Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 25-05-2012, 01:53 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Because the only true RAW convertor for Canon files is DPP.

PS/LR (ACR) is reverse-engineered guessware and an /approximation/ of what your investment captured. For true fidelity, colour, shadow detail, native sharpness, and, so on, nothing comes close to DPP. It is software written by Canon /for/ Canon hardware.

Now, with the addition of the DLO module, it is the final word in pre-processing of RAW files straight out of Canon cameras. If any further adjustments need to be made, there's a reason why there's an Export to Photoshop option in the Tools menu.

From a post I made on another forum a while back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane
Just a general comment.

I have mentioned this before on this forum, several times, I'm sure.

I honestly don't understand the mindsets of people who bag Digital Photo Professional.

You go out and spend many thousands of dollars on Canon camera bodies, and, then, many thousands of dollars on beautiful L-series lenses. We're talking fairly hefty investments. It doesn't matter if you're a professional or an amateur, it's still a lot of money.

One then goes out and buys Lightroom or uses ACR to process the Canon RAW files. Does it not bother you, one iota, when you're importing the files into Bridge/ACR or your Lightroom library, that, at first they look wonderful, then, a moment later, something happens, and the files get aped?

Does it not bother you that a tone curve is being applied by that software to try and approximate the output that your thousands of dollars of investment have tried to capture? People then say that they calibrate the software using Xrite charts, or, by using "camera profiles" that others have prepared -- shouldn't you be getting what your hard earned money captured, up front, without you having to try and dodge your way through the process?

Canon provides you, for free, an amazing application, that decodes, processes and displays, properly what your camera/lenses captured and not what Adobe thinks you captured. That is, it's not an approximation.

When I was uninformed, I used to use Lightroom to process my wedding photographs, until one day I got jack of the skin tones being aped. I was wondering why on earth the images were being changed on import. I went through every setting, every menu, to see if I could disable the auto-fix or whatever it was it was doing. I couldn't find anything. Only after scratching my head, and reading posts online, did I find out the reason why -- initially, the embedded JPG thumbnail is being displayed before the tone curve apes the RAW.

The only reason we see posts about excessive banding (apart from people not knowing the limitations of their hardware, and/or how to expose/bracket their subjects appropriately) is because Lightroom/ACR allows you to push the RAW by 4 stops. There's a reason why Digital Photo Professional allows you just 2 stops of latitude. The authors of the software intimately know the design and limitations of the sensors that are in their hardware. They figure that 2 stops of latitude ought to be enough (and, in my experience, it is). Any more than that, and, you're going to start showing imperfections. And, that is fine! There's no perfect camera. You want more dynamic range? Go shoot film, or buy a 16-bit system.

I see posts about Digital Photo Professional's interface being clunky? Seriously, there's three tabs with all the basic adjustments you could require. It is fast and responsive on both my PC and my Mac. While you fiddle with a million different sliders in ACR/LR/DxO/Bibble/Capture One/blah/blah/blah, etc., DPP users breeze through their images with 3 tabs. One of which fixes all chromatic aberration, lens distortions, vignetting (if need be), with its own database of Canon lenses and extenders. If a shot needs more done to it, there's a reason why there's a transfer to Photoshop option.

I implore everyone to give DPP another go to get the most out of their images. Spend less time processing and on the computer, and more time shooting.

I know that at the end of the day, it really depends on how anal you are, or how purist you are. I just feel that I should get the most out of my images with the software that the vendor of my hardware authors. After all, they know best. Everything else is just reverse engineered -- even if Canon provides them (third party developers) their RAW decoding APIs and SDKs, why do they all look different to DPP?
H

Last edited by Octane; 25-05-2012 at 11:18 PM. Reason: Spelling and white space.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 25-05-2012, 02:44 PM
Star Hunter
Registered User

Star Hunter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Ellesmere, Qld
Posts: 184
[QUOTE=Octane;856397]Because the only true RAW convertor for Canon files is DPP.

PS/LR (ACR) is reverse-engineered guessware and an /approximation/ of what your investment captured. For true fidelity, colour, shadow detail, native sharpness, and, so on, nothing comes close to DPP. It is software written by Canon /for/ Canon hardware.

Now, with the addition of the DLO module, it is the final word in pre-processing of RAW files straight out of Canon cameras. If any further adjustments need to be made, there's a reason why there's an Export to Photoshop option in the Tools menu.

From a post I made on another forum a while back.



That full-on reply you had re DPP etc, was excellent. I use both anyway and agree with you.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 25-05-2012, 03:21 PM
pin3appl3's Avatar
pin3appl3 (Darcy)
Registered User

pin3appl3 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Because the only true RAW convertor for Canon files is DPP.

PS/LR (ACR) is reverse-engineered guessware and an /approximation/ of what your investment captured. For true fidelity, colour, shadow detail, native sharpness, and, so on, nothing comes close to DPP. It is software written by Canon /for/ Canon hardware.

Now, with the addition of the DLO module, it is the final word in pre-processing of RAW files straight out of Canon cameras. If any further adjustments need to be made, there's a reason why there's an Export to Photoshop option in the Tools menu.

From a post I made on another forum a while back.



H
Thanks for that H.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-07-2012, 11:14 PM
pmrid's Avatar
pmrid (Peter)
Ageing badly.

pmrid is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,128
Anything yet from the 60Da?

The original thread got a bit hijacked away from the question - has anyone given the new Canon 60Da a decent workout yet?
It surprises me that so little has emerged about it. So what about it all you early adopters? Is it worth the $$$?
Peter
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-07-2012, 08:45 AM
RobF's Avatar
RobF (Rob)
Mostly harmless...

RobF is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 5,529
I can't help but think a more honest analysis would be something like a QHY8 image compared with 60Da taken at the height of summer (say 20-25degrees celsius ambient temperature).

Last edited by RobF; 07-07-2012 at 04:41 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-07-2012, 11:44 AM
spacezebra's Avatar
spacezebra (Petra)
Lost in Namibia

spacezebra is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albury NSW
Posts: 3,097
Im waiting on a new refractor, so as soon as that arrives (next weekend) ill be busy with the 60Da.

Cheers Petra d.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-07-2012, 02:52 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Peter,

My apologies for the non-intentional hijack.

I requested to see an image posted after being processed in DPP. I was asked why, and, I thought for the benefit of those wondering what to do, posted an in-depth reply.

Sorry!

H
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-07-2012, 03:56 PM
pmrid's Avatar
pmrid (Peter)
Ageing badly.

pmrid is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Peter,

My apologies for the non-intentional hijack.

I requested to see an image posted after being processed in DPP. I was asked why, and, I thought for the benefit of those wondering what to do, posted an in-depth reply.

Sorry!

H
G'day H.

I was hovering over a decision about one of these - and hoped some adventurous soul would have given one a good workout by now. But, curiously, that doesn't seem to have happened. I guess the days of the uncooled OSC are drawing to a close in Astrophotography. Why image at ambient when for little extra you can image at 15 or 20 below with more filter control and less noise.

Peter
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-07-2012, 12:45 PM
MrB's Avatar
MrB (Simon)
Old Man Yells at Cloud

MrB is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rockingham WA
Posts: 3,408
I haven't had a chance to get serious yet. When I have time available, the weather is crap. When the weather is good, I don't have time.
Have only had a chance to get single exposure non-guided non-calibrated widefields with prime lenses: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...highlight=60da
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
Celestron RASA
Advertisement
EQ8-R
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Star Adventurer
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement