Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DPP destroys CS3 for Raw? what's the deal?  (Read 20472 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2007, 02:45:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You might be changing your mind regarding internal sharpening now that Camera Raw 4.1 has been released...for the purpose of capture sharpening, I would rank it pretty close to best of breed...
Logged
Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2007, 03:06:19 PM »
ReplyReply

How long before output sharpening in LR matches  input? Or is that too much to ask? It would be nice to not have to round trip files to other apps before printing.
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2007, 03:16:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You might be changing your mind regarding internal sharpening now that Camera Raw 4.1 has been released...for the purpose of capture sharpening, I would rank it pretty close to best of breed...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While 4.1 is an improvement, it still isn't up to DPP in terms of total detail -- and I did need to adjust my ACR defaults to accommodate the new 4.1 sharpening...  But again, it is a moot point with me since I prefer the final look within the ACR/CS workflow.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 03:17:01 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2007, 04:57:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How long before output sharpening in LR matches  input? Or is that too much to ask? It would be nice to not have to round trip files to other apps before printing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I really can't say (although I know) and I think people will be really happy when it happens...and some people will be surprised (although others not so much) when it happens...but I doubt it'll come in another "minor update". Camera Raw 4.1 and Lightroom 1.1 were special in that Thomas could, by virtue of the end of the quarter deadline, put new stuff in that wasn't in 4.0. Lightroom gets what Camera Raw gets...
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2007, 05:49:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You might be changing your mind regarding internal sharpening now that Camera Raw 4.1 has been released...for the purpose of capture sharpening, I would rank it pretty close to best of breed...

I haven't upgrades to CS3 yet; CS2 is working great for me and photography is not my primary focus in life right now. Life intrudes...

Have you tried using Focus Magic for capture sharpening? A round of radius 2, 25-50%, followed by a round at radius 1, 25-50% does an excellent job undoing the effects of the AA filter. Focus Magic isn't a magic bullet to fix focus errors, but it does a really excellent job as a capture sharpener.
Logged

kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2007, 10:42:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Jack:
Is that really necessary? I've been processing few years with 1DS and 5d, never done all that, and things look pretty good out of the box.
Logged

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

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2007, 11:16:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack:
Is that really necessary? I've been processing few years with 1DS and 5d, never done all that, and things look pretty good out of the box.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126841\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I assume you are referring to the camera calibration...    I would not say it is necessary if you are happy with the color you are now getting.  However, many of us want to know we are as close to "perfect" as possible and calibrating your camera is one step towards that end.  Moreover, the full calibration is not just about accurate color, it also linearizes the tonal scale; many of the ACR defaults hold back on the bright highlights, ostensibly to prevent clipping them.

At the end of the day, I have what I feel is very accurate color, especially in improved greens through cyans, and in my case I gained about 1/2 stop more total DR in my 5D conversions.  The extra DR and more linear tonal scale does in fact render a flatter appearance to the final conversion, so this usually requires a more agressive curves (contrast) adjustment before final output -- but at least I have the data available at the onset to tweak to my liking.

Cheers,
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4218



« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2007, 08:00:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I make camera profiles for third parties and I eat my own cooking
There seem to be at least two batches of 5D cameras floating around, with significantly different characteristics. It's possible that users are getting inaccurate color because of this.


Edmund

Quote
I assume you are referring to the camera calibration...    I would not say it is necessary if you are happy with the color you are now getting.  However, many of us want to know we are as close to "perfect" as possible and calibrating your camera is one step towards that end.  Moreover, the full calibration is not just about accurate color, it also linearizes the tonal scale; many of the ACR defaults hold back on the bright highlights, ostensibly to prevent clipping them.

At the end of the day, I have what I feel is very accurate color, especially in improved greens through cyans, and in my case I gained about 1/2 stop more total DR in my 5D conversions.  The extra DR and more linear tonal scale does in fact render a flatter appearance to the final conversion, so this usually requires a more agressive curves (contrast) adjustment before final output -- but at least I have the data available at the onset to tweak to my liking.

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
kim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2007, 06:57:39 AM »
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]
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?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Comparing your examples my view is that the blacks on the ACR example are better with more graduation visible. The blacks in the DPP have blocked up. My preference is to hold back on the blacks at the raw stage and pull them in with a small levels adjustment in PS.

A slightly different point is that the the sharpness in your DPP example is much better than on ACR. Of course everything depends on the settings you used for the example.

On the subject of sharpening there appear to be somewhat divided views in this thread.

Years ago it seemed that the conventional wisdom was that you should switch off sharpening in the raw converter and do it later instead. I never believed that and found the final result was always better (to my eyes anyway) by sharpening as needed at the raw stage. The sharpening in the latest DPP (3.0 and upwards) is very good and the setting of sharpness = "3" gives a good appearance in both the APS sensor (20D etc) and full frame (5D). Focus Magic is great for fixing problems such as mild camera shake or "off" focus but is not a substitute for getting the sharpness right first time round during the raw stage. Anyone can do their own tests here and compare the alternatives. I'm not trying to upset anyone with the above view, merely describe which of the alternative workflows looks better to me. Final sharpening takes place either during the print stage (Qimage) or after resizing down for the web where Focus Magic (1px @50%) again does a great job.

For me the sharpest raw converter of all is the now-discontinued Raw Shooter Essentials. The detail it can extract is amazing and better than any other converter I've seen, even DPP. Unfortunately its colour with Canon images usually sucks (my eyes, your eyes may vary) so I rarely use it, except for images from my Panasonic LX1 where it does a fine job of noise reduction while keeping detail.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2007, 07:00:55 AM by kim » Logged
Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2007, 04:40:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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: http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/acr/

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah I guess there may be no better alternative than creating a callibration preset. With that in mind, I just reread the part in Bruce Fraser's ACR book about calibrating ACR for one's camera...as well as the link you provided. Holy Headache Batman - that is a rather involved process fraught with error. No wonder I decided to skip doing that after readig it in Bruce's book!! Up to now I had been happy with the results in ACR 3.7 but a recent toying with Canon's DPP (proprietary software)lead me to realise that ACR 4.1 isn't rendering the same pleasing colours that DPP is.
ACR is vastly superior to DPP in many other respects (except price) and I will not abandon ACR. But darned if I am going to slog through the calibration process especially since the results can be skewwed due to the reflection of nearby objects (I live smack downtown so no grassless hills nearby).
People have presets designed for tungsten shots, presets for daylight shots. That's a lot of work - c'mon Adobe, I want to take photos, not become some digital software guru.
Surely there are other kind souls who have made their Canon 30D ACR presets available for others...a place where people compare and analyze their preset results. Anyone know if there is a website of these Canon 30D ACR callibration results? I know they won't be exact callibration for my 30D but surely they'll be better starting points for digital photo colour tweaking than the current initial RAW conversion.
Or am I a hopeless dreamer? Is there such great variation between 30Ds that other people's presets would be worse than the ACR 4.1 defaults?
Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2007, 04:56:10 PM »
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?

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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

After watching yours and Michael's Camera to Print this was made even more apparent.  I'm really glad I bought it--though I do most of the things you went over, I picked up some valuable (for me) things--and I'm just on 13 LOL.

I rarely used ACR for RAW conversion since PS7 (when I bought the RC plugin) and have used 3rd party RCs--UNTIL ACR 4 and esp. 4.1 and now really don't use anything but.....  Still--I wasn't quite happy--and have considered 'calibrating' my 5D but was never quite sure, even after reading one of Bruce's books.  Now I will do it and feel my blacks will be better as well as the reds and greens.  Love the tutorial and its been worth the money to me for things like this (BTW--I have used specific camera profiles for several years in C1 and RSP).

Diane
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2007, 04:57:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You might be changing your mind regarding internal sharpening now that Camera Raw 4.1 has been released...for the purpose of capture sharpening, I would rank it pretty close to best of breed...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126646\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Again, after watching Camera to Print--I'm even more convinced of using the sharpening in ACR for capture sharpening.  I've been using it instead of PKS for that---and you convinced me LOL.  Still use PKS for creative and output though.

Diane
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #32 on: August 02, 2007, 01:45:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For me the sharpest raw converter of all is the now-discontinued Raw Shooter Essentials. The detail it can extract is amazing and better than any other converter I've seen, even DPP. Unfortunately its colour with Canon images usually sucks (my eyes, your eyes may vary) so I rarely use it....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127554\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Couldn't agree more. Yesterday I compared RSP (still have a copy on my machine -don't know why) with LR 1.1, and RSP was sharper with less noise, especially at high iso. To be accurate, in every other parameter LR left RSP trailing badly.

Adobe seems to have gone it's own way with LR and from reading Jeff's comments this seems to be their avowed policy (nothing wrong with that IMO) but I can't help wondering why they bothered to buy RSP. The vibrancy slider is the only thing I can see that was copied, sorry Jeff, I mean influenced, by RSP.
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 02, 2007, 04:58:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I second the comments about the Camera to Print tutorial. Everyone reading this thread (except Jeff Schewe, of course) should buy the tutorial for 2 reasons: 1) Seriously improve your capture to print workflow and quality; and 2) Show financial support for Jeff Schewe and Michael Reichmann for sharing their vast experiences and for Michael providing the Luminous Landscape web site.

Personally, I have a Canon 1Ds MkII, 20D, 700is P&S, and a Panasonic DMC-FX50 P&S. All of the images produced by these cameras benefit from Lightroom and Photoshop CS3. Lightroom v1.1 has become my tool of choice for 90% of my images, even for jpegs from my P&S cameras.

Although I have played with printing from within LR, I still prefer ImagePrint 7.0 RIP for my final fine art images.

That's my 2 cents.

Bud James
North Wales, PA
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1327



WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 02, 2007, 05:29:15 AM »
ReplyReply

In the last months I moved from ACR to DCRAW. A very different philosophy: I use DCRAW to get a high quality plain linear image with no adjustment applied at all, and with total control over how the development was done. In difficult or important images I can analyse in detail the histogram of this linear image to find out EXACTLY how many pixles, in which channels and in which areas are blown and test different hightlight recovery strategies if needed.

Then I transfer to PS all the non pure developing tasks: exposure correction, camera profile assignment (still in linear mode), colour profile conversion with gamma, contrast, saturation, noise reduction, sharpening,...

The only thing I miss from ACR is the colour noise reduction, which performed very well there. The rest is unnecesary for me and PS can do much better (for instance being fond of curves, ACR curves alter Hue while PS curves in Luminance blending mode are perfect preserving Hue).

I know this will be never a popular way to proceed, but for me is fine. I call DCRAW from many of my programs so I am used to deal with linear images that have some advantages. I like the concept!
« Last Edit: August 02, 2007, 05:50:37 AM by GLuijk » Logged

mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #35 on: August 02, 2007, 10:32:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I wish lazy writers would get to the gym. The way some of you throw around abbreviated language and ASSUME readers know what the hell you're talking about is rude, presumptuous, elitist, and...lazy. Every good writer knows, if you're going to write ACR, make sure your first reference is Adobe Camera Raw, at least on one post on every page. Thank you. It's not right to assume every reader knows what these abbreviations mean, regardless how often they're referred to on Luminous Landscape.

I shoot much beauty. As for kevs two samples, I think both are poor. I would question the aperture reading first. Hair detail is a leading challenge in digital. Blowing hair at 5.6 is near impossible!

Default settings are 95% useless in conversion. They're for lazy photographers. A true artist needs to get his hands in the recipe and on the controls. But I if I had to choose one of kevs' choices, the ACR version is my pick. Canon's software created lots of deep-mush black. Useless for my eye. I'd rather hang onto some highlight dimension in hair and deepen the darker tones manually, especially if the bulk of hair is out of focus. From an arm's length distance, I think the end result will look much better.

A good looking image is always determined by the eye of the beholder.
Logged
Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2007, 11:11:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yeah I guess there may be no better alternative than creating a callibration preset. With that in mind, I just reread the part in Bruce Fraser's ACR book about calibrating ACR for one's camera.... Holy Headache Batman - that is a rather involved process fraught with error. No wonder I decided to skip doing that after readig it in Bruce's book!! .... But darned if I am going to slog through the calibration process .... - c'mon Adobe, I want to take photos, not become some digital software guru.
Surely there are other kind souls who have made their Canon 30D ACR presets available for others...a place where people compare and analyze their preset results. Anyone know if there is a website of these Canon 30D ACR callibration results? I know they won't be exact callibration for my 30D but surely they'll be better starting points for digital photo colour tweaking than the current initial RAW conversion.
Or am I a hopeless dreamer? Is there such great variation between 30Ds that other people's presets would be worse than the ACR 4.1 defaults?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I just looked on Amazon and the Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker Chart is $67. I can get an xray chart cheaper than that!! This is rediculous - you'd think Adobe could include a similar chart like this if their software requires one in order to get decent results.
This is rather a pain in the what'sits. Spending more money and time to try to get my expensive ACR to work properly.
How much does Capture One cost? Does it come with the camera profiles or do you have to do this song and dance as well in order to get them?

WTF - I guess there are no sites, threads, bulletin boards or forums where people share their calibration values? Seriously - this seems like a rather big ordeal and added expense. Nobody knows of where people post/share their ACR calibration results?
Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
iancl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99



WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 02, 2007, 06:43:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perceptions are funny things. One man's 'horrid' is another man's 'actually looks better to me'.
Go figure.

George Deliz
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Note: I have not finished reading this thread to the end. Yet.

I agree with George here. I prefer the ACR image. There is much more shadow detail in the ACR image and not just a black expanse. If you want the smoothness of the DPP file just up the blacks in ACR. But, what if you want that shadow detail? Can you get it back as easily in DPP.
Logged

Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 03, 2007, 12:14:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Note: I have not finished reading this thread to the end. Yet.

I agree with George here. I prefer the ACR image. There is much more shadow detail in the ACR image and not just a black expanse. If you want the smoothness of the DPP file just up the blacks in ACR. But, what if you want that shadow detail? Can you get it back as easily in DPP.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually DPP is more versatile than most people think - there isn't anything called a Shadow Recovery slider per se. But if one looks on the RGB Image Adjustment tab you have the ability to change the RGB graph to a Luminance graph. The bottom line of this graph can raised in order to draw detail in shadows. The top of the graph can be lowered to decrease highlights. Or maybe it is vice versa (I am at work).

I found out about this unknown tool from the online tutorials on the Canon.usa website

There's many tutorials. For some unexplained reason the Luminance curve tutorial is buried on the #3 selection under the Workflow tab (instead of the tutorial tab)

[a href=\"http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html]http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html[/url]


Go to >>> workflow tab >>>#3 'Advance editing of a folder of images' >>>>then select "RGB Image Adjustment tab" 3rd to last video

So DPP is a great tool but just isn't all that much fun or easy to play with. When you get it right the results are better than ACR. Problem is, it ain't always easy and it ain't always fun or quick getting the best results. The UI blows and the sliders are graduated and don't afford the fine tuning that one gets in ACR.
Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 03, 2007, 03:05:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually DPP is more versatile than most people think - there isn't anything called a Shadow Recovery slider per se. But if one looks on the RGB Image Adjustment tab you have the ability to change the RGB graph to a Luminance graph. The bottom line of this graph can raised in order to draw detail in shadows. The top of the graph can be lowered to decrease highlights. Or maybe it is vice versa (I am at work).
Not sure if I was clear enough above.
In order to use the graph's lower bar to increase shadow detail in DPP, one must FIRST switch the graph from RGB to a Luminance graph.
Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad