«

Folks,

I have done alot of RAW conversions (20D) with ACR. I like ACR's
interface and the chromatic abberation correction. However, I seem to
keep coming across situations where ACR does not do a good a job as
Canon's RAW conversion (whether in camera to jpeg or via DPP). I have
seen the following issues:

- sudden light to dark tranasitions (e.g. a lampost against a bright
sky). ACR seems to generate color artifacts whereas Canon's conversion
significantly less so.

- very dark areas of the image. Canon's conversion seems to generate
smoother more 'photographic' or desireable results whereas ACR tends to
look noisy and/or posterized

- color rendition. Canon seems to give a more neutral natural looking
result, whereas I have seen some casts when using ACR. I typically set
my WB to Sunlight when working outdoors, and the results seem to be
more what one would expect with Canon's conversion, even when I use the
'as shot' setting in ACR

I really want to use ACR as Canon's interface is relatively extremely
clunky and non-intuitive. Also, it would seem not even to make sense
for me to consider lightroom if it is built on the same RAW conversion
engine as ACR.

Has anyone else seen these or other issues with Adobe Camera RAW?

W

"W" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Folks,
>
> I have done alot of RAW conversions (20D) with ACR. I like ACR's
> interface and the chromatic abberation correction. However, I seem to
> keep coming across situations where ACR does not do a good a job as
> Canon's RAW conversion (whether in camera to jpeg or via DPP). I have
> seen the following issues:
>
> - sudden light to dark tranasitions (e.g. a lampost against a bright
> sky). ACR seems to generate color artifacts whereas Canon's conversion
> significantly less so.
>
> - very dark areas of the image. Canon's conversion seems to generate
> smoother more 'photographic' or desireable results whereas ACR tends to
> look noisy and/or posterized
>
> - color rendition. Canon seems to give a more neutral natural looking
> result, whereas I have seen some casts when using ACR. I typically set
> my WB to Sunlight when working outdoors, and the results seem to be
> more what one would expect with Canon's conversion, even when I use the
> 'as shot' setting in ACR
>
> I really want to use ACR as Canon's interface is relatively extremely
> clunky and non-intuitive. Also, it would seem not even to make sense
> for me to consider lightroom if it is built on the same RAW conversion
> engine as ACR.
>
> Has anyone else seen these or other issues with Adobe Camera RAW?
>
> W
>

i only started recently with RAW's so, i will only say thanks for this info.
I'll try out both and see if i can see such differences.
BTW...are you using Canon RAW task or DPP and is there any significant
difference between two (Canon RAW task can be reached from Zoombrowser EX,
while DPP is stand-alone program)

I only have the latest DPP 2.2 installed which is what I used.

W

Protoncek (ex. SleeperMan) wrote:
> "W" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
> > Folks,
> >
> > I have done alot of RAW conversions (20D) with ACR. I like ACR's
> > interface and the chromatic abberation correction. However, I seem to
> > keep coming across situations where ACR does not do a good a job as
> > Canon's RAW conversion (whether in camera to jpeg or via DPP). I have
> > seen the following issues:
> >
> > - sudden light to dark tranasitions (e.g. a lampost against a bright
> > sky). ACR seems to generate color artifacts whereas Canon's conversion
> > significantly less so.
> >
> > - very dark areas of the image. Canon's conversion seems to generate
> > smoother more 'photographic' or desireable results whereas ACR tends to
> > look noisy and/or posterized
> >
> > - color rendition. Canon seems to give a more neutral natural looking
> > result, whereas I have seen some casts when using ACR. I typically set
> > my WB to Sunlight when working outdoors, and the results seem to be
> > more what one would expect with Canon's conversion, even when I use the
> > 'as shot' setting in ACR
> >
> > I really want to use ACR as Canon's interface is relatively extremely
> > clunky and non-intuitive. Also, it would seem not even to make sense
> > for me to consider lightroom if it is built on the same RAW conversion
> > engine as ACR.
> >
> > Has anyone else seen these or other issues with Adobe Camera RAW?
> >
> > W
> >
>
> i only started recently with RAW's so, i will only say thanks for this info.
> I'll try out both and see if i can see such differences.
> BTW...are you using Canon RAW task or DPP and is there any significant
> difference between two (Canon RAW task can be reached from Zoombrowser EX,
> while DPP is stand-alone program)

The answer you may not want to hear is that the problem, if it is a problem,
has absolutely nothing to do with the raw converter and everything to do
with your camera, lenses, workflow and expectations/presumptions about what
you are seeing or believe you should be seeing on your monitor.
The different raw converters, and there are many you can download and try
for free, are essentially not much different in terms of the final image
generated, depending on your skills and preferences.
Realize too that after opening an image in a raw converter it is a fielder's
choice whether to pursue further processing in the converter or in
Photoshop.
The different converters apply some program specific formula for basic
processing prior to opening the image, which I suspect is the difference you
are seeing in your images opened with two different converters. I recommend
you try at least one more converter, e.g. Bibble, Capture One and Dx0 allow
free trial downloads, and see if in the main there is much difference in
getting to what you consider an optimized image. Some images are easier to
process in one converter or another but with experience you should be able
to get virtually the same final image regardless of the converter.
I can easily understand why a photographer may have a preference for a
particular converter but for me that is a subjective and not objective
matter.

The camera and lenses are the same.
Way back I did try many converters. I found different ones handled
different images better or worse than others. As an example, DXO seemed
to do the best in terms of 'clean' noise reduction no high ISO night
shots and the least amount of 'artifical' colors surrounding bright
lights in a night scene. I had settled on ACR (fit into my workflow and
I liked the Chromatic Aberration correction) because it is generally
true as you say that there are not huge differences with what you end
up with. Having said that, there are cases where no matter what is
done, you cannot eliminate certain 'problems' (e.g. what I have
discussed in my original post).

I find it very frustrating. It shoudn't be that hard.

bmoag wrote:
> The answer you may not want to hear is that the problem, if it is a problem,
> has absolutely nothing to do with the raw converter and everything to do
> with your camera, lenses, workflow and expectations/presumptions about what
> you are seeing or believe you should be seeing on your monitor.
> The different raw converters, and there are many you can download and try
> for free, are essentially not much different in terms of the final image
> generated, depending on your skills and preferences.
> Realize too that after opening an image in a raw converter it is a fielder's
> choice whether to pursue further processing in the converter or in
> Photoshop.
> The different converters apply some program specific formula for basic
> processing prior to opening the image, which I suspect is the difference you
> are seeing in your images opened with two different converters. I recommend
> you try at least one more converter, e.g. Bibble, Capture One and Dx0 allow
> free trial downloads, and see if in the main there is much difference in
> getting to what you consider an optimized image. Some images are easier to
> process in one converter or another but with experience you should be able
> to get virtually the same final image regardless of the converter.
> I can easily understand why a photographer may have a preference for a
> particular converter but for me that is a subjective and not objective
> matter.

"W" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>I only have the latest DPP 2.2 installed which is what I used.
>
> W


BreezeBrowser Pro from www.breezesys.com uses the Canon SDK, I believe, and
works well for me. There's a period in which you can assess it for free. I
also have DPP loaded, and it doesn't understand how big my screen is, so
many of the windows bleed off screen.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com