Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DPP destroys CS3 for Raw? what's the deal?  (Read 19680 times)
kevs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


« Reply #40 on: August 03, 2007, 04:41:23 PM »
ReplyReply

thanks for comments. Is seems I'm safe to go back to ACR.
Logged

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

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #41 on: August 04, 2007, 12:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

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]

Jeff,
In your response post to someone claiming that DPP is better than ACR, you stated "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."

Can you clarify which setting you were talking about? Also, do you have any recommendations for default ACR or LR1.1 setting for the Canon 1DsMkII?

BTW, excellent job with Michael on the Camera to Print tutorial. I've watched it a few times since purchasing it earlier this week.

Thanks.

Bud James
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #42 on: August 04, 2007, 01:54:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Bud, Jeff was referring to Shadows in Camera Raw. The default setting is 5. Typically, many of us pull this back slightly to 3 for a variety of reasons, depending on the image. But one can always intensify the blacks in any image for many reasons by increasing the Shadows number.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5426


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 04, 2007, 03:56:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can you clarify which setting you were talking about? Also, do you have any recommendations for default ACR or LR1.1 setting for the Canon 1DsMkII?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131481\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In Camera Raw 3 and earlier, it was called Shaodws, now in Camera Raw 4 and Lightroom it's called Blacks. It's the black clipping adjustment...and no, no real idea on YOUR 1DsMII, for mine I default to 3 because I find 5 to be too strong. The last 10 steps of Shadows/Blacks are really large incriments between 0-10. You need to evaluate the settings very carefully. I use the option key while adjusting to see in the image where the clipping will be.
Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 05, 2007, 08:14:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I have found after my own experimentation that DPP is far easier and faster to get good results than ACR when using Canon 5D RAW files.

It may well be that an image can be tweaked in ACR to produce what DPP does in a default conversion - but really.. who has the time when DPP will do it reliably and quickly everytime in 1/10th the time of ACR.

Its to be expected I guess - DPP uses Canons own algorithims - ACR uses Adobes. The Adobe engineers [as brilliant as they are] cant be expected to replicate Canons algorithims.

I spent a fair bit of time with LR and ACR trying to get good conversions - in the end I gave up - what took me less than a minute with DPP was 10 + minutes in ACR or LR.

I decided to use DPP for my conversions and then round trip through PS CS3 for any more detailed work - eg. I will go to CS3 to use Photokit sharpen for creative sharpening or output sharpening - never capture sharpening which I find DPP does a far better job of. This workflow works for me.

My only quible with DPP is it lacks features compared to ACR or LR. But then - it does have 'export to Photoshop' for those features.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2007, 08:15:26 AM by JHolko » Logged

nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 481



WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 06, 2007, 09:21:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I was never a big proponent for DPP. I use/used Capture One, RAWShooter, Lightroom, ACR, and Bibble. However, owning one of the first 1D Mark III's, I had few choices, at first, when processing RAW.

I've become a convert. Maybe not for everything, but certainly for the last few jobs. The DPP conversions seem cleaner and more detailed (at least with the Mark III). I did conversions with Lightroom, DPP and ACR on a recent editorial shot at 800 ISO. While the recorded white balance in DPP was ever so slightly redder (on skin tones), the images from DPP seemed snappier and sharper. (Yes, I apply a small amount of sharpening when processing ANY RAW files in ANY program.) While I love Lightroom's interface and plethora of adjustments, I loathe that I have to "import images" before working with them. I have no desire to use Lightroom as my DAM, but am forced to, at least in a limited way, if I want to use the processing characteristics at all.
Logged

Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 07, 2007, 10:13:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My only quible with DPP is it lacks features compared to ACR or LR. But then - it does have 'export to Photoshop' for those features.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131590\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Once you find out about using the Luminence curve in the RGB tab (you have to switch it from the RGB curve to the luminence curve) you'll see ACR has even fewer features over DPP than you thought. With the luminence curve one can reduce highlights and increase shadow detail by raising the bar at the top and bottom of the graph. You can even set white point. Problem is the features' ease of use are far greater in ACR. DPP is powerful - but ACR is a joy to use. I hope Adobe finds a way to decode CR2 files better in the future. I usually get better results in ACR. DPP is hit and miss - but when it is a 'hit' the results are better than 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
Rick_Allen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 183


WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 08, 2007, 03:25:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When I started Raw few years ago
Wow so it was you that started Raw hey!  
Acr is getting better and better I know use it for 80% of the time for processing, Even the LEAF files.
Logged

Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 08, 2007, 08:47:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Once you find out about using the Luminence curve in the RGB tab (you have to switch it from the RGB curve to the luminence curve) you'll see ACR has even fewer features over DPP than you thought. With the luminence curve one can reduce highlights and increase shadow detail by raising the bar at the top and bottom of the graph. You can even set white point. Problem is the features' ease of use are far greater in ACR. DPP is powerful - but ACR is a joy to use. I hope Adobe finds a way to decode CR2 files better in the future. I usually get better results in ACR. DPP is hit and miss - but when it is a 'hit' the results are better than ACR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think this is a really good point that a lot of people who have tried DPP are not aware of  - and its one if its greatest assets. The ability to set the luminance curve in the RGB tab makes it ideal for adjusting curves.

Personally - I find the luminance curve in DPP far more intuitive than ACR - but that maybee because I have spent so much time with it.

I think its worth pointing out that ACR has to cope with all of the RAW file formats out there. DPP specialises to its own - its therefore highly unlikely ACR will ever be as consistent as DPP with Canon Raw files.

I would love Canon to add a clipping indicator to DPP [ive emailed them about it a few times] as I find the clipping indicator in LR to be really useful.
Logged

Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 10, 2007, 02:51:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree - the Luminence Curve is an incredibly powerful tool. However one can only blame Canon for most people's unfamiliarity with it. The tutorials hardly give it a proper mention.

Quote
I would love Canon to add a clipping indicator to DPP [ive emailed them about it a few times] as I find the clipping indicator in LR to be really useful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Once again Canon is to blame here. DPP is on it's third version and they have overlooked this tool. Yet my Canon 30D has a clipping tool on the LCD viewer -  why can't they put one on DPP?
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