13 Replies Latest reply on Feb 24, 2009 3:11 AM by MethodPhoto

    Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X

      I started testing conversion from raw to jpg with Canon's Digital Photo Professional and ARC 5.x (CS4) and noticed a much better conversion with DPP. At low ISOs does I don't see much difference, however at 800+ it is very noticeable. I hate to give up the work flow of Bridge and ACR and go back to using DPP. Is there anything that can be done to improve this?
        • 1. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
          Tim Lookingbill Level 1
          Define "much better".

          It would help if you'ld provide a screenshot showing a comparison of what you're talking about.

          Assign your monitor profile to this screenshot and convert to sRGB for web viewing.

          Try pixentral.com or your image hosting site of choice.
          • 2. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
            Level 1
            Here is a link, http://www.pbase.com/stevevonb/image/109450444 shots were taken at iso 800. Sections were enlarged about 200X.
            • 3. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
              Jao vdL Adobe Community Professional & MVP
              Now try comparing an area with lots of detail. You'll see that DPP washes away every detail left in the image because of enormous amount of chroma noise reduction. ACR's noise reduction is not "best-of-breed" and the defaults are very conservative. You have to actually spend some time optimizing the settings for your image if this bothers you. You'll never see this noise in a print except really large ones.
              • 4. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
                Ramón G Castañeda Level 4
                Quoting from an old post of mine, with apologies to all who have read it before:

                This has been covered ad nauseam here. Please do a forum search for more details.

                Camera manufacturers, Canon and Nikon in particular, perform in-camera RAW to JPEG conversions designed to generate the over-saturated, over-contrasty and over-sharpened images that appeal to most amateurs.

                Their stand-alone RAW conversion software also performs the same conversion to your RAW images.

                Noise is also hidden by compressing the shadows so you don't see much of the noise inherent in the image.

                Adobe Camera Raw, ACR, on the other hand, comes with default settings designed to give you the most detail possible (even if this sometimes means revealing some of the noise hidden by the camera manufacturers in their RAW conversion software), as well as the most natural images.

                That being said, you can calibrate your camera to ACR and come up with your own settings to produce exactly what you want, including the JPEG-look of the camera manufacturer, and save that as your profile.

                The key is to learn how to use ACR properly and to calibrate your camera to ACR.

                The camera calibration refines the settings by letting you adjust for the exact sensor response of your individual camera unit rather than the average of a sampling of such unites provided by Adobe.

                The ACR defaults are nothing more than a suggested starting point.

                The color temperature won't necessarily match either.
                • 5. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
                  Tim Lookingbill Level 1
                  You might want to use a custom curve edit to smooth out noise. The small arc in the shadow section of ACR's Medium Contrast curve can amplify noise on some high ISO or extremely underexposed low ISO images. It's also very important that you get correct looking color temp using the sliders because this can amplify chroma noise. <br /> <br />See the example below showing how applying a flat curve to noisy sections can virtually illuminate the appearance of noise. I'm finding these types of edits in general offer benefits by applying flat sections on different areas of a custom curve that can bring out the best in an image especially in the highlites and shadows. I guess it's because of the linear nature of sensor data being mapped to a gamma encoded environment. Not sure. <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1LE9mtw9Y7mQ1SHh04N4AXSTKsnge8" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1LE9mtw9Y7mQ1SHh04N4AXSTKsnge8_thumb.jpg" border="0" />
                  • 6. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
                    Tim Lookingbill Level 1
                    mmh, I just found something else that influences noise. Went from ACR 4.4, to Adobe Standard to my own DNG PE CCchart Wizard generated profile in ACR 4.6's Calibration panel and got differing levels of noise for both luminance and chroma.

                    Interesting.

                    Adobe Standard gave the best results.
                    • 7. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
                      Level 1
                      You are referring to the camera profile section in ACR? I have been using Canon neutral.
                      • 8. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
                        Tim Lookingbill Level 1
                        Well for me in ACR 4.6 these profiles are in the Calibration panel which is where the camera profile dropdown menu resides.

                        Only I don't get any Pentax brand name profile made by Adobe for my Pentax K100D like you do with your Canon.

                        I don't need them anyway cuz I don't get the atrocious looking ACR default previews as seen in before and after image samples posted in other discussions on the Canon/Nikon Jpeg to ACR default previews issue.

                        Of course that overexposed shot I posted was a high ISO test I was conducting to push "Expose to the right" in low light scenes shooting hand held. I usually don't even change the ISO in the majority of my outdoor shooting sessions. But now that I see it provides two stops advantage from my base 200 ISO instead of what I thought was 1/3 stop increments as set by my camera, I'm going to be using it much more shooting manual.
                        • 9. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
                          Peter DL Level 1
                          > Only I don't get any Pentax brand name profile made by Adobe for my Pentax K100D like you do with your Canon.

                          Off topic: by means of the DNG Profile Editor you could create e.g. "Canon look" profiles for your K100D. Or Pentax K10D/K20D/K200D flavor of rendition are likewise available (via Base profile: Choose external profile).
                          • 10. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
                            Level 1
                            Tim, these are my choices. As I toggle through, I get some better looking results. For this one photo I was looking at, the Camera Standard worked best. This provided by Canon.
                            http://www.pbase.com/stevevonb/image/109517464
                            • 11. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
                              ArrrBee Level 1
                              Myself I will to ACR over the DPP. The DPP has less gritty noise but to do
                              that they blotched it up. There is also a loss of actual detail and
                              perceived detail. The only thing DPP is going to going overboard with noise
                              reduction.

                              Robert
                              • 12. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
                                Ramón G Castañeda Level 4
                                >The Camera Standard worked best. This provided by Canon.

                                Nope, not provided by Canon. It's developed by Adobe, as I understand it. The ACR team will correct me if I'm wrong.
                                • 13. Re: Raw conversion to JPG better with DPP than ARC 5.X
                                  MethodPhoto Level 1
                                  Ramón is right, the Camera Standard and the Adobe Profiles are all Adobe created. The Camera Standard is there to replace the previous numbering system, which was confusing.