Does DPP 4.8.30.0 Automatically Apply Sharpening and Other Image Improvements ?

[Philomath]

Hello Everyone,

I recently purchased an 80D and 100mm f/2.8 IS L lens and am testing them.

I have also loaded Canon Digital Photo Professional 4.8.30.0 and am learning it.

Please help me to understand what I am observing.

My version of Photoshop is ancient, 5.5

When I open a jpeg in Photoshop 5.5 and open the same jpeg in DPP, the jpeg appears sharper and has better colors in DPP on the screen.  Is this because of the age of my version of Photoshop or does DPP apply, by default, tweaks for sharpening, color saturation, contrast, etc. ?

Also I have been taking my test shots in RAW + JPEG at maximum file resolution and maximum size.

When I open the raw file in DPP and open the jpeg in DPP and compare them, the raw file appears sharper and has better colors on the screen. Does DPP apply, by default, tweaks for sharpening, color saturation, contrast, etc. to the raw file ?

I am trying to figure out if what I am seeing is enhancement by the software, or just better image quality in the raw file vs the jpeg.

Thanks for any guidance you can offer.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Philomath wrote:

When I open a jpeg in Photoshop 5.5 and open the same jpeg in DPP, the jpeg appears sharper and has better colors in DPP on the screen.  Is this because of the age of my version of Photoshop or does DPP apply, by default, tweaks for sharpening, color saturation, contrast, etc. ?

Also I have been taking my test shots in RAW + JPEG at maximum file resolution and maximum size.

When I open the raw file in DPP and open the jpeg in DPP and compare them, the raw file appears sharper and has better colors on the screen. Does DPP apply, by default, tweaks for sharpening, color saturation, contrast, etc. to the raw file ?

---

To answer your first question, it is likely that PS is using a different color space than DPP to reproduce the image.

JPEG files have less dynamic range, only 8 bits per pixel, compared to a RAW file.  JPEG files are also compressed, which can dampen the details.  

Every photo processing software has a set of default settings that can be applied to imported images.  Adobe PS is an image editor, which is geared towards nuts and bolts image editing.  Canon DPP is more like Adobe LR, which is a digital darkroom for converting RAW  “digital negatives” into JPEG “digital prints”.

[Philomath]

Thank you for your reply Waddizzle.

So if I understand what you wrote, what I am seeing is:

1. My old Photoshop does not reproduce the jpeg the same way as DPP. That is why they appear different.

and

2. There is more detail in the RAW file than the jpeg. That is why the RAW file displays better in appearance.

But I am still wondering, does DPP automatically apply any enhancement when you first open the image file,

or if you do not initiate any changes, is the image file unchanged from its original values if you have only just opened it for display?

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Philomath wrote:

Thank you for your reply Waddizzle.

So if I understand what you wrote, what I am seeing is:

1. My old Photoshop does not reproduce the jpeg the same way as DPP. That is why they appear different.

and

2. There is more detail in the RAW file than the jpeg. That is why the RAW file displays better in appearance.

But I am still wondering, does DPP automatically apply any enhancement when you first open the image file,

or if you do not initiate any changes, is the image file unchanged from its original values if you have only just opened it for display?

---

The answer is yes, it does do some sharpening, applies default or pre-selected white balance and "picture style", etc. But you're putting the cart before the horse. You have to open up some pictures and the "tool palate", look to see what you have, apply some edits, and contemplate their effects. And you need to read the manual. Learning to use a new photo editor is an involved process with a lot of trial and error, and the questions you're asking represent only the tip of a very large iceberg. Some of it is not very intuitive, and you're not going to master it in a few hours.

It doesn't appear to me that you fully understood Waddizzle's answers to your questions, so read up on color spaces (or gamuts) before you get too far down the road. The observed differences between what you see in DPP and what you see in Photoshop may be less reality than a reflection of the method of display. Your statement no. 1 above is superficially correct, but there's more to it than that.

[Philomath]

I think my question is not being understood and I apologize if I am not expressing myself well.

Let me restate my question.

If I open up a RAW file in DPP, and do nothing other than open it, it looks sharper and more colorful than the same exact image in jpeg form that the camera has automatically recorded simultaneously.

Is this effect because of an inherant higher quality of the RAW image file or does the program, without any editing requested by me, automatically enhance the RAW image?

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Philomath wrote:

I think my question is not being understood and I apologize if I am not expressing myself well.

Let me restate my question.

If I open up a RAW file in DPP, and do nothing other than open it, it looks sharper and more colorful than the same exact image in jpeg form that the camera has automatically recorded simultaneously.

Is this effect because of an inherant higher quality of the RAW image file or does the program, without any editing requested by me, automatically enhance the RAW image?

---

Both.

[Philomath]

Thank you.

When looking at the tool palette, the only box that is checked by default is auto lighting optimizer, and the only values that are not zero are the ones for sharpness / unsharp mask.

If I uncheck auto lighting optimizer and zero the sliders for sharpness and unsharp mask will I be seeing the image unenhanced or will I be degrading the unenhanced image?

I am trying to figure out what my real unenhanced starting point is.

[Waddizzle]

I think the problem is that you have made some astute observations, and you’re trying to figure out if these observations are being caused by Scenario A or B.  But, you’re being told that is Sceario C, which is little bit of both A and B, and neither.

As far as you ALO example goes, it is checked because you have the featured enabled in the camera.  The only automatic setting that is applied by DPP to a RAW fileis a modest amount of sharpening.  The camera also applies sharpening to the JPEG it creates.

In fact, the camera even applies a small amount “enhancements” to every photo you take to compensate for the sensor.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Philomath wrote:

Thank you.

When looking at the tool palette, the only box that is checked by default is auto lighting optimizer, and the only values that are not zero are the ones for sharpness / unsharp mask.

If I uncheck auto lighting optimizer and zero the sliders for sharpness and unsharp mask will I be seeing the image unenhanced or will I be degrading the unenhanced image?

I am trying to figure out what my real unenhanced starting point is.

---

I think you're searching for something that doesn't really exist. As those who understand such things better than I do will tell you, a RAW file is not an image. Converting it to a viewable image involves some implicit assumptions about how the RAW data should be mapped into image data. For various reasons, including the fact that almost every camera records RAW data differently, there is not, and probably could not be, a universally accepted set of such assumptions. When you look at, say, a JPEG image, you understand that what you see depends on how a particular conversion algorithm was programmed to render a RAW file into that JPEG image. What may not be quite so obvious is that whenever you view a RAW file, either in the camera or on a computer, a similar set of algorithmic assumptions dictates what you see. You should not, for example, expect Lightroom and DPP to display a RAW file identically, any more than you would expect two different conversion algorithms to produce the same JPEG.

The bottom line, I think, is that your "real unenhanced starting point" is too much of a moving target for you to let it be a major factor in a decision as to what photo editor to use. Your perception of the quality of the end result is a far better measure

[Philomath]

Dear Wadizzle and Robert,

I think I understand now, but I think I have another question then.

How do these review sites that compare camera bodies or lenses or both make a fair comparison if the output of the camera + lens combination is always altered to some extent by the software displaying the image?

For example if brand X and brand Y cameras are compared and the software used is brand Z and if brand Z software displays one camera brand output better than another what you are comparing is not the cameras only, it is the whole combination.

Am I not understanding this correctly or is this a very convoluted system?