topic Re: DPP vs LR question in Camera Software

DPP vs LR question

stevewhis — Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:43:41 GMT

when I look at the same image (RAW with no processing changes) in the latest versions of both Lightroom and DPP, there is noticeably less noise in the image when viewed on DPP. Is that to be expected? I'm wondering if DPP applies some noise reduction as a default setting?

Re: DPP vs LR question

Waddizzle — Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:21:42 GMT

Both software packages can apply camera profiles and color profiles to a RAW file.

As for your question, you will have to go into each package and carefully compare their default settings. Typically, LR does not apply any processing to any imported files, not unless you configure a "preset" to be applied during Import.

Re: DPP vs LR question

TCampbell — Sun, 22 Jan 2017 22:15:35 GMT

This is normal. The good news is nothing is broken.

RAW images require some processing before they can be displayed... much in the same way that "film" had to be developed and printed (and you could vary the processing steps and get different results.)

If you attempted to display the data in a RAW file with no processing, then what you'd end up with is an image that looks like a mosaic or red, green, and blue squares (each square is just a single color channel - not blended colors) but they'd all be different brightness levels. Each "pixel" is technically called a "photo-site" because they only have single channel color values for each spot. A true "pixel" has a red, green, and blue color component to it and the combine to make a blended color. RAW files don't have blended colors (at least not until they are processed.)

Software then has to "de-mosaic" the data (sometimes called "de-bayering" becuse the color filter array used in the camera is commonly called a "Bayer mask"). Each photo-site is compared to it's neighboring photo-sites to determine what the combined color value should be for that spot and the photo-site is converted into a pixel.

It turns out there are a lot of different algorithms that can be used to handle the de-mosaicing process. So if you were take the same RAW file and feed it into two different software applications that deal with RAW images, you wont actually get the same result.

In addition to the de-mosaicing process (which can vary) there's also the notion of a camera & lens profile.

The camera automatically applies some adjustment to every JPEG photo that you shoot. But it does not apply any adjustment to the RAW data. Straight out of the camera... a JPEG photo usually looks better (but a RAW will ultimately look better once it's been adjusted on the computer.)

Since most of the changes that are required are the same changes for every image, software that prcoesses RAW images tend to use a camera and/or lens "profile". This is basically a standard set of adjustments that will automatically be applied to every image that you import (and you can override these profiles... the changes are not "destructive" in that they wont get rid of your original data.)

What you're noticing are difference in the Lightroom default profile vs. the Canon DPP default profile.

Re: DPP vs LR question

stevewhis — Sun, 22 Jan 2017 22:41:13 GMT

thanks much - that helps a lot!

Re: DPP vs LR question

RobertTheFat — Thu, 09 Mar 2017 22:53:00 GMT

@stevewhis wrote:
when I look at the same image (RAW with no processing changes) in the latest versions of both Lightroom and DPP, there is noticeably less noise in the image when viewed on DPP. Is that to be expected? I'm wondering if DPP applies some noise reduction as a default setting?

DPP does; I can't speak for LR because I've never used it. But if you shoot in RAW mode, you can increase it or back it off in either editor without compromising the image quality.

Re: DPP vs LR question

digital — Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:41:38 GMT

DPP auto applies NR unless you disable it in the preferences. LR just applies Colour noise at a default of 25. I took a series of shots at ISO 100, 200, 400, 800 and so on. I adjusted the Liminance noise for each file based omn on the ISO and then used the Set Default Settings command for each file. I also added custom sharpenig, masking adjustmets, etc. Now that all auto applies when import a folder into LR.

Re: DPP vs LR question

Mitsubishiman — Sun, 19 Mar 2017 16:59:56 GMT

The real advantage to DPP is Canon typically introduces Lens Profiles first for their products, for example LR still does not have a profile for the 16-35 f2.8L Series III, although you can get close with the other 16-35 corrections, it is still not a true lens profile for that lens.

The second advantage is once you have applied the profile you can save the RAW file and the data file reamins and then if you are more compfortable with LR you can then import and take over there.

Re: DPP vs LR question

RobertTheFat — Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:35:12 GMT

@Mitsubishiman wrote:
The real advantage to DPP is Canon typically introduces Lens Profiles first for their products, for example LR still does not have a profile for the 16-35 f2.8L Series III, although you can get close with the other 16-35 corrections, it is still not a true lens profile for that lens.

The second advantage is once you have applied the profile you can save the RAW file and the data file reamins and then if you are more compfortable with LR you can then import and take over there.

The original data does remain, but I don't think LR can see the changes you've already made in DPP. (In fact, DPP 4 can't even see the changes you've made in DPP 3.) So it's more like a do-over than a takeover.

Re: DPP vs LR question

Mitsubishiman — Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:55:14 GMT

You can export RAW in DPP and in the case of lens profile correction it does retain it, however you must export in order for the file to retain that information, LR will not recognize that it has been corrected.
I have compared the files by making a copy of the original RAW and examined them.

Re: DPP vs LR question

RobertTheFat — Sun, 19 Mar 2017 21:26:31 GMT

@Mitsubishiman wrote:
You can export RAW in DPP and in the case of lens profile correction it does retain it, however you must export in order for the file to retain that information, LR will not recognize that it has been corrected.
I have compared the files by making a copy of the original RAW and examined them.

How do you export a RAW file from DPP to LR? As far as I can see, the only export options (under either "Convert & Save" or "Batch Process") are JPEG and TIFF.

Re: DPP vs LR question

Mitsubishiman — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 03:15:35 GMT

You are correct there is not an actual export to: function.

I open the RAW File, apply the Lens Optimizer and any other changes (Usually Minimal) then click "Save As" then you are automatically prompted to save the same file in RAW Format, usually I alter the name of the file slightly because i always keep the original RAW File "AS IS" for a backup.

Then I import that file into LR, the lens correction has been saved in the "Save AS" File

I will probably continue this method on anything I really want to process until LR adds the Lens Correction Profile for my 16-35 f2.8L III

Remember I am not a professional photographer, I just understand file formats, the one thing that always amazed me about DPP is after processing the file size (Jpeg) is considerably larger than in LR, I am in the process of switching computers to an extremely high end machine with a 5K monitor, I will post process the same photo in DPP and in LR and compare the resolution by zooming way in, I shoot with a 5DsR and although the human eye (Especially Mine Lol) is not acute, aggressive cropping or zooming reveals the limitations of any shot.

So the real question will be, does DPP retain more data in the conversion than LR, the final file size in a DPP converted Jpeg is considerably larger than LR, however is it really different, it's like comparing a dual RAW/JPEG shot, the processed RAW will contain much more detail.

Whether or not the equation of file size equals an increase in detail will always be a topic discussion, my eyes are just not what they used to be...

Re: DPP vs LR question

RobertTheFat — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:15:39 GMT

@Mitsubishiman wrote:
You are correct there is not an actual export to: function.

I open the RAW File, apply the Lens Optimizer and any other changes (Usually Minimal) then click "Save As" then you are automatically prompted to save the same file in RAW Format, usually I alter the name of the file slightly because i always keep the original RAW File "AS IS" for a backup.

Then I import that file into LR, the lens correction has been saved in the "Save AS" File

I will probably continue this method on anything I really want to process until LR adds the Lens Correction Profile for my 16-35 f2.8L III

Remember I am not a professional photographer, I just understand file formats, the one thing that always amazed me about DPP is after processing the file size (Jpeg) is considerably larger than in LR, I am in the process of switching computers to an extremely high end machine with a 5K monitor, I will post process the same photo in DPP and in LR and compare the resolution by zooming way in, I shoot with a 5DsR and although the human eye (Especially Mine Lol) is not acute, aggressive cropping or zooming reveals the limitations of any shot.

So the real question will be, does DPP retain more data in the conversion than LR, the final file size in a DPP converted Jpeg is considerably larger than LR, however is it really different, it's like comparing a dual RAW/JPEG shot, the processed RAW will contain much more detail.

Whether or not the equation of file size equals an increase in detail will always be a topic discussion, my eyes are just not what they used to be...

That is very interesting. I was altogether unaware that DPP treated lens correction information differently from the way it treats user-originated changes. If that's documented anywhere, I surely missed it. I applaud your detective work and look forward to hearing about whatever additional nuggets of information you're able to unearth.

Re: DPP vs LR question

digital — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:50:47 GMT

I kinds summarized my my thoughts about those two here. Last page, last post.

if you are comparing DLO to LR's detail tab which both are responsible for capture sharpening you need to turn DPP's sharpening off. If you don't you are not comparing apples to apples. LR export sharpening has no yet been appplied so DLO will look better. Actually Canon instructs to turn sharpening off before applying DLO.

If you turn DPP sharpening off then they look much closer and with carefull detial tab adjustments you can get real close. DLO does offer true deconvoltion whle LR/ACR applies USM so one needs to careful with the sharpening slider, the detail and masking siders that also effects your NR adjustments and that looks at the end.

http://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Software/Do-you-prefer-DPP-or-Lightroom/td-p/203300

Re: DPP vs LR question

Mitsubishiman — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:27:57 GMT

The real key is to comapre the file size in a "Save AS" file. after the Lens correction has been applied the file size will be different, the part that amazes me most is the ability to edit and save in RAW, not completly sure what the original motive is, I suppose like all software they each have there strong points, I wish I had more free time to experiment.

Re: DPP vs LR question

RobertTheFat — Tue, 21 Mar 2017 01:52:26 GMT

@Mitsubishiman wrote:
The real key is to comapre the file size in a "Save AS" file. after the Lens correction has been applied the file size will be different, the part that amazes me most is the ability to edit and save in RAW, not completly sure what the original motive is, I suppose like all software they each have there strong points, I wish I had more free time to experiment.

The motive is that as long as you're doing your editing in RAW, you don't lose any information. A conversion to JPEG inevitably costs you information. It also makes editing more difficult and less accurate. (I believe that conversion to TIFF doesn't cost you information, but TIFF files are enormous.)

Re: DPP vs LR question

Mitsubishiman — Tue, 21 Mar 2017 02:40:49 GMT

That they are, although I have lots of storage capacity and a good thing, the average RAW file from full resolution on the 5DsR is 65mb - 74mb
Even after processing they average 25mb so there are very few sites I can upload full size to, 500px is about the only one that will accept.
I am well versed in tiff format, all of the aerial photography I utilize at work start out as a . ECW or. SID format (highly compressed) and then after choosing the area I need they are exported to a GeoTIFF, the only difference from a TIFF is a coordinate file that is created for geographic insertion into Autocad, an aerial of one square mile at 6inch pixel resolution converted to full tiff resolution is 1.2gb

Re: DPP vs LR question

kvbarkley — Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:35:08 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:

The motive is that as long as you're doing your editing in RAW, you don't lose any information. A conversion to JPEG inevitably costs you information. It also makes editing more difficult and less accurate. (I believe that conversion to TIFF doesn't cost you information, but TIFF files are enormous.)

I wouldn't bet on that. Anything that rewrites the RAW data has a potential for loss of information. Especially pixel mungers like DLO. Admittedly, you would have the same loss if you do it in-camera, but still...

Re: DPP vs LR question

RobertTheFat — Tue, 21 Mar 2017 20:16:22 GMT

@kvbarkley wrote:
@RobertTheFat wrote:
The motive is that as long as you're doing your editing in RAW, you don't lose any information. A conversion to JPEG inevitably costs you information. It also makes editing more difficult and less accurate. (I believe that conversion to TIFF doesn't cost you information, but TIFF files are enormous.)
I wouldn't bet on that. Anything that rewrites the RAW data has a potential for loss of information. Especially pixel mungers like DLO. Admittedly, you would have the same loss if you do it in-camera, but still...

Yes, the current context of this discussion is that changes introduced by DLO, unlike all other changes made to a RAW file in DPP, are apparently irreversible.

Re: DPP vs LR question

visualpauses — Sat, 03 Feb 2018 15:53:33 GMT

I'm also vexed with the lack of any option to export Raw data from DPP. The closest we get is a TIFF bitmap.

That is a consolation only if you are exporting 16-bit TIFFs. But those are monsters (size-wise).

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2011/09/26/are-tiffs-and-raws-really-the-same-thing/

There are many small differences that I see between DPP and LR. For e.g. the Shadows and highlights sliders in DPP have a much wider range of operation.

On the other hand, LR tools are easiur to use and the HDR tool is excellent.

Even the "Export to Photoshop" converts to TIFFwhen handing off to PS.

The last option is to export to TIFF, then import to LR, then convert to DNG to save some space.

Wonder when Canon will support either RAW or DNG Export??

Re: DPP vs LR question

Waddizzle — Sat, 03 Feb 2018 21:36:17 GMT

No one supports DNG, except Adobe. Once converted to that format, there is no going back.