Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Use LR for RAW conversion, or Canon's software?  (Read 13047 times)
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 687


WWW
« Reply #60 on: July 13, 2008, 06:47:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been using LR since the first beta test version. It rocks.

Last month I replaced my Canon 1Ds Mk II with the new Mk III model. I installed DPP that came with the camera on my MacPro to give it a try. After a few hours of a very frustrating experience with the software, I came to conclusion that the quality was no different, but the workflow was so terrible when compared to LR that the DPP software is functionally unusable. I uninstalled it and I continue to use LR 1.4.

The first time that I used DPP was with my Canon 10D about 5 years ago. Quite frankly, I'm amazed that with all of the technical savvy and resources that Canon has, I find it unbelievable that they can not produce better software. It's almost like their engineers have never tried LR, ACR/Bridge, Capture One or any of the other 3rd party RAW converters to see what the state-of-the-art is out in the real world.

I've played with the LR 2.0 beta and it adds some very cool features. I don't trust it for my final images so I'm looking forward to the production release to upgrade.

Cheers,
Bud James
North Wales, PA
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921


« Reply #61 on: July 13, 2008, 02:23:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You are certainly doing something wrong here. Thumbs from CR2 files mostly look flat and lifeless becuase they are based on the jpeg previews generated by the camera. Of course if you crank up the sat, sharpness, etc in the camera then they might look OK but they are still camera-baked jpeg previews.

Bring a CR2 into LR, adjust it to where it needs to be and the save out as a DNG and the thumbs generated in DNG aware software reflect those adjustments. The same is not true for straight CR2 file in apps like IView, PhotoMechanic and all the web software. like Dreamweaver etc.

There is no 'loss' converting to DNG, that's not the way it works. If the colours change it's because you are not doing it correctly. Have another look at your workflow and you'll see that this is true.

Also, as Andrew Rodney has said, "do the heavy (tonal) lifting in RAW" and do the pixel level stuff in PS. There are advantages to this as you are working on the RAW data not an exported TIFF. PS is less colour-accurate in curves adjustments than the RAW converters.

It's a bit like scanning film - better to do the tonal edits in the scanner software and then do the pixel stuff in PS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I actually imported a DPP RAW conversion into LR, and put it next to a LR/ACR conversion. No difference.

ACR/LR seem to take control over another RAW converters' conversions, if that is at all possible.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2008, 02:36:03 PM by The View » Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921


« Reply #62 on: July 13, 2008, 02:35:00 PM »
ReplyReply

But still, when I look at the DPP conversions, they appear smoother, have better detail and light quality.

It's easy to get spoiled with the ease of use of LR.

While every photographer has his own preferences, LR just seems to wash out the material appearance of things (and skin) and haze the light to a point where it loses quite a lot of its descriptive and poetic qualities. It's not as "there" as in DPP.

I may take a look at beta 2.0, if the download is still available. Maybe some of the technology of  RAW shooter premium, bought by Adobe, shows up and change things.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2008, 02:36:44 PM by The View » Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Littlefield
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #63 on: July 13, 2008, 04:15:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But still, when I look at the DPP conversions, they appear smoother, have better detail and light quality.

It's easy to get spoiled with the ease of use of LR.

While every photographer has his own preferences, LR just seems to wash out the material appearance of things (and skin) and haze the light to a point where it loses quite a lot of its descriptive and poetic qualities. It's not as "there" as in DPP.

I may take a look at beta 2.0, if the download is still available. Maybe some of the technology of RAW shooter premium, bought by Adobe, shows up and change things.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
DPP has Canon  Proprietary software so the raw file   will be different and has more saturation . I remember with RSP people  said the image changes to a dull color after a second . I have RSP its sharpening out of box blows away DPP and LR or ACR but you still had to really tweek it to get the picture compared to DPP.It is supposed to be like that in LR and you have to change it to get a good quality .
« Last Edit: July 13, 2008, 04:18:40 PM by Littlefield » Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921


« Reply #64 on: July 13, 2008, 04:31:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
DPP has Canon  Proprietary software so the raw file   will be different and has more saturation . I remember with RSP people  said the image changes to a dull color after a second . I have RSP its sharpening out of box blows away DPP and LR or ACR but you still had to really tweek it to get the picture compared to DPP.It is supposed to be like that in LR and you have to change it to get a good quality .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure you need to tweak. The out of the box-appearance is not what I am referring to.

It is the style/quality/nature of the LR conversion. Certain basic decisions have been made by engineers that will design the direction and character of a conversion. You can tweak within these parameters.

If your desired result lies out of this zone, you need to go and look for a different raw converter.

My personal opinion is, that current "workflow tools" are too much focused on ease of use and convenience, and leave out where top quality work is concerned.

Like in film, where you needed to find the right developer, paper, film emulsions, filters you need to find its equivalents in the digital photographic work process.

I found out weaknesses of ACR/LR. I need to find a chain of tools that gives me a better quality light, and which gives - excuse the poetic term - a higher sense of "materialness" and presence to what is in an image.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Littlefield
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #65 on: July 13, 2008, 04:50:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sure you need to tweak. The out of the box-appearance is not what I am referring to.

It is the style/quality/nature of the LR conversion. Certain basic decisions have been made by engineers that will design the direction and character of a conversion. You can tweak within these parameters.

If your desired result lies out of this zone, you need to go and look for a different raw converter.

My personal opinion is, that current "workflow tools" are too much focused on ease of use and convenience, and leave out where top quality work is concerned.

Like in film, where you needed to find the right developer, paper, film emulsions, filters you need to find its equivalents in the digital photographic work process.

I found out weaknesses of ACR/LR. I need to find a chain of tools that gives me a better quality light, and which gives - excuse the poetic term - a higher sense of "materialness" and presence to what is in an image.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is a guy on POTN that  said he found   Sliky pix better.Maybe try it or Bibble .
I got LR free since I had RSP .

[a href=\"http://bibblelabs.com/]http://bibblelabs.com/[/url]

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/
« Last Edit: July 13, 2008, 05:05:36 PM by Littlefield » Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921


« Reply #66 on: July 14, 2008, 12:55:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is a guy on POTN that  said he found   Sliky pix better.Maybe try it or Bibble .
I got LR free since I had RSP .

http://bibblelabs.com/

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

POTN and RSP are possible secret abbreviations. Can you fill me in, or would you then have to kill me?

Here is a nice overview.

[a href=\"http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/pages/whitebalance3.htm]http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverte...itebalance3.htm[/url]

Look at the face of the ACR girl. It's almost like blurred.

Yes, I'm convinced now that ACR's/LR's RAW conversions don't satisfy me.

Capture One Pro and BreezeBrowserPro look better. The latter is out of the game, as it is Windows only.

There is also RAWdeveloper, but I have to check it out first.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921


« Reply #67 on: July 14, 2008, 12:57:52 AM »
ReplyReply

This photographer got so frustrated with commercially available RAW converters, he wrote his own.

It's free, and check it out. Free here means "work of passion", and he will not charge you for downloading it. He developed this software in cooperation with another professional photographer.

http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Littlefield
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #68 on: July 14, 2008, 01:37:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This photographer got so frustrated with commercially available RAW converters, he wrote his own.

It's free, and check it out. Free here means "work of passion", and he will not charge you for downloading it. He developed this software in cooperation with another professional photographer.

http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mac OS X (10.4 or 10.5 only I do not have them.

[a href=\"http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php]http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php[/url]

POTN is a great  site a forum ,the best for Canon IMO  
RSP is Raw Shooter Premium,  RIP  
 Michael Tapes is working on another raw converter too .
« Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 01:44:32 AM by Littlefield » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #69 on: July 14, 2008, 12:20:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverte...itebalance3.htm

Look at the face of the ACR girl. It's almost like blurred.

Yes, I'm convinced now that ACR's/LR's RAW conversions don't satisfy me.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you bother the READ the text, the author says: "It is important to remember that these images are presented as constructed from each RAW converter's default settings. These images are not representative of the best image that each RAW converter is capable of producing."

Setting each app to "Defaults" an NOT adjusting for optimal results is only testing what the application can do at default. Which is where your opinion fails to valid.

Becoming knowledgeable enough to properly use a variety of raw processors is unlikely. If YOU can't get the best out of Camera Raw/Lightroom, there are two obvious reasons...one, it can't be done because the software is deficient (which is what your opinion is based upon) and the other is that YOU don't have a clue how to get the best out of Camera Raw/Lightroom in terms of image quality.

Basing your opinion upon a test that tests the various processes at default is ignorant. It means that you are accepting at face value, that none of the processes have the ability to move beyond the default settings.

Yes, at "default" Canon's DPP does a better job of processing Canon raw files than Camera Raw and Lightroom. CR/LR support over 170 different raw file formats. DPP only has to support Canon raw file formats. Which will do a better job at default? DOH...

On the other hand, knowing what all the sliders in CR/LR do and being able to use them expertly will produce optimal results well beyond the "default"...

You might want to bone up a bit on actually using CR/LR and ignore the "compare at defaults" tests of others...
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #70 on: July 14, 2008, 12:50:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with that.  You're best off just picking a program and learning that really well.

ACR/LR gives you a lot of control that DPP doesn't.  It is pretty easy to hang yourself with that control.  This is particularly true when playing with clarity and the assorted detail tab sliders.
Logged
oldcsar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #71 on: July 14, 2008, 04:30:32 PM »
ReplyReply

This thread interested me enough to try out DPP with my 30D and Rebel files. The user interface isn't half-bad, and it's true that it is much better with default white balance. I also found the automatic chromatic aberration/ purple fringing reduction pretty effective. However, white balance can easily be adjusted with LR, as well as chromatic aberration/purple fringing reduction.

I also found that chroma noise reduction was not as effective as LR with my high ISO files... it appears more conservative than LR even at higher settings (which some might like, but I find it lacking).

However, I find the basic sharpening lackluster. It is simply not versatile enough to handle capture sharpening the way that LR 1.4.1 can. DPP's sharpening reminds me of LR 1.0's sharpening, albeit with even less precision.

Exposure wise, there was no highlight recovery function that I could find. There is the possibility of achieving somewhat similar results with its curves function, but I find it far too fiddly when comparing it to LR's HR and parametric exposure sliders.

It is also interesting that Canon's own DPP raw converter is specialized for CRW and CR2s, yet it refuses to even display my Canon G9 CR2 files. It is understandable if Canon intends for DPP to be used with their DSLRs, but I don't see why they wouldn't include the G9 at the very least, considering that many people who have DSLRs may also have a compact they carry around. And, it is the same proprietary RAW format! LR handles all my RAW files, from every single Canon compact (and DSLR) that I've owned.

All things considered, DPP has very limited capabilities when compared with lightroom... simply on the RAW development level, all other workflow bells and whistles aside.
Logged

The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921


« Reply #72 on: July 24, 2008, 02:59:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This thread interested me enough to try out DPP with my 30D and Rebel files. The user interface isn't half-bad, and it's true that it is much better with default white balance. I also found the automatic chromatic aberration/ purple fringing reduction pretty effective. However, white balance can easily be adjusted with LR, as well as chromatic aberration/purple fringing reduction.

I also found that chroma noise reduction was not as effective as LR with my high ISO files... it appears more conservative than LR even at higher settings (which some might like, but I find it lacking).

However, I find the basic sharpening lackluster. It is simply not versatile enough to handle capture sharpening the way that LR 1.4.1 can. DPP's sharpening reminds me of LR 1.0's sharpening, albeit with even less precision.

Exposure wise, there was no highlight recovery function that I could find. There is the possibility of achieving somewhat similar results with its curves function, but I find it far too fiddly when comparing it to LR's HR and parametric exposure sliders.

It is also interesting that Canon's own DPP raw converter is specialized for CRW and CR2s, yet it refuses to even display my Canon G9 CR2 files. It is understandable if Canon intends for DPP to be used with their DSLRs, but I don't see why they wouldn't include the G9 at the very least, considering that many people who have DSLRs may also have a compact they carry around. And, it is the same proprietary RAW format! LR handles all my RAW files, from every single Canon compact (and DSLR) that I've owned.

All things considered, DPP has very limited capabilities when compared with lightroom... simply on the RAW development level, all other workflow bells and whistles aside.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208188\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use RAW converters for capture sharpening only, and do the rest in Photoshop, which allows me selective sharpening with masks.

The real beauty in DPP is the RGB tab with its curves panel. It lets you vary the color mood of the image without restrictions, very comparable to Photoshops' curves, and non-destructively.

The skin tones are beautiful in DPP, and so is the tonal response. I had only over a week of practice with DPP, but the results so far are very promising. I also get much quicker to where I want.

Like with every software, you need some time to get optimum results.

PS: I heard about the G9 thing. Did you load DPP from an older CD, or did you upgrade to the latest version?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2008, 03:03:44 AM by The View » Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
oldcsar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #73 on: July 24, 2008, 03:25:26 PM »
ReplyReply

It's completely fair to say that you need time to get optimum results... but I figure that if I have a handle on LR (which has far more parameters that can be easily adjusted), I'm better off sticking with it. I'm not saying that it's not possible to produce good shots with DPP, but that I simply can't adjust all my RAW files on it and get satisfactory results solely with DPP (you seem to admit yourself that Photoshop is required for satisfactory sharpening).

My question to you is this... how do you handle aggressive instances of highlight recovery with DPP?

I'm using DPP 3.4.1, which was the latest version when downloaded. God knows I wouldn't bother with Zoombrowser for G9 support... it would be smart of Canon to have a DPP-type converter that supports their DSLR Raws as well as popular prosumer compacts.

I shoot mostly nature shots, and do not require a beautiful skintone response.

Quote
The skin tones are beautiful in DPP, and so is the tonal response. I had only over a week of practice with DPP, but the results so far are very promising. I also get much quicker to where I want.

Like with every software, you need some time to get optimum results.

PS: I heard about the G9 thing. Did you load DPP from an older CD, or did you upgrade to the latest version?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921


« Reply #74 on: July 27, 2008, 09:51:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's completely fair to say that you need time to get optimum results... but I figure that if I have a handle on LR (which has far more parameters that can be easily adjusted), I'm better off sticking with it. I'm not saying that it's not possible to produce good shots with DPP, but that I simply can't adjust all my RAW files on it and get satisfactory results solely with DPP (you seem to admit yourself that Photoshop is required for satisfactory sharpening).

My question to you is this... how do you handle aggressive instances of highlight recovery with DPP?

I'm using DPP 3.4.1, which was the latest version when downloaded. God knows I wouldn't bother with Zoombrowser for G9 support... it would be smart of Canon to have a DPP-type converter that supports their DSLR Raws as well as popular prosumer compacts.

I shoot mostly nature shots, and do not require a beautiful skintone response.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

DPP isn't a secret juice, it's a RAW converter that I happen to like best at the moment (before researching C1 pro and DxO).

DPP with its RGB tab with "curves" is just what I like.

Highlight recovery: I take care with my exposure time, and actually never used the recovery slider a lot. I noticed it is not 100% disconnected from other image tones, and affects the light quality of an image negatively.

If I had serious trouble with the lights of an image: I just came across RPP (Raw Photo Processor), which can handle highlight recovery as well.

Yes, the Image Browser/Zoombrowser is useless. It's somehow connected to the download of images through the EOS utility, and this is the only reason why I haven't already deleted this useless piece of software.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad