Lion and DPP

[Edward Arthur]

I don't know if this belongs in the Workflow forum or not. Playing around with DPP 4 and really liking the results. Awaiting delivery of the DPP guide from Arash and Artie.



This guy was guarding a giraffe carcass when an elephant family stumbled upon him. They backed him down under the trees when they felt threatened and he was not liking it.
Taken at Okavango Delta, Botswana

Canon 6D
Zeiss 80-200/4 @ 200mm
1/320 ISO 320 f/5.6
HH and manual focus

I used DPP 4 for basic tweaks and sharpening, then PS CC for sizing, Guassian blur and curves for BG, healing and smart sharpening on subject, then into LR5 for conversion to jpeg and output sharpening. There may be an easier way. . .

At any rate, all comments welcomed. :)

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Ed, agree with Peters two points, but also having more room at the foot of the image rather than above would be better. Also to me, it looks more like too much Gaussian Blur in the FG rather than DoF, it's too abrupt IMHO, why do you need to add GB, just curious? I would refer back to some of your previous Lion postings, they had a better overall colour, this is too orange/red even for the Okavango delta, were was this Duba?

Ed, keep your processing workflow simple, the easy way is to process the RAW in LR which you know, export to PS CC2014 to do some simple refinements, then back to LR to Export for web, print etc. Adding DPP into the equation certainly makes for a long winded Workflow and the more you add in the more it will move away from the original capture, LR PS dovetail so well and are, IMHO excellent marriage that just works.

[arash_hazeghi]

Ed after you study the guide you will realize that you will not need Adobe LR anywhere in your work flow. DPP plus CS6 is what I use and I never need anything else.

Nice image BTW I only wish there was more intense eye contact from the lion

[Steve Kaluski]

I guess it's personal preference Arash and many ways to 'skin a cat', just seems to me he was getting good results previously and this for me is a step backwards.

[arash_hazeghi]

I am.not sure what you are trying to say. What is a step backward?

[Steve Kaluski]

From my recollection Arash, previous images were done through LR/PS and they were looking good, this isn't as good based on my 'assumption' of processing and final posting, therefore to me Ed was working well with LR & PS, hence a step back.

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Ed nice lion with a good pose , i only think for more balance you need more room on bottom or more to the LHS . The image does look too colorful to me and too crunchy in parts .

To Arash and Steve , we all have our own ways how to process things . I do not think that a lot of people are complain about both of your images and you are having a totally different approach !!! I think it is the operator who makes the faults , if any , not the software .
Back to the image without knowing the raw file . I think from my experience with DPP , the base raw file was overexposed ,than was the standard tone curve was used plus HL recovery ( the BG does look like it ) . With the heavy use of HL and shadow recovery in both LR/DPP you get that muddy look .Better option would be double process the image , but there LR has an advantage because you can open as smart object and go back to LR straight . While with DPP you have to go back and reload a second file and blend them together within PS , so a bit more clunky .

In the end i would use DPP and PS or LR and PS but i would not mix them . But for a good output you need a good file to start with in both apps , and i feel this is not the case .

Ed maybe you can upload the out of cam file with no adjustments , i really hope my feelings are not that bad . From looking at the file here i feel the HL are well blown and not recoverable in both LR and DPP , just my 2 cents .

TFS Andreas

[arash_hazeghi]

From my recollection Arash, previous images were done through LR/PS and they were looking good, this isn't as good based on my 'assumption' of processing and final posting, therefore to me Ed was working well with LR & PS, hence a step back.

I am not sure I agree Steve.

IMO DPP produces better results. I don't know what settings were used here and what the RAW file looked like so I have no idea without seeing the RAW file. I don't think you can compare this image to another image and make a meaningful conclusion. You can, however, compare the same image developed by different RAW converters.

best

[Edward Arthur]

Hey gang, thanks for all the great comments and dialog. Much appreciated!

Peter, I currently use only manual Zeiss lenses although I've rented some Canon tele/zooms as I decide where to go with that. . . and can justify to the Mrs. Up until recently my photography never really required AF/IS -- shooting mainly portraits, flowers, sleeping dogs and parked cars. :)

Andreas, I agree now that I look at it again here. This is a new process for me that needs improving.

Steve and Arash, I have been using LR/PS. The only reason LR is in the equation in this image is because it preserves all the EXIF, resizes and does proper output sharpening. Save-for-web in PS CC seems to blow out all the EXIF even when I tell it to preserve the metadata. I used to think DPP was clumsy and primitive and got rid of it long ago but version 4 is a huge improvement at least from a useability standpoint. After working with just a few of my older images for comparison I really do believe it can produce outstanding if not better pre-PS results, even with my feeble attempts. (I made this image before receiving the DPP guide.)

I definitely agree about keeping the process simple, even though I'm often lured into gimmicks. Looking for that winning combination. That's part of learning I suppose. :)

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Ed,
DPP also preserves EXIF. It also saves other valuable info. such as micro-adjust value or AI-servo mode which third party programs don't see. Save for web in Photoshop also preserves EXIF, you just need to click on the "embed EXIF" box

The best output sharpening is the one that is done on the subject only and not the BG, for that you need full layers capability that only Photoshop has.

best

[Steve Kaluski]

I think guys we seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet in principal, but come from different directions.

IMHO each Raw converter has it's pro & cons (here we may agree to disagree), and so perhaps our choice is what 'we' think provides the best result whatever that may be, and also it fits in with our own workflow. As we learn and develop over time and technology constantly develops/evolves we begin to distill and hone our workflows and grow more. In my 'limited' time I have gone through Capture one, DPP, ACR & LR and now use LR & PS CC2014, but that is my own choice and path, but perhaps on occasion I should try DPP on certain images to see the comparison. It may mean depending on the image I hedge hope between the two, keeping options open, not blinkered and perhaps that is another option? DPP has come a long way in it's recent upgrade to 4 and certainly accompanied with Arash's guide is now a formidable RAW converter and obviously dedicated to Canon.

So Ed, I would make your choice and have only the two main softwares and if you choose DPP there is no need to use LR purely for final output, that's over kill/pointless, it just complicates things, all can be done within the PS module Ed as per Arash's replies above, the last being very important.

I guess where I'm coming from and the point I was trying to make was. At the early stages of Photography keeping both Capture & PP simple is key, find the RAW converter that works for you, produces the right results for you and couple it with PS. Build on this so you have a solid platform and good grasp of the basics, then once you have this you can then later on explore other software to enhance or expand what you are producing. At this stage Ed DO NOT get suckered in with gimmicks, the image will look crap and you will drown in the sea of software and ultimately waste your hard earned money better spent on kit.

PS is a fantastic tool of which we rarely scratch the surface with what it truly can do and a some of it often doesn't really apply within our/your PP steps.

Good luck Ed in whatever path you choose to take.

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Steve ............ well you found very wise words in general and even more for Ed , who has to find his way !!!!
Well for the others in this case me , Arash and yourself we have already found our way , i guess more or less .

Maestro you hit the nail hard on the head .

Cheers Andreas

[Diane Miller]

I'm always in search of how to produce the best image, and after capture that means how to pull the best information from the capture. I've carefully compared many, many images in both LR/ACR's engine, and then in DPP's, over several generation of both. I look at the results both viewing the full image and then at 100% or 200% zoom in critical areas. I look especially at the ability to pull detail out of shadows and highlights, and at noise. Then I take each into PS and see how I can work with it there to produce a final image.

I urge anyone to make that same comparison and decide for themselves. My carefully considered choice has not changed over the years, but I will keep checking every so often, as I have in about 50 images in the last month or so.

[Don Lacy]

Its not the Raw converter that caused the issues in this image it was the processing in PS and the choices made in the conversion. Gaussian Blur for example is a poor tool to create an OOF BG and FG it cannot reproduce the wonderful bokeh you get from a quality optic, the highlights are blown on the front leg and lack detail and there is a crunchiness caused by poor sharpening. Plus we do not know how good or poor the original capture was without seeing the Raw. My advice to Ed would be to never use Gaussian Blur to try and create the effects of bokeh, second the image was mage in high contrasty light which produces flat lighting and harsh shadows and highlights and it is better sometimes to put the camera down when the conditions are not right for photography and just enjoy the wonder that is in front of you. Also when it comes to sharpening it is best to sharpen in three steps first capture sharpening, second would be any creative sharpening, and finish with output sharpening the second and third steps should be done after the image is sized for output. Here is a link to my sharpening workflow I strongly suggest you click on the links at the bottom for more detailed articles to fully understand sharpening a digital image. http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ening-Workflow