40D RAWs: DPP vs. LR & Bibble

[sdemetre]

(question cross-posted in FredMiranda.com - apologies for any duplication)

 

I have been converting 40D RAWs with Adobe Lightroom and occasionally with Bibble, and have been

quite satisfied with the quality. However, when opening the same files with DPP 3.0.2, I noticed that the

image quality, exposure and color tone is much better, and in effect reduces the amount of tweaking I

would have otherwise need to do in LR and Bibble to get the image just right. Is RAW conversion better in

DPP, or am I missing something?

 

Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide!

 

Cheers, S Demetre

[PuppyDigs]

"Is RAW conversion better in DPP, or am I missing something?"

 

Nope. Conversion is conversion.

 

However the difference you're seeing is what happens before conversion. DPP reads your

camera settings--saturation, contrast, WB, Pic Style, etc.--and uses it as the default

setting when you open the file. So, if your camera settings reflect your image desires, you

hardly have to do nothing but convert to TIFF and be done with it. Of course if your change

your mind, it's still a RAW file so you can backpedal and tweak. Third party apps can't read

Canon's software recipe or tags and therefore open with the application defaults, which

may not reflect your desires, especially if you constantly change camera parameters.

 

For the above reasons I great prefer DPP 3x over other apps like ACR. Saves a hoe lotta

mouse clicks.

[jason_hall4]

DPP does do better, however with a little work you can creat presets and a camrea calibration in LR that will give you great results just as well. With out the fuss too. The other thing is the DPP does seem to produce better detail in the photo. You can see this in hair and such with the fine lines. But that is at 100% pixel peeping. I have never tried or seen a print comparison to see if there is a difference in real world. Some say the detail is "faked". I don't know about that and don't care. It looks natural on screen. I guess DPP just makes better use of the data, as it should if you ask me.

 

Personaly, LR is a tool and so is not perfect but I really like it and I am very happy with the print results. Can not say enough there. IMHO the bottom line is that since I use RAW, I can just open the same file in DPP if there was ever a issue with the results (detail in particular).

 

Jason

[tom l]

I bought LR a few months ago and have been really happy with it. Only last week did I happen to notice a difference between DPP and LR raws. The LR seemed to be a little less intense in color and color balance not quite the same. I had trouble trying to match with DPP (comparing DPP window with LR window).

 

Jason, you mentioned a little work with LR and creating presets & camera calibration. Can you elaborate what tweaks need to be made and how to do that in LR?

 

Thanks.

 

Tom

[jason_hall4]

Here is a link to an article from Digital Photo Pro. Its called "calibrateing your camera" but it is all done in software. It mostly referrs to ACR but the controls in LR are much the same. The mthode it describes takes a little work.

 

As far as useing presets. Take a look at your most common setting. Exposure, Contrast, Black point, Vibrance, Saturation, Clarity, Tone curve, Camera calibration, Lens correction, Detail and so on. Take a typical photo or creat a test target shot. Fine the settings the gets the look that you like in the develop modual. On the left of the screen you will see the "Presets" drop down. Click on the + sign, give it a name and choose what you want to included in the preset and there you go. Just apply the preset to your photos and it get you closer to where you want to be. Of course it will not always work on every image so you may still need to tweak certain ones. You can creat a selection of presets for different lighting conditions.

 

I would not worry about trying to make the two match (LR & DPP). If you like LR and want to use it, then work with it to acheive what you want. If you can not get what you want out of LR then you may need to learn its controls better or rethink your work flow.

 

Jason

[jason_hall4]

Forgot the link! Sorry!

 

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/calibrate-your-camera.html

[tom l]

Thanks, Jason.

[images_in_light_north_west]

I have seen the same thing, however when I try to match what DPP does with LR I get better results, so I'm sticking with LR even though its more work.

[hjoseph7]

My pictures whether RAW or JPEG, allways look better in DPP than in CS2 for some reason. I get much better detail especially when shooting RAW. For fine tweaking I usually transfer the image to CS2

[bobatkins]

"...Nope. Conversion is conversion..."

 

Not really. There are probably as many different conversion algorithms as there are RAW converters. Raw conversion involves deconvolution of the Bayer matrix and interpolation of color data and there are many, many ways in which to do that. There is no single universal RAW to JPEG algorithm.

[digitmstr]

There is a VERY visible difference between conversion methods/programs.

 

I use only C1 PRO a it gives the best conversion, IMO.

[frank g.]

I too use LR and DPP. DPP will look better because it is made by Canon for Canon cameras. I love LR but third party manufacturers have to guess at the algorithms, whereas Canon already knows them.

[fourfa]

"Nope. Conversion is conversion."

 

Doesn't take much playing, even in free demo versions, to see this isn't true. All of the converters have some amount of basic manipulation - sharpening, color adjustment, noise reduction, profiles - built in that can't be completely turned off even when all the controls are zeroed. And they're all slightly different. Call it pixel peeping, but if you're making big prints you'll see it.