Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Which would you choose....  (Read 3507 times)
petercook80
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« on: June 26, 2013, 01:21:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello all,
Which would you choose to use for.....  Canon DPP (current edition) or ACR 3.7(CS2) via a conversion to DNG.
I sort of see advantages to both, but I do like the fact that ACR integrates with the whole Bridge/CS2 workflow BUT I wonder if there are quality issues to consider as well that I am not aware of rather than just personal choices over which product I prefer to work with.
(I know there are other choices inc. upgrading but for now those are my choices.)
Thanks
Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1910



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2013, 02:16:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hello all,
Which would you choose to use for.....  Canon DPP (current edition) or ACR 3.7(CS2) via a conversion to DNG.
I sort of see advantages to both, but I do like the fact that ACR integrates with the whole Bridge/CS2 workflow BUT I wonder if there are quality issues to consider as well that I am not aware of rather than just personal choices over which product I prefer to work with.
(I know there are other choices inc. upgrading but for now those are my choices.)
Thanks

There is a very simple answer to this question and that is....

It Depends.

With that said - you might like to consider that DPP provides only very basic adjustments compared to ACR. Out of the box, that is with all adjustments at default, you will get a better rendering from DPP. However, the moment you start twiddling the dials the game changes and the real power or ACR shines through.

I actually just noticed you specifically mention CS2... thats generations old now and my comments above relate to the current version of ACR. I assume you are limiting yourself to ACR3.7 version because you have it already and don't want to spend any money. I would rethink this approach if you are able. RAW processing has advanced considerably since ACR3.7. If your budget is tight then Adobe Lightroom is an excellent low cost alternative and gives you a really nice DAM tool as well. Another benefit of Lightroom - you dodge the entire CC storm.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 02:21:25 AM by Josh-H » Logged

petercook80
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2013, 02:46:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the reply, but as I said in my post those are my choices for now - Yes Lightroom is pretty low cost now, but I would also need to upgrade my computer system to run it, which for now prohibits that option.
I am acutely aware of the age of ACR 3.7 , and that was the reason really for posting the question.
Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1910



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2013, 02:59:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the reply, but as I said in my post those are my choices for now - Yes Lightroom is pretty low cost now, but I would also need to upgrade my computer system to run it, which for now prohibits that option.
I am acutely aware of the age of ACR 3.7 , and that was the reason really for posting the question.

If those are really your only two options I would personally use DPP as the processing technology is much newer.
Logged

Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 709


« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2013, 01:45:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I use both ACR and LR to process files from a 1Ds Mklll. If you want the files to look as clean in ACR as they do in DPP, the first thing to do on import is to change the camera calibration from Adobe Standard to Camera Neutral, and reduce the blue luminance (in the HSL panel) by about 20 points.

You will then be looking at a file that looks exactly like what you see in DPP, but with the power of ACR at your disposal.

Depending on your camera choice, what you do in HSL may vary, but choosing Camera Neutral is a must. Adobe Standard is not a good starting point, IMHO.

D.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 01:57:42 AM by Dinarius » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad