Canon RAW conversion, DPP or Lightroom

B

Brentor

Messages
991
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
I have been using Lightroom to convert RAW files for several years without any issue. However having bought a R7 a few months ago I was not pleased with the noise and appearance of some pictures when using LR, usually taken at high ISO (max 6400). I recently tried some of these images through DPP and the results were better, at least to me. If necessary I will learn how to use DPP and output the files as TIF to use in LR for further editing.

The difference may be due to the defaults used in DPP being different to those in LR. DPP uses the default camera settings unless these are turned off. This results in eg noise reduction and sharpening being applied, whereas LR seems to start from a lower base. If I set DPP to ignore the camera settings I still end up with better results.

I would rather not introduce another piece of software into my workflow but I may have to, at least for the R7.

Does anyone use DPP rather than LR for RAW conversion? (I’m not interested in any other software).
 
I'm sure I read a long time back that Canon DPP automatically does noise reduction.

If I remember correctly at that long time back people were a bit upset about this but googling might get you to the story.

If I'm remembering correctly and auto noise reduction is what you are seeing and if that is what is accounting for the better results then I suppose one way forward could be to fiddle with the LR noise reduction and see if you can do better. If not DPP may be the way to go.
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous settings like iso 6400.

You have such a way with words. What would you suggest as the max acceptable ISO?
 
Which version of LR? As above noise reduction in the current version is good.
 
DemiLion said:
How is that ridiculous? Any movement faster than walking pace is less than ideal light is likely to end up there.

And modern cameras can handle that without issue.
Click to expand...
go on, pick on language.

At least I don't use "sick" or "dope" nonsense found all over s***tube

Brentor said:
Ridiculous settings like iso 6400.

You have such a way with words. What would you suggest as the max acceptable ISO?
Click to expand...
sorry for trying to be helpful. Won't happen again, I promise
 
LongLensPhotography said:
go on, pick on language.

At least I don't use "sick" or "dope" nonsense found all over s***tube


sorry for trying to be helpful. Won't happen again, I promise
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to dismiss your response, just the language you used was not helpful.

I was photographing deer from a distance in poor light with a 400 mm lens at 5.6. To allow for movement I had to use a shutter speed that required an iso of up to 6400, the max I set in the options.


Perhaps I should have used a lower shutter speed.
 
Brentor said:
I didn't mean to dismiss your response, just the language you used was not helpful.

I was photographing deer from a distance in poor light with a 400 mm lens at 5.6. To allow for movement I had to use a shutter speed that required an iso of up to 6400, the max I set in the options.


Perhaps I should have used a lower shutter speed.
Click to expand...
Depends a bit on the quality of your sensor but most modern digital cameras can handle really high ISO s - noise becomes an issue when you can't get sufficient light on to the sensor for what the sensor can handle. I have shot much higher ISOs and produced good images using noise reduction in post processing - there are some tricks to using LR noise reduction that can help too - e.g. using the AI noise reduction in LR at a low setting (to keep details in the subject) and then doing another at a higher setting to reduce the noise in the background more - then blending the two images in Photoshop.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
go on, pick on language.

At least I don't use "sick" or "dope" nonsense found all over s***tube


sorry for trying to be helpful. Won't happen again, I promise
Click to expand...


Picking on language?

Stating that 6400 is ridiculous is not about language. It's about management of expectations.
 
Which version of LR are you using? Adobe added a noise reduction feature to both LR and LR Classic a little while ago that apparently does a brilliant job of reducing noise. And there's nothing ridiculous about ISO6400, I've shot at that level and higher plenty of times and been happy with the results.
 
TimHughes said:
hmmm, maybe share an example file? that the latest version is not producing good results is surprising
Click to expand...
Thanks Tim. I will have a further play before posting a file. I think it is probably due to DPP starting from the camera settings whereas LR starts from applying no or very little noise reduction.
 
I have had acceptable (to me, at least) with ISO 6400 and even 16000 on a Canon 7D2 and 20000 on a 5D3. The latest version of LR or Topaz Denoise help reduce noise. Of course, you wouldn’t want to underexpose at those ISOs.
 
I've dabbled with DPP a couple of times and really not liked the program and have had stability issues with it. Firmly remaining with lightroom here, not to mention its greater versatility.

So, to be a bit more specific to your problem. 6400 is entirely reasonable, but you're going to have visible noise at that point without a doubt. Newer LR versions (that you're running) will give brilliant results with the noise reduction. It should be far superior to what DPP produces. As a thought, trying checking the detail on the DPP output, you may find there's more detail lost compare to LR when achieving the same noise reduction.
 
Brentor said:
Thanks Tim. I will have a further play before posting a file. I think it is probably due to DPP starting from the camera settings whereas LR starts from applying no or very little noise reduction.
Click to expand...

As far as I remember DPP does NR and I can't remember if it can be completely turned off or not. I remember people being upset about this as noise reduction and remove detail and people wanted to choose how much to apply themselves. I don't know if DPP has changed over the years but if not I don't think I'd be too happy with decisions being made for me.
 
Brentor said:
Do you use cRAW or RAW?
Click to expand...
Either and jpg. Straightforward shooting using jpg with profile tweaked in camera, Moderately challenging cRAW, very challenging RAW.
 
Brentor said:
Thanks Tim. I will have a further play before posting a file. I think it is probably due to DPP starting from the camera settings whereas LR starts from applying no or very little noise reduction.
Click to expand...
You can set LR to apply the camera settings on Raw import, rather than just apply the default Adobe settings.
 
Buddy I use DPP for all my canon images. which I know you are aware of.....................i'm not a huge help because I've never used LR so don't have a comparison for a RAW converter.I've always used DPP. Tis canons algorythms on canon files.................... to me DPP has always seemed a great first step. I thhen convert to 16bit TIFF and bang into PSCC

It is very easy to simply reduce NR in dpp which frankly nowadays I always do.as I'm going to use topaz denoise later on in my work flow in PSCC. you can reduce chroma and lumar separately via sliders top. Tis RHS second row down second in from left................... icon sort of looks like a magnifying glass over dots

Bud I almost always shoot higher ISO ................................6400 with my crepuscular species is almost a norm rather than high.I see high as 16K. Sure I'm using a 1DXii so it has bigger pixels but then your R7 has a more modern sensor.so maybe tech has advanced

If you are using DPP with regards to NR and then a secondary NR program like Topaz.really dig at the lumar settings I suspect there is alot of detail entrenched in lumar so really have a play there to see how those settings are linked to detail within later NR

Within DPP i set WB NR maybe tweak colour especiially greens and blues not much really a gants shift to colour tone to red with alot of green present.

My base mindset is this.................. get enough SS for a sharp frame, if that means pushing the hell out of ISO go there worry on noise later . The more our sensors progress the more mailliable the files are with regards to noise,but if the frame isn't sharp one is scuppered.

Mate you know me I'm not gifted with post processing it's hard for me to even think of posting here in this section.............but you need to exploit that mindset of pushing ISO no fear just go there , it's amazing what you can pull back in post...........and despite DPP being a bit clunky it is a fab base tool for RAW convertion.

Lol I don't honestly know what cRAW is I exploit as much data as me camera can give me...which sometimes .repeat sometimes gives me enough to make a frame and cater for my failings

Does that make sense buddy DPP is a great base tool !! push the living daylights :D out of ISO to get SS
worry on noise later
shoot the biggest RAW ya camera can give you
lol I'd say ETTR but sometimes one is betwixt a rock and a hard place the further sensor tech goes the more one can claw back

all the luck

stu
 
This would be worth a read for some people following this thread:

photographylife.com

ISO Invariance Explained

In this article, we will explore ISO invariance in detail and how you can use it to your advantage in your photography
photographylife.com photographylife.com
 
Stuart Philpott said:
Buddy I use DPP for all my canon images. which I know you are aware of.....................i'm not a huge help because I've never used LR so don't have a comparison for a RAW converter.I've always used DPP. Tis canons algorythms on canon files.................... to me DPP has always seemed a great first step. I thhen convert to 16bit TIFF and bang into PSCC

It is very easy to simply reduce NR in dpp which frankly nowadays I always do.as I'm going to use topaz denoise later on in my work flow in PSCC. you can reduce chroma and lumar separately via sliders top. Tis RHS second row down second in from left................... icon sort of looks like a magnifying glass over dots

Bud I almost always shoot higher ISO ................................6400 with my crepuscular species is almost a norm rather than high.I see high as 16K. Sure I'm using a 1DXii so it has bigger pixels but then your R7 has a more modern sensor.so maybe tech has advanced

If you are using DPP with regards to NR and then a secondary NR program like Topaz.really dig at the lumar settings I suspect there is alot of detail entrenched in lumar so really have a play there to see how those settings are linked to detail within later NR

Within DPP i set WB NR maybe tweak colour especiially greens and blues not much really a gants shift to colour tone to red with alot of green present.

My base mindset is this.................. get enough SS for a sharp frame, if that means pushing the hell out of ISO go there worry on noise later . The more our sensors progress the more mailliable the files are with regards to noise,but if the frame isn't sharp one is scuppered.

Mate you know me I'm not gifted with post processing it's hard for me to even think of posting here in this section.............but you need to exploit that mindset of pushing ISO no fear just go there , it's amazing what you can pull back in post...........and despite DPP being a bit clunky it is a fab base tool for RAW convertion.

Lol I don't honestly know what cRAW is I exploit as much data as me camera can give me...which sometimes .repeat sometimes gives me enough to make a frame and cater for my failings

Does that make sense buddy DPP is a great base tool !! push the living daylights :D out of ISO to get SS
worry on noise later
shoot the biggest RAW ya camera can give you
lol I'd say ETTR but sometimes one is betwixt a rock and a hard place the further sensor tech goes the more one can claw back

all the luck

stu
Click to expand...
Many thanks for the detailed response, it is very useful. I have a 1DX which even given its age is very good with noise, I expect partly due to the lower no of pixels. The eye and subject detection on the R7 are very good, the main I bought it.

I have been comparing Lightroom to DPP for conversion but more time before I decide. I would rather not have to use DPP as well as LR and Topaz Denoise. The denoise in the latest LR is very good.

cRAW is just a new file format from Canon, which gives lower file sizes than RAW but with similar if not the same resolution. Some suggest keeping to RAW for difficult situations.
 
you are utterly welcome honestly I'd probably just stick to RAW it works.if it ain't broke :) To me we go to such lengths for an image it IS worth using a full file size..but buddy I'm in the same league as the other lads posting here I live in a simple world no pain no gain I try to go there for a frame so I again try to go there in post to make the best of what I found image wise....... my take would not be for all;):D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top