DPP4 vs LR CC Raw conversions questions

Hi All,

I trying to come up with a digital workflow that works for me now as I become more familiar with DPP, LR and PS. I’m open to changes as I improve my skills in the applications, but I’ve already hit a snag.

I started out using LR CC to import all my RAW images (like how LR automatically drops them into dated folders) and noticed as the previews were building, the previews looked good on the first pass but as LR made the second pass the tonal quality deteriorated. The best way I can describe it is they lost their “pop”.

I can bring them back by adjusting the contrast, exposure and dehaze sliders, but that adds more time to basic processing of each image. And not each image needs the same amount so building a recipe doesn’t fully solve the issue. Using just the Highlights and Shadows helps, but I seem to always need to go back and add at least some combination of Exposure, Contrast or dehaze.

I haven’t changed any settings for importing images.

If I use DPP4, the images look much closer to what I expect and even what the first preview in LR looks like before the second pass. However, at my current skill level, I’m more successful with processing images in LR. So for now, I’m using DPP4 for RAW conversion to a TIF file and passing it over to LR. Not very efficient, I know. Have no idea if that is impacting image quality either.

The image is just a quick snapshot showing how DPP4 and LR CC both represent the same image during import. No adjustments were made to either photo. Just opened the image in both applications, used the snipping tool to grab the image from each application and put them side by side. The tonality of the DPP4 image is much closer to what I saw in the camera.

Have I somehow goofed up the LR import settings or is this a function of different RAW converters?

Sorry for the long read, but hopefully that gives enough information to start from.

Randy

Hi Randy,


If you use DPP for RAW conversion you don't really need LR, but it looks like you aren't familiar with DPP. Check out Artie's DPP4 guide, it makes it really easy and explains how to get a natural sharp image quickly without having to fiddle with too many settings

Best,

Hi Arash,

Yep, I agree that if I was more proficient with DPP, LR would not be necessary in my current workflow. Personally, I like the layout of the Develop module within LR more than the tab layout in DPP.

In looking through this forum there are users of both applications that are producing beautiful results. Was hoping there was a simple fix to the LR RAW conversion that would produce results similar to DPP.

Thanks for the information about the DPP4 guide. I've purchased a copy and will give DPP4 another shot.

Best,

Randy

The guide will teach you how to make the DPP layout very similar to LR.

Best

Just to add a little more information, your image from LR looks much better to me as a starting point, with much better detail in highlights and shadows. (Using a calibrated monitor and relying on the information in the histogram is always key to the best image.)

The first pass in LR is showing your in-camera settings that affect the JPEG on the back of the camera. Then LR builds a preview with its raw develop settings, with an attempt to recover highlight and shadow detail if necessary. A raw converter has certain initial parameters for displaying the image, but they are completely flexible (with the exception of completely blown highlights and blocked shadows) to be adjusted without damage to an image (assuming it is a raw file). LR (same as Adobe Camera Raw with a different interface) does require moving a few sliders to let you get the most desirable look from an image, but I find they are very intuitive and easy to use, and are well worth the "trouble" because of the amount of tonal control for detail in lights and darks. Images intentionally come in with somewhat low contrast (depending on the initial lighting and exposure) which can be expanded as desired, and independently in the lighter and darker areas.

I spend about 30 seconds adjusting each image, and if there is a set in the same lighting I can select all of them in the filmstrip and use the Sync function. Having a preset white balance in the camera helps remove any differences in the frames, and is completely flexible in raw conversion.

You're much better off processing the raw file in LR rather than bringing in a TIFF from DPP or any other application that has glued tonalities into the file. You have much more overhead in the raw file for tonal control.

An excellent guide to processing in LR is the e-book by Michael Frye, featured on his homepage: http://www.michaelfrye.com/ It's about much more than landscapes.

I just saw some relevant information to this in another thread. See pane 10, the comment by Steve Kaluski.

Re. Randy's question about making the LR output look like DPP, it is not possible.

This is because DPP uses Canon proprietary demosaic algorithm tailored to your camera's image sensor characteristics including color filter and low pass filter. LR uses generic, open-source algorithm based on DCRAW for all cameras. LR cannot read and decode the WB of Canon CR2 files. What it does is that it uses a lookup table. They photograph a color chart, then try to adjust each color based on absolute value. But it doesn't work because the image sensor's color response is not linear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diane Miller

I just saw some relevant information to this in another thread. See pane 10, the comment by Steve Kaluski.

---

Hi Diane,

Pane 10...????

Sorry, forgot to paste in the link.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ead.php/134836

Got it. Thanks for the insight and detailed explanation. Still on the fence on which method to follow, but more practice in both applications will sort that out soon enough.

Best,

Randy

Hi Randall, I won't rehash any of the above, but will add my own 'limited personal' POV in part.

You will never get the same output from a RAW converted by DPP & LR, so to try and match is, I think, a waste of time because you are not playing on a level playing field.

Both programmes have their own merits (+ & -) and there has ben countless discussions within BPN about the two convertors. Canon's DPP is free and coupled with Artie & Arash's guide you will have a better understanding and a solid foundation in which to build on. LR & PS CC is a 'fee' based programme, so straight away you have a 'budget' to think about and once in, you are tied. You also have to think about how easy you find working within the respective software, as I grew up with PS since 92', LR was the natural progression, however I did use in the early days both DPP & Capture One, but LR for me just worked.

Quote:

---

Still on the fence on which method to follow, but more practice in both applications will sort that out soon enough.

---

If you have the option to play and explore both programmes then great, few do, then make your choice as both produce outstanding images. However if you do not understand how it works, or start to flounder and make mistakes, then perhaps that particular programme is not for you, you need to clearly understand it, but use it with ease and feel comfortable in it's usage, otherwise your hard work in capturing the moment will not be reflected in the final output, as both capturing & PP need to dovetail and both have a symbiotic relationship where neither can do without the other.

This 'Process' is a constantly evolving one and a Workflow should never be a straightjacket, you should in time, hone, develop and refine with the skills and understanding you gain.

Steve

Thanks Steve. My underlying question was if I had done something within LR to impact the raw import "out of the box". Appreciate everyone's responses to my question. I've now got a better understanding on this part of the post processing step.

Best,

Randy

Hi Randall i can only echo Steve´s very wise chosen words .....:wave:
Leaving the endless discussions alone ..... because the users will never come to a final agreement regarding the two applications :bg3:
Try both and find out what suits you best ........

Cheers Andreas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randall Link

Thanks Steve. My underlying question was if I had done something within LR to impact the raw import "out of the box". Appreciate everyone's responses to my question. I've now got a better understanding on this part of the post processing step.

Best,

Randy

---

Hi Randy, I am not sure about Lightroom but it should still be in the same place in that program as in ACR on the tools pallet there is a little triangle icon click on that and a drop down menu will appear click on camera raw defaults if you had accidentally set up a custom default this will correct it. Also you want to check the camera profile tab again on the tool pallet make sure the process is set to current also on this tab you can change the profile the default setting is Adobe Standard I prefer Camera standard for most of my images but each image is different so I will click through them just to see which one I prefer I also do this when using DPP. I use both converters regularly depending on the image I personally feel DPP does a better job on high ISO images but since I learned how to process Raws in ACR I default to it out of habit on non challenging images. As to which program to get I need PS for just about every image I process so Lightroom has never been a stand alone option for me and have settled on Bridge ACR, DPP, and PS workflow. If you do go the DPP route you will still need PS for further editing.

Hi Don,

Good to know. In my installation of Lightroom CC, the little triangle icon doesn't exist. So, I don't believe that there is a custom default set. Camera Calibration options are 2012 (Current), 2010, 2003. I've been using 2012 (Current). Also, I've left all the Profile sliders at Zero. Had a chance to take the same raw file and process independently in DPP4 and LR CC. While I achieve a similar result in both, I was more efficient in LR. While it's somewhat convoluted, I'm doing initial sharpening in DPP4 as outlined in the DPP4 guide and then bringing the result into LR for further edits and then to Ps if required. Attached is my current workflow.

With more time and experience, this will be refined!

Thanks for the help.

Best,

Randy

Hi Andreas,

Certainly not trying to stir up trouble. :bg3:

More likely that I'm digging deeper than necessary. Old Engineering habits never really go away.

Best,

Randy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andreas Liedmann

Hi Randall i can only echo Steve´s very wise chosen words .....:wave:
Leaving the endless discussions alone ..... because the users will never come to a final agreement regarding the two applications :bg3:
Try both and find out what suits you best ........

Cheers Andreas

---

You can make a custom default for import in LR. Open a file and set up the desired settings and save it as a default. I only add the CA correction -- the other settings I like are the defaults. The 2012 process is the best for best tonal detail in darks and lights -- different sliders that behave differently than prior. And older files work equally well with them.

If you do initial sharpening in DPP you get a TIFF with tonalities cemented in. It is much better to work with the added overhead of a raw file for shadow and highlight detail.

The only true sharpening is in camera -- all else is by artifacts. Slightly over-sharpen in LR and DPP and compare at 100 or 200%. And compare results with noise reduction in DPP vs. LR. Compare the LR result with later adding Nik Dfine in PS for noise reduction. It does an amazing job of reducing noise where it is obvious while preserving detail. That's the trick -- reducing noise without getting a plastic look. Again, slightly overdo it and magnify to see what is really happening. Because that will be a factor when you enlarge for printing or reduce for web presentation.

They key thing is to compare methods and parameters not for a perfect file that needs almost no correction, but for a file from which you want to be able to salvage some information.

Not possible to dig too deeply with digital files. :S3:

Hi Randy,

It seems to me that you have devised a highly redundant, overly complicated and time consuming workflow. It will waste much of your time and will not achieve much...

There is really no point in importing a TIFF file into LR. it doesn't do anything for it. LR is for converting a RAW file into a TIFF file, not for editing a TIFF file, you use Photoshop for that.

I suggests just pick a RAW conversion software, stick with it and delete the rest....

As for sharpening, there is no such thing as "true sharpening". In-camera sharpening is applied to JPEG's that are cooked by the camera, it doesn't affect RAW data. Adobe (LR/PS) can only apply deconvolution sharpening after demosaic. This is called post-sharpening (smart sharpen or the older unsharp mask). DPP can apply either post sharpening or RAW sharpening. RAW sharpening means deconvolution is calculated at the same time the RAW data is being demosaiced. This form of sharpening is much more effective than post sharpening for your master TIFF files. Once the file has been prepared and resized for a given presentation format, you apply post sharpening in photoshop to recover the detail lost during resizing process.

Remember, the more time you spend on the computer, the less time you have to spend outside. Hours and hours of post processing will not do a thing to improve your photography skills, that's what counts at the end of the day and where you should focus most of your efforts. If your files aren't great to begin with, post processing them is a just a waste of time :S3: just something to keep in mind....

side note, cloud backup is useless for backing up volume RAW files. You will realize this once you have thousands of RAW files accumulated...backing them up or accessing your files would be painfully slow. local GigaBit NAS is a bit better but still very slow...I use a thunderbolt RAID1 array, there are USB3 versions for PC....

good luck

Hi Arash,

In my line of work, "highly redundant" would be considered a compliment! :S3:

Seriously though, to be clear, I don't import a .TIF into LR. When I perform the DPP4 sharpening as detailed in the DPP4 guide, I save the file back to a RAW file. From there, I can open the RAW project image I wish to work on into LR. Or if I have a whole series, I can import them quite easily as well. The DPP4 process is definitely an added step that I may do away with in the future, but it requires very little time since I built a sharpening recipe to apply to the RAW files. I shot 124 images on Sunday and running the recipe against these was completed in seconds.

Thanks for the added insight on sharpening. I only perform the initial sharpening listed above then at the output stage as you outlined in your post.

I have to disagree with your opinion on backing up images to the cloud. I have an on-premise device (5.4TB iSCSI array with private cloud running) which is only limited in speed by my Gig switch/router and the actual write time to the array. Still using spinners in this array as I just can't justify going to SSDs from a price perspective yet. Since the on-premise device is a mirror of my working drive, it's working behind the scenes with no noticeable impact to other tasks I may be doing. The offsite cloud is configured for storage only, so it has all my images and other personal backups. This runs across a Gig fiber connection from my residence to the web. Smart scheduling backups during off hours to this cloud means no time impact on my part. I've had this setup for going on 3 years and it has served me very well when the odd Windows or hardware implosion occurs. While I don't like the terms, it's virtually "set it and forget it". To be clear, I didn't run out and buy all this stuff just for images. It's my digital library for all things important along with other methods not listed.

Trust me, I'm spending as much time "in the field" as my work schedule and other interests allow. And enjoying every minute of it!

Best Regards,

Randy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Hi Randy,

It seems to me that you have devised a highly redundant, overly complicated and time consuming workflow. It will waste much of your time and will not achieve much...

There is really no point in importing a TIFF file into LR. it doesn't do anything for it. LR is for converting a RAW file into a TIFF file, not for editing a TIFF file, you use Photoshop for that.

I suggests just pick a RAW conversion software, stick with it and delete the rest....

As for sharpening, there is no such thing as "true sharpening". In-camera sharpening is applied to JPEG's that are cooked by the camera, it doesn't affect RAW data. Adobe (LR/PS) can only apply deconvolution sharpening after demosaic. This is called post-sharpening (smart sharpen or the older unsharp mask). DPP can apply either post sharpening or RAW sharpening. RAW sharpening means deconvolution is calculated at the same time the RAW data is being demosaiced. This form of sharpening is much more effective than post sharpening for your master TIFF files. Once the file has been prepared and resized for a given presentation format, you apply post sharpening in photoshop to recover the detail lost during resizing process.

Remember, the more time you spend on the computer, the less time you have to spend outside. Hours and hours of post processing will not do a thing to improve your photography skills, that's what counts at the end of the day and where you should focus most of your efforts. If your files aren't great to begin with, post processing them is a just a waste of time :S3: just something to keep in mind....

side note, cloud backup is useless for backing up volume RAW files. You will realize this once you have thousands of RAW files accumulated...backing them up or accessing your files would be painfully slow. local GigaBit NAS is a bit better but still very slow...I use a thunderbolt RAID1 array, there are USB3 versions for PC....

good luck

---

To clarify, when I said, "The only true sharpening is in camera -- all else is by artifacts" I meant by getting the sharpest image with the best air quality, lens quality, focus and stablization of the image during the exposure time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diane Miller

To clarify, when I said, "The only true sharpening is in camera -- all else is by artifacts" I meant by getting the sharpest image with the best air quality, lens quality, focus and stablization of the image during the exposure time.

---

I agree, if the RAW isn't sharp the output will not look good no matter what you do. no amount of sharpening or post processing can make up for a lousy capture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randall Link

Hi Arash,

In my line of work, "highly redundant" would be considered a compliment! :S3:

Seriously though, to be clear, I don't import a .TIF into LR. When I perform the DPP4 sharpening as detailed in the DPP4 guide, I save the file back to a RAW file. From there, I can open the RAW project image I wish to work on into LR. Or if I have a whole series, I can import them quite easily as well. The DPP4 process is definitely an added step that I may do away with in the future, but it requires very little time since I built a sharpening recipe to apply to the RAW files. I shot 124 images on Sunday and running the recipe against these was completed in seconds.

Thanks for the added insight on sharpening. I only perform the initial sharpening listed above then at the output stage as you outlined in your post.

I have to disagree with your opinion on backing up images to the cloud. I have an on-premise device (5.4TB iSCSI array with private cloud running) which is only limited in speed by my Gig switch/router and the actual write time to the array. Still using spinners in this array as I just can't justify going to SSDs from a price perspective yet. Since the on-premise device is a mirror of my working drive, it's working behind the scenes with no noticeable impact to other tasks I may be doing. The offsite cloud is configured for storage only, so it has all my images and other personal backups. This runs across a Gig fiber connection from my residence to the web. Smart scheduling backups during off hours to this cloud means no time impact on my part. I've had this setup for going on 3 years and it has served me very well when the odd Windows or hardware implosion occurs. While I don't like the terms, it's virtually "set it and forget it". To be clear, I didn't run out and buy all this stuff just for images. It's my digital library for all things important along with other methods not listed.

Trust me, I'm spending as much time "in the field" as my work schedule and other interests allow. And enjoying every minute of it!

Best Regards,

Randy

---

Hi Randy,

It seems to me you don't quite understand how things work yet :S3:

There is no such thing as sharpening a RAW file. When you sharpen a RAW, you are sharpening the output of the RAW conversion process. The RAW data is intact.

When you change the sharpness parameter in DPP and save it, the RAW data doesn't change, DPP only saves the recipe to the file header, so next time when you open the file the recipe will be applied automatically.

LR cannot read or apply the recipes saved by DPP. It reads the same RAW data and does exactly the same thing regardless of what you did in DPP. Therefore what you are doing, i.e. saving a CR2 file in DPP and opening it in LR makes no sense.

I still think your flow including cloud backup over the net is un-optimal for the purpose of RAW image processing (it could be great for other applications such as Windows backup) It seems to me you have only shot few files and haven't had much experience dealing with tens of thousands of images yet. To give you an idea, I shoot several thousand files per shoot session easily, in addition to RAW files you need to save the master TIFF files once you do basic editing so pretty soon you will have tens of thousands of large files mounting to 10's of TB's if you go out and shoot a lot. If you only shoot 100 files per day then maybe the NAS solution works...

Best,

What Arash said , when I saw your post at work I was going to tell you the same thing but he beat me to it. One other thing I do not know about anyone else but I went from keeping all my images from a shoot when I started to ruthlessly editing them now both in the field by not pushing the shutter to begin with and when I get home saves a lot of disk space and time trying to fix mediocre images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Lacy

What Arash said , when I saw your post at work I was going to tell you the same thing but he beat me to it. One other thing I do not know about anyone else but I went from keeping all my images from a shoot when I started to ruthlessly editing them now both in the field by not pushing the shutter to begin with and when I get home saves a lot of disk space and time trying to fix mediocre images.

---

that kind of discipline is great, but sometimes for birds, wildlife (especially with flight and action) you need to shoot a full burst hoping to get the peak of action frame, the 7D2 shoots at 10fps, 1DX at 12 fps and now the 1DXII at 14fps so several seconds of tracking action in one instance alone can generate 30-40 files, multiply by 50 on a good dat and you got 2000 frames for a morning shoot alone. Of course then you have to download them and view on a large screen to figure which one is the sharpest....:bg3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

that kind of discipline is great, but sometimes for birds, wildlife (especially with flight and action) you need to shoot a full burst hoping to get the peak of action frame, the 7D2 shoots at 10fps, 1DX at 12 fps and now the 1DXII at 14fps so several seconds of tracking action in one instance alone can generate 30-40 files, multiply by 50 on a good dat and you got 2000 frames for a morning shoot alone. Of course then you have to download them and view on a large screen to figure which one is the sharpest....:bg3:

---

Well of course I was talking more about all those beginner mistakes like shooting with the sun at a bad angle or your subject against a cluttered BG. When I came back from three days at Bosque a few years ago I had over 4000 images I culled that down to under a 100 but thats probably more a reflection on BIF skills then my editing choices :bg3:

Hi Arash, you don't know how close I was to asking about LR being able to interpret the DPP4 sharpening in my previous post! I had a suspicion that it wasn't after some side by side comparisons. Thanks for the confirmation as it will save me the DPP4 step all together.

Don, I've adopted the ruthless editing mindset as well. Save and backup only images which are important to me.

All image processing is done on my PC where a local copy remains. No way would I try to process an image across an network connection.

thanks for all the advice,

Randy