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

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,

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.

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

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.

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

Regards Andreas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diane Miller

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diane Miller

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

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.

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Dienesch

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

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 ;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Dienesch

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.

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 !

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.

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 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

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?

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

Thank you Andreas, all very helpful information for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

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.

Attachment 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.

Attachment 150434

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

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.

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 .

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.

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

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

Cheers Andreas

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.

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

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.

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.

Attachment 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.


Attachment 150470

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

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.


Attachment 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

Attachment 150474

I hope this thread was instructive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Attachment 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.


Attachment 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.


Attachment 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

Attachment 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.

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.

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

It's still there -- I just checked.

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

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.

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