ACR versus DPP processing for Canon CR2 raw files

Hi, I was doing a simple comparison between ACR (version 6.0) and DPP (version 3.11.4) and found that there are some slight differences in the processed image quality for CR2 raw files. I opened a CR2 file in ACR and DPP (without any adjustment done in both) and saved the file into jpg format. The converted files can be seen here (dpp first, acr second):

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I'm not sure of what you mean by "mottled", but if you want to do a realistic comparison between the two you might start with setting the DPP Picture Style to Neutral, then play with the ACR settings as well as the DPP settings.

I'm not saying that you will get the iages from the two exactly the same, but in those two images you can see a bit of Contrast and Saturation that DPP applies with the Picture Style whereas ACR tends for a more subtle "starting point". The camera "Calibration" profiles go in that direction but still tend to be more muted.

I don't use DPP, but I doubt you can get an answer to your question by means of a comparison this simple. You wrote:

There really is no "without adjustment." The software has to impose all sorts of things on the image to render it in a form that you can see. What you probably did is "import it without any adjustments other than those in the default settings of the software." Try changing picture styles in DPP, and you will get some idea of how important those default operations are. Also, you might not have identical settings for converting to jpg.

I'm not saying that the two are equivalent. There are certainly people who argue that one is better than the other. However, I think more of the variation is going to be how you process the image.

It is true that ACR 6 has conversion algorithms that extract more detail than DPP's conversion. A bit of history you may not be aware of: When ACR 6 has introduced 2 years ago, Adobe did a major revision of the software based on something of a change in the "philosophy of RAW conversion". Previous versions of ACR, going back to 2003, did a much smoother conversion, more like DPP. But with Version 6.0 the design team decided to go for a rougher, more detailed conversion which would give the user the power to retain more detail or to smooth it out by bringing down the Detail slider in the sharpening or by adding some Luminance Noise Reduction. More detail extraction is, in general, a good thing, but when viewed at 100% zoom it can seem "mottled". Also, the conversion engine does not distinguish between image detail and noise, so ACR 6 conversions do tend to be more noisy. For this reason ACR 6 also received a very much improved NR function.

Nice piece of info Elie.