I think my Canon days have come to and end [Archive] - Page 2

Bob_A

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 13:21

Thx Fedka for the response. I will have to give that app a try. I wasn't planning on using the image, just trying out some tests.

Here is an example with an XTi and a 55-250IS using DPP 2.2 and 3.4.1. You can see a loss of fine color detail and detail in the rocks. This is a less severe example but shows you how a picture can become "dull" with just a few negative changes. The sign on the store above the door "pops" There is nice color separation in the 2.2 image, and more varied color. There's almost a color cast to the dpp 3.4.1 image. The tiny, fine contrast in the bushes is gone.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/xtidpp2-1.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/xti341.jpg

If all settings are identical for these two images it looks to me that the only problem with 3.4.1 is they are applying a bit less sharpening (and possibly contrast) than 2.2. Before giving up on 3.4.1 I suggest starting by bumping up sharpening a notch to see if it then matches 2.2.

It could also be that the problem was with version 2.2 in that sharpening was being applied even when the slider is set to zero, which is a very bad thing for those of us that only want to apply it using USM in PS as the last step in processing the image. An unsharpened RAW file should look soft at 100%.

Bob_A

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 13:36

I am curious to know what "Saved Preset" is displayed on the right hand side of this image. These colors are so far off that something has to be set incorrectly. While Adobe's ACR might not produce as good of colors as DPP (according to lots of other people), the colors CAN NOT be that far off. I downloaded your original RAW file last night but had some other things to do so I couldn't play with it, but will try later tonight.

My experience has been that ACR produces better results than DPP "out of the box", however certain colors are not as vibrant. Using a custom camera profile corrects this. If I didn't think ACR was a better product I wouldn't have deleted DPP from my computer :)

As you stated though ACR colors are not shifted like the one displayed. Either some preset is set wrong or there is some sort of color-space issue going on.

brecklundin

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 13:54

First time I ever hear about that, and would be curious where you get this info, but it might be worth a try.

To paraphrase the comment you are asking about, I dunno how to get this board to include multi-quoting ???, but my comments were that video cards, their drivers, control/config software as well as the cards firmware can all affect image rendering on an individual system and/or application basis or even across the board.

These days while video cards are extremely capable. Yet each brand and models have their quirks, strengths and weaknesses. Often people end up going to 3rd party drivers to get a card to behave and offer up consistent colors and rendering speed.

For example I have an ATI Mobility Radon X1600 with 256mb on-board RAM. Still by today's standards it's a slow quirky card, especially in the area of video playback. The ATI cards come with a config app called Catalyst Control Center which allows adjusting all of the expected settings to fine tune and calibrate your display. But ATI is known to have some random or chronic image rendering issues. And the drivers can be nothing less than horrible when using some applications.

I know my setup is OK as I have spent a lot of time testing and calibrating the card, especially the color settings. But depending on how a particular image editing app is written and the libraries used how that app interacts with the drivers specific for your card on screen results can give unexpected results.

Also, the cards memory and on-card gpu operating temperature can cause problems, including rendering errors if your individual card has a tendency to run hotter than other cards.

Nvidia, ATI and others often have 3rd party hacks which work to solve come issues with cards/drivers often long before Nvidia or ATI or your computer mfg.

Applications such as Autocad have long provided a list of video card which it officially supported. Using other cards would usually result in Autodesk not providing any support. Today's programs like Autocad have improved and become less high-strung but there are still cards with which it simply will not work correctly even though those cards are exactly the same spec as an approved card.

The whole issue is, at the same time, more complicated and in many ways simpler than I describe. But before any sort of tagging an image editing application as the problem one needs to start at the lowest level and work up toward that application. Even if other apps work properly to truly troubleshoot such issues to the point of knowing the source of a problems it is also faster to being at the hardware level first. Problem is, it feels faster to begin with the editing app itself.

As an example it would help to know exactly what video card and system details for each person who is seeing the wide disparity between the images rendered to the display.

And, yeah, even the display itself can be the source of the apparent problem. But that is easily checked by using a different display or as Mike has done, post pics from both versions. That at least eliminates the display.

Mike mentions he has tried a few video cards, drivers and I am assuming firmware. But if these are from the same MFG then the problem could be common to that line or brand of card. This is true because the drivers used can be not terribly different for the cards offered in a particular line.

My reason to suggest this was while some progress was made there still seemed to be a problem. So, it's important to remember that the hardware is a very key factor in the equation and should not be overlooked or even dismissed when evidence might on the surface appear to eliminate the card as the problem. And like I think I mentioned the exact same card installed in a different computer can provide different results.

Oh, also, using video expansion can also affect not only the speed of rendering images on your computer it could also affect the processing of the image.

I really have run into these things with clients over the years...and it goes against everything you would assume to be true about today's computers. But, just like every other thing we buy today, build quality is simply not consistent, even on the highest end equipment.

In2Photos

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 14:14

My experience has been that ACR produces better results than DPP "out of the box", however certain colors are not as vibrant. Using a custom camera profile corrects this. If I didn't think ACR was a better product I wouldn't have deleted DPP from my computer :)

As you stated though ACR colors are not shifted like the one displayed. Either some preset is set wrong or there is some sort of color-space issue going on.
I have a profile for my 40D and I agree I think ACR is better than DPP. That is why I said "according to other people". ;) I didn't even load DPP this last time on my computer, nor Zoombrowser for that matter.

blinded

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 14:42

This topic should read "I think my computer's days have come to an end" . I wonder if he'll ever get this solved?

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:08

I am curious to know what "Saved Preset" is displayed on the right hand side of this image. These colors are so far off that something has to be set incorrectly.

Mike, it's set to "default".

While Adobe's ACR might not produce as good of colors as DPP (according to lots of other people), the colors CAN NOT be that far off. I downloaded your original RAW file last night but had some other things to do so I couldn't play with it, but will try later tonight.

Thx for your post.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:08

IF LR had the sharpness built in that RSP had it would be killer.

I keep reading this from *alot* of very good shooters.

silvex

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:12

I have a profile for my 40D and I agree I think ACR is better than DPP. That is why I said "according to other people". ;) I didn't even load DPP this last time on my computer, nor Zoombrowser for that matter.

How did you profiled your 40D. Can you please post some info ? Sorry for the thread HJ...:oops:

In2Photos

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:14

Mike, it's set to "default".

Thx for your post.
Then what are your default settings? Have you altered them?

For LR I have a preset called "40D Starting Point". This preset is applied to all images that I import into LR and I work from there. I don't use LR's default settings. Instead I have things like clarity, vibrance, a 40D profile, sharpening, tone curve, etc, all set to adjust on import. It may take you some time to figure out what values your prefer, but once you get them, the preset makes things very nice to have a decent starting point.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:14

I suggest as someone else did:
Get together with someone who has a different Canon camera.... use a tripod and cable release, use the same lenses, use same ISO, F-stop, shutter-speed, taking images of the same subject, and compare the results.... basically limit the variables, maybe that will help in figuring out what the problem is... though it seems like software setings or DPP options to me. (I openly admit I don't have much experience with latest version of DPP comparing to earlier versions, but as I stated earlier, the mailbox/basketball image appeared fine to me - no watercolor effect, etc... and I upgraded all my Canon software just to take a look. I'll have yet to look at it in LR, however.) I'm guessing with a slower computer it could take some time to cycle between the tiered previews that DPP gives... not sure if you stated what your setup currently is... I'll have to wade back through this thread to see... eeek!!!

Good thoughts.

I'll save you the hours fo wading:

WinXP SP 2
IE7
Gigabyte G33M-S2 1333 FSB
4 gig Crucial ram
1.5 TB of western digital/seagate HDD SATA
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 FSB 1333
Nividia 8600 GT DX 10 256MB
M-Audio Delta 66 Pro Audio Card

In2Photos

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:15

How did you profiled your 40D. Can you please post some info ? Sorry for the thread HJ...:oops:
I bought a canned profile from someone online. I believe there is a post earlier in this thread with the link.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:15

I had the same problems. I used Rawshooter but they are no longer providing updates and wouldn't open the 40D files. I was so upset at the processing of the files by DDP that I wondered if the 40D was a bad camera. All the 40D files looked dull and soft in DDP. So I went on the search for a new raw converter.

I pretty much tried all of them and SilkyPix was the best. That is until I got CS3 and now I am in love with Bridge. It's fantastic! :) I've even been able to bring back images from mt old XT I thought were no good.

So I suggest trying Silkypix or upgrading to CS3 and using Bridge/ACR

Thx. Will try Silky Pix next.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:16

With respect to LR 1.4: two settings to check. In the "Preferences" window (Mac - suppose it is something like "Settings" on the PC) go to the "Presets" tab and under the "Default Develop Settings" make sure to click on the "Reset all default Develop Settings".

Second, at the bottom of the panel in the Develop module, the Camera Calibration menu - my version of LR (1.4.1) gives me a drop down menu of ACR4.4 or ACR4.2 for the "Profile" setting. Try changing this to see if your image changes appreciably.

Maybe this will help?

Kirk

Trying it now, thx.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:20

If all settings are identical for these two images it looks to me that the only problem with 3.4.1 is they are applying a bit less sharpening (and possibly contrast) than 2.2. Before giving up on 3.4.1 I suggest starting by bumping up sharpening a notch to see if it then matches 2.2.

Bob, that detail is *gone*. Sharpening really has no effect except the awful effect of a too dull image getting overcooked. Someone else had a post recently about "why my 40D looks dull". They sharpened the soft photos and it looked overdone, like trying to sharpen an OOF shot. If I wanted kit lens IQ I would not have upgraded my lenses :)

It could also be that the problem was with version 2.2 in that sharpening was being applied even when the slider is set to zero, which is a very bad thing for those of us that only want to apply it using USM in PS as the last step in processing the image. An unsharpened RAW file should look soft at 100%.

Right. But as I posted earlier, the problems with later versions of DPP go far beyond, into "this image looks like it's out of focus" territory. The example with the XTi is a much less severe version of the problem ,but still noticable and still a dull image comapred to the other. Sharpening and contrast do not bring back the vibrant color or the detail lost.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:21

My experience has been that ACR produces better results than DPP "out of the box", however certain colors are not as vibrant. Using a custom camera profile corrects this. If I didn't think ACR was a better product I wouldn't have deleted DPP from my computer :)

As you stated though ACR colors are not shifted like the one displayed. Either some preset is set wrong or there is some sort of color-space issue going on.

I figured as much. Believe me, I would love to get out from the thumb of DPP due to the IQ problems since 2.2. I'dlove for Canon to fix their program but I doubt it will happen. I feel like I'm "trapped" there. I will investigate camera profiles.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:23

This topic should read "I think my computer's days have come to an end" . I wonder if he'll ever get this solved?

I think it should read "when did Canon's software engineers go blind?".

:lol:

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:26

Then what are your default settings? Have you altered them?

For LR I have a preset called "40D Starting Point". This preset is applied to all images that I import into LR and I work from there. I don't use LR's default settings. Instead I have things like clarity, vibrance, a 40D profile, sharpening, tone curve, etc, all set to adjust on import. It may take you some time to figure out what values your prefer, but once you get them, the preset makes things very nice to have a decent starting point.

The defaults have not been altered. The idea of a preset is a must have obviously for this situation. The problem is I can't get the images anywhere near what I can get out of DPP 2.2 or RAW Therapee right out of the box. I think this says alot about my inabilities with LR, but also that LR isn't reading Canon RAW as good as it should.

I am investigating purchasing a profile and developing a preset. But all my images in LR end up looking incredibly bizarre when using the kind of starting points I posted here.

blinded

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 15:33

I think it should read "when did Canon's software engineers go blind?".

I think we're all having problems seeing what you're seeing. It has to be something else.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 16:12

I think we're all having problems seeing what you're seeing. It has to be something else.

I've talked with many people who see the same problem with DPP since 2.2, so I don't think that's in dispute any longer.

I think I found the solution as to why My 40D looks like crap:

1. DPP 3.0 + looks like crap, PERIOD, and especially makes the 40D look bad
2. LR and other third part RAW converters were defaulting to an awful looking "natural color" monitor profle which was giving it that Mars red look and causing an impossible starting point to recover from.
3. My 300 F4 probably needs another tweak with the 40D

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you SilkyPix out of the box!!!!! :D

With display color management enabled:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/silkypixmars.jpg

With display color management disabled:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/silkypixgreat.jpg

Now *that* is what I expect out of L glass and RAW software. It's the closest I have seen to DPP 2.2 in all the converters I have tried. NO processing of any kind, great color and good detail!

I've spent the last half hour searching Lightroom for this option (and searching the web) but I cannot find an in-program setting to turn this feature off. It's obviously what's causing the awful starting point.

Susabell, you saved the day.

Littlefield

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 16:26

I still think something else is wrong as well because LR with me has good detail and color though not as sharp as RSP , . RSP would be sharper then Silky. I have good red color on sweaters and cardinals in LR better then RSP ,which was one of the things that bugged me about it .
I am not a pro though just observations .

davidcrebelxt

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 16:27

My experience has been that ACR produces better results than DPP "out of the box",

Ah, you're one of the lucky ones out there that I speak of as a disclaimer when telling people to watch out for ACR's color shifts (which are NOT as easy to repair as a simple preset for those of us with the problem.) Wish it were the same for me, I've got a couple presets I've worked pretty hard on that gets me most of the way there *sometimes*. I'm just glad that Adobe seems to be doing something about it for the rest of us... I'm looking forward to the ACR updates in the near future, because I really prefer LR/ACR's tools better than DPP.

davidcrebelxt

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 16:34

I've talked with many people who see the same problem with DPP since 2.2, so I don't think that's in dispute any longer.

I think I found the solution as to why My 40D looks like crap:

1. DPP 3.0 + looks like crap, PERIOD, and especially makes the 40D look bad
2. LR and other third part RAW converters were defaulting to an awful looking "natural color" monitor profle which was giving it that Mars red look and causing an impossible starting point to recover from.
3. My 300 F4 probably needs another tweak with the 40D

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you SilkyPix out of the box!!!!! :D

With display color management enabled:

With display color management disabled:

Now *that* is what I expect out of L glass and RAW software. It's the closest I have seen to DPP 2.2 in all the converters I have tried. NO processing of any kind, great color and good detail!

I've spent the last half hour searching Lightroom for this option (and searching the web) but I cannot find an in-program setting to turn this feature off. It's obviously what's causing the awful starting point.

Susabell, you saved the day.

That doesn't seem right at all!... Bad monitor profile? Is it being double profiled by Adobe Gamma Loader? Profile not loaded in display options? I'm guessing that background should NOT look pink as it did in the first photo.

BTW: There is no way to disable colormanagement in LR. The idea being, LR would recognize the display profile automatically; hence if your display profile is hosed, LR looks hosed also.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 16:43

Guys, I can't believe how much better my 40D images now look. That's how bad DPP 3.0 + is compared to third party now, at least in regards to Xt, Xti, and 40D files.

Unreal. I'm simply shocked. Anyone who has problems with their 40D images needs to see this thread.

Even the 28-135IS images look excellent! The 300 prime + 1.4x shots that looked out of focus in DPP 3.0 are sharp and contrasty in Silkypix even with no sharpening applied.

René Damkot

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 16:46

To paraphrase the comment you are asking about, I dunno how to get this board to include multi-quoting

The icon with the "+" and " next to "quote" ;)

Interesting, I'll investigate a bit more tomorrow ;)

That doesn't seem right at all!... Bad monitor profile? Is it being double profiled by Adobe Gamma Loader? Profile not loaded in display options? I'm guessing that background should NOT look pink as it did in the first photo.

Agree 100%
Also, as far as the bashing of DPP 3+ goes: As far as I'm concerned, the examples I (and a few others) have posted, show that DPP is capable of good results (at least a lot better then your screenshots show). So I'd suspect your DPP is messed up somehow...

blinded

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 17:14

Told you it could be a color management problem way back. lol nobody listens to me

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 17:22

That doesn't seem right at all!... Bad monitor profile? Is it being double profiled by Adobe Gamma Loader? Profile not loaded in display options? I'm guessing that background should NOT look pink as it did in the first photo.

BTW: There is no way to disable colormanagement in LR. The idea being, LR would recognize the display profile automatically; hence if your display profile is hosed, LR looks hosed also.

I was able to adjust my default profile to Adobe RGB color space and to fix the default colors in the program. However, I'm noticing some interesting things. #1, viewing in the image in "library" mode at about 900x looks decent. When you switch to "develop" mode, the image loses a ton of luster that I am having trouble getting back while in develop mode. I can't quite seem to get that fine contrast back that existed before within LR.

Look at these examples. I think I found my new RAW program :)

LR 1.4 in "library mode", default settings:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/LRlibrary.jpg

LR 1.4 in "develop mode", default settings(ouch!!!!):

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/Lrdevelop.jpg

Silky Pix in develop mode default(no sharpness)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/silkypix128ISdefault.jpg

The Silky Pix IQ out of the box is amazing, much more like DPP 2.2.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 17:23

The icon with the "+" and " next to "quote" ;)

Interesting, I'll investigate a bit more tomorrow ;)

Agree 100%
Also, as far as the bashing of DPP 3+ goes: As far as I'm concerned, the examples I (and a few others) have posted, show that DPP is capable of good results (at least a lot better then your screenshots show). So I'd suspect your DPP is messed up somehow...

Well, alot of people are seeing the same thing I am with DPP so it could be a PC/Mac thing. Until *you* compare your images in 2.2 with 3.0+ you will never really notice how bad it now is.

Bob_A

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 17:34

Bob, that detail is *gone*. Sharpening really has no effect except the awful effect of a too dull image getting overcooked. Someone else had a post recently about "why my 40D looks dull". They sharpened the soft photos and it looked overdone, like trying to sharpen an OOF shot. If I wanted kit lens IQ I would not have upgraded my lenses :)

Right. But as I posted earlier, the problems with later versions of DPP go far beyond, into "this image looks like it's out of focus" territory. The example with the XTi is a much less severe version of the problem ,but still noticable and still a dull image comapred to the other. Sharpening and contrast do not bring back the vibrant color or the detail lost.

Not so sure about this Mike. I added a bit of USM (250, 0.25, 0) to the small 3.4.1 image you posted and side by side in PSCS3 with the 2.2 image I had a lot of trouble telling them apart. Always hard to tell with such small images though :)

Youare correct that a lot of people do overcook sharpening.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 17:39

Lightroom 1.4 with 17-40L, default in library mode:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/LRdefault5.jpg

Silky Pix Free with 17-40L, default (no sharp):

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/Silky5-1.jpg

DPP 3.4.1. default, 17-40L:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/DPP5.jpg

DPP 2.2 default, 17-40L:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/dpp2creek.jpg

Bob_A

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 17:46

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 17:51

ACR out of the box has a default blacks setting of 5. I find that for my 20D this is totally the wrong starting point and I've set it to default to zero.

Check where you have it set for the Lightroom example you posted above. If it's too high it would explain why there the shadow detail isn't great.

Thx. Will do. Obviously I want LR to be the best simply because of the workflow, speed and features coming up in 2.0. I'm still puzzled why the preview image goes horribly wrong from library to develop mode in LR.

blinded

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 17:54

I think the best way to test all of these Raw converters would be have them all truly at zero sharpening (sometimes zero doesn't mean zero though) and then run something like Focus Magic over them in a batch with the same settings. Many of the different sharpening methods and default sharpness (even when at zero) really skew a lot of these results, but there's no way to ever do a comparison like this. Look at the dpreview software page for the Canon 5D. The Capture One image looks MUCH sharper but if you look at the C1 defaults, they're sharpening in a really efficient, high way. But at zero, the detail isn't too different from any other converter.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 17:57

I think the best way to test all of these Raw converters would be have them all truly at zero sharpening (sometimes zero doesn't mean zero though) and then run something like Focus Magic over them in a batch with the same settings. Many of the different sharpening methods and default sharpness (even when at zero) really skew a lot of these results, if we were talking about pure detail or resolution.

This wouldn''t explain the obvious detail loss in DPP 3.4.1 though. That's not a soft pictue, that's a destroyed picture. Good luck sharpening that without overcooking it.

There's a very fine micro contrast on the rocks and water that you just won't get back. Why buy an L lens if your RAW software is going to ruin it?

Bob_A

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 17:59

When using ACR a little trick is to hold down the Alt key while dragging the Blacks slider. When you do this it turns the image white, showing only the parts that are falling off the left hand side of the histogram.

The same works for Exposure and Recovery, but for these sliders everything turns black except for the areas that are off the right hand side of the histogram.

blinded

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 18:01

This wouldn''t explain the obvious detail loss in DPP 3.4.1 though. That's not a soft pictue, that's a destroyed picture. Good luck sharpening that without overcooking it.

There's a very fine micro contrast on the rocks and water that you just won't get back. Why buy an L lens if your RAW software is going to ruin it?

lol, I edited that quote by the time you posted this. Anyways, maybe I'm not talking about DPP in your case, though to me it was sharp, it had artifacts, really ugly sharpening. :lol: I still think that somehow high speed rather than quality is being forced. I did once hear about a loss of COLOR detail in the new DPP 3, but I can't remember from where. Somebody had a picture of one of those orange jackets traffic police wear, and the new version had less color detail. Maybe by the time they release DPP 4 all will be solved. Regardless, I think a lot of programs had hidden sharpening built in.

PixelMagic

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 18:25

I was able to adjust my default profile to Adobe RGB color space and to fix the default colors in the program.

>>snip<<

Huh? How exactly did you do that?

susabell

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 19:40

I've talked with many people who see the same problem with DPP since 2.2, so I don't think that's in dispute any longer.

Susabell, you saved the day.

I'm glad I was able to help :D A lot of people like DPP and when I'd mention softness and overall dullness of the image they didn't seem to have the same problems.

So either we got a bad copy of the software or there is some issue with our computers that is reading things incorrectly.

I just know that for me, DPP didn't work at all. I was very happy with Silkypix and now ACR/Bridge. Both give me the same sharp, well processed results as Rawshooter did and more.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 20:18

Huh? How exactly did you do that?

Start - control panel - appearance and themes - display - settings - advanced - color management.

As someone said, LR just goes by the default of your machine (which is limited IMHO). In Silky Pix you can add defaults within the program itself.

davidcrebelxt

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 20:23

Start - control panel - appearance and themes - display - settings - advanced - color management.

As someone said, LR just goes by the default of your machine (which is limited IMHO). In Silky Pix you can add defaults within the program itself.

You should never set your display there to AdobeRGB OR sRGB... if you have calibrated your monitor, it should be pointing to the .icm (.icc ?) profile created for you. Otherwise, if you have not calibrated, I think its best to leave it blank.

I forget again, did you calibrate?

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 20:23

I'm glad I was able to help :D A lot of people like DPP and when I'd mention softness and overall dullness of the image they didn't seem to have the same problems.

So either we got a bad copy of the software or there is some issue with our computers that is reading things incorrectly.

It's very strange. I remember "upgrading" to 3.2 awhile back, opening up all my images and thinking I had a focus problem with the body. I was frantic, lol. I revert back to 2.2 and everything is just beautiful. Hopefully Canon can get that back on track for DPP 4.0. As of now, when people say "my new 40D looks dull", this could be a good reason why.

I just know that for me, DPP didn't work at all. I was very happy with Silkypix and now ACR/Bridge. Both give me the same sharp, well processed results as Rawshooter did and more.

I will definitely be checking out ACR/Bridge tonight. Is this something that can work with PSE5 or do I need a CS3 upgrade? Thx.

davidcrebelxt

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 20:31

ACR is an Adobe plugin, and works with PSE5... but its ACR, so its the same processing as in LR... just with less controls.

susabell

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 20:40

In2Photos

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 22:14

OK I told you I would try to have a play and here is what I have (even though this may be pointless by this time). All was done in LR 1.4.1.

Your image with zero adjustments, viewed at 200% and a screen shot taken.
No goofy issues that I can see, it is after all a 200% crop.

http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/99560024.jpg

Next is the entire image, exported to an 800 pixel image with no adjustments again.

http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/99560025.jpg

Next is the image with only my 40D starting point preset applied and some USM (85, .3, 2 and 15,20,4) in CS2.

http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/99560026.jpg

Last one is after some tweaks (about 30 seconds worth) and USM (came values as above) in CS2.

http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/99560027.jpg

PixelMagic

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 22:25

That is totally incorrect. I'm beginning to think your issues are not with any of the software packages you're using but with your understanding of color management.

Start - control panel - appearance and themes - display - settings - advanced - color management.

As someone said, LR just goes by the default of your machine (which is limited IMHO). In Silky Pix you can add defaults within the program itself.

Mike55

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 22:41

That is totally incorrect. I'm beginning to think your issues are not with any of the software packages you're using but with your understanding of color management.

Are you sure about that? Adobe themselves claim the only way to change it is via Windows, not within the program itself:

http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb402376

<H4>Solution 3: Remove the color profile for your monitor.

On Windows XP:

Exit Photoshop Lightroom.
Choose Start > Control Panel > Display.
Click the Settings tab.
Click the Advanced button.
Click the Color Management tab.
Click the "ADD..." button.
Choose a standard RGB color profile, such as Adobe RGB or sRGB IEC61966 - 2.1.
In the "Color profiles currently associated with this device" field, select the new profile you just picked.
Click the "Set As Default" button.
(Optional) Select the old profile.
Click the Remove button.
Click the "OK" button.

This is what Adobe recommends for strange color casts.

In Silky Pix, I can change what profile the program sees from within the program itself.

And I'm talking preview and edit mode here, not just output.

The steps Adobe points out at that link are how I was able to see a proper color cast in Lightroom while previewing and editing.

Also, the blurry images from DPP 3.0 + compared to 2.2 and SilkyPix go far beyond any kind of color space problem. I even provided samples from different lenses and cameras done on different computers (the Grand Canyon camp store, etc).

blinded

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 00:21

Are you sure about that? Adobe themselves claim the only way to change it is via Windows, not within the program itself:

http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb402376

This is what Adobe recommends for strange color casts.

That doesn't really sound logical.

Also, the blurry images from DPP 3.0 + compared to 2.2 and SilkyPix go far beyond any kind of color space problem. I even provided samples from different lenses and cameras done on different computers (the Grand Canyon camp store, etc).

I still think that's because Silkypix has a really good sharpening method, but whatever.

That is totally incorrect. I'm beginning to think your issues are not with any of the software packages you're using but with your understanding of color management.

Yeah, that's what I believe too. That would explain why you (Mike55) saw the weird color casts in Lightroom and why Silkypix worked with color management off. This is what Bibble calls "ICC profiled" mode, rather than "Monitor Proofed". Basically it sends the information straight through and the display of it is dependent on how closely your monitor matches the working space selected. If it's a really big or bizarre space, you'll get bizarre color or contrast. It's similar to an "Assign Profile" rather than "Convert to Profile" in Photoshop I believe. This would explain Lightroom, since it used MelissaRGB, which is a combination of ProPhoto with an sRGB tone curve.

What exactly do you calibrate your monitor with? If it's a Spyder or Huey, it should have it's own program to control the profile and system wide color, rather than you messing around with it. I know that with Huey, I have HueyTray which loads on startup. In programs, you should select the color space that represents what you will do with the output file (or convert/export with another profile, such as working in ProPhoto, export as sRGB). The color space defines the range of colors possible, a profile corrects the deviance your display shows, since no displays are ever accurate out of the box (though I find CRTs pretty close) they shouldn't match a color space. Similarly, you wouldn't want use your monitor profile as the working, since it could have a limited range of colors depending on the display type and quality, which would leave you with less colors to work with. A color space is NOT a profile, the two can't be used interchangeability.

I hope I explained that all easily. I think that my knowledge of color management (at the monitor level) is pretty good. I haven't had a chance to work with printer/paper profiling ever since I don't print. Here's a link that will help put down everything is pretty easy and quick terms:

http://www.bythom.com/qadcolor.htm

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 01:40

That doesn't really sound logical.

That's the Adobe website saying it is logical.......

LR accepts the Windows default profile. Mine was Samsung Natural Color (calibrated). LR did not like that, hence the weird Mars color cast. Silkypix didn't like it either, but I was able to set a default within Silkypix to bypass the Windows default.

Please show me where you can adjust the monitor color mangement profiles for LR internally. Adobe says you can't do it for "simplification purposes". But hey, if you guys know more than Adobe concerning LR profile defaults, please feel free to share the knowledge.

Those are the only two apps I've ever had issues with in terms of profles. PS, DPP, etc have all been perfect. Even ARC 4.4 inside PSE5 didn't have the troubles LR did with color.

I still think that's because Silkypix has a really good sharpening method, but whatever.

I've looked for artifacts and I see far less than I do in DPP 3.4.1 at level 3 (standard mode for the 40D).

Yeah, that's what I believe too. That would explain why you (Mike55) saw the weird color casts in Lightroom and why Silkypix worked with color management off. This is what Bibble calls "ICC profiled" mode, rather than "Monitor Proofed". Basically it sends the information straight through and the display of it is dependent on how closely your monitor matches the working space selected. If it's a really big or bizarre space, you'll get bizarre color or contrast. It's similar to an "Assign Profile" rather than "Convert to Profile" in Photoshop I believe. This would explain Lightroom, since it used MelissaRGB, which is a combination of ProPhoto with an sRGB tone curve.

What exactly do you calibrate your monitor with? If it's a Spyder or Huey, it should have it's own program to control the profile and system wide color, rather than you messing around with it. I know that with Huey, I have HueyTray which loads on startup. In programs, you should select the color space that represents what you will do with the output file (or convert/export with another profile, such as working in ProPhoto, export as sRGB). The color space defines the range of colors possible, a profile corrects the deviance your display shows, since no displays are ever accurate out of the box (though I find CRTs pretty close) they shouldn't match a color space. Similarly, you wouldn't want use your monitor profile as the working, since it could have a limited range of colors depending on the display type and quality, which would leave you with less colors to work with. A color space is NOT a profile, the two can't be used interchangeability.

I hope I explained that all easily. I think that my knowledge of color management (at the monitor level) is pretty good. I haven't had a chance to work with printer/paper profiling ever since I don't print. Here's a link that will help put down everything is pretty easy and quick terms:

http://www.bythom.com/qadcolor.htm

I'm well aware of all of that. The problem was with my default profile and LR, and the other problem is utlimately with the nosedive DPP took after 2.2. The examples are a clear indication ,as well as other users who experienced the same thing.

It's not a problem anymore though since I am now using Silkypix, which just gets the job done much faster than the apps I was using before, and with excellent quality. The GUI and workflow could use help, but IQ is #1 priority IMHO.

This explains some of it:

http://livedocs.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/1.0/help.html?content=WS0F7BFFFA-CE53-4ceb-B3D3-9D6256B8917D.html

Lightroom simplifies color management in your photographic workflow. You don’t need to choose color settings or color profiles until you are ready to output your photos. To take advantage of Lightroom color management, you need to calibrate your computer monitor so that you are viewing accurate color. See Calibrate and profile your monitor (http://livedocs.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/1.0/WS0CEB539E-34A7-4c10-B6F3-82EDCA5D3617.html).

René Damkot

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 05:38

I was able to adjust my default profile to Adobe RGB color space and to fix the default colors in the program. However, I'm noticing some interesting things. #1, viewing in the image in "library" mode at about 900x looks decent. When you switch to "develop" mode, the image loses a ton of luster that I am having trouble getting back while in develop mode.

Wow!
As said: Do not use AdobeRGB for a monitor profile.

If you want to use a generic profile, and it's all you have, you might use sRGB (I wouldn't recommend it for an LCD), but if you want anywhere near accurate color, calibrate your screen and use the monitor profile.

I downloaded both LR screenshots (Library and Develop) and they are identical color wise on my screen.

Well, alot of people are seeing the same thing I am with DPP so it could be a PC/Mac thing. Until *you* compare your images in 2.2 with 3.0+ you will never really notice how bad it now is.

I only check sharpness at 100% view, and see no problems on any version of DPP. The only big change made was the sharpening of the "fit screen" rendering.

Start - control panel - appearance and themes - display - settings - advanced - color management.

As someone said, LR just goes by the default of your machine (which is limited IMHO). In Silky Pix you can add defaults within the program itself.
Nonono.
LR uses MelissaRGB internally.
That's a huge colorspace. (About ProPhotRGB, but with a different TRC)

LR uses the default monitor profile, and if that's "limited" it is because your screen is limited. But using a different (wrong) monitor profile will not make your screen less limited, and will throw color management out of the window.

That is totally incorrect. I'm beginning to think your issues are not with any of the software packages you're using but with your understanding of color management.
Yeah, that's what I believe too. That would explain why you (Mike55) saw the weird color casts in Lightroom and why Silkypix worked with color management off.
What exactly do you calibrate your monitor with? If it's a Spyder or Huey, it should have it's own program to control the profile and system wide color, rather than you messing around with it.

Agree.

That's the Adobe website saying it is logical.......
Edit: just read what they said, and they are not suggesting what you did. Read the article again:
"If the profile you were using was damaged, and you created a custom profile for your monitor using a monitor calibration tool or software, create a new profile using that tool. (It is highly recommended that you create a custom profile for your computer and monitor rather than using the profile supplied by the manufacturer."
LR accepts the Windows default profile. Mine was Samsung Natural Color (calibrated).
What did you calibrate it with? Might have been a corrupt profile...
but I was able to set a default within Silkypix to bypass the Windows default.
And thus throw colormanagement out of the window,
Please show me where you can adjust the monitor color mangement profiles for LR internally.
You cannot, not while retaining color management.
Adobe says you can't do it for "simplification purposes". But hey, if you guys know more than Adobe concerning LR profile defaults, please feel free to share the knowledge.

Those are the only two apps I've ever had issues with in terms of profles. PS, DPP, etc have all been perfect. Even ARC 4.4 inside PSE5 didn't have the troubles LR did with color.
LR uses color profiles a little different from other programs I've heard (I think Victory mentioned that once on POTN).
So it might be possible that one CM program works, and another doesn't.

I've had something similair on my Mac where PS was using the right, but Preview the wrong monitor profile.
Turned out to be because the monitor profile was in the wrong folder IIRC.

Below the screenshot of both LR screenshots combined.

dpastern

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 05:53

I just noticed these shots, and that LR shot sucks. A HUGE Reddish tint to it, 3.4.1 looks very good on my calibrated monitor Mike.

If I understand you correctly, there are 2 issues you are having with DPP 3.4.1 (which I am using as we speak):

1. colours aren't right
2. Sharpness

Am I correct?

With 1, I agree with others that it seems you have misunderstood colour management to be entirely honest. NEVER set your monitor profile to Adobe RGB/sRGB. Get a good calibration too, use it to create an icc profile, and use that. Follow Rene's most excellent colour management tutorial and you can't go wrong. If in doubt, ask.

With 2, I haven't noticed any sharpness issues in DPP, but I tend to not sharpen a lot in DPP, generally no more than 2 or 3, depending on the image. I also tend to sharpen a lot less in Photoshop CS2 than many others here do (35%, 0.3 pixel radius, 3 threshold). I do agree that many people over sharpen their images.

Dave

Dave

Price isn't the problem. Quality is. Here's the same shot in the DPP 3.4.1 and LR. Unprocessed RAW's:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/40DDPP.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/40dLR.jpg

dpastern

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 06:13

Mike,

I checked the RAW file out as well, with DPP 3.4.1 and it looks fine to me. I note that the RAW was set to standard, I usually work in neutral for better colour accuracy (imho). Sharpness at 200% with +3 sharpening was reasonably good, but a tad soft. I think you'll find that most images viewed at 200% show some degree of lack of sharpness. AF accuracy isn't as good as people think.

Dave

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 14:48

Mike,

I checked the RAW file out as well, with DPP 3.4.1 and it looks fine to me.

Are you on a Mac? The 3.4.1 image and 2.2 images are quite different based on about five PC's I've investigated on. None of those images I posted in DP 3.4.1 are acceptable for my use(not like I would use those anyway, they are just examples. The 3.4.1. shot is blurry. I've solved the LR color problem by removing my monitor profile to adobe.

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 15:10

Wow!
As said: Do not use AdobeRGB for a monitor profile.

Then why is Adobe recommending it?

http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb402376

Solution 3: Remove the color profile for your monitor.

On Windows XP:

Exit Photoshop Lightroom.
Choose Start > Control Panel > Display.
Click the Settings tab.
Click the Advanced button.
Click the Color Management tab.
Click the "ADD..." button.
Choose a standard RGB color profile, such as Adobe RGB or sRGB IEC61966 - 2.1.
In the "Color profiles currently associated with this device" field, select the new profile you just picked.
Click the "Set As Default" button.
(Optional) Select the old profile.
Click the Remove button.
Click the "OK" button.

but if you want anywhere near accurate color, calibrate your screen and use the monitor profile.

That's what I did. The problem was solved. LR looks fine now. It's not as good as Silkpix (which many people say), but it's decent enough.

I only check sharpness at 100% view, and see no problems on any version of DPP. The only big change made was the sharpening of the "fit screen" rendering.

Right. Unfortunately an accurate preview screen is essential for everything except for 100% sharpness adjustments. And in the example I provided, it could even lead one to believe their image is ruined. That's not an acceptable approach and needs to be remedied ASAP.

Nonono.
LR uses MelissaRGB internally.
That's a huge colorspace. (About ProPhotRGB, but with a different TRC)

LR uses ProPhotoRGB for it's color space from what I have seen. But that's different than the monitor profile.

LR uses the default monitor profile, and if that's "limited" it is because your screen is limited. But using a different (wrong) monitor profile will not make your screen less limited, and will throw color management out of the window.

It's fine now. It never was a problem until LR. Believe me, I'm not the only one who finds the colors and IQ of LR a little less than desireable.

"If the profile you were using was damaged, and you created a custom profile for your monitor using a monitor calibration tool or software, create a new profile using that tool. (It is highly recommended that you create a custom profile for your computer and monitor rather than using the profile supplied by the manufacturer."

What did you calibrate it with? Might have been a corrupt profile...

The monitor comes with a calibration program called "natural color". It works amazing for every other photog app I have used.

LR uses color profiles a little different from other programs I've heard (I think Victory mentioned that once on POTN).
So it might be possible that one CM program works, and another doesn't.

You can only set color spaces on output, and you cannot set monitor profiles from within the app itself.

Below the screenshot of both LR screenshots combined.

Thanks. That's completely unnacceptable and why I am now using Silkypix with no demosaic sharp, and no sharpness. Color and detail is a notch up. I guess that's why the program is so slooooooooow, lol.

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 15:15

I've never used LR so I can't say how my RAW images would be processed. But I can say that ACR is great! I like the work flow better than Silkypix and you have more control.

But both seem to be good in reading the RAW files the way I like. So if you can Mike, try and test ACR/Bridge out. Then compare the results with Silkypix. Then you can see which works best for you.

Yeah I did test ACR 4.4 in PSE5 out. Right out of the gate the colors were better than LR(strange I know). This is now my second favorite choice behind Silky Pix. And I agree the workflow is better than Silky.

Still, I must admit that if DPP 2.2 could read my 40D files this post never would have happened(applause from the crowd).

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 15:39

To add to your LR default of that capture, I did the Silkypix with no sharpening of any kind (including their excellent demosaic sharpening) and DPP 3.4.1 in default mode (no sharpening):

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/DPPland.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/silkyland.jpg

Nicer color and a touch more DR from the blank slate. I can tell you with certainty that my neighbor's house does not have grey brick (the one with the van in front). It's more of a tan/peach color, which Silkypix nails.

If you want DULL images that don't look anything like the scene, please use DPP 3.4.1. It's a shame what happened to DPP since 2.2.

tdodd

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 16:02

To my eyes the DPP version looks superior. It has a greater dynamic range, with deeper blacks and whiter whites. Looking at the histograms for the two files confirms this. The colour of the bricks on the front of the house barely look much different to my eyes. Certainly they do not look grey in either example, but the DPP rendition has more punch. Look at the white garage door and especially the white facade at the top near the centre of the house. In the DPP version it is a brilliant white (not surprising in direct sunlight), but not blown, whereas the Silkypix version looks rather grey and lacklustre. It's the same thing in reverse with the shadows. They just don't seem deep enough in the Silkypix version. The whole image looks a bit washed out to my eyes. I don't know which is more accurate, but I prefer the DPP version.

When making these comparisons it is important to remember that DPP rendering will be dictated by the settings within the camera, such as Picture Style and Contrast/Sharpening etc.. Most other raw software will ignore these parameters entirely and make up their own version of what a nice default rendering might look like. If you shoot in Neutral Picture style with Sharpening = 0 then you will need to make some tweaks within DPP to level the playing field. Standard Picture Style and Sharpening = 1-2 would be a fairer starting point, IMHO.

WB also looks a bit off in the Silkypix version, with a blue cast to the "white" areas. That's confirmed by colour dropper sampling.

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 16:18

The colour of the bricks on the front of the house barely look any different to my eyes

You need to get a vision check then :)

The color of the bricks on that house are tan/orange, not grey.

but the DPP rendition has more punch. Look at the white garage door and especially the white facade at the top near the centre of the house. In the DPP version it is a brilliant white (not surprising in direct sunlight), but not blown, whereas the Silkypix version looks rather grey and lacklustre. It's the same thing in reverse with the shadows. They just don't seem deep enough in the Silkypix version. The whole image looks a bit washed out to my eyes. I don't know which is more accurate, but I prefer the DPP version.

The silkypic is more accurate, but possibly a touch more overxposed.

When making these comparisons it is important to remember that DPP rendering will be dictated by the settings within the camera, such as Picture Style and Contrast/Sharpening etc.. Most other raw software will ignore these parameters entirely and make up their own version of what a nice default rendering might look like. If you shoot in Neutral Picture style with Sharpening = 0 then you will need to make some tweaks within DPP to level the playing field. Standard Picture Style and Sharpening = 1-2 would be a fairer starting point, IMHO.

Oh I agree, but Silky had all sharpening off and color set to camera. From what I understand, their specialty is Canon CR2.

tdodd

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 16:27

When I colour sample the bricks just above the round window in the garage I get these RGB % values in Lightroom....

Silky - 78.5 77.3 75.1
dpp - 77.1 76.2 75.0

Both have a red bias, with a bit less green, and blue at the bottom of the pile. OK, so the Silkypix version is rosier, but neither one is grey. Personally I'd be more concerned about the blue cast in the van, the garage doors and the white facade. But that's just me.

I imagine Canon is probably not too bad at handling their own CR2 files either. As I understand it, only they know precisely what the pixel data values in the raw file mean and how to interpret them. For everyone else it's a guessing game.

davidcrebelxt

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 16:40

PixelMagic

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 17:10

You ought to reread that Adobe link. It is posted to address a specific problem of photos appearing black or gray in Lightroom, not to change working color spaces. Also, it is clear to me that you're confusing color profiles and color spaces... they are related but not the same. In your case changing the profile, which is ill-advised anyway, you aren't affecting Lightroom's internal working color space since its fixed and cant be changed.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread. You appear absolutely certain that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Good luck.

Are you sure about that? Adobe themselves claim the only way to change it is via Windows, not within the program itself:

http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb402376

[b]

This is what Adobe recommends for strange color casts.

In Silky Pix, I can change what profile the program sees from within the program itself.

And I'm talking preview and edit mode here, not just output.

The steps Adobe points out at that link are how I was able to see a proper color cast in Lightroom while previewing and editing.

Also, the blurry images from DPP 3.0 + compared to 2.2 and SilkyPix go far beyond any kind of color space problem. I even provided samples from different lenses and cameras done on different computers (the Grand Canyon camp store, etc).

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 17:18

You ought to reread that Adobe link. It is posted to address a specific problem of photos appearing black or gray in Lightroom, not to change working color spaces.

What are you talking about? The link addresses monitor profile issues.

Fact: Adobe advocates changing your monitor profile to Adobe SRGB when encountering color cast issues. You cannot change working color spaces in the program except for output.

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 17:25

When I colour sample the bricks just above the round window in the garage I get these RGB % values in Lightroom....
I imagine Canon is probably not too bad at handling their own CR2 files either. As I understand it, only they know precisely what the pixel data values in the raw file mean and how to interpret them. For everyone else it's a guessing game.

I totally agree. Canon *was* the best at handling their own RAW files. When you get 40D users who were using 20D's with DPP 2.2, suddenly locked into 3.4.1(because 2.2 doesnt support 40D) asking why their pictures look like crap, there's a good reason why.

Tdodd -- I also adjusted that Canon raw to "Standard"(as you indicted) and it does more closely resemble the Silkypix. An oversight on my part. I just prefer the Silky image - especially when post processing it. The colors are just a touch better and more accurate.

I'm posting a XT 17-40L comparison with 2.2, 3.4.1, Silky, ACR and LR a bit later using some landscape images which require critical color. Some pretty interesting results.

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 17:26

silvex

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 17:40

Mike, I think the issue here is color management and understanding of the software processing. It has nothing to do with "bad" 40D or buggy software. I processed your photos in CS3 and had no problems make them look "ok", others did to.

Read rene's color management FAQ

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=296149

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 17:56

Mike, I think the issue here is color management and understanding of the software processing.

This is not a color mangement issue, this is buggy software. ;)

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/dpp3creek2.jpg

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/dpp2creek.jpg

And is really the crux of the problem when 40D users who were using XT's and 20D's with DPP 2.2 by a new 40D and get locked into 3.4.1. It's not the camera.

Adobe has a long standing problem of getting proper color from Canon RAW files, so that is nothing new either. Supposedly theyare working on it now.

It is not the fault of the 40D, that's for sure.

It has nothing to do with "bad" 40D or buggy software. I processed your photos in CS3 and had no problems make them look "ok", others did to.

All of the examples I saw were overcooked, like trying to sharpen a soft photo. I do appreciate the effort though.

The truth is, there is a problem with DPP's preview rendering since 2.2 which makes pictures look worse. That's been documented by many people who have had the same frustrations I have by buying a great new camera and being locked into an inferior DPP, then having to be bounced to LR which ultimately gives worse colors than DPP (check the LR forums for millions of posts from Canon users saying the same thing).

Honestly, I would love to be using Lightroom. The workflow, speed and enhancement options are amazing. I patiently await the rumored Canon RAW fixes.

René Damkot

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 18:18

If LR and ACR are showing different, and ACR is the one that's better... I'd say you DEFINATELY have a color-management problem at least. I'm not usually one to come right out and say this, but get a colorimeter so you can have a good profile. Many monitors ship with profiles, some are even corrupt from manufacturer. And monitors drift over time as well.

I'm one who doesn't care for Adobe's default rendering either... but they should appear the same. They are BOTH using ACR to render the images, unless there is a preset being used they should appear the same.
Agree, ACR and LR should be (and are on my system) identical. If not, something is wrong.
You ought to reread that Adobe link. It is posted to address a specific problem of photos appearing black or gray in Lightroom, not to change working color spaces. Also, it is clear to me that you're confusing color profiles and color spaces... they are related but not the same. In your case changing the profile, which is ill-advised anyway, you aren't affecting Lightroom's internal working color space since its fixed and cant be changed.

Yep. Like I posted a bit back. Re-read the link.
Fact: Adobe advocates changing your monitor profile to Adobe SRGB when encountering color cast issues. You cannot change working color spaces in the program except for output.
Nope. They advise to try a "default working space", to see if that remedies the problem. They also advise to use a monitor specific profile.
Many, many people complain about LR's Canon RAW colors. This is nothing new. It's really on their end to fix it, and supposedly they are working on it.
True, but totally unrelated to the issue at hand I'd think.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with color profiles, but with "camera calibration"
This is not a color mangement issue, this is buggy software.
It might be buggy software, but in that case it's buggy on your PC, and not on a lot of other peoples computers.

I kindly suggest you take a deep breath, and actually take some of the advise given. Using AdobeRGB as a monitor profile is not the way...

PixelMagic

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 18:19

What are you talking about? The link addresses monitor profile issues.

Fact: Adobe advocates changing your monitor profile to Adobe SRGB when encountering color cast issues. You cannot change working color spaces in the program except for output.

Here's the article you linked titled "Photos are black or gray in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom."

If you could demonstrate that at some time your photos were either black or gray when opened in Lightroom then the article is relevant; otherwise you're simply erroneously cherrypicking information you "think" supports your viewpoint. In fact the phrase "color cast" does not even appear anywhere in the article.

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/3654/articlety2.gif

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 20:48

Here's the article you linked titled "Photos are black or gray in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom."

If you could demonstrate that at some time your photos were either black or gray when opened in Lightroom then the article is relevant; otherwise you're simply erroneously cherrypicking information you "think" supports your viewpoint. In fact the phrase "color cast" does not even appear anywhere in the article.

Holy semantics. Take a chill pill, angry dude.

davidcrebelxt

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 21:09

Many, many people complain about LR's Canon RAW colors. This is nothing new. It's really on their end to fix it, and supposedly they are working on it.

If you'd have read my whole post, you'd see that I agree that the default rendering in ACR is poor (and yes I know about them working on it... I was in on the threads discussing that.)

But my point is that THIS is not the issue you are seeing... you would be seeing the same color in ACR and in LR -- since ACR is built into Lightroom -- they are the same. You clearly have color-managment issues, whether you want to believe us or not.

sadatk

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 21:10

lol.

silvex

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 21:22

This is not a color mangement issue, this is buggy software. ;)

And is really the crux of the problem when 40D users who were using XT's and 20D's with DPP 2.2 by a new 40D and get locked into 3.4.1. It's not the camera.

Adobe has a long standing problem of getting proper color from Canon RAW files, so that is nothing new either. Supposedly theyare working on it now.

It is not the fault of the 40D, that's for sure.

All of the examples I saw were overcooked, like trying to sharpen a soft photo. I do appreciate the effort though.

The truth is, there is a problem with DPP's preview rendering since 2.2 which makes pictures look worse. That's been documented by many people who have had the same frustrations I have by buying a great new camera and being locked into an inferior DPP, then having to be bounced to LR which ultimately gives worse colors than DPP (check the LR forums for millions of posts from Canon users saying the same thing).

Honestly, I would love to be using Lightroom. The workflow, speed and enhancement options are amazing. I patiently await the rumored Canon RAW fixes.

I see two different settings in DPP...v2 is using standard, whereas v3 is not. set the v3 to standards and compare the settings one by one. Making the settings of V2 like V3 and vice-versa.

sadatk

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 21:25

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 22:34

Agree, ACR and LR should be (and are on my system) identical. If not, something is wrong.

They look identical now. There is no color mangement issue.

Nope. They advise to try a "default working space", to see if that remedies the problem. They also advise to use a monitor specific profile.

They *do* in fact recommend using an sRGB color profile. And you are playing this game of semantics because.......? Of course they also advise a monitor specific profile. But what they advised *worked*for the problem I had in LR. It's not as optimal as a custom calibrated profile, but it's optimal enough for Adobe to recommend such a move.

Lots of people have had this issue with the program, and lots of people have issues with how LR converts Canon RAw even if all the ducks are lined up perfectly.

It might be buggy software, but in that case it's buggy on your PC, and not on a lot of other peoples computers.

I've spoken with plenty of other people who have this problem, especially on PC. Some of them have even posted in this thread. Have you rolled back to DPP 2.2 and tested it yourself?

blinded

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 22:37

I don't have DPP installed, but is there some sort of settings on image interpolation? I'd like to know if it does some bicubic resizing or such when you have it set to "Fit to Window".

Post screenshots of them both at 100% in DPP.

Well, it does allow you view/save at high speed or high quality, though I doubt he's looked into this yet, or I missed any posts. 2 of us already mentioned it.

Mike55

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 22:41

Some more fun. All of these images had their sharpening turned off and set to default. Pick your default poison shot with an L lens on a tripod.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/captureonecreekdefault.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/dpp33creekdefault.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/dpp341creekdefault.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/LRcreekdefault.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/ACRcreekdefault.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/silkypixcreekdefault.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/dpp22creeckdefault.jpg

I like DPP 2.2 and Silkypix for my money in terms of colors out of the gate. Notice how LR struggles with the bright greens sooo many Canon RAW shooters complain about. I'm guessing that's what Adobe is working on.

sadatk

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 22:45

dpastern

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 23:13

Hi Mike,

No, I am not on a Mac. I'm on a PC using Windows XP. I use a Samsung 245T monitor, which is calibrated using a Pantone Huey Pro unit. I put the RAW file through the paces with DPP 3.4.1 and whilst it's a bit soft at 200%, that is normal, no matter WHAT RAW processing software you are using. I did not find the image objectionally bad using DPP 3.4.1 to be honest. Sure, it's a bit soft, but that's just probably inaccurate focusing.

I no longer have earlier versions of DPP installed on my system, since Windows does not play nice in this respect. I might grab an older version of DPP and put it on my Linux box and run it in WINE and see what happens - only problem here is that the Linux box is *not* colour managed. For those reasons alone, it would probably defeat the purpose of the experiment to be honest. My XP box does not have enough hard drive space free to start playing with VMWare virtual installs.

I really do agree with the others - get a monitor calibration hardware tool (I'd recommend Pantone's eyeone, which is what many consider as being the best on the market, at least without spending silly money), use it to create proper icc profiles. Follow Rene's instructions on his excellent colour management thread. Shoot in Adobe RGB in camera. Export to DPP.

I did note that you were using standard as the picture image quality setting, I really do recommend using neutral. *always* do the work in Photoshop post production, rather than in the RAW imho. It will usually ensure the best accuracy in colours.

I'll have a play with RAW Therapee tonight and the RAW image (blonde moment last night, didn't check it out using it).

I suspect that there are settings that you have hard coded into DPP 2.2's preferences that are accounting for the differences. If possible, reset all preferences in both versions of DPP. I would not recommend running both versions side by side, I'm pretty sure you'll get some funky dll problems occuring and will simply just be asking for trouble.

Dave

Are you on a Mac? The 3.4.1 image and 2.2 images are quite different based on about five PC's I've investigated on. None of those images I posted in DP 3.4.1 are acceptable for my use(not like I would use those anyway, they are just examples. The 3.4.1. shot is blurry. I've solved the LR color problem by removing my monitor profile to adobe.

brecklundin

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 23:15

one more post in this thread and I might have to iron my eyes... :rolleyes:

blinded

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 23:24

one more post in this thread and I might have to iron my eyes... :rolleyes:

get the iron ready.

brecklundin

2nd of July 2008 (Wed), 23:31

get the iron ready.

son-of-a-....OWWWWW that iron is hot!!

:lol:

Mike55

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 01:23

^ Try this.

Completely understood :) However, a fully functional preview mode should be a necessary part of any RAW converter. Most people don't even sharpen in their RAW converters, but do adjust things like exposure, color and highlight recovery which require a preview of the entire image. One should not have to adjust, save and then output after every adjustment.

I agree the thread is gigantic. Color problems solved, RAW converter problems solved. Not much more to say. 40D is a great camera. DPP 3.0++ distorted it's true ability - something Canon needs to look at ASAP.

A couple things I would like:

1. Canon to bring DPP back to 2.2 in terms of IQ
2. SilkyPix to get the features and workflow of LR
3. LR to get the IQ of Silky Pix

Not much more to say. Thx for reading, and thank you to all those who chimed in with their input.

dpastern

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 01:51

I honestly don't see any IQ degradation in DPP 3.4.1 Mike...that sort of matches what other experienced users have said here in this thread.

Dave

Mike55

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 02:06

I honestly don't see any IQ degradation in DPP 3.4.1 Mike...that sort of matches what other experienced users have said here in this thread.

Dave

Others have said they have seen it in this thread, and I've talked with many others who have seen it too.

You don't see an IQ difference in these examples? If not, I would suggest a quick visit to an optometrist.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/dpp341creekdefault.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/dpp22creeckdefault.jpg

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/dpp3creek2.jpg

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/dpp2creek.jpg

Others have mentioned it here as well:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/2008/04/iq-bugsissues-with-canons-dpp-32-raw-software/

shannyD

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 02:09

you must have bionic eyeballs man.

i notice a color change.. but thats really about it..

but then again im not you, so you might be a lot more picky than i am. ;)

Mike55

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 02:24

you must have bionic eyeballs man.

i notice a color change.. but thats really about it..

but then again im not you, so you might be a lot more picky than i am. ;)

20/20. And obviously I'm very picky, look at this thread.....talk about O.D.'ing on pixel peeping.....:lol:

Honestly I think I wore my eyes out the past few days on this.

Electric Shepherd

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 02:43

Hi guys, sorry to take this slightly off topic but I've been reading this thread with interest and may be having a related problem.

I use DPP 3.4.1 on my Macbook, the screen has been profiled with a Huey and that profile is used as the display profile within DPP and the computer's display.

Now I get something quite odd when changing magnification.

I took some shots of the lavender in our garden yesterday. When I open them initially in DPP they look fine but if I zoom in to 100% view the colours change; the purples of the lavender become washed out, taking on a light blue hue, which remains when I zoom back to fit to screen view. Earlier in this thread someone posted about waiting for the preview image to finalise, on changing magnification I can see the colours fading out as the new image is resolved.

IIRC the converted and saved image looks OK again when I open it in Elements 6 so it would appear that the finished image is OK, but this colour behaviour in DPP is really odd.

Am I doing something wrong somewhere?

tzalman

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 03:48

Mike55 - In the examples you have posted above I have noticed that there is a clear difference between the histograms displayed by the two versions of DPP. Since this histogram is, apparently, based on image data after demosaicing and white balance have been performed (change the WB temperature and watch the histogram change) but before gamma correction and Picture Style application, the explanation for the difference between the two versions must be that either the demosaicing algorithm has been changed (which could account for differences in sharpness, details, noise and 'smoothness') or the WB implementation has been changed (which would account for the different color cast) or both. If you have problems with this new version (personally I don't), I hope you have success finding a converter that will satisfy you.

Mike55

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 03:52

tzalman

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 04:04

I don't know whether this is true or not, but I once read that while Zoombrowser is written by Canon employees, DPP is outsourced. I haven't used ZB in years (and even then only briefly) but it might be worth trying (free, after all).

René Damkot

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 04:13

Am I doing something wrong somewhere?

Sounds like you are doing everything correct...
Never heard of this behaviour.

One thing I could imagine is that the first preview is based on the in camera jpg, and the final view is the DPP version. There is a slight color difference between the two.

What is your working space set to in DPP? What's set in camera? Might also make a difference.

Electric Shepherd

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 04:28

Thanks René.

I've set my camera's colour space to Adobe RGB and the working space in DPP to Adobe RGB too.

I'm confused!

René Damkot

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 05:16

Hmmm. So am I.

Let's wait and see if someone else has an idea...

I could move this off to a seperate thread?

michillebaker

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 11:58

These examples might explain my frustration :)

I went from seeing these kinds of out of camera no PP RAW files for a couple years:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/dpp2creek.jpg

To suddenly this:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/dpp3creek2.jpg

And then this:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/Lrbeta.jpg

It's like all my lenses now suddenly stink. I know that's not the case, but that's what it feels like. Those are the 17-40L at F8. all the exact same image with no post processing of any kind. The IQ of the first image is just leaps and bounds over the others.

What the heck happened? I have no idea. Now others are saying they don't get these weird LR colors when they load a Canon RAW so that doesn't bode well either. I'd love to get much better at LR but to be honest it's tough to dig out of that hole for every image.

I have no doubt some, if not most of the problems I'm having with the new 40D are the IQ bugs.

oK, i have one question? I not that familer with DPP but I noticed that with the first picture that you posted the -9 next to linear (i am guessing this is contrast setting but not 100% for sure). The second photo has a contrast setting of -1. could DPP 3.2 be automatically trying to set the best setting for the pic. Anyways hope this help.

Thanks,

Michille

Electric Shepherd

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 12:00

Thanks René.

Strangely, a restart later and all is back to normal.

Go figure?!

I'll post a new thread if it recurs.

silvex

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 12:31

oK, i have one question? I not that familer with DPP but I noticed that with the first picture that you posted the -9 next to linear (i am guessing this is contrast setting but not 100% for sure). The second photo has a contrast setting of -1. could DPP 3.2 be automatically trying to set the best setting for the pic. Anyways hope this help.

Thanks,

Michille

I had the same observation.

blinded

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 15:33

Also, he added .33 brightness to the 2.2 version, explaining why the trees in the back are better. You really should compare apples to apples.

hsma

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 16:43

tzalman

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 17:00

No Michille, the -9.0 in vs. 2.2 refers to the lowest point on the histogram scale (9 stops below medium grey) and 3.5 is the high point. On later versions after the advent of 14 bit RAW this was changed to -10 and 4.

But good catch, blinded. I didn't notice the 0.33 brightening.

davidcrebelxt

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 20:40

I didn't get the chance to read the whole thread but I did notice that color management might be the problem. Nvidia drivers could affect your color space. I had problems on start up when Nvidia's drivers would overwrite the calibrated color space. Easy fix, but I haven't been able to find out how to disable that feature on the Nvidia drivers.

to disable the nvidia startup apps that can mess with color management in Vista go to start menu, type msconfig, go to startup tab, and uncheck anything that says nvidia.

But I don't think the OP is using a colorimeter (or any other method) to calibrate.

Bob_A

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 21:45

20/20. And obviously I'm very picky, look at this thread.....talk about O.D.'ing on pixel peeping.....:lol:

Honestly I think I wore my eyes out the past few days on this.

For the two stream photos can you post them with both having a brightness setting of 0.33 so we're looking at the same thing?

bwolford

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 22:34

Read much of the thread and I don't see why one would switch hardware because the bundled software that has limited editing capabilities isn't satisfactory.

You can do everything and 100 times more in PS CS2, CS3, and other programs, even PS Elements. I know the same thing has been written many times here. I just have to chime in and say it hilarious.

Good luck with your new gear.

Mike55

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 22:55

Also, he added .33 brightness to the 2.2 version, explaining why the trees in the back are better. You really should compare apples to apples.

No problem. It still beats up on the 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 versions badly:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/dpp3creek2.jpg

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dpp2217-40default.jpg

Mike55

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 22:56

Bob_A

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 23:28

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 00:06

Mike, those two look identical to me except that the 2.2 image preview has much more aggressive sharpening. If you process the RAW without sharpening from both versions then apply the same USM in PS (i.e., 300, 0.3, 0) do the images come out the same?

*edit* Hmm ... it looks like 3.2 also clips a bit more of the highlights. Can the defaults be changed for the left and right bounds of the histogram (the blacks and exposure settings)? I know squat about DPP :)

They look pretty much the same when exported to 16 bit TIFF at 100% in PS. But it goes back to the original point of the thread. Why do my photos look worse in DPP 3.4.1 compared to 2.2? They do so because there's a preview IQ bug.

Most people looking at the 3.2 version of that RAW in preview would determin it out OOF or that their "40D was soft". Also, most people I know do their sharpening in PS, not DPP. A nice looking, properly functioning preview mode is important for exposure, color adjustments and enjoying a new camera and your L lenses without going into panic mode *cough*.

One shold not have to save and output after ever minor adjustment in their RAW converter to see the proper changes. The preview should reflect the image. Canon borked the preview mode after 2.2 and it's led to some confusion, and it also mars their product(as someone else indicated earlier).

A 20D user who was using 2.2 with blazing preview modes suddenly gets locked into 3.4.1 with a 40D and wonders why the new camera looks worse......

Look no further than this waterfall example. IMHO, that preview gives off the impression that is a OOF, destroyed image that should be discarded. It goes far beoynd "soft".

It's just a function of the program I'd love to see back. If I was Canon, I wouldn't want my flagship products being misrepresented by that botched preview mode since 3.0.

René Damkot

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 03:00

They look pretty much the same when exported to 16 bit TIFF at 100% in PS.

If I'm correct, they also appear the same when viewed at 100% in DPP itself, right? (They do on my Mac)

But it goes back to the original point of the thread. Why do my photos look worse in DPP 3.4.1 compared to 2.2? They do so because there's a preview IQ bug.

This summons it up quite nicely: The "fit to screen" preview of DPP differs.
The main discussion of this thread is which version is more correct: (Might have something to do with your screen size for all I know, but) Over here the "fit to screen" of the new DPP looks more like the "fit to screen" in PS. DPP 2.2 appears oversharpened; more like OSX "preview" would show it.

From your screenshots, it looks worse on your system.

If you deem that important (I don't), then I agree, DPP 3.4.1 might not be for you. Then again, you knew that ;)

</thread> :lol:

tdodd

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 03:46

René Damkot

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 03:54

There is no point flogging a dead horse.

I'd actually forgotten about that thread... Suppression I guess :rolleyes:

I agree however. Like I said:

/thread ;)

tzalman

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 04:52

Tim and Rene, you are right.
However, I can't resist one last note to Mike:
Mike, when you say "Also, most people I know do their sharpening in PS, not DPP," you make an important point. Speaking for myself, I don't really look for or care about sharpness in DPP. I have in-camera sharpening set a bit high so the embedded jpg will be sharpened and I judge/sort my shots with either Breezebrowser Pro or DPP's Quick Check, both of which view only the jpg. In DPP I automatically set Sharpening at 2 for low ISO shots and 0 for high ISO. This is only Capture Sharpening and I know I will sharpen at least twice more downstream. High ISO goes from DPP to Neat Image where after NR the Capture Sharpening is applied.

I know workflow is a highly personal thing. If DPP doesn't fit into yours, you will just have to spend the bucks and time to find a converter that does. But please realize that many people find that DPP works just fine for them.

Littlefield

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 07:56

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 10:13

If I'm correct, they also appear the same when viewed at 100% in DPP itself, right? (They do on my Mac)

This summons it up quite nicely: The "fit to screen" preview of DPP differs.
The main discussion of this thread is which version is more correct: (Might have something to do with your screen size for all I know, but) Over here the "fit to screen" of the new DPP looks more like the "fit to screen" in PS. DPP 2.2 appears oversharpened; more like OSX "preview" would show it.

From your screenshots, it looks worse on your system.

If you deem that important (I don't), then I agree, DPP 3.4.1 might not be for you. Then again, you knew that ;)

Right. And being locked in the new verison with a great new camera made my lenses and new camera look dull, hence the panic at the beginning of this thread.

Either way I hope Canon does something about it, at least for those of us who have the problem (looks like it's not a Mac issue).

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 10:18

This thread is a long winded rehash of a discussion that has already taken place, with input from the same participants

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=485100

I don't see much point going any further with this discussion. Mike hates DPP 3.x. The rest of the world, largely, has got to grips with what needs doing and just gets on with life. There is no point flogging a dead horse.

That's a pretty rude way of putting it. I and others have bought 40D's and had perceived inferior results compared to our XT's and 20D's in DPP 2.2. That is something that:

1. should not be scoffed at
2. Canon should not take lightly
3. is an ongoing problem

I can gaurantee you that the preview problem for some is why you see many "why is my 40D soft?" posts that seem to crop up much more than XT's, 20D's and 30D's. The latter can be used with DP 2.2. :)

For those taking pics of the kids at Disneyland or at family functions, this is probably not a big deal. For those who are into nature landscapes(foliage, fine rock detail), it's a very big deal. The good news is that Silkypix does a great job, both in it's preview mode and output in terms of the IQ that DPP 2.2 got. So there's a great ending. They have a free version and a two week trial version:

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/

I prefer the trial version because you can set demosaic sharpening and regular sharpening to zero. I'm ordering the full version tonight. :)

tdodd

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 10:37

E-K

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 11:42

...For those taking pics of the kids at Disneyland or at family functions, this is probably not a big deal. For those who are into nature landscapes(foliage, fine rock detail), it's a very big deal...

You are comparing a preview mode of the image rescaled to fit on your screen. I did compare DPP 2.2 to 3.4 and you are correct that in the resized view, it appears a tad sharper in 2.2 compared to 3.4. The apparent contrast difference appears related to the sharpness.

Sharpness is virtually identical in 2.2 and 3.4 when viewed at 100%. If you are going to judge sharpness at a reduced image size then one could assume that this would give you an idea of the sharpness of the image if you resize to those dimensions.

Well I did that and DPP 3.4 provided the best preview to match the resized image. With DPP 2.2, the resized image when compared to the preview was softer (virtually identical to the DPP 3.4 resized image).

Bottom line to me is that if there is a bug anywhere then it is in DPP 2.2 ;).

e-k

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 11:43

I was not meaning to be rude, but simply pointing out that the discussion has already taken place and you started the same discussion both times. I'm in no way saying it is your fault that this thread is now up to page 18, but did the topic need raising twice?

I think so. First, I had no idea what the problem was orginally. I thought it was my 40D. I didn't dare think that Canon would provide a faulty preview mode for their 40D. I thought they would have fixed it for their flagship 1.6x model. Secondly, in the other situation (thread) I could revert back to DPP 2.2 and the problem went away. Not the case with this thread. I am "locked in" with 3.4.1 and the 40D.

I think the only "problem" here that might give cause for concern with DPP is the sharpness issue, nothing at all to do with colour spaces. That is a whole different topic. Well in my experience, as I said in the old thread, viewing things at some arbitrary magnification factor, such as "fit to screen" is not going to give you meaningful pixels from which you can judge the sharpness of your image. You get the exact same "problem" in Lightroom too. The "fit" or "fill" magnifications are plainly softer than the 1:1, 1:2 1:3 or 1:4 magnifications.

It is a big problem though. It can even give the impression of OOF images. Even though that waterfall pic is underexposed, it's still fixable. But the perception from the preview mode is that image is OOF and ruined. This is *important*. A good working preview mode is essential to any RAW converter.

The only way Lightroom will let you work meaningfully with sharpening is with a 1:1 magnification. At first I was frustrated by that constraint but now I realise the good sense of it. If you view at any other magnification then you are trying to sharpen the image based on imaginary pixels that are not actually what you shot. I guess a nice even 1:2 magnification does keep things pretty simple for the resampling algorithms, but trying to fit some arbitrary number of original pixels into a displayed pixel is just asking for hit and miss results. If you want to sharpen an image that is just an approximation of the original then by all means try. But really you are just sharpening based on the success or otherwise of the resizing algorithm. It seems to me that that is not an intelligent way to go about the sharpening process.

Why blame the user though? What's wrong with having a normal looking preview mode and sharpening at the 100% level? Why accept software that doesn't work right in preview mode when you just paid $1200 for a camera? Why would Canon want it's customers using their RAW image portal for all their lenses and bodies (DPP) when it doesn't look right and gives false previews?

In fact, it makes quite a bit of sense that DPP does not oversharpen the randomly resized image - it sort of serves as a warning that what you see is just an approximation of your image file and not representative of the actual image quality. I find judging sharpness and adjusting sharpness to be far more meaingful at 50% or 100% mag in DPP.

So presenting an OOF image in the preview mode "makes sense"? Adjusting colors, highlights and WB in a blurry image with no detail makes sense?

I shall quite happily continue viewing at 50% or 100% in DPP and Lightroom whenever I have an interest in judging sharpness. If I want to review my composition or overall tonal balance then I am happy to do that with a "Fit" resizing and accept that the image will not look sharp.

So you would be happy working with color, exposure and highlights with that previewed waterfall image from DPP 3.2 after spending $1200 on a camera?

There's a difference between "not look sharp", "lost detail" and "out of focus". How do you even know how your color changes and highlights properly effect the image when all the detail is lost and the image is blurry? What about color detail in the drops of water on rocks? There's so much more that goes into it. Are you going to save and export to JPG every time you make a change to view what it looks like. Ouch!

And again, most people sharpen in PS, not their RAW converter. Many people don't even go to 100%.

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 12:09

You are comparing a preview mode of the image rescaled to fit on your screen. I did compare DPP 2.2 to 3.4 and you are correct that in the resized view, it appears a tad sharper in 2.2 compared to 3.4. The apparent contrast difference appears related to the sharpness.

Sharpness is virtually identical in 2.2 and 3.4 when viewed at 100%. If you are going to judge sharpness at a reduced image size then one could assume that this would give you an idea of the sharpness of the image if you resize to those dimensions.

Well I did that and DPP 3.4 provided the best preview to match the resized image. With DPP 2.2, the resized image when compared to the preview was softer (virtually identical to the DPP 3.4 resized image).

Bottom line to me is that if there is a bug anywhere then it is in DPP 2.2 ;).

e-k

I think you may have resized incorrectly. The final image I got out of both looks more like DPP 2.2 than the OOF DPP 3.2. Both images were exported as TIFF, the opened in Photoshop and sharpened with the Canon recommended 300/0.3/0 in sharpen, then converted from TIFF to Jpeg using Faststone resizers high quality converter.

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dpp341fallsproc.jpg

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dpp22fallsproc.jpg

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/dpp3creek2.jpg

Sadly, the preview mode in DPP 3.0 and later editions is not working properly with full sized jpeg and RAW files.

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 12:28

And just for kicks, exported with no USM:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/nousm.jpg

E-K

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 12:51

I think you may have resized incorrectly. The final image I got out of both looks more like DPP 2.2 than the OOF DPP 3.2. Both images were exported as TIFF, the opened in Photoshop and sharpened with the Canon recommended 300/0.3/0 in sharpen, then converted from TIFF to Jpeg using Faststone resizers high quality converter.
...
Sadly, the preview mode in DPP 3.0 and later editions is not working properly with full sized jpeg and RAW files.

No, I resized with NO sharpening using DPP. The point I'm trying to make is that the DPP 3.4 preview is giving me more of a WYSIWYG than DPP 2.2. DPP 2.2 is showing me what the image would look like AFTER sharpening. If I believed the DPP 2.2 preview then I would be left with the false impression that no sharpening was required.

If I wanted the preview to show me what the image would look like with sharpening then I would add some sharpening.

e-k

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 14:45

No, I resized with NO sharpening using DPP.

That's the problem.

The point I'm trying to make is that the DPP 3.4 preview is giving me more of a WYSIWYG than DPP 2.2. DPP 2.2 is showing me what the image would look like AFTER sharpening.

I just posted the image *without* sharpening and with a highly renowned resizing program (faststone), and it's much closer to DP 2.2 than 3.2. :)

If I believed the DPP 2.2 preview then I would be left with the false impression that no sharpening was required.

You don't need to with the 17-40L at F7.1.

If I wanted the preview to show me what the image would look like with sharpening then I would add some sharpening.

No sharpening, exported from DPP to TIFF, then resized in Fasstone resizer to jpeg:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/nousm.jpg

E-K

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 15:10

That's the problem.

No, that's not the problem ;). I'm saying that DPP shows me in the preview pretty much exactly what it's going to produce - I don't want it to show me how it might be rendered in some different application.

You don't need to with the 17-40L at F7.1.

You need some to overcome the effect of the anti-alias filter. At 100% both 2.2 and 3.4 look the same which is slightly blurry.

e-k

Bob_A

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 15:35

No, that's not the problem ;). I'm saying that DPP shows me in the preview pretty much exactly what it's going to produce - I don't want it to show me how it might be rendered in some different application.

You need some to overcome the effect of the anti-alias filter. At 100% both 2.2 and 3.4 look the same which is slightly blurry.

e-k

This is exactly correct, sharpening of RAW files is always required to counter the effect of the AA filter, not the quality of the lens. This is documented in the Canon publication "Getting the most from your EOS-1 Class DSLR". Canon even provides a recommended starting point for USM of 300, 0.3, 0.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Information/Getting-The-Most-From-Your-EOS-1-Series-Camera.pdf

pages 4, 25-26, 30-32

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 15:43

No, that's not the problem ;). I'm saying that DPP shows me in the preview pretty much exactly what it's going to produce - I don't want it to show me how it might be rendered in some different application.

I was hoping you would respond with that :) Ok, you say DPP is giving you the "real" image. Then by all means explain this:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dpp341notoolbar.jpg

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dpp341rawtoolbar.jpg

Ooops! Same exact settings except the top toolbar is removed(the one you need to actually get back to the main window, lol).
So tell me, E-K, which is the "real image", as you were claiming? The truth is, you never know what the real image is with DPP 3.0+ until you export to tiff and view it in another image viewer. The preview mode is *bugged*. It worked fine in 2.2. and gave you the real image consistently. Not only this, but it insinuates that DPP's resizing algorithm is crap. If they can't get the preview resizing right, how badly are they messing up the resize on export?

While the non-toolbar version is better, it's still not as good as the 2.2 preview or the exported TIFF's with no USM. The reason you got crappy results when you resized in DPP is because DPP is a crappy resizer. :)

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 15:44

This is exactly correct, sharpening of RAW files is always required to counter the effect of the AA filter, not the quality of the lens. This is documented in the Canon publication "Getting the most from your EOS-1 Class DSLR". Canon even provides a recommended starting point for USM of 300, 0.3, 0.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Information/Getting-The-Most-From-Your-EOS-1-Series-Camera.pdf

pages 4, 25-26, 30-32

I have plenty of images that I don't need to sharpen at all, and so do others who have sharp glass. The USM is recommended for soft images.

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 18:12

DPP 3.4.1 preview image no toolbar RAW:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dpp341notoolbar.jpg

DPP 3.4.1 preview image toolbar RAW:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dpp341rawtoolbar.jpg

DPP 2.2 17-40L RAW preview default no PP:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dpp2217-40default.jpg

DPP 2.2 17-40L exported in TIFF to SilkyPix, no PP:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/silkypixtiffnousm.jpg

DPP 2.2 exported in TIFF to Zoombrowser EX , no PP:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dpp22zpcreek.jpg

DPP 2.2 exported TIFF to FastStone Resizer no PP:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/nousm.jpg

DPP 3.4.1 exported TIFF to Faststone Resizer, no USM:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/faststopnenousm341.jpg

DPP 3.4.1. exported to TIFF to Silkypix, no USM:

http://www.camerablognetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/silkypix341nousm.jpg

The DPP 2.2 preview is the most accurate predictor of what the final image will look like. If you want to play guessing games, by all means use the soft, out of focus and strange previews that DPP 3.0 offers, and which hurts their out of box bodies and lenses in terms of IQ perception.

But whatever you do, don't use the resizer in DPP. Wow.

The very fine detail seen in the 2.2 RAW preview (captured by the L lens) is missing from both 3.4.1 previews. Shame. The lower left rocks in the 3.4.1 previews (both toolbar and not) are completely missing that "spark" which L lenses are famous for. The 2.2 preview has it in spades.

dpastern

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 19:36

I have plenty of images that I don't need to sharpen at all, and so do others who have sharp glass. The USM is recommended for soft images.

Ah no. RAW will consistently produce softish images, USM is recommended by Canon and other manufacturers. See the aforementioned getting the most out of your 1 series body guide.

Mike, imho, you're flogging a dead horse. Let it go.

Dave

E-K

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 19:47

I was hoping you would respond with that :) Ok, you say DPP is giving you the "real" image. Then by all means explain this:
...

Sure, that's easy to explain: it's a different size ;). I never said it gave the "real" image. I said it was close to what it, being DPP, produced. In other words in 3.4 it was at least consistent with itself and 2.2 not so much.

The problem is it's a resized image. Each application has a different way of resizing a larger image to a smaller one. In some applications, 3.4 will be closer when viewed at the same size, in others 2.2 may be closer. For the applications I use, 3.4 is closer. For prints, it will depend on the printers resizing algorithms.

e-k

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 21:01

Ah no. RAW will consistently produce softish images, USM is recommended by Canon and other manufacturers. See the aforementioned getting the most out of your 1 series body guide.

You don't need to sharpen every image. That's a fallacy - and I can point you to five top flight nature photogs who will tell you the exact same thing. The less sharpening you can get away with, the better the image. If you added Canon's recommended USM to every image you took that would be absurd.

300 F4 IS wide open, no sharpening:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/cubs5000/pigsh.jpg

There's absolutely no need to sharpen that image, straight from RAW. If you do, you end up oversharpening and cooking the image (something alot of people tend to do). Sure, the head could be in better focus and it could be closer, but it's sharp. Feather detail is outstandingly artifact free and silky smooth.

Mike, imho, you're flogging a dead horse. Let it go.

Dave

IMHO that comment doesn't really add anything to the discussion. If you have something pertaining to the topic , please feel free. Not exactly high quality input after someone spends some time putting together a series of examples.

Mike55

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 21:12

Sure, that's easy to explain: it's a different size ;). I never said it gave the "real" image. I said it was close to what it, being DPP, produced. In other words in 3.4 it was at least consistent with itself and 2.2 not so much.

So it's ok for DPP to produce a soft outputed resized image because the preview mode is buggy and soft?

Look at the examples. In the full TIFF's, both loaded fully into viewers and resized to 900x jpegs and loaded into viewers matched the 2.2 representation better than the buggy 3.4.1 preview - all with no post processing. There's no question that DPP 2.2 gave you the actual best representation of the shot you took.

The problem is it's a resized image. Each application has a different way of resizing a larger image to a smaller one. In some applications, 3.4 will be closer when viewed at the same size, in others 2.2 may be closer. For the applications I use, 3.4 is closer. For prints, it will depend on the printers resizing algorithms.

e-k

That has nothing to do with it though ;)

I posted full DPP exported TIFF's into various applications *and* full TIFF's that were converted to 900x jpegs in Faststone(that fit into the preview boxes). There were no differences in the viewers.

I guess all those viewers got it wrong, but DPP got it right with it's out of focus previews.

E-K

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 21:49

So it's ok for DPP to produce a soft outputed resized image because the preview mode is buggy and soft?

Are you saying it's okay that the DPP 2.2 preview mode doesn't match the preview mode of other applications when viewing the converted file at similar sizes?

Look at the examples. In the full TIFF's, both loaded fully into viewers and resized to 900x jpegs and loaded into viewers matched the 2.2 representation better than the buggy 3.4.1 preview - all with no post processing. There's no question that DPP 2.2 gave you the actual best representation of the shot you took.

Sorry, I cannot agree. There's no question that 2.2 gives you a nice sharp preview. It is questionable though whether this is representative of the overall image sharpness.

To me 2.2 is not the best representation. If I look at the 3.4 preview and compare it to say windows preview, the GIMP or Photoshop Elements, it is very similar. If I compare to 2.2, then they all look soft (i.e. 2.2 looks to sharp). I guess all those viewers got it wrong and DPP 2.2 got it right with it's over sharpened previews ;).

I posted full DPP exported TIFF's into various applications *and* full TIFF's that were converted to 900x jpegs in Faststone(that fit into the preview boxes). There were no differences in the viewers.

I guess all those viewers got it wrong, but DPP got it right with it's out of focus previews.

Without knowing what algorithms Faststone is applying it's hard to compare.

e-k

dpastern

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 23:15

You don't need to sharpen every image. That's a fallacy - and I can point you to five top flight nature photogs who will tell you the exact same thing. The less sharpening you can get away with, the better the image. If you added Canon's recommended USM to every image you took that would be absurd.

Well, who knows more about their cameras and the way they perform, you, the nature photographers, or Canon?

I could probably name 5 top nature photographers who do selectively sharpen their images (obviously based on an per image basis).

IMHO that comment doesn't really add anything to the discussion. If you have something pertaining to the topic , please feel free. Not exactly high quality input after someone spends some time putting together a series of examples.

Whatever.

Dave

blinded

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 23:18

How long is this thing gonna go? Who will get the 300th post?

Phiberglass

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 23:54

ahahaha*

azpix

5th of July 2008 (Sat), 01:35

This is the longest goodbye thread ever. I'm so inspired, I'm contemplating leaving.

blinded

5th of July 2008 (Sat), 02:07

But we haven't made it to the 300 mark yet! YOU CAN'T LEAVE NOW.

Kimberwhip

5th of July 2008 (Sat), 02:41

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832105333

Bob_A

5th of July 2008 (Sat), 12:11

I have plenty of images that I don't need to sharpen at all, and so do others who have sharp glass. The USM is recommended for soft images.

It doesn't look like you read the article. CANON tells you that you need to sharpen to counter the effect of the AA filter. It has nothing to do with glass.

If you have seemingly sharp images without USM, they will only be better with some.

E-K

5th of July 2008 (Sat), 12:51

You don't need to sharpen every image. That's a fallacy - and I can point you to five top flight nature photogs who will tell you the exact same thing. The less sharpening you can get away with, the better the image. If you added Canon's recommended USM to every image you took that would be absurd.

Would you point to these five top flight nature photogs where they say this? I'm interested to see what exactly they are saying.

It's pretty much a given that any Bayer based sensor uses an AA filter to reduce issues with moire. Some are stronger than others but they are there. The only dSLR sensors that don't have them are the Foveons and some special purpose ones.

You can adjust your sharpening to your intended output and that is fine. If you are reducing the image size then some algorithms inherently sharpen the image as it is reduced so no additional sharpening may be required. Blow the same image up to an 8x10 and you are likely going to need to sharpen the image to some extent whether via the in camera processor or external application.

Just trying to help your thread get to the 300 post point ;).

e-k

Mike55

5th of July 2008 (Sat), 23:40

It doesn't look like you read the article. CANON tells you that you need to sharpen to counter the effect of the AA filter. It has nothing to do with glass.

:lol:

Bob_A

6th of July 2008 (Sun), 21:17

I guess you're not into reading. That's ok. :lol:

bwolford

7th of July 2008 (Mon), 08:09

I think you read the first few posts and then decided to chime in while skipping the rest. :)

Actually I read most of it and got tired of reading about someone wanting to swap out hardware because of a software problem.

peterbj7

7th of July 2008 (Mon), 11:35

You know, I love my 5D but find the way it accumulates dirt down here most frustrating. So I was thinking of changing to another FF more resistant to dirt, which meant either the 1Ds III (so I keep my lenses) or the D3 (I have to lose the lenses, but the lower price compensates). Now I've been reading about the D700 and the expected D900, and the mooted 22mp Nikon, and I've been trying to get truly independent assessments of all these cameras. Very difficult, as most people seem to be addicts for either Canon or Nikon, and objective information is very hard to come by.

I've now decided that I can't decide, so I'll have to put up with the dirt for some time longer. And while in Belize my DSLR will rarely see the light of day - I'll be using a dirt-immune compact!

ben_r_

7th of July 2008 (Mon), 21:34

Wow I cant believe how big this thread has gotten so quickly! Glad I dont use DPP and have never had any issues like these!

Fabrian

8th of July 2008 (Tue), 09:24

Mike,

I skipped through some pages, but at this point I can only assume you have two versions of DPP on your PC. You running windows? Usually two versions of the same app causes conflict. It's possible this is your case. You should supply a RAW file that you deem crap in the latest DPP and give it to someone else that says it's good - see what they're results are from the same file..might just be software issues on your box. I haven't seen any problems, but then I usually avoid most bundled software.

I can probably give it a go if no one else wants to.

2112

9th of July 2008 (Wed), 01:42

René Damkot

9th of July 2008 (Wed), 03:11

ummm, why on earth would you be using DPP to begin with? Use a real program like Photoshop or Lightroom. Heck, even iphoto 08 on my Mac works with RAW files much better than DPP. Even converts it to JPEG for you when you finish the edit too :)

Sounds like you never tried DPP, or compared it to LR... :confused:

Is iPhoto colormanaged yet? ;)

tzalman

9th of July 2008 (Wed), 07:19

ummm, why on earth would you be using DPP to begin with? Use a real program like Photoshop or Lightroom. Heck, even iphoto 08 on my Mac works with RAW files much better than DPP. Even converts it to JPEG for you when you finish the edit too :)

...I usually avoid most bundled software.

Adobe has built an empire off that "The more it costs, the better it is" mentality.

Fabrian

9th of July 2008 (Wed), 11:56

Adobe has built an empire off that "The more it costs, the better it is" mentality.

Uh huh, and I suppose you think DPP is as powerful as Photoshop? :rolleyes:

davidcrebelxt

9th of July 2008 (Wed), 12:51

ummm, why on earth would you be using DPP to begin with? Use a real program like Photoshop or Lightroom. Heck, even iphoto 08 on my Mac works with RAW files much better than DPP. Even converts it to JPEG for you when you finish the edit too :)

Ugly colors in LR? You shouldn't need 10 presets convering different shooting conditions just to get to a point where colors resemble what you saw before being ready for further edits... tired of having a tree I SWEAR was a cherry tree look like a pumpkin tree. (I didn't even know pumpkins grew on trees.) :)

DPP is acutally quite good, its default colors are decent out of the box (at least no color shifts) ready for further edits. And gives good results... it converts to .jpg or .tif just fine for me. Not sure of OP's problems, but several of us have stated the image appears fine to us... and that includes those of us that use other converters than DPP. Is it as powerful feature wise as LR/ACR/others? No, of course not, but it covers the basics quite well... and the lack of tools/features does not explain the problems he's having.

If I went by reasoning that all bundled software was crap, I'd have never used Elements, as it was bundled with my Wacom I bought several years back. But then I also use elements, which though made by Adobe is ridiculed by many even though never even seeing it... and I use the Gimp also which is free, so it must be akin to Picasa, or Photoshop Express. ;)