DPP and Photoshop CS3

[arielestulin]

<p>I am completely frustrated with how Lightroom renders RAW files. They're drab, flat and usually require extensive manipulation to get them to resemble anything worthwhile. But with DPP the results are beautiful and quick.<br>

So my problem is going from DPP to Photoshop.<br />I adjust the image in DPP and transfer over to Photoshop, but the image looks nothing like the DPP version.<br>

Is there something I need to change or switch?<br />Is it a color profile issue? </p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>DPP tends to display RAW files as their embedded JPEG info(picture styles) displays in camera and DPP. LR and PS display the true raw image as it was meant. DPP displays the JPEG and the actual RAW info. I have tried to get DPP to display RAW as it should but I find it to be a waste of time because I think LR is far superior. Picture style editor for RAW actually displays the same as LR and PS, I have no idea why DPP displays the embedded JPEG with the selected picture style parameters etc...</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>What do you mean by "transfer over to Photoshop"? If you are making adjustments to the RAW image in DPP and then re-opening the RAW image in Photoshop, you will certainly not achieve what you want. The reason is that DPP adjustments (and many camera settings that serve as defaults for DPP) are recorded as EXIF tags in a private section ignored by Photoshop. What you need to do is to convert within DPP to a 16-bit TIFF image (this will be a separate file from your RAW image file, so the RAW file is not lost or "spoiled" by doing this), thus "fixing" your camera settings and any changes, and then pass the TIFF image to Photoshop.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Angel, I don't think that is correct. When you open a RAW file in DPP, the RAW image data is used to create an image on screen using the parameters set on the camera. You are NOT looking at the embedded JPEG. Each time you vary those parameters in DPP, that image is recomputed. "... display RAW as it should ..." doesn't mean anything – unless you are asking for the Bayer matrix of separate R, G and B pixels – whatever software you are using, whether DPP, or LR, or PS, has to process the RAW data to create a viewable image. DPP does it by default using the parameters set on the camera, which is why the default result looks similar to the embedded JPEG (the same parameters are applied). PS and LR don't, AFAIK, use that information, at least they did not in the past, but either apply standard settings or settings based on analysing the RAW data (for example for exposure level).</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>I really dont know, but which SW then displays the most accurate RAW? because we can agree that DPP displays totally different than PS, LR and even canon's own picture style editor. I have tried ACDsee, PS cs4, adobe bridge, LR 2.4, and all those displays the same RAW exactly the same in my monitor and prints, and very different than what I get with DPP. I have also noticed that when I apply a heavily saturated color, contrast and color tone to a raw in camera,why does DPP display those parameters in unedited raw display. That is why I stoped using DPP.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>DPP tends to display RAW files as their embedded JPEG info(picture styles) displays in camera and DPP. LR and PS display the true raw image as it was meant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I too don't care for the way LR and ACR displays the RAW file: boring & lifeless. Why? it is unable to read Canon's camera recipe or parameters. So your RAW is not displayed the way it is supposed to be, i.e., the way you shot it. Basically much of the color and contrast is ripped out of it and it is given a generic profile. On the other hand, DPP is able to read your in-camera parameters and opens the RAW file with these settings as the default, saving you a lot of mouse clicks and time. Of course, if you set the wrong camera parameters, you can always change them in DPP as the RAW file is untouched. With that said, I'm not fond of the controls in DPP but I can't fault the results. I greatly prefer the controls in Aperture but have to admit the built-in NR and lens corrections in DPP are hard to beat.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I adjust the image in DPP and transfer over to Photoshop, but the image looks nothing like the DPP version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you adjust the RAW file in DPP and then open it in ACR, you'll just get ACR's generic profile rendering. ACR can't read Canon recipe or software tags. When you save in DPP you are merely saving a recipe and the RAW file is untouched. To get the changes to show in when you open the image in PS:</p>

<ol>

<li>Adjust image to taste in DPP and save.</li>

<li>Convert RAW to TIFF. </li>

<li>Open the saved TIFF in PS and you'll see your changes in living color.</li>

</ol>

<p>You can set DPP to open the TIFF file automatically in PS if you want. I don't bother as I'm usually batch processing.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>While viewing your image in DPP, if you press ALT-P or select 'Transfer to Photoshop' from the Tools menu, DPP will save a TIFF and then open that TIFF in Photoshop. That file will look identical to the file in DPP.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Angel--there is no "most accurate RAW." That is like saying "most accurate undeveloped film." The issue is how to develop the image to get something that is an accurate rendition of what you saw, if indeed that is what you want to produce.</p>

<p>The RAW file needs processing to be viewable. DPP uses the camera settings to do this--as a starting point, but you can change it. Lightroom does it by applying one of any number of profiles. My version has 3 or 4 adobe profiles (I usually use the new "adobe standard"), and it will also emulate DPP and apply the Canon profiles if you download Adobe's versions of them. These are ALL just starting points. DPP and LR both allow you to tweak this recipe as much as you want, to get the image to look either like it did in the real world or as you want it to.</p>

<p>With any of these RAW postprocessing programs, you need to export the file in some format (you can use JPEG as well as TIFF, saving space but losing detail) to have it read correctly into any editing program. That takes the developing recipe and applies it to create a file that contains all the ingredients.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have reasonable compatibility between DPP and Photoshop CS3 by by selecting tools>preferences>color managment and entering the following in DPP</p>

<ul>

<li>Default settings of work color space>adobe rgb</li>

<li>Color matching settings> monitor profile(note that I calibrate my monitor with Spyder and it matches quite closely to my printer)</li>

<li>Printing Profile> Adobe RGB</li>

<li>Rendering intent>relative colormetric</li>

</ul>

<p>I can print from either DPP or CS3 and get acceptable prints that look like my monitor. I convert to sRGB for the web. My 5D and XTi are set to Adobe RGB. I know this works for me but there are other variables that also could have an effect on the output. My transfers from DPP to CS3 look good in CS3. I just transferred a RAW file to prove this to myself once again. I mostly print out of CS3 and rarely use DPP except that I find it convenient to do simple batch processing. Before I set monitor profile I could not get them to match for what it is worth. These settings, of course, match what I use in CS3. </p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have reasonable compatibility between DPP and Photoshop CS3 by by selecting tools>preferences>color managment and entering the following in DPP</p>

<ul>

<li>Default settings of work color space>adobe rgb</li>

<li>Color matching settings> monitor profile(note that I calibrate my monitor with Spyder and it matches quite closely to my printer)</li>

<li>Printing Profile> Adobe RGB</li>

<li>Rendering intent>relative colormetric</li>

</ul>

<p>I can print from either DPP or CS3 and get acceptable prints that look like my monitor. I convert to sRGB for the web. My 5D and XTi are set to Adobe RGB. I know this works for me but there are other variables that also could have an effect on the output. My transfers from DPP to CS3 look good in CS3. I just transferred a RAW file to prove this to myself once again. I mostly print out of CS3 and rarely use DPP except that I find it convenient to do simple batch processing. Before I set monitor profile I could not get them to match for what it is worth. These settings, of course, match what I use in CS3. </p>

[edrodgers]

<p>I don't have any problem with Lightroom or ACR's rendering, and DPP is not the clunkiest tool I have used, but it's close. For me, I like to just leave the camera on faithful or standard, and setup presets in post, usually Lightroom.</p>

<p>You know that somewhere right now, a world class commercial photographer's work is being run through Lightroom or Aperture. How bad can they really be? I'm sure there are a few using DPP, but I doubt it's the majority.</p>

<p>It's probably not related, but might be useful: The sRGB conversion engine in Lightroom has always been pretty bad. To work around it, I export in the native color space, Pro Photo RGB, and then use CS4 to convert to sRGB. Even with the defaults set, CS4 does a much better job of matching the color of the Pro Photo version in an sRGB space.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>Mr. Arnold,</p>

<p>Setting the color space in the camera is only for Jpeg. I believe RAW has no pre-defined color space. For example, Lightroom automatically uses Pro Photo RGB, no matter your selection in camera. Other tools may choose other spaces.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>it will also emulate DPP and apply the Canon profiles if you download Adobe's versions of them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most people don't seem to know this. You can get the Canon standard profiles for LR and you can get the converted image to appear almost identical to what you get in DPP. They can be downloaded from the Adobe site. There is a big difference between what the profiles give you and the Adobe standard conversion.</p>

<p>There are presets at lightroomkillertips.com that let you easily see all the different Canon renderings just by mousing over rather than clicking through each profile.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Ed you are right, I had a brain cramp. </p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>What Jeff said, DPP does some work for you, LR you gave to do the work, LR is much more flexible just learn how to use it, it will become very easy once you figure it out and you will get better results than DPP, DPP does on ocasion suprise me though.<br>

Ross</p>

[hughw]

<p>The Canon standard profiles can be found under the Camera Calibration menu since LR 2.3 . They can be applied as is or tweaked for color balance . LR is a very comprehensive tool with extensive editing capabilities. I have used most of the alternatives and always revert back to LR. However as with most complex software you cannot harness its full potential unless you invest in a good book, online or instructor led class. Take a look at Scott Kelby's LR book its reasonably priced and provides a good foundation from which to start<br>

Hugh</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The Canon standard profiles can be found under the Camera Calibration menu since LR 2.3</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, you don't have to download them any more, I should have mentioned that. Prior to the more recent versions, you had to download them. They completely do away with this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>LR and ACR displays the RAW file: boring & lifeless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>which is a result of not properly using the profiles. You can even have it use a specific camera profile on import. The perception of "boring and lifeless" comes from not properly using the tools and allowing the ACR profile to determine the look.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Dosen't Canon supply a RAW converter program like Nikon does with NX2, thus ensuring the RAW file is converted properly?</p>

[martin-s]

<p>As others have mentioned the LR profiles are your ticket.<br>

<em>Adobe Standard</em> is a fairly neutral choice and what Adobe recommends. The others emulate Canon's picture styles very closely. However LR won't choose the right one automatically as it can't detect what the camera was set to.</p>

<p>I've upped <em>Clarity</em> and <em>Vibrance</em> a bit, adjusted other parameters to my liking and made that my new default setting. To do so hold down the <em>alt</em> key – the <em>Reset</em> button will change to <em>Set default</em> – and click.</p>

<p>LR's tools are far more powerful and more logically organised than what is available in DPP, especially the colour controls, gradient- and local adjustement filters.<br>

That said <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adobe-Photoshop-Lightroom-Book-Photographers/dp/0321555619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248822931&sr=8-1">Martin Evening's LR book</a> is superb.</p>

[John Sully]

<p>To be a bit on the snarky side, I thought that if you were using something like DPP your adjustments should be saved to TIFF and then reopened PS or LR. If you want your workflow to be more seamless, use Adobe Camera RAW. On the other hand, there is a good reason to save your processed digital negative before doing further manipulation in LR or PS. Typically I save the RAW, the RAW as processed by DPP or Camera RAW. Then I save the processed image without scaling or other processing for final display. If the image is destined for the web, I save an image rescaled for web display. If the image is also meant for printing I process the image for printing and print it at scales appropriate for the print size and output device. I do not save this version of the image. That is not quite true, if I think I will print the same image, at the same size, on the same device, I will save it.</p>

[arielestulin]

<p>thanks everyone for your response. I was able to export to PS and get the image to match.<br>

I think my workflow now will be to use DPP as the guide, and then jump back to Lightroom and try match the results.</p>

[lad_lueck]

<p>It's time that everyone who knows how to use a third-party RAW converter shout from the rooftops that it can do everything the mfr's converters do, and then some.<br>

I get -SO- irritated when reading posts that say, for instance, that ACR is noisier than DPP. (The OP, here, did NOT say that...)<br>

The operator HAS to make a large effort to learn how to use these very sophisticated applications. That means playing with it for many hours, finding out how the controls work, and how they interact. I've been using ACR for 5+ years, and when I got the latest CS4 version, I had to spend about 6 hours finding out how to get the best out of my new Canon SX1. I spent dozens of hours tweaking DPP for the best output, but ACR does a better job.<br>

Consider this to be MY shout out (or rant? :).</p>

[cliff_walker1]

<p>I had exactly the same problem. Would get an image to look fab in DPP, would then transfer to Photoshop to do some cloning or what have you and the contrast would be out slightly, photo would be flatter, not as punchy.<br>

<br /> I even compared the images by overlapping the DPP window and Photoshop window and could quite clearly see a difference.<br>

<br /> I changed one setting in DPP that got them to match.<br>

<br /> In the <em>Color management</em> tab of Preferences under the section <em>Color matching settings</em> - <em>For display</em> I changed the check circle from <em>sRGB </em> to <em>Use the OS settings.</em> <br /> Now when I transfer an image from DPP to PS it matches perfectly.<br>

<br /> I don't rate Lightroom's conversion, thought I like the cataloguing; Lightroom's RAW converter is a jack-of-all-trades that has to process many different RAW files from many manufacturers<br /> I love DPP, it's a brilliant RAW processor, written for Canon cameras using the same algorithms as Canon cameras use internally to produce great JPEGs.</p>