Please don't poll if you haven't used both programs.
Can you please keep your answers relevant to the topic heading and question?
I have heard this:
"Adobe takes a camera (eg Canon), reverse engineers something in it and comes up with it's own software to process the data from that particular camera...or something like that..
Thus, Photoshop works with the colors it "Thinks" are right, but it doesn't know for sure because it is not related by blood...or something like that.
DPP, on the other hand, is written and designed by Canon, for Canon. Thus, it knows all the right colors and data and therefore is better suited and more capable of getting the post processing right.
"
What are the thoughts of the guru's out there who have tried both? Can you please keep your answers relevant to the topic heading?
Cheers,
Baz.
Last edited by bloodhound31; 27-07-2010 at 11:16 AM.
Reason: Clarifying OP question.
You can change colour space in photoshop...which gives differing colour responses. I recently tried ProPhoto colour space (in lieu of sRGB..or others) in CS3 and it works great for nebula.
You can change colour space in photoshop...which gives differing colour responses. I recently tried ProPhoto colour space (in lieu of sRGB..or others) in CS3 and it works great for nebula.
Can you explain this a bit more please mate? Have you tried DPP? How does it compare?
Quote:
Originally Posted by luigi
I use DxO Optics to develop RAWs mainly bexause of IQ, then PS to edit the result.
Can you explain DxO Optics and iQ please Luigi? Have you tried DPP? How does it compare?
What you paraphrased in your original post is something which it seems I'm the only person in the world thinks. I've made this thought known here a couple of times (albeit, in not such a simplistic way).
I wouldn't necessarily say that there is two camps. Well, just me, and, then everyone else.
The question you're asking, though, is completely irrelevant. Photoshop doesn't decode RAW files, per sé; it uses Adobe Camera RAW to do the conversion which is a plug in. Secondly, DPP is a RAW processor, not a complete editing package. It's like comparing apples with oranges.
A more relevant question is which RAW processor is best. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to highlight detail, fidelity and a true representation of what my sensor captured, it only makes sense to use DPP.
I'm not a professional, though, but I know a lot of professionals use ACR/LR and get the job done.
I am using DPP and it does everything I need - which is curves... and saving into jpg format.
DPP is quite powerful. it will even allow for some lens distortions corrections (limited to some Canon lenses).
Everything else (that means, stacking) I do in DSS, or sometimes in Iris.
Since buying my 7D I've been unable to use photoshop's CR2 processing because CS3 doesn't support the 7D. And so I mostly use DPP.
However before with my 350D and now when I use my wife's computer with PS Elements 8, I use photoshop and find it's controls on RAW files provide me better results. I think it comes down to what particular controls suit you and how you use them, what yo get used to using, etc. I started using PS's originally and still prefer them. I find I can more easily achieve the outcome I'm wanting with my images in the PS CR2 handler.
What you paraphrased in your original post is something which it seems I'm the only person in the world thinks. I've made this thought known here a couple of times (albeit, in not such a simplistic way).
I wouldn't necessarily say that there is two camps. Well, just me, and, then everyone else.
The question you're asking, though, is completely irrelevant. Photoshop doesn't decode RAW files, per sé; it uses Adobe Camera RAW to do the conversion which is a plug in. Secondly, DPP is a RAW processor, not a complete editing package. It's like comparing apples with oranges.
A more relevant question is which RAW processor is best. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to highlight detail, fidelity and a true representation of what my sensor captured, it only makes sense to use DPP.
I'm not a professional, though, but I know a lot of professionals use ACR/LR and get the job done.
H
Thanks H. Very interesting stuff. I'd like to investigate further.
I am using DPP and it does everything I need - which is curves... and saving into jpg format.
DPP is quite powerful. it will even allow for some lens distortions corrections (limited to some Canon lenses).
Everything else (that means, stacking) I do in DSS, or sometimes in Iris.
I must admit, although I am thinking it would be better to use the software that comes with the camera, I do find PSE6 very simple to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerg
Since buying my 7D I've been unable to use photoshop's CR2 processing because CS3 doesn't support the 7D. And so I mostly use DPP.
However before with my 350D and now when I use my wife's computer with PS Elements 8, I use photoshop and find it's controls on RAW files provide me better results. I think it comes down to what particular controls suit you and how you use them, what yo get used to using, etc. I started using PS's originally and still prefer them. I find I can more easily achieve the outcome I'm wanting with my images in the PS CR2 handler.
It seems like a simple choice doesn't it? Use what works. Have you tried DPP?
It seems like a simple choice doesn't it? Use what works. Have you tried DPP?
Yeap, definitely. With CS3 not supporting my 7D's CR2's I use DPP 99% of the time. And even before then when CS3 worked fine with my 350D's RAW files I would still use DPP for bulk processing and batching. It has some very nice features. It's just when it comes to processing a particular image I often find photoshop's tools easier to achieve the results I want.
Btw, I did try DNG a long time ago but must work on that some more, that may work best for me if I bite the bullet and delete CR2's once converted to DNG. That way I get PS's controls when opening the raw files.
Can you explain this a bit more please mate? Have you tried DPP? How does it compare?
Best explained in my previous link and here and this link here.
I have tried DPP but found it much harder to tweak pics and get the best from them.
Here is a pic I did with sRGB and here with Prophoto colour space, exactly the same processing steps. I know the Prophoto pic is over done somewhat but you can see the difference.
I found ProPhoto colour space not so good for galaxies but it appears to be ok for nebula.
G'day Baz, I know where I've heard that quote in your OP from
I'd like to participate in the poll, but don't believe it's possible. The way you've worded it, I think it's a sometimes A, sometimes B type answer. And sometimes C...
Not trying to be a smart-a$$, but:
1. I obviously assume you're talking about "terrestrial" photography, not astro. PS is (almost) the only way to go for astro.
2. While your OP seems to be talking about the RAW conversion process, the poll doesn't clarify that.
3. What about those who process the RAW file to TIF (or JPG or whatever) in DPP, then finish processing in PS?
4. What about other software like Lightroom, GIMP/UFRAW, and so on?
5. PS alone does not handle RAW files, it needs something else to convert them, whether it be ACR, or DPP, or something else.
What do I do? My workflow has changed quite a bit over the last year or 2.
Originally I would convert RAW to TIFF using DPP, then edit the TIFF in GIMP. I also used UFRAW and RawTherapee to convert RAW to TIFF and still edited in GIMP.
Then I got PS, so used DPP as above for RAW to TIFF, then finished in PS. I tried to use ACR, but went back to DPP.
Now I have Lightroom as well. I'm finding I'm using it more and more for terrestrial shots, and on occasion I'll do some tweaking in PS if needs some really detailed processing, layer masks or something that LR can't do. But I'm trying to get more and more shots right "in camera", so don't need to process as much and LR is suffice for that.
I understand where H is coming from in terms of using Canon-authored software to convert Canon RAW files, but by the same token I haven't yet noticed a difference in quality between DPP converted files versus LR converted files. Well, not in my initial testing/comparison. And as he mentioned, LR and PS/ACR are becoming (if not already) the industry standard for professionals. I'm sure that Adobe, or all serious RAW conversion software authors, would listen if pros are complaining that their software isn't as good as the free Canon one. Wouldn't they?
Re the ProPhotoRGB etc. Since that thread that wasyoungonce posted above, I've been having a chat with some guys in another forum about colourspace, sRGB vs Adobe RGB vs ProPhotoRGB, converting and assigning different profiles etc. The thread kind of goes around in circles, so I won't link it here. But basically I'm doing some more reading/research on all things colourspace to find out more. They seem to be suggesting PPRGB isn't the way to go, and I need to understand why. They seem to be experts.
I know, I'm a zealot when it comes to Canon cameras and DPP. : )
Software should not be the weakest link in the chain. There's no excuse for it. Especially when we've invested heavily in top notch gear and glass.
It can be argued that your clients, or anyone who visits your web gallery, wouldn't know the difference between which editor was used to convert the files, but, I know. And, that's enough for me.
My very, very simple yardstick is to see what ACR does to skin tones. :vomit:
Setting profiles to /try/ and emulate what the native/OEM software produces is a bit of a hack, and, again, enough for me to not warrant its use.
Besides, I simply adore DPP's very basic editing philosophy. To everyone else, use what makes you happy and gets money out of your clients.
H
P.S. I know I probably sound very arrogant when I continue to labour this point, but, this is just my not so humble opinion. And, everyone knows, that opinions are like nipples; everyone has at least one.
Re the ProPhotoRGB etc. Since that thread that wasyoungonce posted above, I've been having a chat with some guys in another forum about colourspace, sRGB vs Adobe RGB vs ProPhotoRGB, converting and assigning different profiles etc. The thread kind of goes around in circles, so I won't link it here. But basically I'm doing some more reading/research on all things colourspace to find out more. They seem to be suggesting PPRGB isn't the way to go, and I need to understand why. They seem to be experts.
Troy, ProPhotoRGB is not a good choice to use, it does some nasty things, in particular to image with good dynamic range.
I basically stick to AdobeRGB for print and do a final conversion to sRGB for web use.
Glad to hear you've got the same results -- I just emailed Troy about that very issue -- images with extensive dynamic range suffer from ProPhoto RGB conversions.
I felt guilty as I recommended or mentioned ProPhoto RGB to Troy a while back as I was experimenting with it and had some good results. I've since gone back now.
I haven't given ACR a full go, but will try with skin tones to see what you mean. I know LR does quite well, I reckon anyway.
I don't think you're being arrogant/zealous about it. You're honestly providing advice that you believe is the best option. And based on your criteria, it is. Totally respect that.
As I've said before, though - I like it better when people agree with me. It means they're right too!
Troy, ProPhotoRGB is not a good choice to use, it does some nasty things, in particular to image with good dynamic range.
I basically stick to AdobeRGB for print and do a final conversion to sRGB for web use.
Thanks Andrew and H. As I mentioned to H in the email, still doing some reading/research/testing myself about the ppRGB thing. Probably leaning towards the aRGB too, but not fully convinced yet.
Interestingly I think Lightroom uses ProPhotoRGB as its working colourspace by default. I imagine that most LR users who don't know/understand colourspace (probably myself included) wouldn't even know they're using it.
Didn't like the results I was getting trying out ProPhotoRGB.
With the huge dynamic range that I get either with night time HDR or single shot daytime images, especially out of the new 14 bit sensors on the 7D & 5DII, the best 'balance' for preserving DR while having a wide enough gamut to play with is AdobeRGB.
Like I said just do a final conversion to sRGB when ready to output to web.
The other thing you have to consider when outputting to web is the multitude of browsers people will be using to view your image and whether they are colour space managed.
As for PP, DDP is excellent for preserving original skin tones etc.
Any other extensive PP, like astro work, can be carried out in PS CSx, .
In some situations where I need precise control, I switch over to LAB in PS which gives me very powerful and precise control over colour reproduction.
You just have to be careful preserving tones on the switch back to RGB.
And of course the first thing to do when you open your new camera gear is to calibrate (using hardware) your monitor/s, and do it on a regular basis.
It's amazing how quickly they loose calibration.
Can you explain DxO Optics and iQ please Luigi? Have you tried DPP? How does it compare?
I did use DPP before moving to DxO Optics.
To develop the RAWs DxO Optics creates a better final image than DPP, CaptureOne and other RAW developers I've tried. It has (IMO) the best final image quality.
Besides this it also has excellent distortion, vignetting, lens softness control. Specially calibrated by body/lens combination.
Once I convert/develop the RAW files to 16 bit Tiffs I do the final editing process with Photoshop.
