Use LR for RAW conversion, or Canon's software?

[budjames]

I've tried various versions of DPP as I purchased new Canon bodies - 10D, 1DMkII, 1Ds MkII, 20D, 40D (current) and 1DsMkIII (current). I still come back to ACR and now LR as the workflow is much better and the conversions are fine.

I've purchased and viewed many times the excellent tutorials by Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe. These guys produce some of the best images I have ever seen and they use LR and ACR exclusively. Yes, I realize that Schewe is a consultant to Adobe, but I think that he would use the best tools available because he seems to be a perfectionist and technically savvy.

In cruising web sites of various top notch digital photographers, I cannot find a single one that uses DPP. All of the DSLR shooters are using Aperture, LR or ACR. I guess the poor workflow of DPP is a big problem for working pros.

Since learning how to use LR and ACR, the images that I produce are great and the integration with Photoshop is excellent. So I think that I'll stick to what the best photographers are using.

Bud James
North Wales, PA

[Sunesha]

I have noticed that I capture color outside off Adobe RGB that my printer can print.

I dont think it make day and night diffrence. But I always feel it is nice to keep all your information you captured in print.

[Panopeeper]

But if DPP can only do Adobe RGB, how could you convert to ProPhoto (that extra gamut isn't there)

I am using ACR most of the time. Perhaps you misunderstood my posts: I was not favouring DPP but explaining the advantages and disadvantages.

DPP stores the adjustments in the raw file, that's enough for me not to use it except for "utility" purposes.

Regarding the auto adjustments, that means LR would counterbalance certain camera model's tendency for e.g. underexposure in a Pentax?

No, it has nothing to do with underexposure. It is rather a "unification" of the ISO setting. Many if not most camera's ISO values are off, for example ISO 100 should be called ISO 118, but the manufacturers don't want to acknowledge that.

Nevertheless, the automatic adjustment is a total nonsense; it can ruin the image. (and it is much more than what I listed above, for some cameras and ISOs).

The 40D is a particular case: @ ISO 100: 0 EV, @ ISO 125: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 160: -0.11 EV, @ ISO 200: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 250: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 320: -0.11 EV, etc.
These adjustments are for "compatibility": Adobe did not analyse the camera properly at the very beginning, the handling of the raw data was way off. I reported the error, and it has been corrected (the clipping levels were assumed incorrectly), but now the auto-exposure adjustment "makes up" for the previous error, i.e. the result is incorrect again.

But what do you say to that sharpness comparison at dpreview?
Is DPP really sharper, or could you go at this same sharpness level by going to the detail panel in LR? After all, it's non-destructive...

DPP is not "sharper". It does not sharpen too strong, and it should not. Anyway, the sharpening control of ACR is superior to DPP, for those, who want to get the final product from ACR. I am using it only for slight capture sharpening, the rest comes much later in PS.

[Misirlou]

Just to "toss a *&^% in the punchbowl" here, I think my DXO converted files have better sharpness at high mag that either DPP or Lightroom versions.

[The View]

In cruising web sites of various top notch digital photographers, I cannot find a single one that uses DPP. All of the DSLR shooters are using Aperture, LR or ACR. I guess the poor workflow of DPP is a big problem for working pros.

Since learning how to use LR and ACR, the images that I produce are great and the integration with Photoshop is excellent. So I think that I'll stick to what the best photographers are using.

Bud James
North Wales, PA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am very comfortable with the LR workflow, and I wanted to make sure if I didn't miss out on some quality just out of being comfortable with a workflow I acquired when I switched to digital.

[The View]

DPP stores the adjustments in the raw file, that's enough for me not to use it except for "utility" purposes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LR stores it in the file when exporting, if I'm not mistaken. Or is it a sidecar-file?

No, it has nothing to do with underexposure. It is rather a "unification" of the ISO setting. Many if not most camera's ISO values are off, for example ISO 100 should be called ISO 118, but the manufacturers don't want to acknowledge that.

Nevertheless, the automatic adjustment is a total nonsense; it can ruin the image. (and it is much more than what I listed above, for some cameras and ISOs).

The 40D is a particular case: @ ISO 100: 0 EV, @ ISO 125: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 160: -0.11 EV, @ ISO 200: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 250: +0.24 EV, @ ISO 320: -0.11 EV, etc.
These adjustments are for "compatibility": Adobe did not analyse the camera properly at the very beginning, the handling of the raw data was way off. I reported the error, and it has been corrected (the clipping levels were assumed incorrectly), but now the auto-exposure adjustment "makes up" for the previous error, i.e. the result is incorrect again.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In which way does it/can it ruin the image, and what can I do about it?

DPP is not "sharper". It does not sharpen too strong, and it should not. Anyway, the sharpening control of ACR is superior to DPP, for those, who want to get the final product from ACR. I am using it only for slight capture sharpening, the rest comes much later in PS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Did you take a look at that dpreview comparison I linked to? Why does the DPP rendition look sharper there? It is just a matter of import settings, LR/ACR being more conservative with it?

[The View]

I'm generally looking for a better understanding of what a RAW converter does, and how it works, and why some are better than others.

Would someone have a good link to a website?

How does the quality of a RAW converter compare? Is it like different scanners produce different quality scans, with more or less detail, sharpness, color information?

Or is it like a better or worse microphone? Or is it just a mathematical file, and all RAW conversions are equal. And the differences you see are only basic settings after conversion? (I guess the answer to the last is no, and that there are poor RAW conversions).

[Panopeeper]

In which way does it/can it ruin the image, and what can I do about it?

If you exposed properly, a positive adjustment "creates" overexposure, just like when you are moving the "exposure" slider. A negative adjustment makes the image appear darker.

You can counteract the effect with the same amount of adjustment, in the opposite direction. In fact, the best is to always start out that way.

Did you take a look at that dpreview comparison I linked to? Why does the DPP rendition look sharper there? It is just a matter of import settings, LR/ACR being more conservative with it?

You can make it sharper with ACR as well. The main difference is, that DPP applies the in-camera settings, sharpening as well, but ACR does not. This means, that if the defaults of ACR are not "equal" to the in-camera setting, then you have to make explicite adjustment in order to achieve comparable result.

I'm generally looking for a better understanding of what a RAW converter does, and how it works, and why some are better than others

I don't venture into comparing different raw converters; there are quite a few out there. However, the way to understand what and how they are doing is IMO through understanding the nature of the raw data. Rawnalyze ist one way to achieve that:

General description, downloading
User's guide with many examples

[madmanchan]

DPP's widest gamut color space option is "Wide Gamut RGB" (I think you have to go to the Adjustment -> Work color space menu). This is comparable to ProPhoto RGB in terms of gamut size, and quite a bit bigger than Adobe RGB.

Current Canons have the default in-camera setting of the Standard Picture Style, which applies a higher level of default sharpening than what CR applies. This is largely why the default rendering in DPP looks more detailed than CR's default. If you use CR and prefer higher levels of default sharpening, you can increase the sharpening level and either (1) save that adjustment as a new default for your camera or, similarly, (2) create a preset with that increased sharpening which can be applied easily to large groups of images.

The View, here's an article (not sure how up-to-date it is) that has a discussion of raw converters in various areas: http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverte...wconverters.htm

RAW conversions are definitely not equal. The starting point is the same, but the end results are different. As a loose analogy, consider the musical score created by a composer and then given to a pianist. All pianists get the same score, but all performances are different.

[Panopeeper]

As a loose analogy, consider the musical score created by a composer and then given to a pianist. All pianists get the same score, but all performances are different.

Excellent analogy. Another good one is, that the raw data is the undeveloped negative.

[Littlefield]

Excellent analogy. Another good one is, that the raw data is the undeveloped negative.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207133\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Still do not understand how you are going to ruin the raw image as it can be corrected .

[Panopeeper]

Still do not understand how you are going to ruin the raw image as it can be corrected .

It does not ruin the *raw image*, it ruins the *result of the conversion*, which too is an image, isn't it.

[Littlefield]

It does not ruin the *raw image*, it ruins the *result of the conversion*, which too is an image, isn't it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207201\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not  wanting to be scarcastic I just think of ruined as utterly destroyed or beyond recovery . I admit I am new to digital photography but   have used RSP and now LR and just thought that sounded strange about you saying using LR  can ruin the image and should almost be used with caution .

[Panopeeper]

just thought that sounded strange about you saying using LR  can ruin the image and should almost be used with caution

Not LR but ACR, and I don't think I said "caution"; however, one has to be aware the way ACR is treating the raw files.

The adjustment is not always peanut:

D50, D70, D100: -0.75 EV
D200, D2X, D40: -0.5 EV
and it goes up to +2 EV with certain cameras.

[Nick Rains]

Not LR but ACR, and I don't think I said "caution"; however, one has to be aware the way ACR is treating the raw files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So LR does not apply these adjustments, but ACR does? That is not my experience - if this was the case then they would look slightly different in exposure given the same settings. AFAIK LR and ACR are one and the same.

[Littlefield]

Not LR but ACR, and I don't think I said "caution"; however, one has to be aware the way ACR is treating the raw files.

The adjustment is not always peanut:

D50, D70, D100: -0.75 EV
D200, D2X, D40: -0.5 EV
and it goes up to +2 EV with certain cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207206\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If I add to this the fact, that ACR makes an auto-adjustment of "exposure", which can ruin the image, but does not say a word about it, then I can only say: stay away from ACR until you don't understand, what it is doing

 Do you mean   stay away , beware, use almost caution until you do understand what it is doing  

[Panopeeper]

AFAIK LR and ACR are one and the same.

ACR is a plug-in of PS and LR. I stressed, that ACR is doing this, because the same is happening in PS, as well as in the DNG conversion (the result of the conversion has to be the same, no matter if the native raw file or the converted DNG will be used by ACR).

[Panopeeper]

Do you mean   stay away , beware, use almost caution until you do understand what it is doing 

Well, my point was not that one should not use ACR. I find ACR a very good raw converter However, if one is not be aware of what is happening, it can have bad consequences.

Imagine, that someone does not know, that his ISO 800 shots get boosted by 2 EV: one will regularly underexpose, because the "normally" exposed images look burned out. The other side: if -0.75 EV is applied, one would increase the exposure by bias, which would lead to factual clipping (saturation of the raw pixels), but remain hidden in ACR.

[The View]

I don't venture into comparing different raw converters; there are quite a few out there. However, the way to understand what and how they are doing is IMO through understanding the nature of the raw data. Rawnalyze ist one way to achieve that:

General description, downloading
User's guide with many examples
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207121\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks. But unfortunately it's Windows only.

[The View]

DPP's widest gamut color space option is "Wide Gamut RGB" (I think you have to go to the Adjustment -> Work color space menu). This is comparable to ProPhoto RGB in terms of gamut size, and quite a bit bigger than Adobe RGB.

Current Canons have the default in-camera setting of the Standard Picture Style, which applies a higher level of default sharpening than what CR applies. This is largely why the default rendering in DPP looks more detailed than CR's default. If you use CR and prefer higher levels of default sharpening, you can increase the sharpening level and either (1) save that adjustment as a new default for your camera or, similarly, (2) create a preset with that increased sharpening which can be applied easily to large groups of images.

The View, here's an article (not sure how up-to-date it is) that has a discussion of raw converters in various areas: http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverte...wconverters.htm

RAW conversions are definitely not equal. The starting point is the same, but the end results are different. As a loose analogy, consider the musical score created by a composer and then given to a pianist. All pianists get the same score, but all performances are different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Looks like that detail and sharpness advantage dpreview noticed was due to the settings in DPP. Panopeeper mentioned something similar.

Well, I guess I didn't choose all that bad by choosing LR when it came out. I just want to understand how good a musician the LR pianist is, and if he can play the notes that I shot well.