Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon DPP and ACR 2.4  (Read 4407 times)
petercook80
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« on: November 25, 2010, 08:40:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello all, I wanted to pose the question as to which would be 'better' to use for RAW conversion Canon DPP (now 3.9 I think) or ACR 2.4 (with PS CS).
I have been working by converting the Canon (G10) CR2 file to DNG and then working with ACR 2.4 but I wonder if I should really be using Canon DPP.
(I dont want to purchase any other software at present so its really between these two.)
Any thoughts/comment appreciated
Logged
Bruce O
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2010, 10:25:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Given the option of using the latest version of DPP or a really old version of ACR, I would go with DPP.  Version 3.9 is still not available on Canon's USA site but it is available here:

http://software.canon-europe.com/products/0000492.asp

You can find quite a few useful tutorials on DPP here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=1228

DPP only works with Canon RAW files (there are some adjustments available for .jpg or. tif files but they are very limited) and, since it is 'free', I think it is often overlooked.  But for editing those Canon RAW files, I find I get good results with DPP.   I've used ACR, Lightroom and tried DXO, and, while there are things I like about all of these programs, I now use DPP for all my RAW editing and export to PS those few files that need something I can't do in DPP.
Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 815



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2010, 11:46:00 AM »
ReplyReply

DPP is a very competent program, but doesn't have the feature set of ACR. And ACR works best when you make custom camera profiles. I suggest you take a couple favorite images and make them look as good as you can in each program, then evaluate the resulting TIFF file. Look for sharpening artifacts, smoothness of tone in skin & sky, etc.

If you really like DPP, then to take it farther and really make it an excellent tool, you'll probably want to use Canon's Picture Style Editor to make custom recipes to suit your taste. I find "Standard" too harsh, but like its color rendering. I like the contrast of "Faithful" but find the colors too dull, so I made my own Picture Styles to suit various subject matter.

Either way you go, you'll get satisfactory results.
Logged

~ CB
petercook80
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2010, 03:34:53 AM »
ReplyReply

DPP is a very competent program, but doesn't have the feature set of ACR. And ACR works best when you make custom camera profiles. I suggest you take a couple favorite images and make them look as good as you can in each program, then evaluate the resulting TIFF file. Look for sharpening artifacts, smoothness of tone in skin & sky, etc.

If you really like DPP, then to take it farther and really make it an excellent tool, you'll probably want to use Canon's Picture Style Editor to make custom recipes to suit your taste. I find "Standard" too harsh, but like its color rendering. I like the contrast of "Faithful" but find the colors too dull, so I made my own Picture Styles to suit various subject matter.

Either way you go, you'll get satisfactory results.
Thanks for the reply, what you say may be true but I am using ACR2.4 which does not have camera profiles etc. so your comments may not be valid in my case.  I will look at the Picture Style Editor so thanks for that tip.
Logged
petercook80
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2010, 03:45:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Given the option of using the latest version of DPP or a really old version of ACR, I would go with DPP.  Version 3.9 is still not available on Canon's USA site but it is available here:

http://software.canon-europe.com/products/0000492.asp

You can find quite a few useful tutorials on DPP here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=1228

DPP only works with Canon RAW files (there are some adjustments available for .jpg or. tif files but they are very limited) and, since it is 'free', I think it is often overlooked.  But for editing those Canon RAW files, I find I get good results with DPP.   I've used ACR, Lightroom and tried DXO, and, while there are things I like about all of these programs, I now use DPP for all my RAW editing and export to PS those few files that need something I can't do in DPP.
Thanks for the reply, I have got the latest 3.9.2 version and looked at the tutorials (thanks), I think I will pursure the route of doing my RAW processing in DPP then going to PS CS for other adjustments and printing.

Can I ask do you save your adjustments in the RAW file in DPP or as a recipe? I was not 100% sold on the idea of saving the changes data back to the original RAW file, I know its not changing the RAW data just tagging the data for the changes but I wonder about the possibilities of data corruption happening when saving to the RAW file.
Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 815



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2010, 07:22:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am using ACR2.4 which does not have camera profiles etc. so your comments may not be valid in my case.

The process to make custom camera profiles for ACR uses a Macbeth color checker, DNG software from Adobe Labs and controlled lighting. Complete information is here.

I would also say that producing a custom camera profile for ACR is similar to make custom Canon Picture Styles. The two methods are very different, but the result (more accurate color and tonal scales, or customized alternative imaging) is the end to both methods.

Quote
do you save your adjustments in the RAW file in DPP or as a recipe? I was not 100% sold on the idea of saving the changes data back to the original RAW file, I know its not changing the RAW data just tagging the data for the changes but I wonder about the possibilities of data corruption happening when saving to the RAW file.

I always save my approved changes to the files. You are correct that the raw data is not affected, but I find this method more efficient than using a separate file (like ACR).

I also think the chances of data corruption when using this method are no greater than when using ACR or any other raw processor.
Logged

~ CB
Bruce O
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2010, 12:39:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I save my changes to the file.  The files are not actually changed (the adjustment information is just attached to them) so file corruption is not an issue.  If I ever want to go back to the original file settings I can by going to Adjustment > Revert to Shot Settings.   I don't save adjustments as recipes because I find that I often will take a fresh look at an image each time  I reprint it (or the software is updated or I learn how to use it better).  I will occasionally save changes to the clipboard, then copy them to another image, when that image is shot under the exact same conditions.

A lot depends on what kind of shooting you do.  The method I use works for landscapes, where each shot usually has unique lighting.  If you the kind of shooting where you can duplicate your lighting conditions over and over, then saving files as recipes may be a more useful thing to do.
Logged
petercook80
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2010, 08:34:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for all the replies, I have decided to take the DPP route for RAW conversions, did a few tests and just prefered what DPP output to what ACR2.3 did. Not a lot in it though. Now need to learn how to use it and will post a few more questions I am sure.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad