ACR versus DPP processing for Canon CR2 raw files

[mr_marks]

<p>Hi, I was doing a simple comparison between ACR (version 6.6) and DPP (version 3.11.4) and found that there are some slight differences in the processed image quality for CR2 raw files. I opened a CR2 file in ACR and DPP (without any adjustment done in both) and saved the file into jpg format. The converted files can be seen here (dpp first, acr second):<br /><br />http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7188/6902575655_276905da74_b.jpg<br />_MG_3078dpp by marksmike, on Flickr<br /><br />http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7060/6902581713_6aa837b445_b.jpg<br />_MG_3078acr by marksmike, on Flickr<br /><br />Then I cropped a small area out of the two photos for comparison (dpp first, acr second):<br /><br />http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7183/6902537877_d34b640246_b.jpg<br />dpp1 by marksmike, on Flickr<br /><br />http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7196/6902538291_937098bd5d_b.jpg<br />acr1 by marksmike, on Flickr<br /><br />The acr image seems to be more mottled while the dpp image is smoother. I would like to ask the following questions:<br />1) Is it better to do adjustments in DPP rather than ACR, or is there some setting I can optimize in ACR for CR2 raw files?<br />2) I prefer to work with ACR rather than DPP as ACR is more user friendly and offers more capabilities. What's your opinion on this?<br />Thanks for your inputs!</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I can't see any difference in the rendition of detail. The DPP version has slightly warmer colours and slightly less exposure, nothing that could not be adjusted in ACR. ACR is fine by me, but I go to tiffs only.</p>

<p>In my opinion RAW images always require tweaking during or after conversion so go with the workflow that fits you best. </p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>I haven't looked at the images. I say use whatever works for you. From a technical, white-paper standpoint, Canon's DPP will process the Raw file the way Canon engineers want the file processed. ACR is <em>backwards</em> engineered to process the Raw file. With that in mind, I usually say the camera manufacturers software is "better" than anything else. Or maybe I should say it is the standard by which other Raw converters are measured. My issue with camera manufacturers software isn't in it's Raw conversions... but just about everything else!</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>I figure the advantages of using Lightroom far outweigh the possible improvement from using DPP.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Examining the first shot of the boy with glasses detail at the largest resolution 1893 on the long end shows more luminance noise smoothing applied to DPP over ACR's.</p>

<p>Other than that the slight differences won't be seen on a print.</p>

<p>I'ld go with ACR due to it's workflow organization advantages writing editing instructions to an xmp side car instead of having to convert and save to tiff in DPP where two multi-megabyte files have to be kept track of.</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>First I wish you had provided 'live links' to your images!</p>

<p>Second I would just like to reiterate what John said above! I also believe that Canon's DPP program (although clunky) is still the best to read Canon files!</p>

[mr_marks]

<p>Guys, thanks for the invaluable inputs, and sorry about the photo links.<br>

Tim, I would like to ask you how you checked the luminance noise smoothing difference in the acr and dpp files? Thanks.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>For me ACR's <em>interface</em> wins, don't like DPP's setup.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>If you just convert to JPEG, without doing anything to it, then DPP is merely like taking the firmware from inside your camera and then installing it on your computer. Any test comparison is therefore meaningless. If you want to actually work up some changes yourself, then use whichever program you like to use most. Even just DPP allows you to change things almost infinitely. But, the difference is that if you do decide to just let it ride without changes, DPP will give you a Canon JPEG like the camera would have. Third party software can only give you that software's own version of that.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>agree with Pierre.. if you just open a raw file and do nothing to it, of course DPP will and should be better at rendering nicer image. The fact that you compare a *untouched* raw in is own propriatary software and in any other software wont show much about quality, as the DPP will certainly win everytime.</p>

<p>That say, i keep saying the same thing for years; with the same experience and the same knowledge about the software you test (witch is many time not the reality) you should get the exact same result or pretty close to. I use C1Pro and Lightroom, with zillion different file format and camera / lens quality and i didtn find anything that make me want to use there own software.. and when i compare what i can do with a file in Lightroom vs what someone can do with a file in DPP for example, i many time see more info in my raw processing vs a file from DPP mainly due to how the user develop is file without respecting the black and white point or how he apply is sharpen / noise reduction.</p>

<p>If you dont want to touch any setting in your raw software.. shoot jpeg and let the camera do is job, but if you want to get the most out of your file, learn how to properly use all the available setting to your advantage then, if you are using Lightroom / ACR.. save those setting as a base to start on your file, and refine the result in need.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, I would like to ask you how you checked the luminance noise smoothing difference in the acr and dpp files? Thanks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know what that kind of texture looks like from getting the same look editing about 1000 Raw images in ACR starting from version 4 to 6. I viewed your flickr files at their original largest size in my browser.</p>

<p>ACR/LR's Process 2010 vs 2003 virtually doubles the resolution of my 6MP PEFs with regards to perceived detail in 100% ACR views. The Sharpening and Noise reduction tools are much more refined in getting exactly what you want, but you have to spend some time adjusting each to find this out.</p>