Adobe camera raw vs Digital photo pro

One of my friend's emailed me on this subject:

"I've been meaning to do a post of some sort on this. For Canon raw files, ACR is simply broken (at least in the CS3 version which I'm using). It can't render detail as finely, especially in high ISO conditions, sharpening is terrible (though I don't know if I can say DPP's is any better - in any case they're vastly superior to the most basic unsharp mask in regular Photoshop).

But the biggest issue which breaks ACR is color rendition, specifically in the reds/oranges. ACR simply can't render them right - it blends all the yellow and red tones into the same orange, and the problem is exacerbated whenever you need to make an exposure, curves, or shadows (fill light) adjustment.

Example of resolution differences (not a dealkiller)
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/58154​3/0

Red/orange color issues:
http://forum.pbase.com​/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=​38953
http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1032&messag​e=27384210
http://www.flickr.com …iscuss/72157606​604517936/ (scroll or search down to post by "this is the sea"

The problem stems from Adobe not actually having the specs for Canon's CR2 format, which is either Adobe's or Canon's fault, depending on which forum you ask. So they have to reverse-engineer the format to be able to read and render it (same kind of issues with Sigma/Tamron/et.al. having to reverse-engineer Canon's AF protocols), which leads to imperfect results.

I'll give that ACR is far more efficient, especially if you're using Bridge as your library, and especially if you're keeping metadata on the RAW images (DPP doesn't seem to retain metadata in the converted images). So when I'm feeling lazy I'll use ACR directly on the raw files, but not if I actually care about the reds and not for anything shot indoors. In that case I'll do the basic WB and exposure adjustment in DPP and then convert to a TIFF or jpeg, which ACR handles just fine."

Any comments or similar observations? I haven't used DPP extensively except when I got my first Canon DSLR (been using ACR)

Update to ACR 4.6, and use the "DNG profiles"
Thread

As far as sharpening is concerned: Use PSCS3 instead?

Comparison
(Images sharpened in PS a few posts later)

Sfordphoto wrote in post #8403586
(DPP doesn't seem to retain metadata in the converted images).

It should (& does here). Are you converting to tiff?

I also say upgrade to CS4 (and ACR 5.4 along with it) if at all possible.

I was very unhappy with RAW using CS3 (and it's corresponding ACR), but the improvements in CS4 (and ACR) make it worth it.

If your friend can't swing CS4, then I recommend Lightroom2.
LR2 is basically ACR5.4 with a different graphical interface that cost only ~$100.
You can then export your changes from LR2 into photoshop for more editing if necessary.

Just my 0.000000000002¢


D.

Sfordphoto wrote in post #8403586
One of my friend's emailed me on this subject:

"I've been meaning to do a post of some sort on this. For Canon raw files, ACR is simply broken (at least in the CS3 version which I'm using). It can't render detail as finely, especially in high ISO conditions, sharpening is terrible (though I don't know if I can say DPP's is any better - in any case they're vastly superior to the most basic unsharp mask in regular Photoshop).

But the biggest issue which breaks ACR is color rendition, specifically in the reds/oranges. ACR simply can't render them right - it blends all the yellow and red tones into the same orange, and the problem is exacerbated whenever you need to make an exposure, curves, or shadows (fill light) adjustment.

Example of resolution differences (not a dealkiller)
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/58154​3/0

Red/orange color issues:
http://forum.pbase.com​/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=​38953
http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1032&messag​e=27384210
http://www.flickr.com …iscuss/72157606​604517936/ (scroll or search down to post by "this is the sea"

The problem stems from Adobe not actually having the specs for Canon's CR2 format, which is either Adobe's or Canon's fault, depending on which forum you ask. So they have to reverse-engineer the format to be able to read and render it (same kind of issues with Sigma/Tamron/et.al. having to reverse-engineer Canon's AF protocols), which leads to imperfect results.

I'll give that ACR is far more efficient, especially if you're using Bridge as your library, and especially if you're keeping metadata on the RAW images (DPP doesn't seem to retain metadata in the converted images). So when I'm feeling lazy I'll use ACR directly on the raw files, but not if I actually care about the reds and not for anything shot indoors. In that case I'll do the basic WB and exposure adjustment in DPP and then convert to a TIFF or jpeg, which ACR handles just fine."

Any comments or similar observations? I haven't used DPP extensively except when I got my first Canon DSLR (been using ACR)

This is a pretty comprehensive indictment. To address one small piece, color differences might be the result of different default white balance settings. Generally speaking, I've been very satisfied with Adobe Camera Raw's (CS3 version) processing of Canon RAW files. Maybe I need to shoot some deep red subjects to test this out.

Your "friend" is misinformed.

Sfordphoto wrote in post #8403586
One of my friend's emailed me on this subject:

"I've been meaning to do a post of some sort on this. For Canon raw files, ACR is simply broken (at least in the CS3 version which I'm using). It can't render detail as finely, especially in high ISO conditions, sharpening is terrible (though I don't know if I can say DPP's is any better - in any case they're vastly superior to the most basic unsharp mask in regular Photoshop).

But the biggest issue which breaks ACR is color rendition, specifically in the reds/oranges. ACR simply can't render them right - it blends all the yellow and red tones into the same orange, and the problem is exacerbated whenever you need to make an exposure, curves, or shadows (fill light) adjustment.

Example of resolution differences (not a dealkiller)
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/58154​3/0

Red/orange color issues:
http://forum.pbase.com​/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=​38953
http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1032&messag​e=27384210
http://www.flickr.com …iscuss/72157606​604517936/ (scroll or search down to post by "this is the sea"

The problem stems from Adobe not actually having the specs for Canon's CR2 format, which is either Adobe's or Canon's fault, depending on which forum you ask. So they have to reverse-engineer the format to be able to read and render it (same kind of issues with Sigma/Tamron/et.al. having to reverse-engineer Canon's AF protocols), which leads to imperfect results.

I'll give that ACR is far more efficient, especially if you're using Bridge as your library, and especially if you're keeping metadata on the RAW images (DPP doesn't seem to retain metadata in the converted images). So when I'm feeling lazy I'll use ACR directly on the raw files, but not if I actually care about the reds and not for anything shot indoors. In that case I'll do the basic WB and exposure adjustment in DPP and then convert to a TIFF or jpeg, which ACR handles just fine."

Any comments or similar observations? I haven't used DPP extensively except when I got my first Canon DSLR (been using ACR)

Here's my experiment, a crappy, slightly out of focus image, but I think it shows that ACR and CS3 handle reds OK. The only adjustments were to use ACR "shade" for the WB, the "auto" button in ACR, and a slight curves adjustment in CS3, then downsized to 1024 pixels wide with bicubic sharper.

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

http://www.xrite.com/p​roduct_overview.aspx?I​D=824 +
http://labs.adobe.com …x.php/DNG_Profi​les:Editor +
Custom profiles in ACR= Good enoufgh for me!

PixelMagic wrote in post #8419313
Your "friend" is misinformed.

Actually, depending on the ACR version he's using, he's not IMHO....
He's malinformed. Yes.