DPP vs jpeg off camera

I was asked to provide a jpeg straight off the camera for a photo I took earlier. Unfortunately I was shooting RAW only at the time.

I typically process my images in LR. However, I know if I do that the image will be materially different than what the OOC jpeg would have looked like.

So, my question is if I load up DPP and export to jpeg how close will the resultant file be to an OOC image?

Thanks!

dalto wrote in post #12540844
So, my question is if I load up DPP and export to jpeg how close will the resultant file be to an OOC image?

Thanks!

Should be about as close as you can get straight out of the camera as long as you don't apply any adjustments.

Unless you reset your defaults DPP does automatically apply a certain level of sharpening and NR. Reset the defaults to apply 0.

tkerr wrote in post #12540868
Should be about as close as you can get straight out of the camera as long as you don't apply any adjustments.

Unless you reset your defaults DPP does automatically apply a certain level of sharpening and NR. Reset the defaults to apply 0.

So, I haven't worked with OOC jpegs and compared the with DPP and Raw -- are you suggesting that the DPP default for sharpening would go beyond an OOC Standard jpeg? That would seem strange.

My point being that someone wanting to see an OOC jpeg would, I would assume, want to see normal sharpening applied...?

tonylong wrote in post #12540916
So, I haven't worked with OOC jpegs and compared the with DPP and Raw -- are you suggesting that the DPP default for sharpening would go beyond an OOC Standard jpeg? That would seem strange.

My point being that someone wanting to see an OOC jpeg would, I would assume, want to see normal sharpening applied...?

That should also depend on the picture style applied to the OOC jpeg shouldn't it? Does DPP always assume it is Standard?

Somewhere in these forums is another discussion about the amount of sharpening and NR DPP applies by default. If I remember correctly someone compared an OOC jpeg to a Raw and noted the sharpening and NR where too high. The suggestion was made to change the default values to zero in the tool pallet preferences.
However, If I am remembering correctly that is only since the latest version release.
Personally I rarely use DPP anymore. I would assume just opening a Raw into DPP then converting it to Jpeg should result in a Jpeg similar to what you get OOC. It should be reading the metadata and applying sharpening, NR, Contrast etc as indicated by the Data and not DPP. Right?

Only one way to find out for sure. Test it ourselves!

Yeah, I keep stirring myself into the "Test it ourselves!" direction. Of course to really do it right we'd all need to get all up with our tripods and such if we want to go beyond just comparing a shaky jpeg with the companion shaky Raw, not to mention comparisons between different bodies -- I have a 30D, a 5DC and a 1D3 laying around, but how geeky do we want to get? And then, the threads about 7D softness...someone would have to step up to the challenge!

I'd just tell them you shoot RAW and there is no JPG straight out of the camera.

tkerr wrote in post #12541208
I would assume just opening a Raw into DPP then converting it to Jpeg should result in a Jpeg similar to what you get OOC. It should be reading the metadata and applying sharpening, NR, Contrast etc as indicated by the Data and not DPP. Right?

Right. Except NR: That can be set in the DPP prefs.

René Damkot wrote in post #12543923
Right. Except NR: That can be set in the DPP prefs.

IIRC, DPP Preferences has the option to use n.r. as set in camera or a user set baseline.

Also, in reply to an earlier question, DPP sets Picture Style as set in the camera.

I remember that several years ago (2005?) a board member, PacAce, compared OOC jpgs, DPP and Zoombrowser/RIT and concluded that DPP was very close but ZB was identical. At roughly the same time on other boards I saw the unsupported opinion that RIT was designed in-house and DPP was out-sourced. Also at that time, I came to the conclusion that Breezebrowser, built with the Canon SDK, was essentially the same as RIT. Of course, things might have changed since then.

If the image size isn't important then you can extract the embedded jpeg from the raw file. That will be the same as the jpeg the camera would have produced. And it's still a decent sized image. I use FastStone when I want to do this.