Advice to new 7D User

[Brad Newby]

I've just changed from Pentax to a 7D and started looking at my first prints. I've been using the "standard" style mode and I am finding that the prints are quite flat from both a contrast and saturation perspective.

What "style" are you birders using?

Does adjusting the raw after the fact create more noise than getting it right in the camera?

[John Chardine]

Hi Brad- I am not a 7D user, but I think you will find many here shoot RAW and accomplish all that Canon's Picture Styles can do in the processing phase. Canon's Digital Photo Professional understands the style settings on the camera but all other processing software (as far as I'm aware) does not. Anyway, bottom line is if you shoot RAW the Picture Style setting does not affect the RAW image, only the jpeg preview version that you look at on the LCD.

And to answer your last question, IMO it is much better to process the RAW image outside of the camera.

[Christopher C.M. Cooke]

Hi Brad- I am not a 7D user, but I think you will find many here shoot RAW and accomplish all that Canon's Picture Styles can do in the processing phase. Canon's Digital Photo Professional understands the style settings on the camera but all other processing software (as far as I'm aware) does not. Anyway, bottom line is if you shoot RAW the Picture Style setting does not affect the RAW image, only the jpeg preview version that you look at on the LCD.

And to answer your last question, IMO it is much better to process the RAW image outside of the camera.

I agree with that and I process all my RAW images in Canon's DPP convert to Tiff then move to CS4.

[Colin Knight]

Agreed with the others here. Shoot RAW and then convert using DPP.

Regarding the last question, the only way you would increase visible noise is by pushing the RAW file. So get the exposure right in camera. Also, you'll find that DPP has some really good Chroma NR.

[Charlie Woodrich]

Is DPP much more preferable than using ACR?

[Colin Knight]

There is no question about DPP vs. ACR/CS3. DPP is far superior. However, I've seen some very promising results from later ACR versions. But if you have the version associated with CS3, it's at least 1-2 stops worse in noise than DPP. I've tested this in the past and am thoroughly convinced.

[Charlie Woodrich]

Thanks Colin! I have ACR/CS4. Should I still consider DPP? One would think Adobe has made the proper adjustments by now.

[Colin Knight]

I would hope so! I've seen good results from ACR/CS4. As I said, the primary problem I had with ACR/CS3 was noise. I would process the same image at any ISO and compare results. ACR was almost always obscenely noisier!

You could do your own comparison with CS4 and see what you get. The ACR interface is so much better than DPP! It would be great if it yielded equal or better results. Please respond with your conclusion if you're able to.

[arash_hazeghi]

If you are new to Canon I recommend using Canon DPP sw, ACR cannot get the colors right off the box ( will need profiling) and the results will be grainy. Once you have established your desirable output you can use DPP's output to calibrate an ACR profile as well as your noise reduction program. DPP comes free with all Canon cameras.

[John Chardine]

My 2¢ worth- however good DPP is, the pain of using it far outweighs the benefits. It is very clear that the Japanese can produce world class hardware but software is another thing. The Americans and Europeans are light-years ahead of the Japanese in this regard.

[John Chardine]

There is no question about DPP vs. ACR/CS3. DPP is far superior. However, I've seen some very promising results from later ACR versions. But if you have the version associated with CS3, it's at least 1-2 stops worse in noise than DPP. I've tested this in the past and am thoroughly convinced.

Colin- OK both DPP and ACR have sliders to adjust noise. I can't see how you can say DPP is so many stops better than ACR unless somehow you have calibrated the sliders, and therefore actually mean "with the same settings in each program" (and if so how do you determine that?). Or do you mean that with NR off in both programs, DPP produces a less noisy result? If this is the case I would object to DPP applying some form of NR even though you have turned it off. Surely you can set the sliders in ACR to produce just as pleasing an image noise-wise as DPP (of course the sliders in each won't be in the same places but who cares?).

[arash_hazeghi]

My 2¢ worth- The Americans and Europeans are light-years ahead of the Japanese in this regard.

Very interesting comments John. Neither DPP sw is coded in Japan, nor Adobe sw is coded in the US. Components are coded in India and China where it is 10 times cheaper to hire software engineers. In fact only 40% of Adobe employees now work down the road here in San Jose, used to be 95% in 1996 . Just try to call their 800 tech support number and ask them where they are located. The only software that is coded in Japan is the firmware that runs your camera.

[John Chardine]

What I was really talking about Arash was the overall quality of the software, the way it works, it's functionality, how fast it is and how stable, QA/QC etc. None of this has much to do with the particular folks who churn out the code, or where this is done. On the contrary it has everything to do with the software engineers (I don't mean the programmers), the managers, the people who design the software, the development team. The code could be great in DPP (although I doubt it seeing what a pig it is on some machines), but ultimately the software is the responsibility of Canon and it's managers and I just don't think it is up to par with software sold by American companies such as Apple and Adobe, among many others. And DPP isn't the only example of this. The Nikon image and scanning software is pretty bad (I use this at work), as are most user interfaces of DVD machines, TV remotes, many mobile phones, and the like.

It doesn't matter how good a builder you get to construct your house, if it's poorly designed, it will be a bad house in the end.

[ML Diggs]

Lightroom 2.0 and later also allows a user to apply Canon's picture styles to a raw file with a single click; however, with my 40D, I did a test. I took a jpeg using a picture style, a raw and applied a picture style, and a raw that I processed from scratch to my liking. The best results came from the Raw processed from scratch in LR. Of course it took much longer, but I was much happier with the results and didn't have to fight changes applied automatically with the picture style.

[arash_hazeghi]

What I was really talking about Arash was the overall quality of the software, the way it works, it's functionality, how fast it is and how stable, QA/QC etc. None of this has much to do with the particular folks who churn out the code, or where this is done. On the contrary it has everything to do with the software engineers (I don't mean the programmers), the managers, the people who design the software, the development team. The code could be great in DPP (although I doubt it seeing what a pig it is on some machines), but ultimately the software is the responsibility of Canon and it's managers and I just don't think it is up to par with software sold by American companies such as Apple and Adobe, among many others. And DPP isn't the only example of this. The Nikon image and scanning software is pretty bad (I use this at work), as are most user interfaces of DVD machines, TV remotes, many mobile phones, and the like.

It doesn't matter how good a builder you get to construct your house, if it's poorly designed, it will be a bad house in the end.

Canon is not a sw company and is not selling you their sw, so you should not expect them to compete with Adobe that is a primary software company with three decades of experience and have revenue from sw. SW is not a priority for Canon, they don't make money out of it, they provide it as side for their products. Canon just defines certain features they want and then the third party does it for them.

Also, Canon DPP runs a LOT faster than LR on PCs because it is much simpler engine, if it doesn't on a Mac, it is a Mac problem. It is stable and doesn't crash.

When you say Nikon sw is bad, have you used Nikon Capture NX2? If so can you point out what is bad about it? Again if it runs slow on a Mac it is a Mac problem.

I don't agree that DPP is such a bad and incapable sw, I have used it to process thousands of RAW files, it works fine and I have produced results that everybody has liked, more than 200 Avian photos that I have posted on this website have all been processed with DPP, so it works. Furthermore DPP/NX2 use proprietary algorithms for demosaic, noise reduction and sharpening fine tuned for each camera based on the image sensor characteristics, Adobe do not have this information, they use generic and open-source DC RAW engine so the output is not as good.

This is a personal choice, everybody should try and see what they are more comfortable using :)

[Brad Newby]

Thank you. That's what I was missing. I only shoot raw, but I use Lightroom for the initial processing and PS when localized processing is required.

I want to know, who writes these user guides? Both Pentax and Canon are uniformly bad. I triple checked this subject and there was nothing to suggest that it was limited to JPEGS.

I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that Canon produces flatter, less saturated photos than Pentax does.

[phillane]

Wow



I have used both DPP and CS4 ACR converter on a Mac G5 with 8 gigs of ram on board. It's not even a shooting match DPP is as fast as Molasses winter. I shudder to think about processing several hundred RAW files using DPP.
Someone mentioned importing profiles into CS4's ACR, could you expand on the details of what your doing so I can make a comparison of processed images. So far my moneys on CS4 and day of the week including Sundays.

[arash_hazeghi]

G5 is an ancient machine doesn't matter how much RAM you have, CPU is the problem. Should avoid using DPP or any Canon sw on non-Intel Macs, it is a waste of time.

On my computer DPP takes 1.3 sec to fully convert a 5DMKII file, LR takes 2.4 sec. Would be nice if someone can compare them on a modern Mac pro system based on i7 CPU.

Wow



I have used both DPP and CS4 ACR converter on a Mac G5 with 8 gigs of ram on board. It's not even a shooting match DPP is as fast as Molasses winter. I shudder to think about processing several hundred RAW files using DPP.
Someone mentioned importing profiles into CS4's ACR, could you expand on the details of what your doing so I can make a comparison of processed images. So far my moneys on CS4 and day of the week including Sundays.

[phillane]

Arash

I have taken the liberty of defining ancient for you. Ancient \An"cient\, a. [OE. auncien, F. ancien, LL. antianus, fr. L. ante before. See Ante-, pref.] 1. Old; that happened or existed in former times, usually at a great distance of time; belonging to times long past; specifically applied to the times before the fall of the Roman empire; -- opposed to modern; as, ancient authors. Perhaps you have overstated the facts a tad? ::D

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash

I have taken the liberty of defining ancient for you. Ancient \An"cient\, a. [OE. auncien, F. ancien, LL. antianus, fr. L. ante before. See Ante-, pref.] 1. Old; that happened or existed in former times, usually at a great distance of time; belonging to times long past; specifically applied to the times before the fall of the Roman empire; -- opposed to modern; as, ancient authors. Perhaps you have overstated the facts a tad? ::D

Phil,

In semiconductor and computer industry we call anything older than a few years old "ancient" because things change so fast! In fact we donate such equipment to computer history museum in Mountain View, CA. Should def visit when you get a chance, lots of stuff and plenty of G5's there ;) The PowerPC CPU used in those machines is history now. So maybe the choice of word was not so bad after all :eek: :)

[phillane]

Ahh spoken like a true PC man :D

[arash_hazeghi]

Ahh spoken like a true PC man :D

Haha macs are nice too, somethings they just don't run fast, DPP is one of them unfortunately. But Canon users still lucky, you would be crying if you ever try to run Capture NX2 on a mac, even on the new Intel machines!!! You will just give up photography :eek:

[Don Hamilton Jr.]

Arash, could you outline you work flow please. This is an interesting thread for sure. I've recently used dpp, to get clip and paste the camera parameters to my post, too bad cs4 can't do it.. just curious about your workflow.
Thks don

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, could you outline you work flow please. This is an interesting thread for sure. I've recently used dpp, to get clip and paste the camera parameters to my post, too bad cs4 can't do it.. just curious about your workflow.
Thks don

1) Download all CR2 files rename to jobtitle_date during download.
2) Open DPP Ctrl+A to select all, then go to tool-->start quick check tool.
3) I use three tags to tag photo as I browse through all the images, Alt+1 for bad photos Alt+2 for so so and Alt+3 for good shots
4) Edit-> select check mark 1 only--> delete to trash all bad photos->empty trash :)
5) New collection, pick the best photo from check mark 3, add to collection.
6) Open RAW files in the collection, then I fine-tune exposure using EV slider and shadow/highlight sliders as needed. Then adjust sharpening/ noise reduction according to my camera/ISO matrix. Apply CA correction if needed.
7) right click-> copy develop settings
8) right click on any photo that is similar-> paste setting to immediately clone settings.
9) batch process to convert to 16Bit TIFF.
10) Drag and drop TIFF file to PS if cloning and other advanced edit such as masking etc needed.
11) If there is time go back to see if any check mark 2 photos are worth processing.
12) Mirror everything to backup drive.

Hope this helps