Canon DPP vs. ACR for RAW Conversion

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by W, Oct 15, 2006.

  1. W

    W Guest

    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, Oct 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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)
    Protoncek \(ex. SleeperMan\), Oct 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. W

    W Guest

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

    W

    Protoncek (ex. SleeperMan) wrote:
    > "W" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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)
    W, Oct 15, 2006
    #3
  4. W

    bmoag Guest

    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.
    bmoag, Oct 15, 2006
    #4
  5. W

    W Guest

    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, Oct 16, 2006
    #5
  6. "W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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
    Malcolm Stewart, Oct 16, 2006
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Cooter

    Converting / Opening RAW CP 8800 files in ACR

    Cooter, Oct 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    264
    Cooter
    Oct 28, 2004
  2. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Dahl-Stamnes

    Canon DPP bug

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Dahl-Stamnes, Apr 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    362
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Dahl-Stamnes
    Apr 2, 2006
  3. W
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    405
  4. W

    Canon DPP and CS3 problem

    W, Oct 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    883
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    832
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page