Advised to use DPP over LR by Canon

Heh! Yeah, some of us were interested in looking at the IR Raw file and examining why Lightroom wasn't "getting it" compared to what DPP was getting fresh from the camera.

Others were wanting to check out the Raw file that showed the dramatically better noise reduction in ACR/LR compared to DPP (although the above example from Peter does a pretty good job in DPP)!

PeterWem wrote in post #11064115
Here´s a file. Do the best NR you can do and I see if I can do better in DPP 3.9.1.0.

http://www.megaupload.​com/?d=M6EYNVVW

First image, deafult settings in DPP. Second Image, Luminance noise 8/20 and Chrominance noise 12/20. Unsharp mask: strengh 3/10, fineness 5/10 and threshold 2/10.

Would be fun to see other than DPP and ACR too.

Here are 100% crops from your RAW image through DPP 3.8.1 (left) and ACR 6.2 (right). DPP Settings: sharpness 2, Luminance NR 8, Color NR 13, Neutral Picture Style.
ACR Settings: "Auto" gave +.25 exposure, plus my default 20 clarity and 15 vibrance, sharpening 25 at a radius of .5 pixel, Luminance NR 50, Color NR 25, Adobe standard picture style.
Photoshop - "Auto" contrast, Smart Sharpen 165 at .3 pixel radius for both.

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

stsva wrote in post #11066117
Here are 100% crops from your RAW image through DPP 3.8.1 (left) and ACR 6.2 (right). DPP Settings: sharpness 2, Luminance NR 8, Color NR 13, Neutral Picture Style.
ACR Settings: "Auto" gave +.25 exposure, plus my default 20 clarity and 15 vibrance, sharpening 25 at a radius of .5 pixel, Luminance NR 50, Color NR 25, Adobe standard picture style.
Photoshop - "Auto" contrast, Smart Sharpen 165 at .3 pixel radius for both.

DPP 3.9.1.0 to the right. LN 6 and CN 12. ACR seems to be the best at the details.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

As far as I can tell, yousendit appears to be email notification-oriented. What's an alternative (free) service?

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #11074670
As far as I can tell, yousendit appears to be email notification-oriented. What's an alternative (free) service?

I'm not sure what you mean there. YouSendIt has an upload function that is non-email. Then, it has a space where you fill in the email address of the recipient of their notification of the upload with a link. For this type of forum, it's good to enter yourself as the recipient. Then, in minutes, you get the email notification. At that point, copy the link/shortcut in the email, then post here and paste in the link.

There are other alternatives I know but I haven't heard of any that improve on YouSendIt.

5D IR:

https://rcpt.yousendit​.com …4d015c7b5f03307​e18c354744

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #11078854
5D IR:

https://rcpt.yousendit​.com …4d015c7b5f03307​e18c354744

Cool! Tomorrow when I'm at my editing computer I'm looking forward to checking things out!

tonylong wrote in post #11080656
Cool! Tomorrow when I'm at my editing computer I'm looking forward to checking things out!

Thanks, me too. I haven't tried any other raw converters on IR for about a year, so I would be interested in knowing if ACR in CS5 and LR3 is capable of displaying the image with the correct CWB when settings are as they were when shot.

DPP as shot:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Heh! It's funny! I loaded your shot into DPP and Lightroom and got completely thrown off -- totally different pictures, but then I realized that the orientation was flipped -- in DPP it was "portrait" oriented, in LR "landscape"! Anyway, as you say, the LR stuff was reddish.

So, I poked around in the DPP White Balance "stuff" -- notice that the only WB setting that "works" is the "shot settings" setting -- everything else comes out very reddish. Then I clicked on the WB "Tune" button and it didn't give any help, but noticed that the default saturation and tone settings were "0" (which seems to be true with other photos as well). Well, in LR I decided to just lower the Saturation to Zero, and guess what -- it actually looks quite close to the DPP shot, kind of like a B&W conversion of any "normal" WB setting!

Well, play around with that and see if it makes any sense to you!

OK, I'm off of the computer I was using, so double-check what I say here.

When I had the image in LR, one thing I noticed was that the "As Shot" White Balance had the Temperature slider set all the way to the left, meaning that it was as cool as the "normal" setting was going to get, which only gets as cool as a Temp of 2000. In fact, I noticed that the image in DPP had a "cooler" look than the totally unsaturated LR pic.

So, it looks like the camera registers a setting that is "extreme" and passes it on to DPP, whereas LR attempts to read and apply it but doesn't "get" the extreme reading.

So, besides the "trick" of totally desaturating, what you might do in LR is to either go with the desaturation, or go to Grayscale and then mess with split-toning to get some color in there if you wish, then save it as a preset.

But, all that being said, I have seen LR conversions that seem to have been handled better, and I'm hoping someone with experience chips in with more insight!

tonylong wrote in post #11082623
Heh! It's funny! I loaded your shot into DPP and Lightroom and got completely thrown off -- totally different pictures, but then I realized that the orientation was flipped -- in DPP it was "portrait" oriented, in LR "landscape"! Anyway, as you say, the LR stuff was reddish.

So, I poked around in the DPP White Balance "stuff" -- notice that the only WB setting that "works" is the "shot settings" setting -- everything else comes out very reddish. Then I clicked on the WB "Tune" button and it didn't give any help, but noticed that the default saturation and tone settings were "0" (which seems to be true with other photos as well). Well, in LR I decided to just lower the Saturation to Zero, and guess what -- it actually looks quite close to the DPP shot, kind of like a B&W conversion of any "normal" WB setting!

Well, play around with that and see if it makes any sense to you!

tonylong wrote in post #11082820
OK, I'm off of the computer I was using, so double-check what I say here.

When I had the image in LR, one thing I noticed was that the "As Shot" White Balance had the Temperature slider set all the way to the left, meaning that it was as cool as the "normal" setting was going to get, which only gets as cool as a Temp of 2000. In fact, I noticed that the image in DPP had a "cooler" look than the totally unsaturated LR pic.

So, it looks like the camera registers a setting that is "extreme" and passes it on to DPP, whereas LR attempts to read and apply it but doesn't "get" the extreme reading.

So, besides the "trick" of totally desaturating, what you might do in LR is to either go with the desaturation, or go to Grayscale and then mess with split-toning to get some color in there if you wish, then save it as a preset.

But, all that being said, I have seen LR conversions that seem to have been handled better, and I'm hoping someone with experience chips in with more insight!

First, thanks for taking the time to do the test. Your info is helpful.

The problem LR/ACR has with its inability to properly process CWB IR files has always been so. Sorta' disappointing to learn that even in the latest versions, the problem exists.

I realize that desaturation resolves the problem. But that is also true with any raw converter.

That's not the point. I think we've veered off track of the OP. The question at hand was not how to work around Adobe's inability, but rather what the OP said: that a canon rep stated file data may not be correctly read by LR/ACR. Although the OP is specifically about noise, as we see in this case, it may be true with other things as well.

It may be that Adobe is not correctly reading the data, or that there are limitations in their apps (WB limitations). But the reason or cause is irrelevant. The relevant point is that adobe can't properly process the file.

So that canon reps statement may be accurate. And if adobe cannot properly process the IR, is it possible there are other limitations in their apps which may arise with different methods people employ to capture images? Don't know, but the conclusion may very well be that if you want to be sure that you use a raw converter that can properly read and process a canon file, use the canon converter.

For the record, desaturation is a non-issue. I only use DPP to convert to tiff to pull into PS. There, using Nik silver efex, is where the BW work is done. IMHO, that app surpasses everything for that purpose.

Again, I appreciate your effort.

Well, it is an interesting issue, in that LR obviously is not designed to handle a truly IR image, since it does White Balance fine when there are actually things to balance, but not the extreme of IR where there is in fact nothing to balance. DPP, on the other hand does fine. I don't know anything about the design difference, but it is interesting.

I'd have no problems using DPP as an "IR converter"! And, if there are other conditions that LR can't handle, well, I'd have no problems using DPP for those! As it is, LR does handle all conditions I have and do shoot in, so it's no big deal and I use LR for all my "serious" processing. But, as I've said, I have DPP installed on all my computers and it's always there when I want, or even, "need" it!

GoneTomorrow wrote in post #11051001
DPP consistently gives me shots that are most similar to what they looked like on the rear LCD.

Problem is I want something that looks even BETTER than what is showing on the back of the LCD. I get better results if I overexpose in camera and ramp down exposure in post-production.
Getting there is easier with LR3. DPP interface is annoying.
I am always trying to tweak individual colours - can't do that in DPP. I often use local adjusments twaeks in ACR- don't exist in DPP.
If you don't want to tweak an image then DPP is better.

Gotcha. And I'm not booting LR because it's the age old, same-ol': whatever works best for the individual.

LR is an excellent app, especially for those in a production environment.

Funny thing is that for years I thought it was simply the case that adobe products would not allow WB settings below 2000. But that may not be the extent of it.

In DPP if you manually set the numeric K WB setting using Color Temperature, you will find that even DPP is unable to properly process the file. It has a lower limit of 2500K. It is only the As Shot setting that displays correctly. That would seem to mean there is data in the file that DPP is picking up on that forces it past its 2500 limit - data that adobe is not reading.

Anyway, thanks for the chat. That about settles it. Perfectly clear to me, I guess: LR/ACR is inferior to Canon.

(hopefully that was enough smileys to prevent the explosion. )

Heh! Just be ready to duck

But that's interesting about the adjustment limits of DPP vs the As Shot thing!