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.
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:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane Miller
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
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 partQuote:
Originally Posted by Andreas Liedmann
Don i just send this file to PS for cropping and downsampling , nothing more done to my RP , but no problem
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
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.
again sorry I removed that statement from my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas Liedmann
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane Miller
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by John Guastella
We have different eyes apparently when it comes to such details. Some folks are even OK with noise or can't even see it.
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.
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
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:
Attachment 150558
DPP:
Attachment 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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrian dancy
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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrian dancy
regards
Shane,Quote:
Originally Posted by shane shacaluga
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/accessorie...od-enough.html
http://www.richardpeters.co.uk/blog/...aw-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,
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.
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.
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
I don't think anyone attacked you, we just attempted to debunk the misinformation and in the process demonstrate how to use DPP properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diane Miller
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.
Hi Ian,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Wilson
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
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!)
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, IanQuote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
It wasn't ME that I was referring to as being attacked. Refer to panes 68 and 71.Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
Doesnt anyone have a tricky file they would like to submit!
