Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DPP destroys CS3 for Raw? what's the deal?  (Read 19596 times)
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« on: June 16, 2007, 07:58:26 PM »
ReplyReply

When I started Raw few years ago, I tested, DPP vs, PS, vs Capture One, and decided that the great interface of PS beat out the others. I did not notice huge differences in quality. But after looking at recent images on my 5D, I called my Canon rep and said, "what the deal on the black (shadows) with this camera, it's a horrow show of poterization. He said try DPP. I tried this clunky software I had not used in years and the blacks looked fine.
I'm really puzzled. I like the interface of CS3 much more, it's integrated with Photoshop and I have no desire to learn DPP, but, I don't know, I'm real confused right now.
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2007, 09:28:23 PM »
ReplyReply

If you want to simulate the effect of DPP on your shadows, try setting blacks to 8-12...that will step on your images kinda like DPP will.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3855



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2007, 04:26:53 AM »
ReplyReply

The most incredible thing about DPP is the sharpening, if you have a 1DsII it's like getting a new camera. Color is nice too.

Generally speaking, DPP does a better job than anything else I've seen, at least on 1DsII files. But it's so clunky that I hardly use it anymore, never on batches.

Edmund

Quote
If you want to simulate the effect of DPP on your shadows, try setting blacks to 8-12...that will step on your images kinda like DPP will.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2007, 04:48:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff:
I don't want to use DPP anymore than you do. I think the interface of CS3 raw is just unbelievably great.  actually I don't use the interface much now honestly, I just batch everything to TIFF and tweak in PHotoshop, but I can't ignore the horrid blacks I'm seeing in hair, clothes, and backgrounds. I thought it was the camera, but look, here is ACR hair:

[img=http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5324/cs3hairea7.th.png]

Here is DPP hair (both on default setting with no tweaks)

[img=http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/9822/dpphairkv0.th.png]


Ero:
did not understand this,
"he most incredible thing about DPP is the sharpening, if you have a 1DsII it's like getting a new camera"

You don't want to sharpen in DPP, right?  that should be done later, no?
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
paulbk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2007, 06:36:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Get the very latest DPP, v3.0.1.5.
Use the new "Edit Images Window."
Much improved interface. Borderline intuitive. Stick with it for a few sessions.

I use it most of the time to convert raw to 16 bit TIFFs for futher edits (mostly minor or where I want to use a mask). Canon 1D Mark II files, DPP is better than Camera RAW 4.1, Lightroom, or Capture1. Batch processing is not fast, but not torture either.
Logged

paul b. kramarchyk
Barkhamsted, Connecticut, USA
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2007, 09:29:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Paul:
so you have done thorogh test against ACR and discovered this?
Is it just the blacks or other shots as well?
If blacks/ shadows are not prevelant, does ACR do as good or better in some ways than DPP.

I really dig ACR (Jeff), so I'm trying to hang on.

How could Adobe engineers, not figure out how to make files as well as Canon, or does Canon have the special sauce Adobe can't get.
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
gdeliz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2007, 09:32:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jeff:
I don't want to use DPP anymore than you do. I think the interface of CS3 raw is just unbelievably great.  actually I don't use the interface much now honestly, I just batch everything to TIFF and tweak in PHotoshop, but I can't ignore the horrid blacks I'm seeing in hair, clothes, and backgrounds. I thought it was the camera, but look, here is ACR hair:

[img=http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5324/cs3hairea7.th.png]

Here is DPP hair (both on default setting with no tweaks)

[img=http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/9822/dpphairkv0.th.png]
...
Perceptions are funny things. One man's 'horrid' is another man's 'actually looks better to me'.
Go figure.

George Deliz
Logged
paulbk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2007, 06:40:05 AM »
ReplyReply

kevs,
It’s all a matter of personal taste. Each person has different priorities. For me, an important factor is time to process about one hundred raw files and end up with near printable 16 bit tiffs. DPP color fidelity, sharpening, and shadow/highlight recovery are very good. The more I do this, the more I believe “less is more.” I’m not a fan of over processed photographs. For example, I like the way Michael R. works his photographs. His photographs look like photographs, not digital fantasy art. It all depends what “look” you are going for.

Yes.., PS3 camera raw 4.1 and Lightroom are great. Lots of flexibility. Very powerful. It’s just that most of the time DPP gives me what I want without a lot of fuss.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2007, 06:41:53 AM by paulbk » Logged

paul b. kramarchyk
Barkhamsted, Connecticut, USA
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2007, 02:54:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How could Adobe engineers, not figure out how to make files as well as Canon, or does Canon have the special sauce Adobe can't get.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pretty easy actually...you did both processes at "default", correct? Well, DOH...

Camera Raw supports (I think) over 130 cameras at present (over 10 camera makers-and a few that are no longer supported by the companies)...DPP supports only their Canon cameras. So, at "default" which do you suppose will have better defaults?

That's the whole problem of comparing application defaults, it's the friggin' default, ya know? Whose gonna use them at default?

When I compare the two images you posted, I noticed right off, they didn't match. The Canon version was darker...what do you suppose Canon is hiding in the darker rendering? Noise...

The only way to compare raw processors is to become profficient in both, get the image to be it's best and both and note how long it took to do so...than make your choice.

Comparing raw processors at the "default" tells only what the images look like at default-which isn't the way you are going to USE the darn thing, right? So, it's pretty much a waste of time to do.
Logged
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2007, 05:56:57 PM »
ReplyReply

George, I agree with your philosophy there, but how could the ACR one look better to you? it's got all that yukky posterization, noise etc. the DPP is smoother.

Yes Jeff, both defualt.  Ok, seeing your point.  Yes, if I boost the contrast of this image in ACR, the Blacks, in fact become less noisy or posterized, or whatever we call it.
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2007, 10:05:28 AM »
ReplyReply

So I'm wondering is best strategy to make a preset for when you have lot of blacks?

And so Jeff, others, confident quality can get from ACR is just as good as DPP (even though they make software and camera)

Also, any opinions on 5D, could be camera, is it good with shadows? thanks.
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
gdeliz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2007, 02:45:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
George, I agree with your philosophy there, but how could the ACR one look better to you? it's got all that yukky posterization, noise etc. the DPP is smoother.

Yes Jeff, both defualt.  Ok, seeing your point.  Yes, if I boost the contrast of this image in ACR, the Blacks, in fact become less noisy or posterized, or whatever we call it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't see any posterization on my Spyder calibrated monitor, just looks like good shadow detail.
The DPP version looks blocked up to me by comparison. As Schewe pointed out moving the ACR blacks slider a few notches to the right would probably give a similar effect.

George Deliz
Logged
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2007, 10:42:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesing George, I now see what you are saying about the subjectiveness of it all.  So you find ACR files are every bit as good as DPP's?  I'm going to start new thread on defaults, but would like to know what  you do for defaults.  that file still look horrid to me. I would love to send it to you if that interest you.
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
semillerimages
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2007, 12:49:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Kevs,

You want to get even more confused, try the Canon Raw Image Task and compare to DPP. I have found that there are times that DPP makes a better file for me, sometimes ACR 4.1, sometimes Raw Image Task, sometimes Capture One.
Don't let anyone tell you that one piece of software is good for all images, because it's simply not true. Everyone has different taste with what their images should look like, and each of these software packages interpret the data differently. I personally have found that DPP is the best most of the time.

By the way, for the PC users of DPP - You can start multiple batches on a set of files if you have many... if you have multiple processors/cores, you can make the PC version of DPP use ALL of the processors and cores by opening the equivalent # of batches. I have a dual core/dual opteron system and if I have 60 images to batch, I split them up 15/15/15/15 and ZOOM they get finished FAST. Sure it's kind of a pain in the butt, but the little initial prepwork results in a HUGE time save.

*steve

Quote
When I started Raw few years ago, I tested, DPP vs, PS, vs Capture One, and decided that the great interface of PS beat out the others. I did not notice huge differences in quality. But after looking at recent images on my 5D, I called my Canon rep and said, "what the deal on the black (shadows) with this camera, it's a horrow show of poterization. He said try DPP. I tried this clunky software I had not used in years and the blacks looked fine.
I'm really puzzled. I like the interface of CS3 much more, it's integrated with Photoshop and I have no desire to learn DPP, but, I don't know, I'm real confused right now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123216\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

semillerimages.com
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2007, 01:55:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I use ACR, for three reasons: the seamless interface with Photoshop, batching, and the color calibration. All I have to do is set white balance properly, and the color is very true-to-life accurate, and I can shoot with multiple cameras and get consistent color between my Canon 1Ds DSLR and my Olympus SP-350 P&S. (Try that with DPP!) I can't remember the last time I used Photoshop for color correction of anything I shot. It's a HUGE time-saver.

I NEVER use default settings, and agree with the sentiment that comparing RAW converters with all default settings is only a comparison of the default settings, and not really a valid comparison of the converters.

I don't sharpen or de-noise during RAW conversion, except for light light color noise reduction to reduce colored speckle chroma noise. Neat Image and Focus Magic and my sharpening actions take care of those tasks.

The most important thing is to know how to use the tools. If you're getting crappy blacks from ACR, look in the mirror to see where the problem lies. You have the shadow setting, the curve control, and the exposure control to adjust shadows. The curve control is especially powerful and useful. Learn to use it, and you'll have no reason to complain.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2007, 02:00:32 PM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3855



WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2007, 09:24:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Pretty easy actually...you did both processes at "default", correct? Well, DOH...

Camera Raw supports (I think) over 130 cameras at present (over 10 camera makers-and a few that are no longer supported by the companies)...DPP supports only their Canon cameras. So, at "default" which do you suppose will have better defaults?

Comparing raw processors at the "default" tells only what the images look like at default-which isn't the way you are going to USE the darn thing, right? So, it's pretty much a waste of time to do.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I disagree. After several years of using ACR I gave up hoping for the best from it. I have got better files than ACR using Raw Developer, Capture One  and DPP, with very little effort. How come I can make anything except ACR give me decent files ?

Let me say this more bluntly: ACR gives you a good workflow integrated with Photoshop. You can process hundreds of files with it it fast. I use it regularly for big jobs. But you want quality ? Look elsewhere. A sprinter is not likely to make a good weightlifter.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2007, 10:05:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The only way to compare raw processors is to become profficient in both, get the image to be it's best and both and note how long it took to do so...than make your choice.

Amen.

But the simple fact is, DPP does a better job on Canon raws than ACR hands down, however only as respects detail...  Color is better with DPP out of the box, but if you take time to calibrate your specific camera to ACR then color is far superior -- near perfect IMO -- from ACR.  

That said, here's the real rub for me:  Whle DPP generates a significantly more detailed image to start with, it can't withstand much in the way of additional sharpening in the workflow or it falls apart and goes over-the-edge "digital".  By comparison, I can detail sharpen an ACR covnersion in CS -- and in fact have specifically cut back on my ACR default sharpening to accomodate this -- and end up with a far better file from a detail point, being highly detailed, yet smoother overall, and having a more organic look.  

Each to their own, but the combo of ACR and CS works great for me.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 10:12:05 AM by Jack Flesher » Logged

kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2007, 10:46:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Jack, I have Canon 5D, what should I do to optimize my conversions in ACR, I have no idea.
Logged

Imac 27"
10.6.8
CS5
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2007, 12:08:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack, I have Canon 5D, what should I do to optimize my conversions in ACR, I have no idea.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use a somewhat extended version of the Bruce Fraser method and I don't have it written up.  Here is a paraphrased version of the Fraser method by Eric Chan which is probably the easiest/best option: [a href=\"http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/acr/]http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/acr/[/url]

Cheers,
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 12:20:19 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2007, 01:54:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That said, here's the real rub for me:  Whle DPP generates a significantly more detailed image to start with, it can't withstand much in the way of additional sharpening in the workflow or it falls apart and goes over-the-edge "digital".  By comparison, I can detail sharpen an ACR covnersion in CS -- and in fact have specifically cut back on my ACR default sharpening to accomodate this -- and end up with a far better file from a detail point, being highly detailed, yet smoother overall, and having a more organic look. 

Each to their own, but the combo of ACR and CS works great for me.

That's pretty much my experience as well. I've color calibrated ACR to get basically perfect color from all of my cameras; I can't remember the last time I had to color-correct a RAW in PS. All I have to do is set the WB properly and everything else falls into place. That is a HUGE time saver right there.

I don't do any sharpening during RAW conversion; I use Focus Magic, then my own sharpening actions. So the fact that other RAW converters can sharpen better than ACR does not trouble me, my preferred tools can beat any converter's internal sharpening anyway. The bottom line is that with my existing workflow I can match or beat what I can get from any other RAW converter, with regard to detail, color fidelity, or any other criteria.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad