Why can't DPP make the jpeg I want?

[Bruce_B]

I'm not understanding what my problem is in making jpegs from RAW with DPP. No matter what I do the jpeg has drastically different color than it should. A jpeg made by Zoom Browser looks just like the one right out of the camera. Why isn't DPP doing this when using shot settings? I know it's not going to be exact but the difference is way off.

[JoYork]

Just out of interest are you using the latest version of DPP? From memory it's 3.2 but don't quote me on that...

[Bruce_B]

Just out of interest are you using the latest version of DPP? From memory it's 3.2 but don't quote me on that...

I'm using 3.0. Would 3.2 make that much difference? I tried updating it once but got lost in Canon's web of confusion. I'll try it again.

[Bruce_B]

Just tried it again and I get to the part where you agree to the disclaimer and when I click on it I get a pop up 404. Oh well, maybe I'll try that Raw Therapee program I've seen talked about around here.

[tdodd]

Make sure your colour workspace is sRGB all the way through. If you're outputting your jpegs in Adobe RGB that may well be your problem.

[cdifoto]

Check your color management settings under preferences.

[davidcrebelxt]

DPP will not match the settings of Zoombrowser.

I emailed Canon about this over a year ago. They reiplied that Zoombrowser and DPP use different algorithms for RAW image processing. Zoombrowser uses algorithms that either is the same as the DIGIC chip in camera, or very close... therefore results that match out of camera .jpg. What's more, since the algorithms are different, there are no settings in DPP that you can easily adjust (say boost contrast, boost saturation) that will MATCH zoombrowser's output consistently.

That's one of the things you'll realize about RAW. Every converter processes differently, and for the most part settings from one are not transferable to another (again... +1 saturation in one is not = +1 in another.)

Also, the washed out "flat" look is typical for default conversion in many RAW converters, because they are not applying the contrast/saturation/tone curve that the camera is automatically applying to the .jpg image out of camera.

That said... if output .jpg isn't matching how it appears in DPP, check your color settings. Also, are you calibrating your monitor? I believe you must point DPP at the correct monitor profile (it doesn't use it automatically like Photoshop.... unless they've changed that recently.)

[Bruce_B]

Everything is sRGB. I don't have a monitor profile though.

It's weird that DPP can't get closer to the camera than it does. It seems like they could have stuck some presets in that would be close to the camera for when you just want to dump a bunch of files to jpeg for sharing etc.

[davidcrebelxt]

Everything is sRGB. I don't have a monitor profile though.

It's weird that DPP can't get closer to the camera than it does. It seems like they could have stuck some presets in that would be close to the camera for when you just want to dump a bunch of files to jpeg for sharing etc.

That's where I suggest using Zoombrowser... it gets almost identical to how in-camera .jpg would have looked. (Yes, you can select a bunch of RAW's in Zoombrowser and batch convert them.) I prefer DPP overall, however for actual adjustments when I want more out of an image.

[davidcrebelxt]

Also,
reason they can't do a preset, is (as I said) the conversion algorithms are different from those used in camera. Therefore, a profile that does GREAT on one shot in certain lighting conditions could be sub-par on a another shot in different conditions.

Same goes with if you use a "recipe" in DPP or a preset in Lightroom... it may look great on a select group of images... but not very good on another.

[lostdoggy]

I believe the whole point in shooting RAW is to be in control of the file rather then to replicate how the camera would've done it. If you are happy with how the camera control the output file there is no point in shooting RAW.

BTW post some samples!!!

[Bruce_B]

That's where I suggest using Zoombrowser... it gets almost identical to how in-camera .jpg would have looked. (Yes, you can select a bunch of RAW's in Zoombrowser and batch convert them.) I prefer DPP overall, however for actual adjustments when I want more out of an image.

Thanks for the advice. I like DPP better too but I guess I'll use ZB when I just want to spit out a bunch of jpegs. Or maybe I'll just buy some bigger cards and always shoot RAW+

[Bruce_B]

I believe the whole point in shooting RAW is to be in control of the file rather then to replicate how the camera would've done it. If you are happy with how the camera control the output file there is no point in shooting RAW.

BTW post some samples!!!

I am generally happy with jpegs from the camera but sometimes wish I had something in RAW. What I was thinking is that I would just shoot RAW, spit out the jpegs that I'm used to, and still have the RAW files stored for if I need them. I guess it's more complicated than that unless I shoot RAW+jpeg.

[davidcrebelxt]

I am generally happy with jpegs from the camera but sometimes wish I had something in RAW. What I was thinking is that I would just shoot RAW, spit out the jpegs that I'm used to, and still have the RAW files stored for if I need them. I guess it's more complicated than that unless I shoot RAW+jpeg.

Thats almost exactly what I was doing about a year ago.

Now, I typically shoot RAW only. And IF I want to share a batch of vacation pictures quickly without any edits, I'll batch them through Zoombrowser... otherwise I edit the RAW images... the more you do it, the better you get, and the quicker it goes.

[cdifoto]

Just shoot RAW + JPEG or straight JPEG if all you're going to do is use the SOOC JPEG images anyway...

[davidcrebelxt]

Just shoot RAW + JPEG or straight JPEG if all you're going to do is use the SOOC JPEG images anyway...


There's legitimate use for OOC .jpg, AND legitimate use for RAW... (This is why Adobe finally bent and allows us to import RAW+jpg now into LR... enough users convinced them that there is reason to do this.)

But RAW+jpg eats up card space, esp. on vacation if you have no backup device with you.... Shooting RAW and batching out through Zoobrowser is a workable solution.... but I agree that in the long-run, learning to process the RAW images will yield better results; its just that many of us shoot alot of family snapshots - most of which honestly don't need the RAW treatment and are only kept for sentimental value.

So, my advice to OP is keep shooting RAW and get the hang of it... but yes there ARE options for getting the .jpgs you "may" be after either by shoot Raw+jpg or using zoombrowser.

[cdifoto]

its just that many of us shoot alot of family snapshots - most of which honestly don't need the RAW treatment and are only kept for sentimental value.

See this doesn't make sense to me. If you're not gonna give an image the "RAW treatment" anyway, shoot in JPEG only. If you're gonna give an image the "RAW treatment", shoot RAW. If you're undecided, shoot RAW+JPEG since you'd extract the JPEG anyway (rendering the saving hard drive space argument moot). If it's only for sentimental reasons, then it really doesn't matter if the JPEG extracted from RAW is precisely equal to what would be generated in-camera.

The "saves memory card space" argument hasn't been valid for about 2 years now. Memory is dirt cheap. If you can't afford to get beefier cards then you really shouldn't be buying the latest greatest 8, 10, 12 MP 14-bit dSLR!

[davidcrebelxt]

we'll have to agree to disagree... let it be said there are options to do what OP wanted to do regardless of others opinions.

[canonloader]

I'm not understanding what my problem is in making jpegs from RAW with DPP. No matter what I do the jpeg has drastically different color than it should.
Did you actually use DPP to edit the colors and brightness and shadows? May sound like a dumb question, but weirder things have happened. :)

The RAW file is as shot, no camera settings are added to the RAW file, unlike a jpg that has picture styles or whatever added to it in camera. You have to the editing in DPP to make them look "normal".

[tdodd]

I've just processed the same raw file, with no adjustments, first through DPP at maximum quality and without resizing and did the same through the Zoombrowser raw processor. Comparing the results side by side in Lightroom or flicking between them in Windows Photo Gallery the differences in the output are barely discernable and certainly not something to get worked up about.

The picture looks a bit flat because it was shot in Neutral picture style with 0 sharpening/contrast/saturation etc..

Having imported the two jpeg versions into Lightroom I then resized them to 800*533 for inclusion here. Can you tell which is which?

[cdifoto]

Top one is DPP.

[tdodd]

Top one is DPP.
I'll let you know ;)

Here's another pair - same rules - neutral picture style, no adjustments, but with new set of colours in the photo. I'm still struggling to see where the problem is.

[tdodd]

But, if I take another photo as an example, and max out contrast, saturation and sharpness in DPP and process that, Zoombrowser is completely unaware of the changes made in DPP and continues to put out the bland original.

Perhaps it is edits being made in one product and no being reflected in the other that is causing confusion. I don't know - just an idea. I know I'm not confused though :)

[Bruce_B]

I've just processed the same raw file, with no adjustments, first through DPP at maximum quality and without resizing and did the same through the Zoombrowser raw processor. Comparing the results side by side in Lightroom or flicking between them in Windows Photo Gallery the differences in the output are barely discernable and certainly not something to get worked up about.

Your's look fine. If mine were even near that close I wouldn't bother about it. Mine are much further off than that on some things, not as bad on others. It depends on the colors and levels in the original.

[Bruce_B]

But, if I take another photo as an example, and max out contrast, saturation and sharpness in DPP and process that, Zoombrowser is completely unaware of the changes made in DPP and continues to put out the bland original.

Perhaps it is edits being made in one product and no being reflected in the other that is causing confusion. I don't know - just an idea. I know I'm not confused though :)

No edits, just making a jpeg with the shot settings. The Zoom Browser, camera version, and jpeg preview of the raw look about the same. The jpeg DPP makes is off. I'll do some samples in a bit.

[cdifoto]

Your's look fine. If mine were even near that close I wouldn't bother about it. Mine are much further off than that on some things, not as bad on others. It depends on the colors and levels in the original.

I suspect it's in your Color Management settings.

242189

[tdodd]

I suspect it's in your Color Management settings.
Already covered and dismissed in posts 5, 6 and 8.

You were right about DPP being the first image :lol:

[Bruce_B]

Okay, not the best samples but the first one is from Zoombrowser and looks just like the camera version. The second one is from DPP. Neither had any adjustments. Just RAW to jpg and then downsized in FastStone. The difference is more dramatic in some other tests I did earlier but I had deleted those already. In some ways the DPP version is better and in some ways the Zoombrowser/camera version is better. I know RAW files need some finishing, I just figured DPP should give you something close to the camera if that's what you wanted. At any rate, I'm finally converting to RAW so I do have a lot to learn. Thanks for all the replies. Okay, here is the quick snap I did:

[tzalman]

The following is a somewhat philosophical observation. It does not refer speacifically to the OP, Bruce B, and I am not even sure it applies to his posts. However...., for years I have observed and wondered at a particular mental attitude reflected primarily in posts from new photographers which regards the OOC jpg as the most authentic, truthful and reliable version. Any edited version, whether RAW or jpg in origen, is thought to be less real. It might be artistically justified and even necessary, but colormetrically it is deviant. How many times have newbies received the advice, "Shoot RAW + jpg because that way you will have the jpg to compare with your conversion." As though the jpg is the gold standard to which other images must aspire.

Family snaps and other "artless" shots I run through DPP at a speed of about 10 sec./photo. It has never occurred to me to wonder what the OOC jpgs would have looked like. If I like the way they look that's enough, because I know there is no absolute "right" image.

[cdifoto]

Family snaps and other "artless" shots I run through DPP at a speed of about 10 sec./photo. It has never occurred to me to wonder what the OOC jpgs would have looked like. If I like the way they look that's enough, because I know there is no absolute "right" image.

Pretty much the way I do it. I really only ever create JPEGs on-demand. I'm actually working on keeping all my image edits within Lightroom, so I can delete JPEGs after I'm done with whatever I needed them for. Saves even more HDD space since the chances of re-using them and needing them quickly are pretty slim.

[tdodd]

Family snaps and other "artless" shots I run through DPP at a speed of about 10 sec./photo. It has never occurred to me to wonder what the OOC jpgs would have looked like. If I like the way they look that's enough, because I know there is no absolute "right" image.
A very valid point. I only ever shoot raw and I use DPP or Lightroom for my conversions. I know the results look different from each and it comes as no surprise. Sometimes I prefer one, sometimes the other. Pick a converter you like and be happy. There is no point wasting time trying to make them match exactly, or worrying about the differences.

I have never used the Zoombrowser raw converter until making the few test posts above. I just carried out the tests as a curiosity and for my own education. I don't see any reason (for me) to use the Zoombrowser converter again.

[Nouks]

Must be your colour settings. Your examples (except the last snowboarding one) look excctly the same over here. Open both files in PS and check which profile is used for the photos and take a look over there again (whether they are really different or not)

[tdodd]

Must be your colour settings. Your examples (except the last snowboarding one) look excctly the same over here. Open both files in PS and check which profile is used for the photos and take a look over there again (whether they are really different or not)
I assume you're talking about the photos I posted. That was my point exactly. The differences in output on unedited photos are negligible.

All my stuff is processed within the sRGB colour space. If you check the file sizes of the photos you will see small differences - they are different versions of the photos. I was very careful to make sure I didn't simply post the identical file twice (although I did think about doing it as a tease, to see if anyone would claim to see a difference).

What might be interesting to try is how the results compare when some of the settings have been bumped up in the camera in the first place. Since I always shoot raw/neutral/0 perhaps that's why the photos look so similar. Maybe, if I shoot raw/standard/+5 in camera there will be different results from DPP and Zoombrowser. As I've got time on my hands I'll give it a whirl and post back.

[tdodd]

Here's a new pair of results. The photo was shot raw, in camera with...

PS = Standard
Sharpness = 7
Contrast = +4
Colour = +4
HTP = No
NR = No

The camera settings were indicated correctly in both DPP and Zoombrowser. No edits were applied. Cycling repeatedly between the two versions there is a difference in the colour/tone of the dead looking clematis at the bottom of the garden and a very slight change in the roof of the house, but the sky and grass do not change at all between the two conversions. I can't really tell if it is a saturation change or a brightness change by eye, but, given the photo is wrecked by the lary settings I hardly think the slight differences between the two conversions matter much anyway.

[davidcrebelxt]

Short answer:

DPP will require adjustments to get the saturation, pop, contrast, and tones you are looking for. It was not made to match OOC .jpg by default, it was made to allow you to adjust the image to your liking.

[tdodd]

Short answer:

DPP will require adjustments to get the saturation, pop, contrast, and tones you are looking for. It was not made to match OOC .jpg by default, it was made to allow you to adjust the image to your liking.
While theoretically what you say is true, in practice the differences seem to be pretty small to me, and only worthy of concern for the most discriminating critic.

I just shot another test, this time raw+jpeg in camera with PS=Standard and all parameters set to default. I converted the raw to jpeg in DPP, again with no edits, and then resized the converted jpeg and the original from the camera, using Lightroom. Can you spot the difference?

Even looking at each image full screen and flicking back and forth repeatedly the differences on my monitor are barely perceptable - subjectively perhaps 0.5% different or less.

[tzalman]

I remember a similar test done a couple years ago, by PacAce IIRC, comparing ZB and DPP using as the test subject a very colorful flower arrangement. He also found no significant differences.

[Bruce_B]

The following is a somewhat philosophical observation. It does not refer speacifically to the OP, Bruce B, and I am not even sure it applies to his posts. However...., for years I have observed and wondered at a particular mental attitude reflected primarily in posts from new photographers which regards the OOC jpg as the most authentic, truthful and reliable version. Any edited version, whether RAW or jpg in origen, is thought to be less real. It might be artistically justified and even necessary, but colormetrically it is deviant. How many times have newbies received the advice, "Shoot RAW + jpg because that way you will have the jpg to compare with your conversion." As though the jpg is the gold standard to which other images must aspire.

Family snaps and other "artless" shots I run through DPP at a speed of about 10 sec./photo. It has never occurred to me to wonder what the OOC jpgs would have looked like. If I like the way they look that's enough, because I know there is no absolute "right" image.

^All good points.

For me, it's not so much about just wanting a match of what the camera makes. It's about understanding what the RAW converter is doing and how to work with it. In my case the output of DPP and ZB are noticeably different. That's an unexpected result that leads me to believe something is not set right. That may not be the case. I'm not new to photography or digital photography, but I am new to RAW so I'm just trying to get a complete understanding of it. It's not my goal to just duplicate the camera's jpg output, but since that's what I'm most familiar with it makes a good baseline for comparison. That said, I'm an obsessive type person and tend to sweat the details way more than I should.

[tdodd]

^All good points.

For me, it's not so much about just wanting a match of what the camera makes. It's about understanding what the RAW converter is doing and how to work with it. In my case the output of DPP and ZB are noticeably different. That's an unexpected result that leads me to believe something is not set right. That may not be the case. I'm not new to photography or digital photography, but I am new to RAW so I'm just trying to get a complete understanding of it. It's not my goal to just duplicate the camera's jpg output, but since that's what I'm most familiar with it makes a good baseline for comparison. That said, I'm an obsessive type person and tend to sweat the details way more than I should.Two observations about your test results and real world results vs mine....

1. I'm using a 40D and you're using an XTI. Maybe Canon, either by fluke or design, got the algorithms for 40D conversions much more closely aligned than they did for the XTI. Certainly the conversions will be different in each because the 40D turns out 14 bit files and the XTI 12 bit.

2. Where I did notice differences between my versions it was in the brown coloured wooden stems from the plant, and brownish roof tiles. I note that in your example you posted a light brown wooden guitar. Maybe there are bigger discrepancies, for whatever reason, in those colours.

I think you should stop sweating though. Accept that different raw converters are likely to produce different results and be happy. If you have an overall preference then carry on using that converter. So long as you are happy with the results, does it matter if they are a little different from those from another piece of software?

[Bruce_B]

I think you should stop sweating though.

I will eventually :p

I'm just about finished with my testing. The more I test the more I'm starting to prefer DPP's output.

[Max F]

Try comparing a noisier shot at higher ISO. See how different or not the jpg are between Raw Image Task and DPP. I'm curious.

[davidcrebelxt]

For me, it's not so much about just wanting a match of what the camera makes. It's about understanding what the RAW converter is doing and how to work with it. In my case the output of DPP and ZB are noticeably different. That's an unexpected result that leads me to believe something is not set right.

I shoot with an XT, and too see differences between DPP and ZB (in particular, they are "flat" and lack the saturation and contrast of ZB)... its one of those things, I think, that is based on how the camera's particular RAW interacts with the algorithms in the software... some see little difference between the two using default settings, others like us see noticable difference.

If your .jpg images exported FROM dpp look the same in Photoshop as they did in DPP, I think your color settings are likely ok... at least that way you know your're edits you perform in DPP are valid.

Good point above about wanting to match the .jpg, not so much as for your final output... but more about wanting to learn how to use the RAW converter with a particular goal in mind.

[tdodd]

Try comparing a noisier shot at higher ISO. See how different or not the jpg are between Raw Image Task and DPP. I'm curious.
I popped a 30D image shot at 3200 ISO through the sausage machine and there was a noticeable difference in colour and noise handling from the jpegs that emerged. Colour/brightness/contrast looked better out of DPP while ZB-RIT seemed to suppress noise more strongly and soften the image as a result. I couldn't find any NR controls in ZB-RIT but could fiddle with NR in DPP.

These were shot with the wrong WB setting (no problem, as I shot raw, so really didn't care at the time) so I did use the WB dropper/sampler to fix them up before posting here. No other edits apart from NR fiddling in DPP.

[Bruce_B]

I shoot with an XT, and too see differences between DPP and ZB (in particular, they are "flat" and lack the saturation and contrast of ZB)... its one of those things, I think, that is based on how the camera's particular RAW interacts with the algorithms in the software... some see little difference between the two using default settings, others like us see noticable difference.

If your .jpg images exported FROM dpp look the same in Photoshop as they did in DPP, I think your color settings are likely ok... at least that way you know your're edits you perform in DPP are valid.

Good point above about wanting to match the .jpg, not so much as for your final output... but more about wanting to learn how to use the RAW converter with a particular goal in mind.

I'm glad somebody understands what I'm dealing with. I think I found a way to improve the results I'm getting from DPP. I have been shooting on Parameter 1 which bumps contrast, sharpness and saturation. I know that doesn't matter as far as the RAW file but DPP is using that info for its settings. Anyway, Parameter 2 is flat and so far I've found it easier to get better results from DPP if I shoot that way and then bump things a little in DPP. I still have some testing to do but I'm getting much closer to what I want now.

[Max F]

I popped a 30D image shot at 3200 ISO through the sausage machine and there was a noticeable difference in colour and noise handling from the jpegs that emerged. Colour/brightness/contrast looked better out of DPP while ZB-RIT seemed to suppress noise more strongly and soften the image as a result. I couldn't find any NR controls in ZB-RIT but could fiddle with NR in DPP.

These were shot with the wrong WB setting (no problem, as I shot raw, so really didn't care at the time) so I did use the WB dropper/sampler to fix them up before posting here. No other edits apart from NR fiddling in DPP.

Thats my impression too although I haven't really concluded which noise reduction I like best. DPP is more flexible but rather weak (or I should say that the max levels are weak). Thanks for the samples!

I also noticed color differences too. For me, if DPP had better noise reduction and lens distortion correction for my 17-85 i would be all over it!

[mikeofmandan]

Bruce B,
I became tangled in this same web when I began processing RAW files. The whole experience changed my perception of photography for awhile. No longer was I just obsessed with the craft of shooting, but also the crafting of them after the shoot. After a while the fog lifted, and I became less concerned, finally settling on the simplicity of DPP - it does what I need it to do. A question for you - what do you mean by parameters 1 and 2. Are you talking about changing all the parameters inside of the picture styles?

[Bruce_B]

Bruce B,
I became tangled in this same web when I began processing RAW files. The whole experience changed my perception of photography for awhile. No longer was I just obsessed with the craft of shooting, but also the crafting of them after the shoot. After a while the fog lifted, and I became less concerned, finally settling on the simplicity of DPP - it does what I need it to do. A question for you - what do you mean by parameters 1 and 2. Are you talking about changing all the parameters inside of the picture styles?

I'm talking about the parameters in the camera. The XT doesn't have picture styles, it has Parameter 1, 2, BW, and several you can custom set. I finally figured out how these settings match up to DPP. It's confusing because if everything is set to the center in the camera, DPP shows it as Contrast -1 (that's minus 1), Color tone 0, Color Saturation -1, Sharpness 0.

Of course, these settings don't affect the RAW data but DPP uses them as the "shot settings". It doesn't really matter since I've been developing my own DPP recipes and nothing gets left on shot settings anyway.

I am liking shooting RAW and processing in DPP more and more as I get used to it. RAW adds a whole new dimension that's overwhelming at first. It's like suddenly having too much to work with and too many choices to make. On top of that, I'm the type of person that likes to push all the buttons just to see what they do. I have to know how everything works. So I know exactly what you mean above. I'm spending way more time at the PC than actually shooting. That will balance out as I settle into it.

[tzalman]

I'm spending way more time at the PC than actually shooting. That will balance out as I settle into it.
Maybe not. I've been in digital for six years and I still love the computer side of it and spend a lot of time on the stuff I really care about. (I used to spend too much time in the darkroom also). I know, however, that puts me in a minority here, but doing it for fun, not money, lets me follow my own road.

[Bruce_B]

Maybe not. I've been in digital for six years and I still love the computer side of it and spend a lot of time on the stuff I really care about. (I used to spend too much time in the darkroom also). I know, however, that puts me in a minority here, but doing it for fun, not money, lets me follow my own road.

I don't mind PP but hopefully I will get a lot better (and faster) at it. Most of what I'm doing now is experimentation and figuring out how to get what I want out of DPP. I've just about got it, I think ;)