DPP vs Raw Image Task

[curiousgeorge]

Adobe software aside, it seems DPP is the tool of choice for most people, but I seem to be in the minority in that I find RIT much more user friendly.

As far as I can tell the only difference is that DPP allows you to adjust the tone curve, but I prefer to apply curves adjustments as layers so I can apply them selectively, which is why I do everything in pp.

I only use these RAW converters for adjusting in-camera settings such as exposure, sharpness and WB. Is there really that much benefit in doing additional pp adjustments?

[davidcrebelxt]

Yes, generally you should do as much as you can in RAW before conversion to .jpg.

RIT is very basic. But if it works for you, and that's all you want keep using it. Bottom line is if you are happy with the results. But IMO, DPP is much more powerful, with wider ranges of adjustment, and more tools. At some point though I'd give the DPP tutorials a watch or two if you want to learn better how to use it.

[tzalman]

Yes, generally you should do as much as you can in RAW before conversion to .jpg.

I'm going to disagree a bit, David, or at least add a qualifier. Your statement as it stands is o.k., but only as long as it has that last bit about .jpg. However, IMO, if the conversion is to 16 bit tif there is no reason to prefer the converter to PSCS. As long as you have not caused clipping with an inappropriate exposure adjustment, all the data in the RAW is present in the tif also. Any adjustment done on DPP's RGB tab can be done better with PSCS. As a matter of fact, those adjustments, if any, done on the RAW tab after gamma corection (unknown since DPP's internal workflow is unpublished) could also be left until later. As long as the output from the converter is 16 bit, thus nullifying the advantage of 12/14 bit editing to 8 bit jpg editing, the only really essential parts of the RAW conversion are those done in linear space - demosaicing and WB - and the application of the tone curve/camera profile/Picture Style.

If George likes RIT's demosaicing and color rendition, and provided he is exporting in 16 bit, he is losing nothing by using it except perhaps the ability to use modified Picture Styles ( I don't know if RIT loads them, but I find them very useful with DPP.)

[René Damkot]

the only really essential parts of the RAW conversion are those done in linear space - demosaicing and WB - and the application of the tone curve/camera profile/Picture Style.

...and exposure corrections, and whatever else IMO.
All non-linear processing is done in the RAW converter.
From here:
expose-right (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml)

[tzalman]

...and exposure corrections, and whatever else IMO.

From here:
expose-right (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml)
Right, I forgot to include exposure.

[curiousgeorge]

Thanks all for the info.

As far as I can tell the main difference with DPP is the ability to adjust the tone curve. The Expose Right link was interesting as well. I'm going to have a play with making tone curve adjustments on the RAW of my already processed images.

[davidcrebelxt]

I'm going to disagree a bit, David


You're right, of course. I don't mind. I was just trying not to get too technical. ;)

I still prefer to do as much as I can in RAW because... well, I'm already there, and the tools are too.