# LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!



## MattBicePhotography (May 1, 2012)

So I read in the EOS bodies for stills forum that DPP handles the RAW files far better than light room. So to test this, I took this photo outside of my apartment with a bright texas sun off of white rocks and a nice dark shadow in the covered hallway. I opened the photo with DPP and just saved it to Full tilt TIFF. I then opened the photo in CS5.5 and Duplicated the background layer. On this new layer I adjust the shadows and highlights to 100% on the shadow slider. I also brightened the "X" even further using the dodge tool set to shadows and 100 exposure.

Let me blow your mind a little.







AND......







obviously these could not have been taken by a 5D3............. : : :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbicephotography/ here is my photostream so you can go look at the pictures at full size. I think LR4.1 RC certainly works better with Nikon.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 1, 2012)

I realize there is some slight banding in that shadow but, It is really pushed up quite a bit. Let me try the same thing in light room.


Don't get me wrong. The Nikon is amazing and I am certainly feeling some gear envy but, I think the lack of a good converter has really hurt Canon. I read, in the luminous landscape review I believe, that the D800 and LR4 are a match made in heaven, I can't say the same about the 5D3 and LR4.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 1, 2012)

Err... is this the same camera we know and love ???

If it turns out that LR is the problem with DR in the 5d3 (and Canons before it?) then we need to throw our weight on Adobe to find out what the problem is. I know for sure there's NO WAY I could push anywhere near that amount out of the shadows on the 5d2. I now wonder if it's LR or the cameras!?

(and I've always loved LR so much  )


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 1, 2012)

Can I ask a question: do you get the same result if you push the exposure in DPP rather than using shadows in Photoshop? 

Can you try pushing the exposure in DPP and LR by a similar amount and posting a 100% crop of an area that's very dark?

This is VERY interesting!


----------



## Viggo (May 1, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Err... is this the same camera we know and love ???
> 
> If it turns out that LR is the problem with DR in the 5d3 (and Canons before it?) then we need to throw our weight on Adobe to find out what the problem is. I know for sure there's NO WAY I could push anywhere near that amount out of the shadows on the 5d2. I now wonder if it's LR or the cameras!?
> 
> (and I've always loved LR so much  )



+1! I certainly hope that this hasn't been a problem with earlier Canon's and that they will do a very thourough fix with the acr supporting 5d3. I can't ever start to use DPP, it's like wiping your a$$ with the other hand suddenly...


----------



## skitron (May 1, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Err... is this the same camera we know and love ???
> 
> If it turns out that LR is the problem with DR in the 5d3 (and Canons before it?) then we need to throw our weight on Adobe to find out what the problem is. I know for sure there's NO WAY I could push anywhere near that amount out of the shadows on the 5d2. I now wonder if it's LR or the cameras!?
> 
> (and I've always loved LR so much  )



I get very pleasing results pushing shadows using Capture One 6. I saw that stuff on the FM site and as a result tested and I don't get all that trash in the shadows with 5D2 and Capture One 6. I also did shadow recovery on a very problematic shot from a 60D and no problems with it either.


----------



## skitron (May 1, 2012)

Viggo said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > Err... is this the same camera we know and love ???
> ...



You might want to download the Capture One demo...


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 1, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Can I ask a question: do you get the same result if you push the exposure in DPP rather than using shadows in Photoshop?
> 
> Can you try pushing the exposure in DPP and LR by a similar amount and posting a 100% crop of an area that's very dark?
> 
> This is VERY interesting!



Here is one from LR4.1 RC, DPP doesnt let me push just the shadows that far, or at least that I could figure out quickly.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 1, 2012)

I think Canon owes Skitron and I some free gear!(I got the idea from a post about capture one Skitron made in another thread.) Maybe a full line of lenses?? ;D


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 1, 2012)

I think we should all club together and buy you a set 

If it turns out LR is at fault, I'm going to very VERY grumpily report a bug!!!!!!!!


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 1, 2012)

Is this with LR 4.1 RC1? Or LR 4.1 RC2 that came out a short while ago?


----------



## skitron (May 1, 2012)

MattBicePhotography said:


> I think Canon owes Skitron and I some free gear!(I got the idea from a post about capture one Skitron made in another thread.) Maybe a full line of lenses?? ;D



Sounds good to me, but I ain't holdin my breath for it...


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 1, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> Is this with LR 4.1 RC1? Or LR 4.1 RC2 that came out a short while ago?


Interesting, I don't think I got wind of that. Let me check it out and update if necessary.


----------



## Viggo (May 1, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> Is this with LR 4.1 RC1? Or LR 4.1 RC2 that came out a short while ago?



As far as I can tell, both. And that is probably because Lr is updated for bugs, but ACR is still the same version.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 2, 2012)

Out of interest, I wonder what dxo is like? I presume they use their own engine for dxomark? Or have missed something?

Looks like they use the actual sensor data...


----------



## tomscott (May 2, 2012)

Great work! 8)

Really hoped this would be a reason.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 2, 2012)

In another thread it was brought to my attention that increasing luminance NR in LR does help quite a bit with the noise in the shadow.


----------



## unfocused (May 2, 2012)

Aren't you worried about getting arrested for that graffiti on the wall.


----------



## MrKorney (May 2, 2012)

I was wondering if anyone has any clue if Aperture has the same issue?


----------



## skitron (May 2, 2012)

MattBicePhotography said:


> In another thread it was brought to my attention that increasing luminance NR in LR does help quite a bit with the noise in the shadow.



Yes, in all fairness to Adobe, I found ACR to do a very nice job...if you play with the sliders. Which brings us back to the FM blog. The credibility flies out the window in my book when you post something like that based on *default* slider settings. I mean after all, it's a *slider* for a reason. Of course none of this diminishes the stellar performance of the D800 but it is just plain goofy IMO to post a blog like that.


----------



## JR (May 2, 2012)

Viggo said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > Err... is this the same camera we know and love ???
> ...



+2...i hate the workflow with dpp...really hoping for LR to fix their converter


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Out of interest, I wonder what dxo is like? I presume they use their own engine for dxomark? Or have missed something?
> 
> Looks like they use the actual sensor data...



They don't do any conversion at all, they take that element out of the equation, they just look at the RAW data as is without any sharpening or NR or demosaic or anything done to it at all.


----------



## cpsico (May 2, 2012)

DPP has always been far better for canon raws than lightroom in my opinion. I first came across that with my 40D.


----------



## mitchell3417 (May 2, 2012)

Let me be the idiot to say that I don't see the problem here. As a crop shooter I would love to bring that much out of the shadows.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 2, 2012)

mitchell3417 said:


> Let me be the idiot to say that I don't see the problem here. As a crop shooter I would love to bring that much out of the shadows.



Thats because there is no problem


----------



## AG (May 2, 2012)

MrKorney said:


> I was wondering if anyone has any clue if Aperture has the same issue?



Im wondering the same thing. Maybe someone that uses both LR4 and Aperture 3 can do the test and see.

If it does actually turn out to be the same as LR4 then it could prove to a degree that its a canon issue, if the results are not the same though it would suggest that it is a software issue. You get what i mean. 

Basically more tested platforms the more points of reference and a better chance of getting a definitive result.

We wait to see if anyone can be bothered.


----------



## c-law (May 2, 2012)

I have Aperture 3.

If Matt wants to put up the original Raw file from the original post then I'll happily have a little play around with it and post my results.

Chris


----------



## JustinTArthur (May 2, 2012)

What were the shot parameters in terms of sharpening and NR? DPP applies these automatically, so when the photo was processed and saved as TIFF/bitmap, this is effectively similar to applying NR in LR and exporting a TIFF back into the catalog before playing with it. Right? Don't mean to be pessimistic, just want to make sure I have the facts straight.

I cancelled my D800 order after seeing the low light video samples. Would love to see the 5DM3 excel at stills as well, but I'm cautious.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 2, 2012)

JustinTArthur said:


> What were the shot parameters in terms of sharpening and NR? DPP applies these automatically, so when the photo was processed and saved as TIFF/bitmap, this is effectively similar to applying NR in LR and exporting a TIFF back into the catalog before playing with it. Right? Don't mean to be pessimistic, just want to make sure I have the facts straight.
> 
> I cancelled my D800 order after seeing the low light video samples. Would love to see the 5DM3 excel at stills as well, but I'm cautious.



I can get some similar results out of LR with some messing with the luminance noise reduction. I will say I am still using LR to edit the photos over DPP because 99% of the time I am not pushing the shadows much and DPP is really crappy to use. banding does seem to be better using the DPP method.


----------



## Bosman (May 2, 2012)

Matt, very interesting stuff. I agree with another poster, put that original file up for everyone and let eople test it on their diff software programs to see which handles it best. I am also curious about Capture one and how it handles things as it is compatible with the 5dm3 and LR isn't really. Its been a month and a half and Adobe LR still can't get the 5dm3 images optimized...That's Bunk!


----------



## GL (May 2, 2012)

Guys as far as I know Canon still hasn't released the 5D3 SDK! Something weird is going on - all the delays, issues, etc. Best camera I've ever used but I can't shake the feeling Canon was waiting until August to release it until Nikon forced its hand. Never mind - at least the camera will get better with time


----------



## John Thomas (May 2, 2012)

Same very good results with Corel AfterShot Pro 1.0.1.10 which supports 5DMk3.

Raised the shadows till the max - no problem with shots at ISO 100 shoot in sun (contre-jour). Ok, for nit-pickers there is very very very low noise. And this without any other Noise Reduction/Post Processing adjustment.

But if one use one (or more) NR/PP engines from AfterShot the results are (almost) perfect - especially using Noise Ninja Lite and Perfectly Clear (both embedded in AfterShot).

Taking in account that it is a very good, very fast, mature and relatively cheap program (in fact it is the old Bibble 5 which Corel purchased) I'd recommend it over LR.

HTH


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 2, 2012)

I will put the Original Raw file up, but, I am not sure how to upload the actual .CR2. I have never had to do this, anyone wanna let me know?


----------



## Hesham (May 2, 2012)

MattBicePhotography said:


> So I read in the EOS bodies for stills forum that DPP handles the RAW files far better than light room. So to test this, I took this photo outside of my apartment with a bright texas sun off of white rocks and a nice dark shadow in the covered hallway. I opened the photo with DPP and just saved it to Full tilt TIFF. I then opened the photo in CS5.5 and Duplicated the background layer. On this new layer I adjust the shadows and highlights to 100% on the shadow slider. I also brightened the "X" even further using the dodge tool set to shadows and 100 exposure.
> 
> Let me blow your mind a little.
> 
> ...



Hope this turns 100% true, can't wait to get home & try it. I have been following the D800 DR threads with a frown  as thoughts of converting started to creep....

Thanks a million!! ;D ;D I'll focus now on getting my replacement 5DM3 with 70-200 2.8 (double rebate!!)


----------



## John Thomas (May 2, 2012)

MattBicePhotography said:


> I will put the Original Raw file up, but, I am not sure how to upload the actual .CR2. I have never had to do this, anyone wanna let me know?



1. Go to www.sendspace.com
2. Press "Browse"
3. Choose your file (press Ok + Upload)
4. Wait for the file to upload. At the end the site will give you a link. Press "Copy" to copy the link on the clipboard.
5. Paste the link here.

HTH


----------



## Bosman (May 2, 2012)

I just found this article that relates to the topic.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1205103502/extreme-contrast-edits-in-lightroom-4-and-acr-7

It is quite dramatic what is possible!


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 2, 2012)

I guess from my perspective, while I hope this is true, I'm not sure it will turn out to be. I do wonder whether DPP automatically adds a truck load of NR to the shadows for one thing...

Anyway, we'll see


----------



## spinworkxroy (May 2, 2012)

I see alot of debate with LR not being able to handle 5D3 raws well..and ACR seems to be the same.
However, for some reason i can't install DPP on my macbook..just doesn't run and i don't have LR4..i only have Aperture…i wonder if Aperture also suffers the same "softness" as LR and ACR?


----------



## Astro (May 2, 2012)

so has someone done a test with LR, DPP and Photoshop he can show?

i would like to see images with NR off and pushed shadows and the best result you could achive with tweaked NR.

im very curious to see if fredmirandas results where because of an flaw in LR or not.


----------



## gummyrabbit (May 2, 2012)

This isn't a very good test because you have nothing to compare it against. You need to take a D800 and do the same shot and run it through the same process. Then you'd be able to tell if the 5D3 DR is better or worse than the D800 and whether LR has bug that limits shadow recovery from the 5D3. Also, DXO tests do not use LR to measure DR. Finally don't tell me that LR did 5D2 files fine, but suddenly can't do 5D3 files properly.


----------



## JR (May 2, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> I see alot of debate with LR not being able to handle 5D3 raws well..and ACR seems to be the same.
> However, for some reason i can't install DPP on my macbook..just doesn't run and i don't have LR4..i only have Aperture…i wonder if Aperture also suffers the same "softness" as LR and ACR?



Did you try downloading the latest version of dpp for Mac from the Canon site? (version 26 I beleive)


----------



## JR (May 2, 2012)

Bosman said:


> I just found this article that relates to the topic.
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1205103502/extreme-contrast-edits-in-lightroom-4-and-acr-7
> 
> It is quite dramatic what is possible!



You are right that in theory it is prety amazing when you can do with LR4. The problem with LR4 at this time is that while it does support 5D mkIII file, it can yield soft image. So far only version 26 of DPP seem to be working fine with mkiii raw file.

I dont want to change my workflow and I am using LR4, so I am really crossing my finger for Adobe to update their RAW engine for the mkiii and the 1dx in their next issue.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 2, 2012)

gummyrabbit said:


> This isn't a very good test because you have nothing to compare it against. You need to take a D800 and do the same shot and run it through the same process. Then you'd be able to tell if the 5D3 DR is better or worse than the D800 and whether LR has bug that limits shadow recovery from the 5D3.



Comparing a 5d3 with a d800 would tell you nothing more than we already know - either the d800 is great or the d800 is great when processed through lr and the 5d3 isn't. 

To be able to tell anything, you'd need to run the 5d3 through dpp, which obviously it won't do.

I do wonder at the moment if it's not a case of noise reduction in the shadows. The shadows from the OP seem clean but fairly lacking in detail...


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 2, 2012)

gummyrabbit said:


> This isn't a very good test because you have nothing to compare it against. You need to take a D800 and do the same shot and run it through the same process.



this is not about the D800.. it´s about lightrooms RAW conversion of 5D MK3 files.


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 2, 2012)

so MattBice.... can you do the conversion in LR too?
to compare the noise in your image when processed with LR or DPP.

i will try it myself when im at home.. but there are still 6 hours of work ahead of me. :


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 2, 2012)

What I think we need is:

Processed in DPP with no NR
Processed in DPP with NR
Processed in LR with no NR
Processed in LR with NR

... so we can see the worst and best for each product.


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 2, 2012)

Here is the original file. Feel free to do what you like with it. I do think that some NR in LR seems to go a long way but the result is certainly different. Remember that I both increased the shadows in DPP AND PhotoShop, in the original comparison.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/nmt8y1


----------



## sparda79 (May 2, 2012)

ACR 6.7 (full release version) just become available


----------



## skitron (May 2, 2012)

MattBicePhotography said:


> Here is the original file. Feel free to do what you like with it. I do think that some NR in LR seems to go a long way but the result is certainly different. Remember that I both increased the shadows in DPP AND PhotoShop, in the original comparison.
> 
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/nmt8y1



I'll run it thru Capture One Pro 6 tonight and post the results.


----------



## Ivar (May 2, 2012)

This is LR (tried to go more neutral in color temp):







initial version by the OP:


----------



## Jamesy (May 2, 2012)

sparda79 said:


> ACR 6.7 (full release version) just become available



Thanks for posting this. What5 is the "Camera Raw 6.7 Plug-in Release Candidate"?

I have been using "DNG Converter 6.7" as a standalone App.

I run CS5 and LR3. Would the Camera Raw Plug-in work in LR3?


----------



## Jamesy (May 2, 2012)

Found my answer here: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4348227


----------



## TrumpetPower! (May 2, 2012)

I don't have time to post the pictures right now, but I did a quick test, as much of an extreme real-world one as I could think of that I'd ever want to do. I took a high-noon picture looking into a garden shed entirely in shadow. I exposed for the exterior, and underexposed by a couple stops. In DPP, after moving the exposure and shadow sliders all the way to the right, the interior of the shed was clean as a whistle. Even in Camera Raw, after boosting the exposure and shadows more than I'd ever want to do, it didn't take too much noise reduction to tame the noise.

If I have too much free time later, I might post some of it. But, as far as i'm concerned, all this nonsense about insufficient dynamic range is a tempest in a teapot. Get the exposure right and you'll be fine. Heck, get the exposure off by a stop or two and you'll be okay. There's more than enough clean information in there for any reasonable kind of post-processing. Any situation where you'd want more, you should have either done your job as a photographer to get better light on your subject or you should have shot HDR.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## MattBicePhotography (May 2, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> I don't have time to post the pictures right now, but I did a quick test, as much of an extreme real-world one as I could think of that I'd ever want to do. I took a high-noon picture looking into a garden shed entirely in shadow. I exposed for the exterior, and underexposed by a couple stops. In DPP, after moving the exposure and shadow sliders all the way to the right, the interior of the shed was clean as a whistle. Even in Camera Raw, after boosting the exposure and shadows more than I'd ever want to do, it didn't take too much noise reduction to tame the noise.
> 
> If I have too much free time later, I might post some of it. But, as far as i'm concerned, all this nonsense about insufficient dynamic range is a tempest in a teapot. Get the exposure right and you'll be fine. Heck, get the exposure off by a stop or two and you'll be okay. There's more than enough clean information in there for any reasonable kind of post-processing. Any situation where you'd want more, you should have either done your job as a photographer to get better light on your subject or you should have shot HDR.
> 
> ...



Well Said.


----------



## Tracy Pinto (May 2, 2012)

MattBicePhotography said:


> So I read in the EOS bodies for stills forum that DPP handles the RAW files far better than light room. So to test this, I took this photo outside of my apartment with a bright texas sun off of white rocks and a nice dark shadow in the covered hallway. I opened the photo with DPP and just saved it to Full tilt TIFF. I then opened the photo in CS5.5 and Duplicated the background layer. On this new layer I adjust the shadows and highlights to 100% on the shadow slider. I also brightened the "X" even further using the dodge tool set to shadows and 100 exposure.
> 
> Let me blow your mind a little.
> 
> ...




I maybe missing something but the spray painted writing on the wall in the background seems to continue perfectly on the post and downspout in the foreground. How did this happen? Was that supposed to be your copyright added later?


----------



## Bosman (May 2, 2012)

Ivar said:


> This is LR (tried to go more neutral in color temp):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The altered white balance looks more true now as far as what you mean by going more neutral.....


----------



## VirtualRain (May 3, 2012)

So I'm confused... is LR causing issues with pulling shadows or not?


----------



## te4o (May 3, 2012)

AFAIK Aperture 3 does the same nonsense to the RAWs as everyone here is complaining about. Sharpness is better than the initial DPP but push-shadows is not very impressive. 

I am curious what you guys will recommend by the end of this day!


----------



## Bosman (May 3, 2012)

Here is my version adobe camera raw, and the settings used. I did nothing to the white balance but to tell you the truth my color calibrated monitor looks much better. I assume this would look better in Safari because they have a true color accurate setting in the browser unlike many others. Yes there was banding noise in the shadows but it was slight and went away quickly when i changed up the noise reduction with Luminance. Now the suggested edge the nikon D800 has is not so much as it seems. I wouldn't have taken too many photos with this scenario it would be all sun or all shade in the shot. so lifting shadows isn't too critical for what i do but that said my second shooter shot a couple majorly underexposed and it was too dark to bring things back but then she shoots Sony...
The top image is with CS5 Camera Raw 6.7, it looks un-natural and extra saturated whereas the same settings in LR 4 were used in the bottom image.
Aperture really made the shadows wack! It got a black pixelated and looked weird but the color auto adjusted ot a more natural color which i liked. at 4.690 k for temp and -8 for tint, whereas the LR and ACR 6.7 both were showing 4800 temp +5 tint.
Sorry, i saved them 800px wide with 120dpi. If you absolutely need large files just PM me i'l run it again and save them full size.
LR4 did good CS5, i don't know what happened...maybe because it was a 2010 adobe file instead of 2012 idk...


----------



## Bosman (May 3, 2012)

Here is the Aperture 3.2.3 edited version.


----------



## VirtualRain (May 4, 2012)

Here's what I was able to do with Aperture 3.2.3... differing from above in the use of the "Black Point" adjustment to eliminate the crushed blacks in the corner, a slight bump in exposure to move the whole histogram to the right slightly, and the shadow "Radius" adjustment to eliminate the dark shadow transition/halo effect, and a slight white balance adjustment to give it a more neutral tone.

I didn't even come close to maxing out the shadow slider... there's still plenty of room to move here, but the contrast starts to suffer.

I then used a dodge brush on top of all this to write my alias.

Bottom line, there is WAAAY more dynamic range in these RAW's than I ever thought possible. 






Larger size: http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v45/p611876565.jpg






Here's a 100% crop of the dark corner area...




Larger size: http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v38/p744623374.png

Here's the same area after applying Nik Dfine NR and a tad bit of sharpening...




Larger size: http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v41/p562140851.png

Matt... you need to sweep the walk!


----------



## edawg (May 4, 2012)

I have my own technique which I think really maxes out shadow recovery from raw files. I have been using this for years since my digital rebel days, although I'm sure some of you have better/more efficient methods. This usually takes 20min or so of work and involves creating 3 different exposures from the raw and applying noise reduction to the mid and over exposed files. Then you stitch the 3 exposures together using hdr software or photoshop. Then I'll usually blend that in with the original file.

Anyway I rarely do this because it's work intensive but I was curious about the 5D III after reading this. Here are my results:

Original raw, saved as full sized tiff, resized and converted to jpg in photoshop. Not edited at all:





shadow recovery technique applied:





There is some loss of detail in the ferns but not bad considering the shadows were basically entirely black in the original shot. This technique works well; In the past I've even been able to extract some pretty crazy shadows from the rebel at 1600 ISO and clean it up. Even when shadow recovery is not needed, I've found this method to be useful for noise reduction while maintaining detail.

What's disappointing about all this is it proves beyond doubt that the data is there - it can be used but it seems the current photo processing software still is unable to give us a slider of some sort that will do all this automatically. I'll probably write up a detailed how-to on this soon for anyone interested. In the meantime I'll keep using this method and I'm glad to know the 5d III has this kind of DR, not that I was gonna use it anyway. Because let's be honest, if you need more dr than this you probably kind of suck at taking pictures. 8)


----------



## te4o (May 4, 2012)

I tried to use three different RAW converters on a 10000 RAW from today: focused not on shadow detail but on noise. 
I find in terms of IQ ACR 6.7 > DPP (latest) > Aperture 3.2.3


----------



## te4o (May 4, 2012)

After viewing the jpeg I uploaded I see that there is no way anyone can tell a big difference. Well, let me describe: 
135/2 at 2, School hall, darkish, Shutter 1/250, ISO 10.000, import in Aperture: strong grainy noise, no shadow lift possible. After RAW de-noise: no big improvement. 
Import into DPP: cleaner with luminance 16, croma 10, sharpness 3, much cleaner than Aperture. 
Import into ACR 6.7 (latest): after noise adjustments - best possible outcome. Shadow adjustment possible but still limited (ISO 10000!)
Now I need someone to explain to me how to batch-process in ACR...  This is the first time I used it! Up till now I just shot standard pictures with max ISO 400 ... or 800 at most. This camera makes me want to stretch the time!


----------



## rushmore77 (May 4, 2012)

VirtualRain said:


> Here's what I was able to do with Aperture 3.2.3... differing from above in the use of the "Black Point" adjustment to eliminate the crushed blacks in the corner, a slight bump in exposure to move the whole histogram to the right slightly, and the shadow "Radius" adjustment to eliminate the dark shadow transition/halo effect, and a slight white balance adjustment to give it a more neutral tone.
> 
> I didn't even come close to maxing out the shadow slider... there's still plenty of room to move here, but the contrast starts to suffer.
> 
> ...



Hello VirtualRain,
I just wanted to make sure before I get too excited. So please correct me if I am wrong, 

So in terms of dealing with dark areas, Lightroom is bad for CR2 files right ?
and we should use DPP or Aperture instead. Correct ?


----------



## skitron (May 4, 2012)

VirtualRain said:


> I didn't even come close to maxing out the shadow slider...
> 
> Bottom line, there is WAAAY more dynamic range in these RAW's than I ever thought possible.



I suppose coming from a sound background and working with mixing boards makes me exceedingly comfortable messing with sliders, in fact my biggest discomfort is *not* moving sliders...

All to say that most of the softs out there are going to be capable of rendering very good results if you learn to use them properly. And the supposed "5D3 shadow problem" simply is a non-issue. Heck I get great results with my 5D2 and even with my 50D.

Which brings me back to the utter goofiness of the Fred Miranda blog on this subject. Granted he was also working with a preview version of LR that is now known to be problematic, but the entire premise to make a comparison based on *default* slider settings is pure goofiness and of absolutely no value to anyone. Plus as we've seen it is extremely misleading until folks dig in and find the truth.

And this is not to diminish the stellar performance of the D800, but to put things into perspective.


----------



## VirtualRain (May 4, 2012)

rushmore77 said:


> Hello VirtualRain,
> I just wanted to make sure before I get too excited. So please correct me if I am wrong,
> 
> So in terms of dealing with dark areas, Lightroom is bad for CR2 files right ?
> and we should use DPP or Aperture instead. Correct ?



As *skitron* says above... the fact is that all of the RAW converters used in this thread (including LR) are able to get amazing detail out of the darkest shadows revealing an awesome dynamic range on the 5D3 and debunking bullsh1t that says otherwise.

Use the RAW editor you know best.

The title of this thread should be changed to "Unable to get good DR out of your 5D3?... learn how to use your RAW editor!"


----------



## kjetilh (May 4, 2012)

Dear all,

I'm new to this forum, and I am also fairly new to the art of photography. I do appologize if I haven't yet picked up on the "social rules" governing the forum--I've tried to read up a bit in advance so that I'd be somewhat prepared. I will learn the code, just please be a bit patient with me to start with.

Anyways, even though my skillset is no match for this crowd I still want to try to hang around to learn from you guys. I'm the proud (and happy ) owner of a 5DM3, and I'm trying to wrap my head around the chatter on the raw processors out there. I've understood (as this thread points out) that one can get a long way in shadow recovery with quite a few of the processors out there. What I'm wondering is if you guys have made any new discoveries regarding the softness of the pictures produced by the new Adobe 2012 raw engine (LR 4.1 RC)? I've seen some example images from a similar thread showing that LR produces sharper images from the 5DM2 compared to 5DM3, but when using DPP (Canon software) the sharpness from 5DM3 is stellar.

I would do comparisons myself, but I wanted to check with the crowd's experience first.

Cheers!


----------



## edawg (May 4, 2012)

The new DPP fixed the softness issues. If you don't already have version 3.11.26, just go here to download: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii#DriversAndSoftware

The images seem plenty sharp in the other raw converters, and the new DPP is sharp as well.


----------

