Adobe Camera Raw vs Digital Photo Professional

Bernt Bigton said:

That could be a good idea. There is some tools in ACR that is
really useful. The ones you mentioned, and the ability to recover
blown out highlights to. In those cases you decide to use ACR, are
you using DPP first and then save the adjustments in the RAW-file
and then opens it in ACR afterwards?

Click to expand...

...in fact a big part of its problem, I think, is that it doesn't pick up image processing details at all from the RAW format, such as Picture Styles or at least their settings. So, no, if I have to process an image in ACR, I usually use the image as processed there OR if the color rendition is really way off from natural (or intended - mostly this is with reds and flesh tones, which tend to be too pinkish), I'll process the image using both converters, getting colors as consistent as I can in ACR, then layer them in a Photoshop document, masking the ACR layer only to reveal the areas rendered better in that conversion and leaving the DPP conversion otherwise intact.

Hope that helps.

Bernt Bigton said:

Kabe Luna said:

About 6 months of converting RAW to DNG, then I upgraded my
computer (faster processor and more memory) and tried DPP again and
had the same revelation you did. Now the only other converter I use
is ACR for CA correction and NR on high ISO shots. Otherwise, I'm
all DPP. Nothing matches the detail, nothing matches the colors.

As for ditching your CRW and/or CR2 files...we live and learn.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

...meaning I've managed contrast and placed highlight and shadow detail within the sensors DR and set my desired white balance, there's no need to start from scratch with ACR when DPP will simply return me the image as I shot it. The point, for me at least, is to spend less time in front of the computer editing and more time either enjoying my family or making more images. I have no problem with DPP doing the heavy lifting, especially if it gives me what I want, faster, and with greater precision.

That said, I agree that if you don't endeavor to get your shot nailed down in-camera and need post processing to manage contrast by extending the shadow range and/or recovering highlights, or want to eliminate CA, then ACR is the tool of choice. But that convenience comes at the expense of color accuracy. By my experience (trying like heck for the last year to calibrate ACR), there remains no way to get easy accurate colors across the spectrum from it. Particularly, reds seem impossible to get right without sacrificing greens and blues. If you're figured out a calibration that yields color accurate results under daylight and tungsten, please share your settings.

Thanks.

Hellashot said:

..as several of you have stated.

What you may be seeing is different default settings.

DPP:
as-shot exposure settings, picture style junk added

ACR:
allows to darken highlights and lighten shadows giving a lighter -
less contrast look if you dont add a lot of contrast.
No picture style junk added.

All DPP does is do a lot for the user right at the start, but the
exposure adjustment tools in ACR RAW converter utility are much
quicker than DPP which only gives RAW exposure then you have to
mess around with curves to adjust highlights and shadows.

And I can get the same look with PSE 3 in the end that DPP images
have, but with better and quicker exposure adjustments.

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

allnak said:

Up until a few weeks ago, I had been using DPP for most of my
conversions and ACR/Lightroom for tweaks. But, I did a few tests
matching up shots in Lightroom w/ DPP and RIT versions and saved
them as presets in Lightroom and there's been no looking back.
Lightroom's color callibration leaves ACR in the dust and there's
enough tweaking in there to get the colors that you want if you
know what you're doing. After saving the presets, I haven't had to
spend so much time with the colors like I used to in Lightroom.
The one thing that I miss from DPP is the luminance curve and don't
understand why Lightroom hasn't implemented something like this.
Would love to tweak the tones without worrying about
saturation/hues etc.

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

My pics

DPP v2.2 is surprisingly good - thanks for the heads up - and I think that it is better than ACR and Lightroom. In fact, it is better, IMO, than RSP for quality of conversions (but not in workflow). So, here's the question - what is Adobe going to do now? Buy out Canon after buying out RSP? Can they afford to kill off more of their competition or will they be forced to start writing better software? Geez, what if they bought out Canon? Can you imagine their slow, bloated, Microsoftesque software inside a 1 series camera? Wow, there's a thought...

regards
JP

bdog01 said:

DPP v2.2 is surprisingly good - thanks for the heads up - and I
think that it is better than ACR and Lightroom. In fact, it is
better, IMO, than RSP for quality of conversions (but not in
workflow). So, here's the question - what is Adobe going to do
now? Buy out Canon after buying out RSP? Can they afford to kill
off more of their competition or will they be forced to start
writing better software? Geez, what if they bought out Canon? Can
you imagine their slow, bloated, Microsoftesque software inside a 1
series camera? Wow, there's a thought...

regards
JP

Click to expand...

You said the MS word....

I think DPP is superior to CS2 for RAW file management; your 100% right CS2 is so bloated even on a fast machine it starts s-l-o-w, and gets worse from there. Not DPP, and I like viewing RAWS better with DPP AND Zoombrowser; I wish Canon would marry those two togeather, or add a few features form Zoom to DPP. I won't convert my archive files from RAW to anything else; I don't trust Adobe more than engineers at Canon. I don't trust MS at all!!!!

I have not been able to find a way to control vignetting with DPP as easily as with ACR. Also, some images come out way too saturated with DPP, and undersaturated with ACR. I wish I could find a comprimise.

That doesn't surprise me - but does it however at least retain the white balance setting set in DPP?

Mark

Kabe Luna said:

Bernt Bigton said:

That could be a good idea. There is some tools in ACR that is
really useful. The ones you mentioned, and the ability to recover
blown out highlights to. In those cases you decide to use ACR, are
you using DPP first and then save the adjustments in the RAW-file
and then opens it in ACR afterwards?

Click to expand...

...in fact a big part of its problem, I think, is that it doesn't
pick up image processing details at all from the RAW format, such
as Picture Styles or at least their settings. So, no, if I have to
process an image in ACR, I usually use the image as processed there
OR if the color rendition is really way off from natural (or
intended - mostly this is with reds and flesh tones, which tend to
be too pinkish), I'll process the image using both converters,
getting colors as consistent as I can in ACR, then layer them in a
Photoshop document, masking the ACR layer only to reveal the areas
rendered better in that conversion and leaving the DPP conversion
otherwise intact.

Hope that helps.

Kabe Luna said:

Kabe Luna said:

About 6 months of converting RAW to DNG, then I upgraded my
computer (faster processor and more memory) and tried DPP again and
had the same revelation you did. Now the only other converter I use
is ACR for CA correction and NR on high ISO shots. Otherwise, I'm
all DPP. Nothing matches the detail, nothing matches the colors.

As for ditching your CRW and/or CR2 files...we live and learn.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mholdef/galleries

Deleting your CR2 files is akin to throwing away your film negatives.
--
When I ask which Canon lenses are best,
people tell me to 'go to L.'

Doug Pardee said:

No, you're thinking of Raw Image Task (formerly EOS Viewer Utility,
formerly File Viewer Utility). That's the program that uses the
same processing that the Digic chips do.

Canon created DPP as a faster alternative to RIT/EVU/FVU, using
different Raw-conversion techniques.

Ref: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200407/200407.html

Click to expand...

That report stated "File Viewer Utility (FVU) application software was used to develop (process) RAW images taken by the EOS DIGITAL SLR cameras. To meet increasing needs and demands from users for faster RAW image processing and improved operability, Canon developed the EOS Viewer Utility (EVU) application software for the EOS-1D Mark II, but File Viewer Utility series software has limits on the RAW image processing speed. The software works on the image processing algorithm performed in the camera by a high-performance imaging engine, remarkably faster than the processing of a PC. Therefore, we could not expect dramatic performance improvements in RAW image processing speed even with improvement in PC performance."

To me "The software works on the image processing algorithm performed in the camera by a high-performance imaging engine" means the File Viewer Utility will produce an image that is close to an EOS digital camera. Algorithm are done in software on processors both change over time so does output produced. Additionally the architecture of the in camera processor and PC processor are very different and may net even have the same precision. I would not expect a 8bit Jpeg image produced even by Canon File Viewer Utility to exactly match the Jpeg image the would have been produced by Digital EOS model that produced the RAW file had the user been using Jpeg instead.

The Technical Report File Viewer Utility
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200303/200303.html

Only goes into how one can develop a raw file into an image does not mention anything about Algorithm used or if camer setting are used for its defaults.
--
JJMack

This is a question that has been on my mind for some time. I will just offer this observation---They both offer a good process, but most of the time, I tend to think the color is a little better with DPP. But not always. For important shots,I use both, then choose the one that looks better for that particular shot. I like this digital photo process. I started photography in 1940. D.Blake--
Waymire

You are absolutely right, but as Kabe Luna wrote:
we live and learn.
I've just learned the hard way

DotCom Editor said:

Deleting your CR2 files is akin to throwing away your film negatives.
--
When I ask which Canon lenses are best,
people tell me to 'go to L.'

Click to expand...

Jay,

I'm relatively new to this, so I have a question for you: CR2, is this the raw format of Canon, and what is Digital Photo Professional, and DNG ?

As I believe you're quiet an expert, I guess you can give me a clear answer.

Thank you already !!!!

daniel de roeck said:

Jay,
I'm relatively new to this, so I have a question for you: CR2, is
this the raw format of Canon, and what is Digital Photo
Professional, and DNG ?

Click to expand...

Digital Photo Professional, commonly called DPP, is Canon's RAW converter. It comes with the cameras for free and updates are downloadable on Canon's various web sites.

DNG is Adobe Digital Negative. It's supposed to be a way to store RAW files in a non-proprietary way but there are some glitches in the process and for sure not everyone has adopted it.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

In fact, if they could make the DPP/ZoomBrowser work together - ie, a better UI - they might actually be able to sell the product. For the price ($0 if you own a Canon), you can't beat the value of DPP. And think of all the money I've saved by not buying the PSCS2 upgrade...or aperture....or (is it commercial yet?) lightroom.
--
Wilfred M Rand
http://www.pbase.com/wilfredmrand/

To be sure, DPP is not perfect, but my hat is off to Canon for trying to bring their software up to speed. Wilfred, I would agree that at some point, they could start charging for an improved version of this product, however Nikon does get away with charging for their NX, and its NEF conversions are quite inferior (with a wretched WB problem) to DPP's CR2 conversions, unfortunately.

Regards
JP

mholdef said:

Mark

Kabe Luna said:

Bernt Bigton said:

That could be a good idea. There is some tools in ACR that is
really useful. The ones you mentioned, and the ability to recover
blown out highlights to. In those cases you decide to use ACR, are
you using DPP first and then save the adjustments in the RAW-file
and then opens it in ACR afterwards?

Click to expand...

...in fact a big part of its problem, I think, is that it doesn't
pick up image processing details at all from the RAW format, such
as Picture Styles or at least their settings. So, no, if I have to
process an image in ACR, I usually use the image as processed there
OR if the color rendition is really way off from natural (or
intended - mostly this is with reds and flesh tones, which tend to
be too pinkish), I'll process the image using both converters,
getting colors as consistent as I can in ACR, then layer them in a
Photoshop document, masking the ACR layer only to reveal the areas
rendered better in that conversion and leaving the DPP conversion
otherwise intact.

Hope that helps.

mholdef said:

Kabe Luna said:

About 6 months of converting RAW to DNG, then I upgraded my
computer (faster processor and more memory) and tried DPP again and
had the same revelation you did. Now the only other converter I use
is ACR for CA correction and NR on high ISO shots. Otherwise, I'm
all DPP. Nothing matches the detail, nothing matches the colors.

As for ditching your CRW and/or CR2 files...we live and learn.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/mholdef/galleries

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50076776@N00/

Not to mention Canon as a company, could buy and sell Adobe without batting an eye.
--
=========

• Jimi V

Art is where you find it.

mswlogo said:

I think one thing that DPP is doing right, which is critical is
Noise Reduction. I see much larger differences in higher ISO shots.

Click to expand...

99.99% of my shots I do no NR do - they simply don't need it from my 5D - even at iso3200. So I always use no NR during RAW conversion with ACR.

I've said before, if you have lots of time to mess around with DPP and tweak all the curves, etc. then DPP is for you. For most people that don't have 30+ minutes to adjust each image, ACR is a far better solution.

Kabe Luna said:

...meaning I've managed contrast and placed highlight and shadow
detail within the sensors DR and set my desired white balance,
there's no need to start from scratch with ACR when DPP will simply
return me the image as I shot it.

Click to expand...

You get the image you shot with ACR by simply unchecking the boxes. You're shooting RAW - so throw out the Picture Styles that DPP throws in there because those are added contast, etc.

I find this thread very interesting. I'm a 25-year Nikon shooter, but not for much longer I think. I would have already switched except for the rumors of new Canon bodies that I'm waiting for.

I've been to a seminar with Katrin Eismann and have read The DAM Book by Peter Krogh. Peter is a Nikon/Kodak shooter. Both of these experts ADVOCATE conversion to DNG and pitching the raw file. Peter states to keep the NEF if you want to use Nikon Capture which I have done. Katrin is a Canon shooter and tosses her CR2s. I was led to believe that the Canon raw converter was lousy and that there is no need to keep Canon raw files. I'm glad I saw this thread.

So far, I have both DNG and NEF on parallel directories on my HD and my DVD archives have DNG with NEF embedded. It looks like this will continue after a switch to Canon.

Lloyd