Canon's DPP vs Photoshop CS4

This past weekend I notice something different. Before I solely used PS CS4 to post process all my RAW files. Just recently I used DPP just to view my RAW files before I PP it in CS4. The thing I notice right away was looking at how DPP render the RAW files, it takes less time or steps to finish PP`ing the image.

Here are examples that I have:
First image is a RAW file opened and saved using Canon's DPP with out any adjustment on post process. EXIF Data
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...d188a9d4bd.jpg

Second image is a RAW file opened and saved using Photoshop CS4 with out any adjustments on post process. EXIF Data
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...a2a5fc00ae.jpg

Is there something wrong with my Photoshop settings?

Before I took me several steps just to achieve something from image #2 to make it look like image #1.

Can you tell on your monitor the difference of them 2? Maybe it's just my monitor's color setting?

Anybody else uses DPP?

Discovering this just made my workflow easier. I would love if CS4 would just render RAW files like this so I don't have to use any other software.

Hi Chris

I've gone the other way. I was using DPP and a little bit of PS8 but now I'm using CS5. I agree with you that DPP is quick and easy, especially for photos needing little adjustment.

I read in a newspaper article a number of months ago that the raw processing in the dedicated software (ie Canon or Nikon) was actually better than the generics (so to speak) because they do not give all of their secrets away. The algorithms they used (if I remember correctly) were closely guarded secrets.

Maybe someone else can add more to this than my little bit.

Hi Chriss,

Neither shot looks optimal to me, but the 2nd is the better of the two (the skin tones of the first are significantly over-saturated).

Keep in mind that - by default - DPP will honour picture style metadata tags, whereas ACR doesn't - so if your camera was inadvertantly set to something like landscape picture style, then that would explain the result you got.

Thanks for the reply guys. I'm still trying to figure out what's the best workflow for me.

Colin: I got the picture style set at "Standard" and yes your right both shot are not optimal. But I think, i might have lesser steps to deal with image #1 than image #2.
Do you only use Photoshop Colin?

Camellia: Very true, DPP for quick and easy adjustments! :)

Oh another thing i got to point out is image size. Image #1(DPP) after saving it to JPG the size of the file is at 5.5MB while image #2(Photoshop) after saving the JPG the size of the file is at 1.6MB that's a huge difference! Now is that because image #2 is unadjusted and very RAW, while image #1 is still unadjusted and very RAW but it has the data of the picture style with it?

So much to learn!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Hi Chriss,

Neither shot looks optimal to me, but the 2nd is the better of the two (the skin tones of the first are significantly over-saturated).

---

This was my impression, having no experience with either program. I can understand your preference for the effect of the first, but is it the more accurate rendering of the RAW file? Maybe not.

If you look at your camera settings Chriss you will see that the "Standard" picture style has just a small amount of sharpening applied to it and basically thats it. The neutral style by comparison has a totally unadjusted field of settings - well at least its like that on my 5D so I presume the styles work the same way on all other models.
I also heard that the algorithms in DPP produce a more accurate RAW conversion than 3rd party software because the folks at Canon created the files and other people are just reverse engineering them. Another thing about DPP is that now they have the crop and rotate built in - its much easier to stay in the one programme for everything. Having said that I don't mind using either DPP or CS4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovean

Colin: I got the picture style set at "Standard" and yes your right both shot are not optimal. But I think, i might have lesser steps to deal with image #1 than image #2.

---

I wouldn't think so. All it needs is a white balance adjustment - and a small saturation and/or vibrance adjustment; about 5 seconds work in ACR :)

Quote:

---

Do you only use Photoshop Colin?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

I wouldn't think so. All it needs is a white balance adjustment - and a small saturation and/or vibrance adjustment; about 5 seconds work in ACR :)

---

Ok, i believe you :P

Another hurdle i have is viewing RAW images on windows. Before my solution for this was setting my camera to take RAW + JPEG.
Just recently I set it back to take only RAW. To view it I had to use DPP (this is how it all started with the questions :) ) find the file name then open it on PS. (it's a pain)

How you guy guys do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovean

How you guy guys do it?

---

I convert to *.DNG, and then just view them using Adobe Bridge (which gives far more management options than Windows ever will).

As an alternative, Chriss, I use Raw + Small Jpeg which doesn't waste too much camera card space. I have set DPP to just show Raw but adding a Jpeg makes sure that there is always an image available for identification if you are viewing from a different programme.

For example, I often view my downloads with ACDSee (which doesn't show Raw) to sort out the 'chuckers' before I start editing what remains.

Different Raw Converters have different ideas about what a default setting should look like. For example, some reset to a rather dark image which just saves the highlights from over exposure while others default to an average exposure; which means that you often have to manually reset them to recover the blown highlights.

It's usually just a case of getting used to whatever system a particular converter uses and working with it.

After trying quite a number of the free converters, I found that Raw Therapee gave me good results but it isn't exactly easy to use.