I use DPP for raw conversion of my images taken with Canon camera/lens. I use Lightroom starting after the conversion. DPP is much better at raw conversion than it used to be.
I do support your hope that LR conversion be improved.
I cannot see nothing wrong with Lightroom's conversion. DPP just wiped out the noise. So can do Lightroom if pushed further.
äh.. you have looked at the images at fredmirandas blog?
Both. FM and Canon rumours too.
i hate this forum software. i edited my reply and now all is gone because there was a reply while i was editing.. so i have to type it all again.
this forum software sux.
original (ISO 100):
both images edited with LR.
color noise in the canon RAW is ugly after the shadows are pushed.
now look at this canon file:
as i understand it no NR was applied in DPP, just converted to TIFF and then shadows pushed in photoshop with highligh/shadow.
much cleaner result.
so the question for me is.. is the D800 sensor so much better or is LR not handling canon RAW files that well??
i know the D800 sensor is good.. but the above examples make me wonder if everything is right with LR conversion of canon files.
i know this comparison is far from perfect. would love to have the original 5D MK3 file from fred miranda to do my own tests.
but it makes me wonder that in one case you see so much noise with LR and in the other case it´s so much better with PS.
has DPP some internal NR going on?
im not an DPP expert i only use it from time to time ... so if someone can enlighten me.
There is only one problem in all this comparisons.
When noise reduction is set to zero in LR - there is no noise reduction at all, but DPP applies noise reduction even at zero setting - you can not turn it off completely.
Speaking about cameras: D800 has better shadow performance at low ISO (cleaner shadows), 5DMkIII has better low light performance (lower noise at high ISO).
And camera manufacturers always have to choose, they just can't give you both.