You know, I consider DPP as the default for any RAW conversion because it's made by Canon. I've always felt that LR3 handled the RAW files differently, by default, than Canon--something I never appreciated.
You know, I consider DPP as the default for any RAW conversion because it's made by Canon. I've always felt that LR3 handled the RAW files differently, by default, than Canon--something I never appreciated.
Now for the noise reduction test:
Canon 7D, EFS 15-85 @ 15 mm, 1/125, f/4 ISO 6400
DPP
LR3
DXO 7
Final comparison that I ran today was the uncorrected Landscape---7D, 15-85 @ 35 mm, 1/160, f/5.6 ISO 100
DPP
LR3
And DXO
Thanks in advance for any insights....overall, I am still evaluating, but in terms of unadjusted I am impressed with the noise reduction of LR3 and DXO compared to DPP, but have a slight preference for DPP in the low noise photos.....
Thanks,
Brant
That assumes one prefers the output from DPP. It would be possible to tweak each so it looks like the others in most respects (except perhaps NR). I think the better question is which program gets you to the output you like best with the minimum amount of effort. From that standpoint, it's a perfectly fair comparison. Then, I think one should ask which program makes it easiest to tweak that best initial default, and/or offers desired manipulations (does DPP have a vibrancy adjustment?).Originally Posted by cls
I think we can all agree on the analogy between a film negative and a RAW file - both need some form of development. There's no 'correct' output, just an individual's preferred output. IMO, the program that gets your images to your desired output the easiest/fastest is the best (for you).
CLS...this was my first cut at comparing the three. When evaluating how to test the software I considered how I currently use DPP and thought of three common scenarios: 1. Simply converting from RAW to JPEG; 2. Minor edits to several photos at a time; and, 3. Several adjustments to a single photo at a time trying to make it the best it can be. I choose to test scenario 1 first because I keep hearing that one of the primary differentiators in the software is their RAW conversion engine. I am not sure what I did was the perfect test, as I am still learning about each program, but I am surprised that for scenario 1 of how I have been using DPP, each software performed very differently. I am hoping to play with my other two scenarios later this week, but they are more about the functionality and features of each software.
BTW, another observation. Conversion time from RAW to jpeg on my machine (Win 7 64 bit; AMD Athlon II; 4 core; 3.0 Ghz saving to a Agility 3 SSD) was 6-7 seconds for LR3, 9-10 seconds for DPP and 25-32 seconds for DXO per picture. I am using trial versions of DXO and LR3, if that affects anything.
I understand, what I tried to say is that only DPP can read your "JPEG generating" camera settings from the RAW file (desired sharpness, contrast, ALO, lens correction etc). This means that if you open the RAW-file in DPP and generate JPEG without any changes, it will give the same result as generating JPEG in camera (shooting JPEG). Third party software don't read those settings. I don't know DxO, but if you use the default RAW conversion settings (from the original software setup) in Lightroom, the resulting image may often look rather dull. As I remember the LR default it only applies some sharpening by default. (No contrast, no vignetting correction, no...)
To make the comparison between those more fair, you could disable ALO and lens correction and set the picture style to 'faithful'. Then the result from DPP will look more like the LR result. (That is for test purposes. In real life of course, you simply change the LR deafult to something you like for most of your pictures.)
When it comes to DxO there may be an option "don't do any adjustments to my image" for raw conversion that could be better to use for your test purposes.
Last edited by cls; 12-06-2011 at 06:53 AM.
Yes there is. I just found it in the options menu. There are quite a few actions that you can choose from to be the standard action. I don't know if you can make your own standard though. That would be the best, since I also use that in LR3.
I must say that I also like to use the before/after, but definitely not that often. Therefor the way it is possible in LR3 makes more sense to me.
I actually quite like the click for before/after - as you state, it's good to see the original so you can evaluate the effects of the corrections.
On a zoomed image I can just use two-finger scrolling to move around the image, or pinch in-out for zooming - it makes evaluating an image very easy. But, I suppose that's because of the multitouch trackpad on the Mac (is that a feature you get with a 'same spec but much cheaper' PC?).
As for your fancy trackpad...well in all fairness, my homebuild pc didn't even include a mouse
Well Brant, I just installed DxO to give it a quick try. I must say that it does a lot to the original photo in the basic settings.
The DxO version of the cat is my favorite of the three, but as I said, DxO does quite a few corrections and in my opinion this isn't a good comparison.
In my case DxO automatically enables things like DxO Lighting and Noise-adjustments. They look good on some photos, but I've also seen a few photos where these settings make the photo worse. In my case I personally prefer to see the photo on my pc as it looked on the back of my camera. Therefor I also do not apply any filters(like lens correction) to any of the photos I import in LR. Perhaps this is also possible on DxO, but I haven't found it yet.
I must honestly say that I don't like the workspace in DxO for now. I'm used to work and view my photos a lot in 100% and just dragging the photo around the screen.(to look for imperfections for example) In LR3 I can do all that with just the left mouse button and without having to click on the hand-tool for example to drag the image around. In DxO it shows the "before" image when I click on it. This does not make a lot of sense to me, since I like to work with what I see and not with what it was before.
I'm definitely going to try DxO out more thoroughly, but for now I cannot really give a good opinion. It does seem quite slow when processing the photos, that's for sure.
Jan
I have a question for the Light Room users. As far as processing single images, would there be any difference in using LR rather than using CS5 Camera Raw with Photoshop? (Other than LR provides a simpler work flow)
No difference, the develop tool in Lightroom is ACR. (In Lightroom you run the ACR engine from the LR window instead of from the PS window.)
cls thanks, it has always appeared to me that the only thing I gain with LR would be a more stream lined workflow. I have CS5 and use bridge for sorting now. But my opinion of Adobe software is this, "any software that you can go to college and get a degree to use is not user friendly".
I am going to throw another software point out:
I own both the PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II and Pro 9000 Mark II. If I process a file (JPG) from my Canon Camera using my Canon Lens using Canon's DPP software, then I print it off on either of these Canon printers using Canon paper, it comes out looking just like it does on the screen.
If I print a JPG processed with Adobe, it is hit or miss. It may come out as it appears on the screen or it may not. Most of the time it does not.
It gets worse if you try and print picture from Photoshop. It is even more hit and miss printing from Photoshop than if you open up Easy-Photo Print for the Canon printer.
I haven't figured this one out yet. Why wouldn't all JPEGS print the same.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
