ACR vs. DPP (Canon's Digital Photo Professional)

[jswayze]

Hi Folks,

I just got done reading the thread regarding the Nikon images processed through ACR vs. C1 (and Bibble, etc.). This being a Canon-related question I thought I'd start a new thread.

I've been using ACR for all my raw conversions for the last 3 years or so. I'm not a pro but I shoot quite a bit. It seemed like most of my photos looked "dreary" for lack of a better word. A bit grey, perhaps. I did my best in ACR and Photoshop, typically playing with contrast and saturation to bring things up to snuff. Now, after reading a few threads on this board I thought I'd try an experiment by comparing an ACR-processed image with a DPP image (DPP is Canon's own RAW conversion utility.)

The results were stunning. In fact, I'm not sure they're "too good to be true." I wanted an objective opinion so I made up a few images with screenshots of the two conversions for your review (I figured this was the most unbiased way to view them side-by-side).

Here is the overall image I tried. There's no special reason I picked this shot, but it did have a variety of detail and detail-less areas.



Part of this must be some sort of sharpening algorithm, but DPP claims that sharpening is set to zero. The colors are all brighter and more vivid and it doesn't have that cast that the ACR image has.

I should say that I processed this image with both converters set at their default conditions, both in sRGB mode.

Here's a close-up showing the difference in tone, saturation and sharpness. There are lots of black specs in the grass - it really looks like it's been sharpened but I'd like some further opinions:



Can there really be this much difference between the two converters? I've gone back and re-converted some of my favorite shots and most of them looked much better.

If anyone has any insight as to what's going on - if I'm missing the boat somewhere or the conversion is really that different - please help me. I love the way ACR and Bridge work together, but if I can get significantly better images with DPP I've got to go that route.

Thanks in advance for your opinions/advice!

-Jeff

[peterkrogh]

Jeff,
Comparing converters at default settings is just that - comparing default performance.  As a default, the manufacturer probably has a edge, at least if you did any customization in camera, since manufacturers software can apply more of the camera settings.

Try adding sharpening and contrast in ACR.  I think you will find much improvement.  Are you using the defaults that include the auto adjustments?

Peter

[Michael_S]

I have to agree with Peter.  For whatever little that is worth coming from me.  But as I scrolled down through the comparison photos and read the text my mind screamed

"Application added sharpness!"  and "strong contrast curve by default!"

I shoot Nikon, not Canon, so I'm no expert on DPP.  But I think something vendor-specific is going on here.  Defaults in ACR are linear and soft.

I intentionally stay third-party since I have a modest Nikon investment and could imagine changing over to Canon in my next camera.  I don't want to learn a bunch of vendor specific converters.  But the image is the main goal.

Be sure to really eliminate sharpening in DPP.  Sometimes zero doesn't mean "zero".  Raw Shooter packages are like that.  Default is zero but it still means some sharpening is applied.  In that case -50 is the actual value for "no sharpening".  Whatever...

Also make sure the white balance temperature and tint values are the same.  You may be getting a slight difference in white balance in ACR compared to DPP.  Let us know.


Best Regards,
Michael S.

[jswayze]

Yeah, it looked over-sharpened to me too, but I didn't see any "sharpening" settings at first glance... Well, at second glance I did see it. The slider was centered, just like all the others, except where the others were "zero" the sharpness was 5, or in this case, 50%. I turned it all the way down and it's about as blurry as the ACR version.

The colors still came out better on DPP though, regardless of the sharpening. Again, I'm no expert, but I couldn't get them quite as rich in ACR. I'd like to think it's something as simple as a contrast adjustment or color space, but so far I haven't found the answer to my "dull" images.

I also tried a sunset shot as talked about in another thread. Here it was obvious that ACR created very noticeable transitions between the bright oranges while DPP had a much smoother transition. Nothing new here, but I'll add it to the collective.



Thanks for the insights,

Jeff

[alanackoff]

Jeff,

I agree with you 110 percent. After using nothing but ACR for several years I tried DPP out of curiousity, and it knocked me out. Because of that I've been trying other raw converters and Capture One (using Etcetera profiles) is the winner so far. However, I'm also very impressed with Raw Developer from Iridient.

ACR has a great workflow and there are obious advantages with respect to a DAM system like Peter's, but IMHO the color and image quality is not the best available. It's certainly OK, and good enough for some applications where quality doesn't make much difference. When you make large fine art prints of images using a good RIP such as ImagePrint, the differences become much more obvious. Many folks judge image quality solely by their display/monitor and that's really not all that accurate when you consider they don't know matrix profiles from LUT based profiles, much less how much 3D gamut compression they have applied in building their monitor profiles.

It's frustrating to have either great color or convenient workflow (with DAM), but not both. That seems to be the choice at the moment. No doubt, things will improve. It's amazing to look back on how things have evolved during the last couple of years!

[budjames]

I'm an amateur but using CS2 and the latest ACR along with C1Pro. After reading boards, I downloaded the latest version of DPP, v 2.1. I converted several RAW files and made sure that none of the converters used any sharpening.

DPP blew them all away. Now, I using it most of the time, but I hate it's workflow. It is very unintuitive software compared to ACR or C1. But the image is what matters most.

Bud James
North Wales, PA

[Dennis O'Clair]

Many ACR enthusiasts don't understand, but I agree.  DPP does a better conversion.  I shoot with Canon and I use Bridge, ACR and IVMP for most of my workflow.  However, when I have to do a Master file of a special image, I use DPP for the conversion even though I don't like using the software.  The conversions are just noticeably better than anything I can get out of ACR.

I think I can hear some of you Adobe diehards scoffing, rolling your eyes and saying it's just 'cause I must be an ameteur and don't know how to use ACR.  Sorry, that's not it.  I have calibrated my camera using the calibration script.  I have read Bruce Fraser's Real World Camera RAW CS2 and I do have many years of professional PS experience.  I would like nothing better than to use PS for all my image processing needs.  But DPP does a better job of converting Canon's CR2 files.  It's unfortuanate because this is the only thing preventing me from switching to a totally DNG workflow.

I mentioned this to PK at a workshop but I don't think he was totally convinced.  I suspect that this is more of an issue with Canon files than it is with Nikon.

Dennis O'Clair

[peterkrogh]

For those of you who don't know, Dennis *does* know what he is doing.

Dennis, it's not that I don't believe you about this, it's a couple other things.

1. I hear this more often about C1 than DPP. (Which is fortunate for Adobe/DNG users since Michael Jonsson from Pixmantex/C1 is now on board).  This is not to say that I think DPP wouldn't provide a better conversion in some/many instances, since they know exactly how their sensors behave.

2. For me, the next question is, "Is the result, after Photoshop, better with the file that came through DPP?" I'm unconvinced that it's significantly better.  That said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I won't quarrel if you think it's better.

3. Lightroom is going to change this calculation.  AMAZING color controls, with full DNG compatibility (when it ships).  It makes ACR feel like a stone tool.  You should try Lightroom for your Master File conversions.  It will work on the DNG, so you don't have to use the DNG/RAW two-step that I think you do currently.  (Actually, you might want to wait until you get the B4 beta.  I've been playing with it, and it's great - it has some controls that are not in B3.)

Peter

[danaltick]

Ok, time for me to put my 2 cents in.  I have read Bruce Fraser's book several times and worked through his techniques in chapter 5 a number of times.  I use his techniques on all of my images.  I even shoot my images 1/3 to 1/2 stop over-exposed to maximize the dynamic range of my shots.  It truly is amazing the results you can get pulling that brightness slider down after getting the exposure slider set correctly, but that's another story.

Here's my unanswered question, and this is not discussed in Bruce's book:  I'm under the impression from what little I know of the inner workings of ACR, that ACR merely provides one with global tonal controls to allow one to message the linear data to suite his/her tastes.  If sufficient controls are in place to massage that data with enough fidelity that the eye cannot detect the smallest delta change, then all Raw editors provided with enough controls should in theory be able to create the exact same histogram if adjusted accordingly.  Based on this, it would not surprised me that because camera manufacturers know how their sensors operate, that they would optimize there settings for their sensors, giving one the illusion that thier editor is better.  Like I said, I do not know the answer to this question, but feel that it may be important.

Dan

[Dennis O'Clair]

Peter,

Thank you for the endorsement (....Dennis *does* know what he is doing.) and I am sure you know that I meant no disrespect in my comments.

You bring up a good point when you say, "Is the file significantly better after it has been massaged in PS?"  I really push the pixels around and this is something I haven't given much thought to.  With DPP I start with a more pleasing file but you may be right.  I may just test your theory.  If I do, I will be sure to post the results.

Lightroom sounds interesting.  I rarely have the time or inclination to test out beta releases, so I have not tested Lightroom.  I am the opposite of an early adopter.  I usually wait for the second release of most things digital.  I didn't go fully digital until Canon released the 1ds mk2.

I am hoping C1 releases the DNG version by the end of the year as promised.  I believe all this debate about the "best" conversion will be moot once there are more RAW converters that support DNG.

Dennis 

[peterkrogh]

I agree that beta testing is not a worthwhile endeavor for most people.  There's too much to learn as it is, and adding half-cooked software to the pot is only going to slow people down.

That said, once beta 4 releases, I think it could take the place of DPP for you, and it will let you go to a DNG only workflow.

Given Michael Johsson's participation, I expect Lightroom will surpass the current C1 functionality.  They will have to add more than just DNG support to keep in the lead.
Peter