Digital Photo Professional - Export/Resize Sharpness

[penguinsushi]

Hi, everybody -

I've been troubleshooting this for the last few days, and it's driving me crazy.  Any help would be much appreciated.

I have noticed that when I export and resize images in DPP, they do not look as good as when I view the original raw in DPP.  I have heard it said that "well, you're not comparing the images at 100% - if you look at the raw image at 100% and an un-resized exported jpg at 100%, they'll look the same."  

Well, I have two problems with this.  

1) I find it hard-to-impossible to work with images at 100%.  I'm not that cool.

and

2) Regardless, I would expect the exported image to look like it does in DDP when I'm editing it.  To me, that's kind of the point of the editor - to see what it's going to look like when you export it.  I find it a bit ridiculous that I can take a screenshot of the raw image and the resulting jpeg looks better than anything the export produces (if anything, I would have expected it the other way around).

After doing a little experimenting, it appears that the sharpness and/or USM settings are not being applied on export.  I've exported multiple images with various settings and they all look about the same.  (I can't say they're exact, but I can't tell a difference)

I'm using DPP 3.13.51 (mac) - which is the latest version my machine will run.

Below is a photoshop-composited image comparison.  I would have expected these two images to look basically identical, but the one of the left is clearly more crisp than the one on the right - seen best in her hair, eyes, mouth and the detail on the ball. (yes, i know the images aren't exactly the same size - but I don't think that should be a significant factor here - and it always looks the same no matter how I scale the window in DPP).  This bothers me a great deal.

Has anyone else observed this problem?  Am I looking at it wrong?  Is this some issue with this version of the program?  My machine?  Something else?

Thanks,

~PS

[jrhoffman75]

What settings are you using in the "Convert and save" window?

[penguinsushi]

Ah - sorry, I neglected to mention that.

Exported as jpeg - I always make sure jpeg 'quality' slider up to 10.  

Output resolution - i used to leave this as 350, but tried setting to 72 thinking it might somehow 'optimize' it for the screen.  I saw no noticeable difference in the image, so I go with my original assumption that this only matters for printing.  

Resize - The above pic was resized to 400x600 so that I could see it on the screen as close as possible in size to the the raw window I was looking at.  'Lock aspect ratio' is always left on.

~PS

[jrhoffman75]

I had never noticed a problem on my conversions, but never studied closely.

I just tried it on PC version. Both Raw and converted JPEG look the same.

What camera are you using?

[penguinsushi]

The above photo was shot with a 40D + 300mm f4L.  

I wouldn't expect the camera/lens to matter, however.  The issue really isn't how good the photos look, it's simply that the output doesn't look as good (or actually, that the output is noticeably different at all - I kind of expect WYSIWYG from a quality photo-editor).  Is there some way this factors in - beyond simply how DPP applies the camera's 'picture style' settings to the raw by default?  I think I would be disappointed if it did...

Interesting.  I have a PC version of DPP here at work.  If I'd had the fore-thought, I'd have brought the file with me and tried it here.  Think I'll do that tomorrow.  Perhaps the issue is with my build.  This has actually been my hunch because I don't remember always having this problem.  Still, it seems if that were the case, others would have had some similar experience (and could hopefully offer some solution).

Thanks for your help so far, jrhoffman!

~PS

[jrhoffman75]

I recalled seeing a posting a while ago about a DPP bug that was preventing sharpening from being applied during C&S, but it was for 5D Mark III.

[penguinsushi]

Interesting.  I wonder if I'm experiencing something similar, but perhaps my camera's old enough that it hasn't been caught by many?  I'm planning on renting a 7DII to test-drive for an upcoming event.  If I don't have this sorted by then, I'll have to see if I notice the issue with shots made with that body.

~PS

[RobertTheFat]

---

@penguinsushi wrote:

Ah - sorry, I neglected to mention that.

Exported as jpeg - I always make sure jpeg 'quality' slider up to 10.  

Output resolution - i used to leave this as 350, but tried setting to 72 thinking it might somehow 'optimize' it for the screen.  I saw no noticeable difference in the image, so I go with my original assumption that this only matters for printing.  

Resize - The above pic was resized to 400x600 so that I could see it on the screen as close as possible in size to the the raw window I was looking at.  'Lock aspect ratio' is always left on.

~PS

---

Two comments:

1) 400 x 600 is far too small to be the basis for any judgement of image quality, unless it's on a smartphone.

2) Nothing viewed on a smartphone should be used as the basis for judgemant of image quality.

I'm been shooting RAW and converting the RAW files to JPEG for nine years, using a succession of Canon cameras. I've used DPP as my primary photo editor for that whole time, and I've never seen a significant degradation from RAW to JPEG, as long as I keep the resolution high and the JPEG quality at 8 or better. (As a practical matter, I always use 10 unless I'm dumbing the image down to meet a file size limit, but it would be a challenge to see the difference between 8 and 10.) I have 11 pictures hanging in our office area. All were edited and converted with DPP, then commercially printed ad framed; and all of them look great.

So I think your problem has to be related to the low resolution, possibly exacerbated by substandard hardware. Run your tests at high resolution on the best equipment you have available. I'd be surprised if you don't see significant improvement.

[penguinsushi]

Re: RobertTheFat:

While I mostly agree with #2, I do not agree with #1.  400x600 is in the neighborhood of a 5x7 as viewed on a computer screen - this is an acceptible size for viewing.  And my issue here is screen-resolution reproduction.  I have not conducted a great many experiments at print resolution because I don't print a lot of images. 

In any case, this still does not explain my posted image above where the difference is clearly visible.  DPP can clearly and dynamically convert the RAW for viewing on my screen at that resolution, but the highest-quality processed conversion looks noticeably degraded by comparison.

I'm not a pro, and I've only been shooting seriously for about 8 years.  I've used DPP that entire time as well, and I'm fairly sure this issue is a recent development.  I say "fairly" sure, because it's possible that inexperience caused me to "miss" it for a while, but it seems unlikely that I'd have missed it for this long.  I've pulled up older photos, and they do seem sharper.

You bring up an interesting point, though - is hardware a significant concern?  I would have assumed that an older machine would simply be slower, but that the results would not be adversely affected.  If hardware affects the output, I would assert that the program has some resource management issues.  Does it?  I am using the best machine I have - which is a 2009 macbook.  In general, I'd rather spend my $ on lenses than a new machine...

~PS

[RobertTheFat]

---

@penguinsushi wrote:

Re: RobertTheFat:

While I mostly agree with #2, I do not agree with #1.  400x600 is in the neighborhood of a 5x7 as viewed on a computer screen - this is an acceptible size for viewing.  And my issue here is screen-resolution reproduction.  I have not conducted a great many experiments at print resolution because I don't print a lot of images. 

In any case, this still does not explain my posted image above where the difference is clearly visible.  DPP can clearly and dynamically convert the RAW for viewing on my screen at that resolution, but the highest-quality processed conversion looks noticeably degraded by comparison.

I'm not a pro, and I've only been shooting seriously for about 8 years.  I've used DPP that entire time as well, and I'm fairly sure this issue is a recent development.  I say "fairly" sure, because it's possible that inexperience caused me to "miss" it for a while, but it seems unlikely that I'd have missed it for this long.  I've pulled up older photos, and they do seem sharper.

You bring up an interesting point, though - is hardware a significant concern?  I would have assumed that an older machine would simply be slower, but that the results would not be adversely affected.  If hardware affects the output, I would assert that the program has some resource management issues.  Does it?  I am using the best machine I have - which is a 2009 macbook.  In general, I'd rather spend my $ on lenses than a new machine...

~PS

---

DPP V3 doesn't have a resource issue that I'm aware of. My reference to hardware was mainly aimed at the monitor and the graphics interface. Sorry for not making that clear. DPP V4 I think does have resource (and several other) issues, but you're not using V4.

Looking back at your sample images, I see that the RAW image is "fit to window", while the JPEG is "100% view". I don't think those are comparable. The RAW image has far more than enough information to display the image at the implied resolution, while the JPEG has no extra information. The RAW display is apt to be better because the program has more to work with.

All that said, I'm having difficulty seeing the problem at all. The images look very similar to me. Their most prominent feature is the blown highlights, and those look about as bad in the RAW image as in the JPEG. And I don't really see that one image is sharper than the other. Maybe others don't have my problem, but I think I'd at least find the comparison more meaningful with properly exposed images.