Opening RAW image file in CS6 directly or use raw converter 8.0

Hello All,
What is the best practice while opening a RAW image (.CR2 file for Canon) which is just downloaded from camera?

What I follow is -
1) Right click the image and click on "open in PS CS 6"
2) Image loads into canon raw converter wher you get options to adjust the image, crop it, all things which you can do are available there.
3) Now, here is my actual dilemma - Do I need to save it by clicking at left hand side button which read "save image" or do I need to open it by clicking "open image" button?
4) What are the differences between saving it and again opening it in PS compare to directly opening it by clicking "open image"

Kindly guide.
Is it helpful to use canon raw converters ? If yes, how ? Can anyone explains it?

Thanks a ton in advance,

I think Canon's Adobe Camera Raw is excellent -- the same engine that is in Lightroom with a slightly different interface. It is much more powerful and flexible than Canon's converter, in my opinion. Many of the reasons I see for using the Canon DPP indicate the user just doesn't understand ACR/Lightroom's development settings. So if people want a simple but limited adjustment process, that's fine. User choice.

ACR is acting as a helper program for Photoshop, so the dialog is asking if you want to open it in PS with the adjustments you have made, or just save the adjustments you made for later use. You shouldn't open it in PS without first making the raw settings the best you can. After opening it in PS you an also go back tot he raw file, change the settings further, and then open that new version in PS -- it will be given a different name. If you save it without opening, when you open it again you can further adjust the settings. They are all non-destructive, even cropping, which means you can change them at any time until you actually open in PS, at which time the adjustments are glued in.

Hi Diane , well i just have to make a protest note ........ LOL.
I am a confidently DPP user with experience of all sorts of raw engines . If you say i do not understand the development settings in ACR/LR ......... mmmhhh i do not feel good about your words . And other pro users of DPP will think the same way i guess. You are right by saying ACR/LR is more powerful than DPP , but mainly with fancy stuff that many users do not need .
From my personal view i.e. the HL and SH recovery is not as good if pushed further .

But wait for LR 6 becoming better with the so important face detection , that makes it really stand out against DPP , what a useful tool it becomes :S3:.

BTW do you know that the 2012 engine is applying a HL recovery to each and every image , even if you do not wish , only way around this is to use the 2010 engine :eek3:. I am asking myself if i want this ??

In the end we all have to choose our own preferences right , and i am more than happy with DPP even more with DPP4 , and i am able to work with the development tab very flawless :bg3: in ACR .

And yes it is simplicity of DPP that works for me , as i make my main adjustments in PS when it comes to tonality .

Cheers Andreas

I didn't say someone who chooses to use DPP by definition does not understand the ACR adjustments. I said many users who espouse it don't.

Of course I'm aware of the automatic recovery thing. That was a widely-praised major improvement in Process 2012. I'm much more interested in dynamic range than face recognition, and a raw file has much more potential tonal range recovery than a rasterized PS file.

I've tried DPP extensively for many years and could post many examples where both DPP3 and and now DPP4 (used according to the directions espoused here) create flat tonalities in certain areas of some images, in which Process 2012 brought out significantly more detail. So I've made my decision and I simply would like people to have a chance to do the same for themselves.

End of discussion.

Diane this not a discussion ,if you say end of discussion , but that is your way .........

Regards Andreas

Diane Miller said:

Many of the reasons I see for using the Canon DPP indicate the user just doesn't understand ACR/Lightroom's development settings. So if people want a simple but limited adjustment process, that's fine.

Click to expand...

with all due respect that's absolutely wrong, rather it indicates user doesn't undrestand how to use DPP. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it for discussion.

Diane Miller said:

I've tried DPP extensively for many years and could post many examples where both DPP3 and and now DPP4 (used according to the directions espoused here) create flat tonalities in certain areas of some images, in which Process 2012 brought out significantly more detail. So I've made my decision and I simply would like people to have a chance to do the same for themselves.

End of discussion.

Click to expand...

Diane, I doubt if you have mastered DPP, last time we spoke you couldn't even get to install on your system. And what you say about flat tonality makes zero sense to me. Why don't you make your RAW files available and I will show you how to process them with DPP? Then see if you can match or exceed the results with LR.

Re "End of discussion", if you are not willing to objectively discuss, then why start a discussion at first place, in your original post you categorically called folks who use DPP ignorant. Mind you, some of the world's best photographers use DPP with great results.

I strongly believe LR is not great when it comes to RAW conversion quality as I have proven many times by examples in the avian forum, many of which were not my own photographs. Poor colors, soft and grainy output, mushy shadows are a few things to call... I also believe LR interface is cumbersome and it is really slow as well, I have processed thousands of images with DPP with 0 issues so far. So my opinion is polar opposite of yours but I would never call LR users stupid or ignorant.

Thanks

Hi Diane,

When you say, "So if people want a simple but limited adjustment process, that's fine.," it sounds as if you are talking about DPP 3 something.... I can assure you that there is absolutely nothing limited about the adjustment process in DPP 4.

Hi Shantanu,

2) Image loads into canon raw converter where you get options to adjust the image, crop it, all things which you can do are available there.

What is a Canon RAW converter???

3) Now, here is my actual dilemma - Do I need to save it by clicking at left hand side button which read "save image" or do I need to open it by clicking "open image" button?
4) What are the differences between saving it and again opening it in PS compare to directly opening it by clicking "open image"

Not sure where your images is or what program you are using but you need to convert the image to a TIF file and save it somewhere, preferably to the same folder that contains the RAW file. From there, you open it in Photoshop and optimize it.

Is it helpful to use canon raw converters ? If yes, how ? Can anyone explain it

I have been using DPP to convert my RAW images to TIF files for several years. DPP 4 is a huge improvement over the various versions of DPP 3. I have been using it since it was released. Arash and I collaborated on an eGuide. You can see that here: https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=396

As far as learning to optimize your images in Photoshop I can recommend my Digital Basics File. It has helped thousands of folks learn to improve their images in Photoshop. Learn more or purchase here: https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=252

a

i dont like dpp either 3 or 4 now, but i have checked 4 only a few times and i did not recognize a real improvement in this case in dpp 4 there, ok you can do more, but its still not so fine as i can do with the acr.

For that i prefer the adobe camera raw (often only lightroom acr, sometimes CS6).
CS 6 is only needed, when i want or have to do special changes in parts of the picture, if/when i need masks and leveling.

i my (personal) opinion you can make much more sensitive changes with the lightroom acr (or Photoshop acr), than you can do so in dpp.

Most of the time it is for me so, that i want to make only the raw changes, but nothing else.
I am trying to avoid making too many "interventions" , ok thats my aim. :e3


Only my 2 Cents :bg3:

Eric Dienesch said:

but its still not so fine as i can do with the acr.

Click to expand...

Hi Eric i would like to know what that means , just for the sake if interest .

Cheers Andreas

Hewllo,

how can i explain it correct, (sorry for my written english) ?

when i compare the possibilities that dpp 3 (or 4) and the acr offer to me, the acr allows me to make finer changes in almost every section of image processing.
The steps are smaller, that takes an effect on the photo,
For example the lights and shadows controller in dpp are very rugged (say it so?), inlightroom you can do much more smaller steps to change the lights in the direction that you want to.
the same for pre sharpening, the same for dynamic.

it is only my personal opinion. lightroom (or bridge) has even more advantages, like the catalogue and catchword system, so its easier to make all in one programm for me etc.. but thats out of discussion

In order to make this thread meaningful and objective I offer to convert a RAW file provided by any BPN member, with optimal parameters in DPP4. Then I will leave it to others to convert it with LR . We can compare the 100% crops to see which one is better at pixel level. The only criteria is that the file needs be sharply focused.

If you just open DPP and click convert you are not going to get a great output as the default parameters are not great. You need to learn how to use it first, before making a statement about it.

Eric Dienesch said:

Hewllo,

how can i explain it correct, (sorry for my written english) ?


For example the lights and shadows controller in dpp are very rugged (say it so?), inlightroom you can do much more smaller steps to change the lights in the direction that you want to.
the same for pre sharpening, the same for dynamic.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect.

for e.g. DPP 4 allows HL/ shadow adjustment from -5 to + 5 in 0.1 steps. That is 100 steps, I doubt if you need finer adjustment than that, you will not see it on the screen.
Same with sharpness, DPP allows a sharpness setting of 0-10 in 0.1 steps, that is 100 steps.

There is no such thing as "pre-sharpening". The sharpening that is applied in DPP is applied during demosaic process, it is one of the most critical parameters.

hope this helps.

Hey arash, you are right.. there are 100 "Steps"..
i`ve said that i did not have used dpp4 often..and when i used it mostly with the mouse and pull/push the controller.
In that case there are only 10 steps ( i didnt note the comma) and than it`s not fine.. my fault :e3

i will train and practise with dpp 4 a little bit (with hopefully thousands of pictures i like to get next week in Florida) :bg3:
Thank you !

I've been busy this morning but I will post the requested examples soon. And just for the record, it is amazing to me that you would twist this statement: "Many of the reasons I see for using the Canon DPP indicate the user just doesn't understand ACR/Lightroom's development settings" into "in your original post you categorically called folks who use DPP ignorant."

My desire to end the discussion was to avoid such twisting of words that are so common in discussions like this one. You might wish to confine yourself to facts.

After an initial failed effort, I realized DPP4 would not install because my OS was Lion. You should be pleased to know that I upgraded to Mountain Lion specifically so I could evaluate DPP4, with great hopes for it. Unfortunately, by my standards it hasn't lived up to that hope. Details to follow.

Wow! It's getting difficult to see through the flying feathers here!
I use both ACR and DPP4, DPP4 for preference as I find it renders colours and tonality more accurately. I also think that it deals better with sensor noise making it easier to remove in PS. However, there is one instance in which I think ACR is better; in my endeavour to get as much light as possible on the subject by using ETTR I sometimes go slightly over the top, not a complete white out but just a few blinkies, and I find that even at -5 in highlight control I sometimes cannot recover all the highlight information, whereas the highlight slider in ACR deals with this easily. Just my small input into this fascinating topic.

Hi David thanks for your little input , i too find this an interesting discussion .
To overcome your "problem " just make two versions and blend them together with a luminosity mask in PS and you can stick to DPP´s better rendition , just a quick tip from my side as i have the same ETTR issues from time to time :wave:

Cheers Andreas

Thank you for that information Andreas, do you mean one copy from DPP and one from ACR and blend?
Arash made a point in his critique of "Grebes Rushing" in Avian by saying something to the effect that " Linear Burn in DPP will bring out the highlight details" I don't quite understand how you can do this. Perhaps Arash can pick up on this?

David you make your edits to your image in DPP and send it to PS .Go back to PS and make edits for the HL by massive underexpose so that you do not have any clipping and have details in the whites . Send the second copy to PS and copy it on top of the "good exposure " . Now blend the better highlights onto the BG by using a luminosity mask on the second layer .

There is no linear burn in DPP , what Arash is referring to is the "linear tone curve " in the Gamma Tab of DPP 4 . If you click into the check box you will get a dark nasty looking image with no tone curve applied . Then comes the same procedure , you need two copies , one with the linear tone curve and one with a standard or neutral tone curve (picture style ).

When you have both versions open in PS you need to copy the HL from (linear ) to the "normal " image .

Hope you understand .

Cheers Andreas