I think it all depends on how you process. DPP, from what I understand, gives you the "out of the box" look Canon thinks you might want the image to look like. It's almost the same deal when I used Fujifilm's RAW converter (an offshoot of Silkypix) to process my RAFs. I don't like Silkypix's UI, though. It's like I'm back in the 1990's.
There was that demosaicing (is that actually a word?) issue Fuji users had in ACR that Fujifilm and Adobe are collaborating on. They helped to solve the color blur issue. But those were exclusive to Fujifilm and we at least know Adobe isn't sitting on their collective laurels. They're always finding ways of improving.
One of the first things I set in Camera Raw is the Camera Profile in the Camera Calibration tab, lest I deal with a color palette that's flatlined. (I know I could set it so that it defaults to Camera PROVIA/Standard when I import, but I dunno. I kind of like how the color pops when I set it myself. Yeah. I'm weird like that.)
Still, I'm not into pixel peeping, and I'm definitely not a professional, so it isn't too much of an issue for me. My images (as a result of creative compositing) almost always look like you're looking at them through a dirt filter.
Thank you Warunicorn for your input.
I really wasn't talking about personal taste or photographic styles. Perhaps
I misexpressed myself and will use your example so perhaps my message
may come across in better shape: Imagine that your creative compositing RAW
pictures, taken with a Canon camera, look better in DDP, just by opening them,
than in ACR, even after any ACR tweaks. The dirt filter effect showing in DDP more
ACR more or less uses a baseline when first opening RAWs. (A good example of this is the fact that no camera profile is loaded under Camera Calibration other than Adobe's own default profile. This makes a world of difference in itself, since an image will look dramatically different when you apply the correct camera profile.) I'm sure that was entirely intended. Personally, I'd rather be presented with an image and do my own tweaking, rather than having nearly full auto.
It can be argued that, for example, an image in DDR looks sharper than it does in ACR when first opened. That would lead me to believe a setting in DDR is set to sharpen by default when a RAW is opened. You can do the same thing in ACR if you had wanted.
Warunicorn, this was my whole point:
"....look better in DDP, just by opening them,
than in ACR, even after any ACR tweaks..."
May I just repeat the last part of the above quoted sentence: even after ANY tweaks.
That includes any any camera profile, sharpening or other setting, any white balance,
any contrast, any etc.
Now I fear that I am still misexpressing myself. But again this not to do with photographic styles
or tweaks, or types of camera or profiles. It's do with one simple fact: why does Canon DDP render
any Canon RAW file better that ACR.
It now springs to mind, that some 6 years ago I wrote to Canon asking them similar question (had forgotten
about it): Why the 5D RAWs didn't look quite as good as expected? The Canon Inc. reply came promptly
advising me to use DDP since no other software would render Canon RAWs better.
I would call them out on that. I really would. Better is subjective. I can make my RAWs in ACR just as good as the versions that come out of Silkypix.
If this after any tweaks, then you've probably discovered something Adobe might want to know about, IF that's the case. The only other case I can recall is the Fujifilm demosaicing issue (like I mentioned before), and Fujifilm and Adobe are working closely on that.