New DPP better than LR?

Interesting. This is not the first time I have heard about using Camera Landscape. I was fooling around with it in ACR6 and the settings you suggested. Not too bad. I have to admit NR is far better in ACR.

I'll keep experimenting with it. Thanks.

René Damkot wrote in post #14021447
DPP used to give better image quality (both sharpness, detail, chromaNR and color rendering) then LR1 and (less so) LR2.

Since LR3, LR took a big leap forward. There now are things LR does better, yet there still are things/images DPP does better…

+1. Here is where we see why paid software ( in general ) will be better. Canon will continue to upgrade DPP but Adobe caught up and surpassed DPP in most areas. It is unreasonable to think DPP ever will be a free full fledged software package. Development cost.

Lot of people think that DPP is free. Actually, it isn't. Its cost is just included in the camera price.
Do you think that canon developers are volunteers

J_R2 wrote in post #14025799
+1. Here is we see why paid software ( in general ) will be better. Canon will continue to upgrade DPP but Adobe caught up and surpassed DPP in most areas. It is unreasonable to think DPP ever will be a free full fledged software package. Development cost.

Agreed. You have to look at it from Canon's point of view. They know that Adobe is so dominant in the industry that nearly all pros and advanced amateurs will use PSCS/LR with a small group using C1. In that arena they can't compete even if they wanted to and it would push their costs up with no real return. But they do have to provide some free software for new buyers who have little or no editing software, so they can be up and running right away. Every maker does it. And what is simpler (and more economic) than simply stuffing the Digic firmware + an RGB curve editor and a few other basic items into Win or Mac compatible shells. At the same time, gimmicks like HDR, multi-exposures, in-camera crops, etc. are essential in order to survive in the P&S market, so if the code already exists, why not put it in the DSLRs also, and thus in DPP as well.

My first digital camera wa a powershot S30, which has the ability to take shots in raw mode. I still have lot of files from this camera and when I discovered DPP, I wished to be able to use DPP on my old powershot raw files. So I was looking for a solution to do that, such as taking a raw file issued from a camera supported by DPP and then just replace the raw data by those from my powershot files. However, someone explained me that even if this may work, the resulted image will be probably very bad. Why ? because Canon has made for each camera model a kind of calibration file that is exploited by DPP during the raw conversion process. If you look at the DPP folder you'll find a subfolder called icc which contains a lot of .BIN files which I guess are those calibration files.
So DPP raw conversion uses knowledge that canon has about its own cameras. That's probably the main advantage of DPP raw conversion over other converters...

Sure, the maker has the inside track when it comes to profiling. But Adobe has some fairly competent people who work in a reasonably well equipped lab to make their own profiles for every supported model. They may not be quite as accurate, but that doesn't bother me because I'm likely to change the colors anyways. That, after all, is why I shoot RAW.

woos wrote in post #14024104
Try one of these two things, in ACR7/LR4:

A. Option #1
1. Camera faithful
2. -10 clarity
3. 10 vibrance
4. -10 saturation

B. Option #2 (don't try this in LR3/ACR6!)
1. Camera landscape (trust me)!
2. -10 clarity
3. Negative vibrance, between 10 and 25
4. Saturation 0.

So I have been fooling around with you suggested settings. I am finding Landscape gives my images more of a glow than faithful does.

I never liked the yellow skin tones ACR produced and I always tried to correct this using saturation and never got anywhere with it. Vibrance does a far better job. I was editing a wedding last week and started with ACR but switched back to DPP.

So instead of starting a new thread I have a question about sharpening. Since most of my work is several images at a time I have all the time in the world. I use this method for sharpening. Really Smart Sharpening (RSS).

http://www.earthboundl​ight.com …search=edge+mas​k&bool=and

Problem is you cannot automate this method as an action completely. It has to have at least one stop. Tough to sit through 800 images while it batches.

Using ACR the default setting is 25 and for DPP I set my sharpening at 3. I consider both the capture sharpening phase and then apply RSS (when I only have a few images) after as output sharpening in PS. There is nothing better than edge sharpening.

When using ACR even at 25 I use the masking slider to edge sharpen but never go higher than 25. It would be nice to save some steps in my workflow. My workflow has an action for resizing which includes Photoshops - Smart Sharpen. Does anyone just use ACR for final output sharpening? I'm familiar with capture, creative and output sharpening but I'm trying to find a way to edge sharpen only for my entire workflow. Of course I'm interested in any other suggestions any has to offer.

Well your settings using landscape and vibrance,etc turned out to be pretty decent. I have been turning to ACR more lately and the only turning me off were the skin tones. I think NR is better and ACR has more to offer. Adobe has come a long way. As I said I started out editing my last wedding in ACR a few weeks ago and switched back to DPP.

This might be a little to cool for some but it is just an experiment and show the control of getting the yellow under control. Landscape gives the image a bit of an extra glow.

digital paradise wrote in post #14018329
Me too. I like DPP skin tones better.

Yeah, what's up with that?
i've seen comparison shots from DPP with ZERO adjustments and from LR or DxO once again with ZERO adjustments - and the skin tones look completely different?
Can someone explain that?

Vovan wrote in post #15750359
Yeah, what's up with that?
i've seen comparison shots from DPP with ZERO adjustments and from LR or DxO once again with ZERO adjustments - and the skin tones look completely different?
Can someone explain that?

I would guess that it has to do with DPPs ability to read and default to the camera defaults where as third party packages default to the program defaults.

gjl711 wrote in post #15750424
I would guess that it has to do with DPPs ability to read and default to the camera defaults where as third party packages default to the program defaults.

I'm starting to think it has something to do with the Picture Setting in DPP which is absent in all other programs...
Mine is set to Standard in the camera. Not sure if it means no correction at all or it is "standard" Canon's correction.
In either way, it produces the most realistic skin tones!

Vovan wrote in post #15750359
Yeah, what's up with that?
i've seen comparison shots from DPP with ZERO adjustments and from LR or DxO once again with ZERO adjustments - and the skin tones look completely different?
Can someone explain that?

Assuming you are referring to Raw files, then it's simply in the nature of the Raw data and differences in how the Raw processors "translate" the Raw data into RGB images. DPP automatically applies a series of "adjustments" to Raw files that are partly based on in-camera settings and then that "on top of" global adjustments/processes.

Lightroom and other Raw processors each take their own processing and applies it to the Raw data.

Even though certain "aspects" of Raw data and processing are "common", the fact is that different apps approach things in different ways.

As to skin tones, well, I haven't seen a "shortcoming" with Lightroom, but it's true that Lightroom gives you a somewhat "flat" image as a "starting point". The photographer make choices as to how to develop the image to "enhance" it.

With DPP, you may be happy with the "Picture Style" you have set in-camera, just like you may be happy with an out-of-camera jpeg. It's a matter of personal preference/choice. The good news is that either with DPP, Lightroom, etc, the Raw format/data gives you a lot of "room to move".

Vovan wrote in post #15750453
I'm starting to think it has something to do with the Picture Setting in DPP which is absent in all other programs...
Mine is set to Standard in the camera. Not sure if it means no correction at all or it is "standard" Canon's correction.
In either way, it produces the most realistic skin tones!

Yes, like I said above, DPP does use the Picture Style setting from the camera to give you a "starting point" that is "like the jpeg would be". With DPP you can switch the Picture Style around. Lightroom has something similar, "Camera Profiles", although they tend to be a bit more "toned down" than the Canon ones from what I've seen. I actually just use the default "Adobe Standard" in Lightroom and rarely switch things around.

If you want to try something interesting, bring a photo in DPP, and in the Raw tab set the Picture Style to Neutral, and compare it to the same photo opened in Lightroom. For more fun, try in DPP in the Raw turning the Contrast and Saturation all the way back to -4. This is actually the settings I use in my camera, Neutral, -4, -4, because it gives me a more "accurate" view of what the camera captures, so when I open a photo in DPP it actually comes quite close to what I see in LR (before making whatever adjustments to "enhance").

Thanks again, Tony!

Vovan wrote in post #15750359
i've seen comparison shots from DPP with ZERO adjustments and from LR or DxO once again with ZERO adjustments - and the skin tones look completely different?
Can someone explain that?

It's impossible to display raw data as an image without there being any adjustements. The difference you're seeing is that the default adjustements for DPP will use the parameters set in the camera at the time of shooting.

LR and DxO will use the default parameters set by the authors or by the user. If these default parameters aren't set correctly - for the specific camera - then the default image will not look good.

Lr allows the user to change the default parameters that it uses, with a different set of defaults for different cameras and ISo values. I presume DxO can do something similar.

LR/ACR also has Camera Profiles, in the Calibration tab, which are similar to the Camera profiles used by the Camera/DPP. These profiles have an effect on the saturation/colour/cont​rast of the image, but do not alter the sliders in the same way that changing the default conversion parameters do. The difference between Adobe Std/Camera Neutral and say Camera Landscape (which is quite saturated and boosts reds and greens amongst other things) is significant. Changing to Camera Portrait seems to be quite good for skin tones, although formal portraiture is not really my thing.

Alan