Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Love LR workflow, but DPP conversion are better  (Read 12749 times)
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« on: August 13, 2006, 09:10:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I like LR's workflow compared to Canon DPP 2.1, however, I compared a bunch of RAW conversions of a shoot of cars taken at the New Hope Auto Show with my Canon 1DsMkII and 24-105 f4 L lens.

I set sharpening to zero on both programs. The DPP 2.1 conversions are clearly superior to the LR conversions. The DPP conversions are sharper with richer details (less fixing required in PS CS2).

I'm sure that I'll get flamed here, but as a serious amateur, I want to take pictures and get the best quality output without becoming a computer scientist.
Before the LR Windows beta was released, I did my own comparisons between ACR, DPP 2.1 and C1Pro. DPP provided the best results, followed by C1Pro then ACR.

If I could combine the ease of use of LR with the high quality conversions of DPP, I'd be a happy guy and I'd no longer need C1Pro.

Bud James
Lansdale, PA
« Last Edit: August 13, 2006, 09:13:40 AM by budjames » Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2006, 07:30:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I like LR's workflow compared to Canon DPP 2.1, however, I compared a bunch of RAW conversions of a shoot of cars taken at the New Hope Auto Show with my Canon 1DsMkII and 24-105 f4 L lens.

I set sharpening to zero on both programs. The DPP 2.1 conversions are clearly superior to the LR conversions. The DPP conversions are sharper with richer details (less fixing required in PS CS2).

I'm sure that I'll get flamed here, but as a serious amateur, I want to take pictures and get the best quality output without becoming a computer scientist.
Before the LR Windows beta was released, I did my own comparisons between ACR, DPP 2.1 and C1Pro. DPP provided the best results, followed by C1Pro then ACR.

If I could combine the ease of use of LR with the high quality conversions of DPP, I'd be a happy guy and I'd no longer need C1Pro.

Bud James
Lansdale, PA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with you - I have found the workflow in LR to be 2nd to none - I love it. Its intuitive, easy to use and very powerful.  I LOVE the slideshow module for on the spot shows for clients - for me it just works.

But...

I have also found Canon's DPP 2.1 to produce superior RAW conversions. Which frustrates me as I really really really want to use one program exclusivley and streamline my workflow.

At the moment I am doing the following:

1. Importing into LR by referencing the files in their existing locations.
2. Applying my check marks and generally sorting my images.
3. Then I open DPP and perform RAW conversions to 16 bit TIff on any files I want to convert.
4. If I then want to do any serious alterations I go back into LR and use the greyscale mixer and other tools.
5. Then its off to Photoshop for sharpening with th Photokit plug in.

IMO what LR needs [are you listening developers!] is:
1. Canons RAW processing algorithim - because its superior to what is currently being used.
2. PhotoKit Sharpener [current sharpening is just ok] - I know others have asked for this, and I hope it can be integrated.
3. The ability to have multiple libraries [which I beleive is coming in newer versions]

Both of these things would make as happy as a man with a new 39 mega pixel back.  
« Last Edit: August 15, 2006, 07:32:06 PM by JHolko » Logged

budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2006, 08:14:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree with you - I have found the workflow in LR to be 2nd to none - I love it. Its intuitive, easy to use and very powerful.  I LOVE the slideshow module for on the spot shows for clients - for me it just works.

But...

I have also found Canon's DPP 2.1 to produce superior RAW conversions. Which frustrates me as I really really really want to use one program exclusivley and streamline my workflow.

At the moment I am doing the following:

1. Importing into LR by referencing the files in their existing locations.
2. Applying my check marks and generally sorting my images.
3. Then I open DPP and perform RAW conversions to 16 bit TIff on any files I want to convert.
4. If I then want to do any serious alterations I go back into LR and use the greyscale mixer and other tools.
5. Then its off to Photoshop for sharpening with th Photokit plug in.

IMO what LR needs [are you listening developers!] is:
1. Canons RAW processing algorithim - because its superior to what is currently being used.
2. PhotoKit Sharpener [current sharpening is just ok] - I know others have asked for this, and I hope it can be integrated.
3. The ability to have multiple libraries [which I beleive is coming in newer versions]

Both of these things would make as happy as a man with a new 39 mega pixel back. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I ditto all of the above! Excellent comments.

Bud James
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
D White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73

Don White


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2006, 01:18:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I had felt DPP and C1 were better than LR as well initially. As my experience with these grows thought, I may change my mind. The DPP initially looks better due to the tone curves applied that give a conversion with more punch out of the can. But I find more stair step artifacts on bright/dark borders when I push my 1DsII files up to 24x36 while I see esentially none on the C1 / LR conversions. Initially my LR conversions suffered from not placing the histogram end points correctly as the 3 channel histogram graph is a bit confusing in LR. Using the alt/option key to set these solves this and gives even better precision than the others for me. It is a process.
Logged

Dr D White DDS BSc
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2006, 04:03:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I had felt DPP and C1 were better than LR as well initially. As my experience with these grows thought, I may change my mind. The DPP initially looks better due to the tone curves applied that give a conversion with more punch out of the can. But I find more stair step artifacts on bright/dark borders when I push my 1DsII files up to 24x36 while I see esentially none on the C1 / LR conversions. Initially my LR conversions suffered from not placing the histogram end points correctly as the 3 channel histogram graph is a bit confusing in LR. Using the alt/option key to set these solves this and gives even better precision than the others for me. It is a process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can you expand one the "alt/option key" process? I prefer not use DPP 2.1 at all because the interface is awkward as compared to LR.

Thanks.

Bud
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
brian mcfarlane
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2006, 05:58:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree with you - I have found the workflow in LR to be 2nd to none - I love it. Its intuitive, easy to use and very powerful.  I LOVE the slideshow module for on the spot shows for clients - for me it just works.

But...

I have also found Canon's DPP 2.1 to produce superior RAW conversions. Which frustrates me as I really really really want to use one program exclusivley and streamline my workflow.

At the moment I am doing the following:

1. Importing into LR by referencing the files in their existing locations.
2. Applying my check marks and generally sorting my images.
3. Then I open DPP and perform RAW conversions to 16 bit TIff on any files I want to convert.
4. If I then want to do any serious alterations I go back into LR and use the greyscale mixer and other tools.
5. Then its off to Photoshop for sharpening with th Photokit plug in.

IMO what LR needs [are you listening developers!] is:
1. Canons RAW processing algorithim - because its superior to what is currently being used.
2. PhotoKit Sharpener [current sharpening is just ok] - I know others have asked for this, and I hope it can be integrated.
3. The ability to have multiple libraries [which I beleive is coming in newer versions]

Both of these things would make as happy as a man with a new 39 mega pixel back. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just a thought to Adobe Lightroom algorihims, I think sometimes each camera company comes up with a different software algorithim that they think works best for a specific camera. Example ( Nikon uses their Capture software which converts files to NEF format which is Nikon,s unique format and then you apply other steps like sharpening. Lightroom was designed to be an open source system that will allow for unique profiles and algorithims to be eventually supported. You can see this being used in CaptureOne software which in my opinion is the defacto standard for raw processing on the market today. Lightroom is targeting users who don't want to go through the learning curve of photoshop and just want great results from their printed images. Lightroom achieves this to a semi-professional level.
I look forward to the final result of Lightroom as Adobe has listened carefully to it,s beta testers who are mostly photographers and i am sure the end result will be equal to capture one.
thanks
Brian Mcfarlane
Montreal, Canada
Logged
WarrenRoos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2006, 07:50:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have also found Canon's DPP 2.1 to produce superior RAW conversions. Which frustrates me as I really really really want to use one program exclusivley and streamline my workflow.

First of all..it's a a bit (way)subjective. Have you done the newspaper (on the wall with one swept light) test too?

Out extensive tests found CS2 was as good or better than DPP and that sure makes for an
easier workflow. And yes I would say that workflow gets equal weighting in deciding what to use. We also look @ everything (this form a former Bibble user) and poke 'n prod. Nurse!

Lightroom looks and is nifty but other than the flash gallery it's a gussied up CS2. RIght? Did I miss somehting?  It will be a blessed marriage in Abodes future when they combine.

It's interesting to note the number of LIghtroom posts verses the scanty Aperture posts.
Logged

[span style='color:red']Roos Photo Inc.[/span]
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6800


« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2006, 08:54:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...
It's interesting to note the number of LIghtroom posts verses the scanty Aperture posts.
Lightroom has been a free download since Beta 1. The demo version of Aperture has been made available only a few weeks ago (and is Mac OS X only). This might explain the "lack" of interest in Aperture.
Logged

Francois
Ken Tanaka
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2006, 12:04:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... Lightroom looks and is nifty but other than the flash gallery it's a gussied up CS2. RIght? Did I miss somehting?
You might have.  I, too, feel like I've worked with nearly everything out there (Bibble included).  But LightRoom really struck a harmonious chord with me.  It's a bit like a Swiss Army knife, encapsulating facilities to process, organize/categorize/index, print, and electronically present images in one system.  Other tools may have certain special task advantages.  But the LR's convenience, smoothness, robustness, and (prospective) flexibility represent a stronger overall value proposition to me than any other tool I've used.  If LightRoom's first commercial release only provided the features of beta 4.1 I'd buy it in a NY second.  (Version 1 is actually rumored to offer quite a bit more.)   It's definitely worth your time to learn first-hand, Warren.  Don't rely solely on some delegated assistant's opinion or on a 5 minute fly-over.  I didn't spend much time with it until I came down with an immobilizing cold last month.  Maybe skipping this year's flu shot might be beneficial.    

Quote
It's interesting to note the number of LIghtroom posts verses the scanty Aperture posts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As Francois noted, Aperture's free demo has only become available in the past week or so.  Plus, as Michael has been so closely involved in promoting LightRoom, this would not be the natural place to find much Aperture talk, at least not yet.  But, as it's a shipping product with the full force of Apple behind it, it actually has most of the buzz right now.  I have waded into the demo and, indeed, it has some nice features.  But with nearly 10,000 images organized into 227 "shoot" bins and indexed with 251 keywords in LightRoom I might be past the mid-point of a transoceanic flight.  Still, if you're not committed, I highly recommend also looking at Aperture.

I once saw a hand-scrawled sign posted on a back-country dirt road which read:  "Pick your ruts carefully. You will be in them for the next 12 miles."  The message applies here, too.
Logged

Best Regards,
- Ken Tanaka -

www.KenTanaka.com
NLund
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2006, 01:35:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting thoughts all. I'm on the amateur side and don't pixel peep at raw conversions, but definitely appreciate the combined aspects of Lightroom.

I get annoyed using ACR, then CS2. I feel like I have to use CS2 much less in finishing an image when I initially worked it in Lightroom. I'm just loving the split toning feature.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Logged
laurelfink
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2006, 08:05:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interesting thoughts all. I'm on the amateur side and don't pixel peep at raw conversions, but definitely appreciate the combined aspects of Lightroom.

I get annoyed using ACR, then CS2. I feel like I have to use CS2 much less in finishing an image when I initially worked it in Lightroom. I'm just loving the split toning feature.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I love Lightroom. I shoot with a Canon 5D and 20D, and I have only used ACR for my conversion program, so that is all I can compare LR to, and it is superior in so many ways. Frankly, if LR offered masking and certain filter plugins (specifically Nik) I would probably never use PS CS2 again. Considering all the years I've spent teaching PS to myself, that says a lot for LR!
Logged



"Not all who wander are lost."
Laurel Fink
www.photoscapesbylaurelfink.com
Ken Tanaka
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2006, 10:48:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I love Lightroom. I shoot with a Canon 5D and 20D, and I have only used ACR for my conversion program, so that is all I can compare LR to, and it is superior in so many ways. Frankly, if LR offered masking and certain filter plugins (specifically Nik) I would probably never use PS CS2 again. Considering all the years I've spent teaching PS to myself, that says a lot for LR!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Laurel:  I really enjoyed the hand-tinted look on some of the images in your gallery ([a href=\"http://www.photoscapesbylaurelfink.com/photo_360091.html]Example[/url])  The Vermillion Lake scene near Banff really grabbed me, as I've been at that exact spot many times...but always in January (brrr).
Logged

Best Regards,
- Ken Tanaka -

www.KenTanaka.com
Doc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2006, 06:00:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I too am interested in which way this will all fall after LR V1 is released  - I also usr DPP and have been playing with LR and DXO lately.

Anyone else out there played with DXO ?

I am still trying to get my head around where Adobe is going with LR - are they trying to get photographers to use LR only ?
Or 1st .... in a chain of workflow ?


Where do all of you see it fitting into your workflow ?

Allowing for different / multiple libraries would be great .... mainly as it keeps me in a comfort zone - as I currently use iView media pro to catalog my work, before I use DXO or DPP or CS2
At the moment i see - i  cstill have much musing to do.

Maybe I just need to commit to one or the other ?


........ aaaarrrrrggghhh .... confusion !
Logged

Learning everyday !
GillesGC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2006, 07:35:18 PM »
ReplyReply

"Can you expand one the "alt/option key" process? I prefer not use DPP 2.1 at all because the interface is awkward as compared to LR."

First I'll say that I'll be buying LR, no hesitation.  Regrets for having spent so much on Nikon's software and let's not get into CS2.

I was curious myself about this alt/option key so I messed around and found that if you hold the alt/option key while mousing over the histogram it will allow you to adjust the image for each zone.  If you try it and watch the slider adjustments below you'll see them adjust, such as highlight recovery and fill.  Neat!

Let's hope Adobe is listening about file management and gets past the import and we'll be good to go!  If would be great if Nikon et al just gave up on spending resources for such poor product as Capture NX and instead perhaps sold a moderately priced plug in for LR so you could use their control points.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7901



WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2006, 09:35:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If would be great if Nikon et al just gave up on spending resources for such poor product as Capture NX and instead perhaps sold a moderately priced plug in for LR so you could use their control points.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86261\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My very feeling as well, but Jeff Schewe has made it clear several times on this very forum that Adobe was not interested in opening up LR to other RAW converters.

I have started to play with LR a bit on Mac, and it sure has nice features, but I just wouldn't go through the bother of keywording all my images in LR and then have to re-export them when I want to use a different RAW converter (be it DxO v4, Raw Developper 1.6, Capture NX, Silkypix 3.0 - all converters that do IMHO offer some things the built-in LR raw converter don't).

Then LR becomes just another RAW converter while it could have played a central role in my workflow as a DAM with a good built-in RAW converter. Instead Adobe has decided to try to lock us into LR by de facto forcing us to use their converter.

Let's hope they change their mind on this.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
jolson12
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2006, 09:55:47 AM »
ReplyReply

When it comes to noise in the shadow detail, ACR and LR can not compair to DPP.
Adjust ACR or LR any way you want and the DPP conversion will be cleaner.




Exhausted from hours of testing,

Jim Olson
Logged

[span style='color:green']Jim Olson[/span]
seanmcfoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2006, 02:26:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"I was curious myself about this alt/option key so I messed around and found that if you hold the alt/option key while mousing over the histogram it will allow you to adjust the image for each zone.  If you try it and watch the slider adjustments below you'll see them adjust, such as highlight recovery and fill.  Neat!

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86261\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You don't need to use Alt/Option for this to work. It'll work straight from the mouse.

I think the original request was about using Alt/Option to get multiple Libraries. Option Click on Lightroom in the dock and you'll get the Libraries dialogue. Ctrl Double Click on a Lightroom shortcut in Windows for it.
Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2006, 11:44:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Adobe has to stop worrying about whether they'll cannibalize Photoshop with Lightroom, which I think may have crossed their minds... 8-)

If they plan to issue new versions of Photoshop forever, then it's going to inevitably become a more and more intricate photo-art program in which photos are only pieces of the whole. Straight photographers, who are working in a whole different aesthetic, don't need all that, but they do need the most ramped-up ACR in the world, and that might include some camera-specific plug-ins. I think some Adobe-ers see that now, and that the whole company will eventually catch on; if they don't, Steve Jobs might shove Aperture up their...er, aperture. Adobe has the resources. If there is clear, continuing demand for a Lightroom type product, I think it will get better and better, and so will the ACR function.

Photographers -- maybe amateurs and art photogaphers more than high-volume pros -- need a "darkroom" progam that provides cataloging and review functions along with complete adjustments for "straight' photography. Sooner or later, most straight photogaphers will go for one program, because it will become a standard like Photoshop. It's probably going to be Lightroom or Aperture; I hope it's Lightroom because I've been working with it, but I'm willing to move if Lightroom falters and Aperture comes up with a really great RAW facility.

Here's an idea for another Lightroom function: how about some kind of "exchange" feature, which allows Lightroom users to trade photos almost like cell-phone users do, but at a much higher and more sophisticated level? But still, **instantly,** so people can talk on-line about instantly shared photos, make suggested improvements, etc? You can send the check directly to me...

JC
« Last Edit: December 02, 2006, 11:46:17 AM by John Camp » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad