Shaper photos in DPP than in CS5

Just viewed a DPP RAW and the same RAW in ACR at 100% and again I don't see a significant difference.

I tried another image. DPP Sharpening at 3 and at 25,1.0, 25 which comes up automatically. In this image ACR brought out more detail.

[QUOTE=digital paradise;13101668]I tried another image. DPP Sharpening at 3 and at 25,1.0, 25 which comes up automatically. In this image ACR brought out more detail.[QUOTE]


Yep.

I normally leave DPP sharpening @ 7

I'm fine with 3. I consider that the capture sharpening phase. I find PS will do a great job when it comes to sharpening. I recently found a new technique that works well. I prefer 3 because if something is over sharpened you can't pull it back after converting to a TIFF So I have to start over. In Photoshop I can.

OK, I played around with it a bit!

First is from DPP with no Sharpening in the RGB tab (Raw tab left at 7):

Many thanks Tony, I can see that in DPP you don't get much noise/grit even when it is cranked up to the max in the RGB tab. To me, the end result overall 'looks' more pleasing; even the workflow is less than in CS5.

Well, that LR one was, like I said, pretty "cranked", not necessarily the best possible look. I personally don't see a "better" result with DPP. But DPP can be quicker to get what you want...

Here it is from ACR and CS5 - 100% crop. Your originally posted images are copied below my edit.
ACR sharpening:
- amount 25
- radius 1.0
- details 25
ACR noise reduction
- luminance 25
- color 25
CS5 editing:
- levels
- curves
- smart sharpening
-- amount 165%
-- radius 1.0 pixel

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Your other originally-posted image.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I've read several items claiming DPP does a better job with raw conversion than ACR so I'm not too surprised.

And DPP should be better. Who knows Canon's data better than Canon? It just integrates very poorly in my workflow using Bridge/ACR/Photoshop.

Well, perhaps this is just personal preference but I still think the image looks in DPP much detailed than in CS5. Even without doing any adjustments to it in DPP. This is how the moon looks when zoomed in my camera LCD too. Just take a look at the craters at the bottom right and top left in the pic, they look much focused, just look at the flat plains round the middle of the moon, here the noise is minimal compared to the processed image in CS5. Like I said there are trades-off when using a third-party programme to bring about the best of one's photos, and the comment about Canon knows best its own work is spot-on, they won't be going around telling their propietary secrets.

That is true. I have stopped worrying about it a long time ago. I know that if I convert an image in DPP and the same one in ACR they both will be very equal in appearance when opened in PS.

Even though ACR has improved in leaps and bounds, like Titus stated who knows Canons Data better than Canon. I support that but when comes to sharpening and resizing DPP is not great. It will sharpen but it is limited. Resizing for web produces horrible images IMO.

If Canon cold improve highlight recovery, NR, and throw in some of the bells and whistles like Capture One etc, I'd pay for that version of DPP.

DPP is excellent for viewing and culling images because they look so great.

I've had the same experience using LR3 and DPP. For some pictures the quality is better in DPP, however when needing to do a heavy edit on a picture LR3 is the way to go.

xmortal wrote in post #13107456
Well, perhaps this is just personal preference but I still think the image looks in DPP much detailed than in CS5. Even without doing any adjustments to it in DPP. This is how the moon looks when zoomed in my camera LCD too. Just take a look at the craters at the bottom right and top left in the pic, they look much focused, just look at the flat plains round the middle of the moon, here the noise is minimal compared to the processed image in CS5. Like I said there are trades-off when using a third-party programme to bring about the best of one's photos, and the comment about Canon knows best its own work is spot-on, they won't be going around telling their propietary secrets.

This is because you had the Picture Style set to Landscape, with the sharpening showing up as 7! Of course it will look "sharper" than the ACR default! There is no mystery here -- if you want to do a "serious" comparison then open the shot in DPP and set the Picture Style to Neutral, and then see how it compares to ACR!

From there, sharpening in DPP or ACR is all a matter of taste. But it's the Picture Style that in DPP give the shot that initial "starting point".

xmortal wrote in post #13107456
Well, perhaps this is just personal preference but I still think the image looks in DPP much detailed than in CS5.

Then don't sharpen in ACR, but leave that job to PS:

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=6231944#p​ost6231944

DPP: Sharpening vs. USM: https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11118291#po​st11118291

(Or have a look at how you sharpen in ACR6. It's quite capable if you understand how it works. Different then DPP for sure, but not better or worse overall (older versions were worse overall))