DPP image quality better than Lightroom?

For most raw files, I find LR3 does an exceptional job and I can easily exceed the quality I would get from DPP. However; there are times that no matter what I do in LR, I just can't produce a jpeg that matches the quality of DPP, it doesn't happen often, but it does happen. I also prefer the colors I get from DPP as compared to LR3, but my colorchecker passport seems to have solved that problem. I think Canon might be holding back just a little secret sauce in their raw file format but I can't prove it....

[QUOTE=digital paradise;12800779]... Also personally for what I do I think PS is far better at sharpening than LR. I like to do birding and I like the eyes and beaks to be as crisp as possible. I have this sample.

digital paradise wrote in post #12800779
I just find also that DPP edges out LR when it comes to crisp images. Also personally for what I do I think PS is far better at sharpening than LR.

Agree on all points.
About the last one: Both LR3 and DPP have gotten better at sharpening.

Did a comparison a while back: DPP / LR2 / PSCS4: https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=6231944#p​ost6231944

On the new DPP sharpening: https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11118291#po​st11118291

tonylong wrote in post #12801775
Maybe if you posted a link to the Raw file for some of us to take a whack we could give some meaningful feedback!

We have seen so many comparison threads over the years and and there is always one basic problem; nobody ever defines the ground rules. Do we compare default settings? Many posters do, judging the first thing that comes up on the screen. But that is surely unsatisfactory for several reasons. Defaults are made to be changed, especially in RAW converters - that is, after all, the main point of RAW. Moreover, defaults are reflective of design philosophy - what is a good starting point for editing and how much should be left to the user? Or should defaults provide decent results for as wide a range of photos as is possible (which inevitably means compromises? Or should the defaults (as in DPP) produce "from the git-go" an excellent finished product?
But if we don't compare default edits, do we compare "best effort"? "I tried my best with each one." But "best effort" depends on ability and experience with the application in question and judgement. One man's fuzzy is another man's over-sharpened. The comparison becomes anecdotal rather than definitive - advice to embrace or forget.
At the very least, in order to have any pedagogical value, claims, complaints and paeans should be accompanied by a complete list of settings.

tonylong wrote in post #12801775
Maybe if you posted a link to the Raw file for some of us to take a whack we could give some meaningful feedback!

How can I do that? I've only done it the one time.

I've used YouSendIt.com -- you put your email address as the recipient, upload your file, then they send you an email with the link to your file and you post it here.

OK. After I drive the CEO to work I'll check into it.

Well that was easy. Thanks for help.

https://www.yousendit.​com …d=tx-02002207340200000000

OK, I downloaded your image.

First, a crop from DPP with no adjustments. The image was in the Faithful Picture Style. It had (in the Raw tab) a contrast setting of -1. a saturation setting of +1, and a sharpening setting of 3. All I did was crop the image:

Outside of some minor color differences, the posted examples all look the same to me. lol

I dunno, seems much of all this might be six of one half dozen of the other.

I have all 3 on my computer... DPP, LR3, ACR. Pick one, work with that and stop with comparisons that'll drive you mad. They all have 98% more in common than differences!

PaulRivers wrote in post #12800659
Actually, I might know the answer.

Are you comparing a dpp exported jpg or tiff to a Lightroom one, in a third party file viewer?

If not, I've had the same thing - in the editor the Lightroom picture always looks less sharp than the dpp version of the same thing. However, when I export them this is no longer the case.

And actually - this always use to drive me crazy in dpp because it would look one way in the editor, then I'd export it, and the exported version never looked as sharp as the dpp version.

What I've read is that dpp has a bug...err, "feature" where it sharpens the picture when you're viewing it at the size that you're viewing it at. However, when you export it it sharpens it at the pixel level, which results in a lot less sharpening. In other words the picture in dpp is oversharped (or nicely sharpened, depending on the picture) but the same picture viewed outside dpp is less sharpened.

That's what I've read at least...I know I was always annoyed that pictures never seemed to come out looking quite the same when exported as they did in dpp. You could export a file, reopen it with dpp and compare to the original in dpp, and they would look slightly different. It was annoying.

I tried a few different tests of the same photos, after all adjustments made I would compare jpegs and tiffs to the ones converted by DPP and LR. I couldn't make the LR images as good a quality as the ones generated by DPP. I doubt it had anything to do with the viewer because I was unable to tweak the LR raw files to the quality of the DPP files, which was much quicker by the way because these were just quick simple kids photos.

digital paradise wrote in post #12800779
Well I'll jump in on this one. I know a lot of people like LR and I took lessons on it and downloaded the trial version. If I was a pro and had to do mass editing I would use it. NR is better and it has so many more options. Not that I have not come up with procedures for mass editing using DPP.

I just find also that DPP edges out LR when it comes to crisp images. Also personally for what I do I think PS is far better at sharpening than LR. I like to do birding and I like the eyes and beaks to be as crisp as possible. I have this sample.

Here is the the DPP crop. Look at the jewelry around her neck

Here is LR.

No matter what I tried I could not get it to look as crisp using LR. I had multiple strips torn off me at DD Review stating I did not know what I was doing, blah, blah, blah. I was also told not to pixel peep as no one looks at that level. That is true but I often crop my bird shots, sometimes quite a bit and I need everything I can squeeze out if it.

Maybe I don't and have not made enough effort do so but I did offer the RAW file and challenged anyone to match it and tell me what they did. Only one person posted an image and it did not look much better. I tried and I don't give up too easy. I'll take something on and spend weeks or months to figure it out.

Is it my monitor or is the LR picture a little lighter in color too?

Ady2glude707 wrote in post #12804545
I tried a few different tests of the same photos, after all adjustments made I would compare jpegs and tiffs to the ones converted by DPP and LR. I couldn't make the LR images as good a quality as the ones generated by DPP. I doubt it had anything to do with the viewer because I was unable to tweak the LR raw files to the quality of the DPP files, which was much quicker by the way because these were just quick simple kids photos.

Look, I have a similar dilemma right now - I just got Lightroom, but while dpp produces some sometimes innacurate colors (like to-red face) that I have hoped to fix by using Lightroom, I've been finding that Lightroom often produces..."mushier" colors by default, and while faces aren't "to red" they're now often "to pale" with not enough red in them instead. So don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment.

However, your reply doesn't seem to address my question - did you actually export from both and view in a third party viewer? As I said, that seems to make a difference for sharpness in my experience. You mentioned opening a dpp exported pic in Lightroom and it was softer...

tonylong wrote in post #12804109
OK, I downloaded your image.

First, a crop from DPP with no adjustments. The image was in the Faithful Picture Style. It had (in the Raw tab) a contrast setting of -1. a saturation setting of +1, and a sharpening setting of 3. All I did was crop the image:

Here's a Lightroom crop with no adjustments, using the Adobe Standard calibration Profile:

Here's a Lightroom crop with a bit of clarity, sharpness and noise reduction (to soften the skin):

Here are the LR adjustments to get the results:

One evident thing is that DPP in Faithful does do some softening that affects the skin, and I didn't do anything in LR to try to match the skin color tone. But I don't see how the DPP image is "better" when it comes to the jewelry...?

Not sure why we are getting different results. I just tried it again and was careful to match the crop size to my original post. I did resize it in PS but I did that with the LR image as well in my original post.I circled one area and it is clearly different than yours. I wonder if crop size is affecting this?

PaulRivers wrote in post #12804639
Look, I have a similar dilemma right now - I just got Lightroom, but while dpp produces some sometimes innacurate colors (like to-red face) that I have hoped to fix by using Lightroom, I've been finding that Lightroom often produces..."mushier" colors by default, and while faces aren't "to red" they're now often "to pale" with not enough red in them instead. So don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment.

However, your reply doesn't seem to address my question - did you actually export from both and view in a third party viewer? As I said, that seems to make a difference for sharpness in my experience. You mentioned opening a dpp exported pic in Lightroom and it was softer...

No problem, no offense taken. Heres what i did on one of my tests.
Do adjustments in DPP
Save as Tiff
View Tiff in DPP
Import and view same Tiff in LR
Convert to jpeg in DPP and LR
Use Windows to view images
DPP is a little sharper and colors more true. Its noticeable but not drastic.

Thats just one example. My other tests mostly involved using the adjustments sliders in both to match up one another before converting and exporting. I would have DPP and LR open at the same time to easily and quickly view the differences. Maybe its just I need more time getting better in LR.