP and ACR. I find that DPP (vesion 3.5) does a much better job of presenting the image the way I have the camera set up, which is picture style "standard" (3 0 0 0). It makes sense to me that Canon would do a better job of the initial RAW decoding. Once you learn what DPP can do I think you will find that getting the best looking image you can from DPP (minus sharpening and noise reduction since you can't do them selectively), and then exporting to PS as a 16-bit TIFF will save you some time in the long run.

I suggest you try both workflows, and see what you think. I use both Dfine and Noise Ninja for noise. They both have nice features, and it depends on the image which one I end up using. For sharpening, I use PS smart sharpen and/or unsharp mask - again depending on the image. You can't beat PS for the arsenal of tools it has, but DPP does a good job with the conversion, IMHO. Also, my version of Bridge with CS3 isn't compatible with the 50D files, so DPP also makes a nice browser.

[Paul Granone]

I process 50D images with DPP v3.5.1 & Photoshop CS4.
I am having excellent results with Photoshop CS4 and Adobe Camera Raw V5.2

ACR v5.2 even allows you to pick profiles to match Canon. I choose "Canon Faithful" most of the time. The output appears to be an exact match of what DPP outputs.