Do you think DPP 4 will handle 5D classic raw files some day?

I have lot of 5D classic RAW files, and would love to re-post-process them with DPP4 as it has better shadow and highlight recovery.
Unfortunately for the moment 5D classic RAW file are not handled yet by DPP 4.
Do you think this may happen in future versions ?

what if you convert the raw into a digital negative?

actually i just noticed it doesn't identify any of the DNG files i have in folders...so don't think that would work at all

I doubt it, but with Canon you never know.
You might try some of the free or donationware converters like Raw Therapee or PhotoFlow.

yb98 wrote in post #17826664
I have lot of 5D classic RAW files, and would love to re-post-process them with DPP4 as it has better shadow and highlight recovery.
Unfortunately for the moment 5D classic RAW file are not handled yet by DPP 4.
Do you think this may happen in future versions ?

As you are probably already aware of the most recent version does support 5D.

Myself hoping there's another update to support 400D. 450D received support two versions back so they are still adding older models I hope.

UI wise the newer version beats DPP 3 by miles and combined with Zoner it is more than sufficient for processing 60D pics. Haven't tried Lightroom for ~8 years so don't know if I am missing anything.

I am so disappointed with how Lightroom imports my RAW files. I will have a image and it looks just a bit soft.. open it in DPP and tack sharp.. what gives?
I never realized this was an issue with the 5D.. I have some raws from my old one, ill give it a try.. I have a couple versions of DPP.

EightEleven wrote in post #18173838
I am so disappointed with how Lightroom imports my RAW files. I will have a image and it looks just a bit soft.. open it in DPP and tack sharp.. what gives?
I never realized this was an issue with the 5D.. I have some raws from my old one, ill give it a try.. I have a couple versions of DPP.

What gives is that Adobe took the design decision that they would make their default profile relatively low contrast, with allegedly more natural colour. The expectation being that the photographer doing the editing would want to take control of the conversion. Canon on the other hand took the view that their software, which is able to completely duplicate the in camera conversion, should by default do just that and present your RAW file identically to how it would have come out of the camera. Personally I'm not keen on DPP I just find that it doesn't have a fineness of control available in Adobe Process Version 2012. There are things that you can do to make the Adobe default conversion match you in camera settings more closely. One of them is to use the Camera matching colour profiles, these simulate the use of the various Canon picture styles. You can also change your other default settings in LR/ACR so that you start with an image closer to what you want.

Personally I shoot with the following in camera settings so that my in camera JPEG, from which the displayed histogram is derived more closely matches the RAW data: Faithful with settings of 0,-4,-4,0. This produces an out of camera JPEG that is so flat looking that the Adobe default conversion is actually significantly sharper and with far more contrast and saturation. There is nothing wrong with the default conversions that Adobe chose to present, just a difference of expected workflow; Adobe expect that you will want to adjust each image individually, while Canon want to produce a finished file requiring no additional processing, almost as if they don't want you to make full use of the power of a RAW file.

Alan

How can anybody tell you what gives until you tell us what you give, what settings in the camera, what settings in DPP, what settings in LR? How do you determine where not to sharpen and how much not to sharpen - i.e. masking. How do you set the NR and how does it interact with the sharpening? How do you use the convolution sharpening. How about the local sharpening reenforcement or reduction? And what of the Output sharpening? And since most of what passes for sharpening is local edge contrast, what about clarity and dehazing?

And BTW, you are judging at 1:1 aren't you?

tzalman wrote in post #18174111
How can anybody tell you what gives until you tell us what you give, what settings in the camera, what settings in DPP, what settings in LR? How do you determine where not to sharpen and how much not to sharpen - i.e. masking. How do you set the NR and how does it interact with the sharpening? How do you use the convolution sharpening. How about the local sharpening reenforcement or reduction? And what of the Output sharpening? And since most of what passes for sharpening is local edge contrast, what about clarity and dehazing?

And BTW, you are judging at 1:1 aren't you?

Guilty as charged!!
I shoot Raw and S1 Jpeg for wifi purposes. The DPP is going to look better all the way around, no doubt, afterall its proprietary software.
I think setting a profile when LR imports is the next step. For now, the images that go to the client get chosen then exported from DPP to PS and saved to client folder for final export.

I have not dabbled much in Bridge but I see that as a viable preview option down the road..

I will post a pic later for y'all to look over..

BigAl007 wrote in post #18174049
What gives is that Adobe took the design decision that they would make their default profile relatively low contrast, with allegedly more natural colour. The expectation being that the photographer doing the editing would want to take control of the conversion. Canon on the other hand took the view that their software, which is able to completely duplicate the in camera conversion, should by default do just that and present your RAW file identically to how it would have come out of the camera. Personally I'm not keen on DPP I just find that it doesn't have a fineness of control available in Adobe Process Version 2012. There are things that you can do to make the Adobe default conversion match you in camera settings more closely. One of them is to use the Camera matching colour profiles, these simulate the use of the various Canon picture styles. You can also change your other default settings in LR/ACR so that you start with an image closer to what you want.

Personally I shoot with the following in camera settings so that my in camera JPEG, from which the displayed histogram is derived more closely matches the RAW data: Faithful with settings of 0,-4,-4,0. This produces an out of camera JPEG that is so flat looking that the Adobe default conversion is actually significantly sharper and with far more contrast and saturation. There is nothing wrong with the default conversions that Adobe chose to present, just a difference of expected workflow; Adobe expect that you will want to adjust each image individually, while Canon want to produce a finished file requiring no additional processing, almost as if they don't want you to make full use of the power of a RAW file.

Alan

That is a stellar idea on adjusting the LCD display. Some great input Alan, Thanks!!

The answer is that LR defaults to a very non-descript setting -- until YOU establish a group of settings that adjusts the image to WHAT YOU LIKE,

• and then store it as a Preset and
  
• tell LR to use that Preset...perhaps automatically during Import, perhaps by 'manual' application of a Preset from a library of presets you might like to use.
  

One thing to bear in mind is that there is a significant difference between Raw photo processing and working with jpegs!

With Raw (in Lightroom or even DPP) I'm starting with a "blank slate". I may choose a Profile, but more likely I just rund down the controls in the Basic tab until it comes out to meet my needs. But, those controls are all there to give us abilities to enhance our photos and, hopefully, to make improvements over what an out-of-camera jpeg would be!

Jpegs are different. The Raw data has been processed/converted, applying adjustments for various things that with Raw we would do ourselves. Because the Raw data has been processed/converted, there is a limit as to what adjustments are helpful, less is better!

I was, though, going over some old photos, and I had some that I had shot back in '03 with a jpeg-only camera, and I wanted to "share" some with a family member. I noticed that since I was shooting indoors at night, I used my built-in flash, and it showed in various shots, bright and shiny faces and such. Well, in Lightroom I was able to tone down Highlights and also use a touch of Vibrance, and those shots were improved! Realize that the LR Process 2012 (LR 4 and newer) are nice for this stuff!

The Jpegs I use are very small and are only for immediate social media uploading via camera wifi into iphone.

But I never shoot without RAW turned on.. Even times that would benefit me to do so, I still shoot RAW.. I'm afraid I wouldn't revert back to RAW for the next shoot and I'd need it.. lol

Raw processing apps apply a profile that directly affects the appearance of the image. As mentioned previously, Adobe chooses a rather flat default that shows plenty of shadow detail compared to DPP that has traditionally gone for a punchier look. Profiles can be changed in 2 seconds and if you apply a custom camera profile in Lightroom your colours should look considerably better.

On the other point about DPP not opening old files I believe Canon first did this with the original D30 back in about 2003, shortly after it was out of production if I remember correctly. This caused outrage at the time and was one the reasons DNG became widely adopted early on. I haven't used DPP in many years and it's probably improved, but there is no reason why you cannot process the same files with an alternative app and achieve equal or better results from your Raw files. I wouldn't wait for Canon...