# PP for realistic look - is DPP the best?



## jebrady03 (Apr 17, 2013)

I've been using DPP to process images for the last 4 years or so. I find that OOC RAW files usually just need to have lens aberrations corrected and then be sharpened for a realistic look (I shoot in the "Faithful" scene mode). For instance - this thread is what's spurring this post: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14101

However, when I import into LR, I find that MUCH MUCH MUCH more work has to be done to get the image to look normal/realistic. In fact, when I open an image in LR, it looks absolutely terrible and is BEGGING for PP'ing.

So I guess what I'm wondering is, why do so many use LR? Am I alone in either A) Wanting images that look like reality or B) Am I doing something wrong to cause images in LR to look terrible upon opening them or C) Something else?

In DPP, I pretty much always go through each picture with the quick preview option, rate the keepers, go back and crop them if necessary, then open the first picture in the series, correct aberrations, possibly use NR if I shot above 800 ISO, then sharpen, then close, copy recipe, and paste it to all other images. My work flow for 100 pictures takes just a few minutes and with very few exceptions, they need almost no adjustments for white balance, contrast, saturation, etc., and a little more often, for brightness. Then I batch process the keepers.

So again, what am I missing? Is this just a case where this work flow works well for me and not many others?

Thanks for any insight, recommendations, feedback, etc.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 17, 2013)

I don't know if I am capable of recommending a software that will work for you but I can tell you my personal experience ... over the past 10 years, I've used (or tried to use) several software to edit my photos such as Picasa, DPP, ACDSee, Paint.Net, GIMP, Corel, LR, CS Photoshop, Aperture & iPhoto ... but the reason I finally settled with LR & CS6 are:
1. Incredible amount of options to edit an image
2. Layers & Masks
3. Lots of plugins 
4. Easy integration of plugins
4. Stress free image organization & management & Backup
5. ADOBE ... they are just AWESOME ... with the amount of resources through websites, videos, books, and instructors (both paid and free) it is easier for me to learn and grow as a photographer in manipulating my images the way I like.


----------



## cayenne (Apr 17, 2013)

jebrady03 said:


> <snip>(I shoot in the "Faithful" scene mode). <snip>



I'm a little confused about this portion of your post. The 'mode' shouldn't have anything to do with what you view RAW files in, right? That just applies to jpegs I thought?

Or...possibly, since DPP is a Canon thing...perhaps in the previews it is showing the jpeg, processed with the 'Faithful Scene' mode..and you're looking at that and seeing a RAW file already adjusted, and when you import true RAW into Lightroom or other editors, you're only there seeing the true RAW image, that needs processing like the jpeg gets from the Failthful mode put on top of the true RAW image?

Can someone clear up my confusion on this?

Thanks,
cayenne


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 17, 2013)

In LR, you can change to match the camera modes if you wish, including Faithful, ....

Everyone does see Reality differently, and I find that none of the software can reproduce a image colors and lighting and saturation exactly as I see them. Thats why there are different competing tools, if they were identical we would only need one.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 17, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> In LR, you can change to match the camera modes if you wish, including Faithful, ....
> 
> Everyone does see Reality differently, and I find that none of the software can reproduce a image colors and lighting and saturation exactly as I see them. Thats why there are different competing tools, if they were identical we would only need one.


If DPP works that well for you, then you may not need LR if you are that dissatisfied with the results. Perhaps you only need one... 

I used only dpp for about a year and when I switched I found that loading into LR did seem to change the images a bit more than I felt dpp did. I ended up taking many, many tutorials and webinars about LR and quickly learned that I could create my own presets for when photos are uploaded into the program. 

I've got several custom presets set up and I use them for different scenarios... for instance, if I shoot a wedding, I use a preset I call "Ken's wedding preset", it applys my settings to the raw images as they come in. It's simple settings, for instance set to Faithful, Temp set to 5400, lens corrections on, things like that. No, all the images that come in don't come in exactly the way I want necessarily, but they are close for most of them and I make minor adjustments from there. 

I do the same thing for wildlife shots, portraits, landscapes, etc. Try learning how to use the presets before uploading your images and you may find a whole new world of possibilities! Who knows? I just think since you've spent the money on it, you should try to exploit it to the best of your abilities... we can't all be wrong! Or can we??


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 17, 2013)

A great deal depends on what you mean by, "realistic."

For many, it's something of an interpretative artistic abstraction of a particular style. If that's the case with you, your best bet is lots of experimentation and going with whatever works.

But if what you're really after is a colorimetric rendering of the scene, you're probably looking for Raw Photo Processor along with building your own ICC profiles. And prepare for something of a steep learning curve for the whole ICC thing....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## chauncey (Apr 17, 2013)

You will need more work in LR because it does not apply any PP to your image unless instructed whereas,
DPP applies the same base PP that would be applied in-camera had you chosen to shoot jpeg.

"Realistic" is somewhat an ambiguous term as it relies on one's memory of reality...at best an exercise in futility.

Best practice is to use a "gray card" to adjust colors to that "reality" and maybe adjust exposure somewhat and, oh yeah, maybe sharpen a tad.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 17, 2013)

chauncey said:


> You will need more work in LR because it does not apply any PP to your image unless instructed whereas,
> DPP applies the same base PP that would be applied in-camera had you chosen to shoot jpeg.
> 
> "Realistic" is somewhat an ambiguous term as it relies on one's memory of reality...at best an exercise in futility.
> ...




Well yes and no.

DPP does apply the set picture style to the RAW preview. It also applies it to the RAW conversion unless the 'retain setting of each picture style' box is unchecked in preferences - tool palette. This option is really tucked away and hard to find.


----------



## jebrady03 (Apr 17, 2013)

I think y'all might have hit the nail on the head... I completely forgot that LR doesn't automatically apply the scene mode so it's an unprocessed RAW file whereas DPP shows it processed, even when using "faithful". I'll have another look and see what I can see  
THANKS!!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Apr 17, 2013)

I always use DPP. One of the advantages is that edit data is stored within the image files so no need for a database or extra data files that might get disassociated.

Recently I adopted Lightroom for post-processing of my Sony NEX raws because the Sony raw processor is dog-slow. I continue to use DPP for my Canon photo's though.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 17, 2013)

chauncey said:


> Best practice is to use a "gray card" to adjust colors to that "reality" and maybe adjust exposure somewhat and, oh yeah, maybe sharpen a tad.



I wouldn't call that "best practice," though it's certainly a step in the right direction.

"Best practice" involves, as I described, a colorimetric workflow that includes building an ICC profile. And that involves photographing not a gray card but a color target (the ColorChecker is useable but has too few patches for quality work). And you don't eyeball adjusting the colors and exposure of the entire image to a single known color sample, but rather let the color profile dynamically and intelligently adjust the entire image based upon its automated analysis of the color target.

Done right, and you can photograph a work of art and make a print of it such that the artist herself has to look long and hard before being able to tell the original from the copy.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## RVB (Apr 17, 2013)

Lightroom and Photoshop CS6 extended is a powerful combination but also look at the excellent Phase one capture one pro 7 and Photo Ninja....


----------



## Tanja (Apr 17, 2013)

if you want the best results try :

http://www.picturecode.com/index.php

i am a LR user since v1 but this new RAW converter is great for important images.
best detail rendering i have seen so far.

only problem.. it´s a bit slow.

so i use it only for some images i print big and LR for the majority of my images.


----------



## Tanja (Apr 17, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> I always use DPP. One of the advantages is that edit data is stored within the image files so no need for a database or extra data files that might get disassociated.



just use DNG and your data is stored in the RAW file.


----------



## SwissBear (Apr 17, 2013)

Not a long time ago there was the dilemma before pressing the shutter release. That was in the anlogue age, where you had to choose the right roll of film before the real action. ISO, temperature, color style and so on.
I am very happy these times are over - as a student, film was too expensive and too slow for learning.

Now, all these decisions must be made afterwards, and as many have pointed out, something as "right" or "real" is rather hard to get.
(Some presets that try to imitate all these films would be nice  )

But anyway, any decent RAW converter should be able to give you the results you wish, but clearly DPP, being from the camera-dev, has the ability to render a RAW similar to the jpg you can view on the camera.

But that is, again, not "realistic" or anything.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 18, 2013)

SwissBear said:


> (Some presets that try to imitate all these films would be nice  )



Raw Photo Processor does exactly that. It's not something that interests me -- RPP's superb colorimetric accuracy is why I use it -- but I understand that it does a very, very good job at emulating all sorts of favorite film stocks.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## sandymandy (Apr 18, 2013)

SwissBear said:


> (Some presets that try to imitate all these films would be nice  )



There you go: http://vsco.co/film


----------



## Pi (Apr 18, 2013)

You are basically out of luck. Images taken from cameras and printed or displayed on monitors simply cannot match what we see. Theoretically, they could, but this requires color filters in the Bayer sensor, and pixels on your monitor which well match the human vision. 

What the camera records is a 3D projection of an image with infinite dimensional spectrum. Your eyes see a different projection. There are still better and worse RAW converters, of course, but you can never make it even close to perfect.

The worst of all is that you may see two objects as being of same color in one light, and different in another (metamers). So the object you want to shoot has a color depending on the lighting, really. I am not talking just about WB.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 18, 2013)

Pi said:


> You are basically out of luck. Images taken from cameras and printed or displayed on monitors simply cannot match what we see. Theoretically, they could, but this requires color filters in the Bayer sensor, and pixels on your monitor which well match the human vision.



While it is true that no camera _actually_ satisfies the Luther Condition, it is also true that all modern cameras come pretty close. They're all plenty good enough for all but the most exotic multispectral work...and, even then, you can still use them for multispectral imaging by shooting multiple frames through a series of carefully-selected (but standard off-the-shelf) filters and feeding the results to the right kind of software.



> There are still better and worse RAW converters, of course, but you can never make it even close to perfect.



Utterly false. I regularly make giclée prints using a 5DIII and an iPF8100 that the artists have to look carefully at to be able to distinguish copy from original. Perfect? No -- of course not. But damned close.



> The worst of all is that you may see two objects as being of same color in one light, and different in another (metamers). So the object you want to shoot has a color depending on the lighting, really. I am not talking just about WB.



You're referring to metamerismic failures, and those are rarely significant in practice. It's almost never of any concern in general photographic scenes. When it comes to fine art reproduction, the artist generally knows up front that the pigments exhibit significant amounts of metamerismic shifts and will know that nothing but that actual pigment will function the same way. Then it's a simple choice: either you shoot the artwork under your standard studio conditions and profile to D50 as normal for a good all-purpose choice; you shoot under the known intended viewing conditions and profile to those conditions for a print only intended to be displayed in said conditions; or you shoot as normal and profile to D50 as normal and hand the print back to the artist for hand-application of the special pigment. The same applies, of course, to iridescent, metallic, fluorescent, and other special colorants / materials / whatever.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Pi (Apr 18, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> While it is true that no camera actually satisfies the Luther Condition, it is also true that all modern cameras come pretty close. They're all plenty good enough for all but the most exotic multispectral work...and, even then, you can still use them for multispectral imaging by shooting multiple frames through a series of carefully-selected (but standard off-the-shelf) filters and feeding the results to the right kind of software.


Right. As I said, you get a 3D projection. When you use filters, you increase the number of the dimensions. 


> Utterly false. I regularly make giclée prints using a 5DIII and an iPF8100 that the artists have to look carefully at to be able to distinguish copy from original. Perfect? No -- of course not. But damned close.


Then I wonder how come something that you can do in your office cannot be achieved by multinational companies worth billion of dollars? Why is that no two bodies have the same color rendering with whatever software? 


> You're referring to metamerismic failures, and those are rarely significant in practice. It's almost never of any concern in general photographic scenes.


You could not be more wrong. Take a picture in daylight of something with many colors, including sensitive to the eye, like skin tones. Next, do it in artificial light. Use a gray card. The color will not match. Use a Nikon, and the colors will be different. Wait, how can this be true if "all modern cameras come pretty close"? Look at the DXO measurements. Different bodies have very different color filters. They even measure how close they are to the human vision, and the numbers are different. Nikon are known for troubles with skin tones, Canon - with blues. Why would that be true?


> When it comes to fine art reproduction, the artist generally knows up front that the pigments exhibit significant amounts of metamerismic shifts and will know that nothing but that actual pigment will function the same way. Then it's a simple choice: either you shoot the artwork under your standard studio conditions and profile to D50 as normal for a good all-purpose choice; you shoot under the known intended viewing conditions and profile to those conditions for a print only intended to be displayed in said conditions; or you shoot as normal and profile to D50 as normal and hand the print back to the artist for hand-application of the special pigment. The same applies, of course, to iridescent, metallic, fluorescent, and other special colorants / materials / whatever.



You just confirmed what I said. The colors recorded by the camera change, and simple WB would not fix it. When you profile, you actually are trying to get the best approximation after the fact that you did have metamerismic shifts, and they were significant enough.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 18, 2013)

Pi said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > While it is true that no camera actually satisfies the Luther Condition, it is also true that all modern cameras come pretty close. They're all plenty good enough for all but the most exotic multispectral work...and, even then, you can still use them for multispectral imaging by shooting multiple frames through a series of carefully-selected (but standard off-the-shelf) filters and feeding the results to the right kind of software.
> ...



Because the popular raw development engines (including those built into the cameras that do the conversion to JPEG) aren't attempting colorimetric renditions. They're going for "pleasing" color, with everybody tuning their algorithms for their own special sauce.

What, you thought all those different picture styles were random flailings at trying for colorimetric accuracy?



> > You're referring to metamerismic failures, and those are rarely significant in practice. It's almost never of any concern in general photographic scenes.
> 
> 
> You could not be more wrong. Take a picture in daylight of something with many colors, including sensitive to the eye, like skin tones. Next, do it in artificial light. Use a gray card. The color will not match.



If your gray card isn't matching, you've got the worst gray card ever manufactured.

But you also don't understand what the Luther Condition is, either. A camera that meets the Luther Condition will render metamerismic shifts the same way your eyes do. So the fact that the cameras display the same reaction to metamerism as your eyes just goes to further prove my point.

Cameras are not meant to be spectroscopic instruments. They're designed to model human vision, and they do a damned fine job of it.

If you're not able to get quality colorimetric results from your gear, it's your problem. Your gear is quite well up to the task, I assure you. Granted, it's not something you can do with the software that comes in the box, and it's not something many people care about so the knowledge of how to do it isn't common. But it most definitely is possible with common off-the-shelf equipment.

b&


----------



## Pi (Apr 18, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Because the popular raw development engines (including those built into the cameras that do the conversion to JPEG) aren't attempting colorimetric renditions. They're going for "pleasing" color, with everybody tuning their algorithms for their own special sauce.
> 
> What, you thought all those different picture styles were random flailings at trying for colorimetric accuracy?



They are different optimizations with different parameters. You would think that each company would offer at least one "colormetric accurate" profile, right? Actually, they are trying.

Since you cannot have color accuracy, going for pleasant colors is the right thing to do. 


> If your gray card isn't matching, you've got the worst gray card ever manufactured.



You did not understand what I said. The gray card might be perfect, you camera's filters are not. Not to mention your monitor or the inks of your printer.


> But you also don't understand what the Luther Condition is, either. A camera that meets the Luther Condition will render metamerismic shifts the same way your eyes do. So the fact that the cameras display the same reaction to metamerism as your eyes just goes to further prove my point.


Too bad such cameras do not exist, proving my point. Canon's red filter, for example, is much close to the human one than Nikon's. etc. 5D's blue filter is much cleaner than 7D's, one, etc. 


> Cameras are not meant to be spectroscopic instruments. They're designed to model human vision, and they do a damned fine job of it.
> 
> If you're not able to get quality colorimetric results from your gear, it's your problem. Your gear is quite well up to the task, I assure you. Granted, it's not something you can do with the software that comes in the box, and it's not something many people care about so the knowledge of how to do it isn't common. But it most definitely is possible with common off-the-shelf equipment.



Sure. Go to IR, download their RAWs and try to match the colors of different cameras. Good luck. And that is not even close to reality, where lighting changes. 

Why don't you do the experiment I suggested: same scene with different lighting? If you are right, a simple tweak of the WB would match the colors perfectly.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 18, 2013)

Pi said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Because the popular raw development engines (including those built into the cameras that do the conversion to JPEG) aren't attempting colorimetric renditions. They're going for "pleasing" color, with everybody tuning their algorithms for their own special sauce.
> ...



Worng. Very, very worng.

Nobody wants colorimetric accuracy save for those doing fine art reproduction, and those of us doing that kind of work don't need any hand-holding from the manufacturers.



> Actually, they are trying.



ORLY? They are?

Show me just one canned picture style / whatever from just one manufacturer that doesn't have an S-curve applied after gamma adjustments.

Dude, they're not even pretending to try. Because that's not what their customers want.



> Since you cannot have color accuracy, going for pleasant colors is the right thing to do.



No. You can have color accuracy, if you know what you're doing. I do that all the time. As I've already written, the artists whose work I reproduce have to look carefully and study the print in a side-by-side comparison to be able to spot the differences.

Going for "pleasing" colors is the right thing to do for the major manufacturers because that's what their customers are demanding.



> Sure. Go to IR, download their RAWs and try to match the colors of different cameras.



Why on Earth would I waste my time on such a fool's errand?

That's not how colorimetric work is done. That you think that that's how it's done more than amply demonstrates that you have no clue about what you're talking about.

Have any camera you like delivered to my studio along with any samples you like of artwork that doesn't contain fluorescent / iridescent / metallic / _etc._ pigments and, for my standard fees, I'll return the camera and artwork along with a print that's a very close colorimetric match within the limits of the iPF8100's (rather large) gamut. If the prints will be evaluated in non-standard viewing conditions, I'll need a proper spectrophotometric reading of those conditions, such as what can be obtained with an i1 Pro in ambient measurement mode. The measurement must be in GCATS format and the instrument must be in the same position as the print will be viewed in.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Pi (Apr 19, 2013)

The "discussion" degenerated too much. I am done.


----------

