If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 400d RAW conversions
My wife bought this camera and I'm tinkering with it a bit ... the
third thing I noticed is the RAW conversions varied wildly between the Canon DPP software and the Capture One software we typically use for RAW, so here's a brief summary showing the good, the bad and the ugly. I photographed a Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker card and converted the same file with various converters, measuring the RGB values for the six neutral patches. All the conversions were at default settings. * Capture One V 3.7.5 did a terrible job. According to the C1 guy on their forum this camera came out shortly before release of 3.7.5 and they only had a few hours to gin up a profile. Unfortunately the image sample they used to generate the profile lacked many colors. Like, GRAY! * Using the Adobe 3.6 DNG converter and then converting the DNG file in Photoshop CS did a much better job with the neutrals but most colors are bland and unsaturated at default settings. This converter would be unacceptable (or at least 'disappointing') to me with this camera, though clearly better than C1 V3.7.5. * Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) did a very good job with the neutrals and the colors look good too, better than Photoshop CS RAW. The Canon converters seem to be getting better but are still slow for working with large numbers of files, I feel. * Capture One V 3.7.6, a patch released mainly for the 400d, does a very good job, similar to DPP with the added benefits of the faster workflow for dealing with large numbers of files. Here are jpegs showing the results from these different conversions. I would stress again, all are default settings; clearly you can boost contrast and saturation if required, but since I'm inherently lazy I prefer software that gets things right from the beginning. http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/tests/400d_raw/ It's wise to try out several different converters when you get a new camera model. Bill |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 400d RAW conversions
If you want images that are finished on opening perhaps you should
investigate the jpeg options in your camera? I have no experience with newer Canon dSLRs but I find it interesting that you describe the Canon converter as opening images with color you find appealing. I presume you mean a certain degree of saturation and contrast that is higher than the relatively flat settings of the Adobe converter. Nikon does the same thing with its NX converter. This suggests that both Canon and Nikon have deliberately decided on these default settings because most people find saturation and contrast visually appealing regardless of whether it is appropriate for the particular image. TV sets and computer monitors are set up in store displays in the same way and for the same purpose. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 400d RAW conversions
"bmoag" wrote:
I have no experience with newer Canon dSLRs but I find it interesting that you describe the Canon converter as opening images with color you find appealing. I presume you mean a certain degree of saturation and contrast that is higher than the relatively flat settings of the Adobe converter. Canon's converter (DPP) is generally viewed as being one of the very best for color; not just for producing electric Velvia reds and greens when you want, but for rendering caucasian skin tones and other subtleties as well. The bad news is that it doesn't provide a good or easy way of "rescuing highlights". Nikon does the same thing with its NX converter. This suggests that both Canon and Nikon have deliberately decided on these default settings because most people find saturation and contrast visually appealing regardless of whether it is appropriate for the particular image. The current Canon cameras/converter have a "Picture Style" setting that's essentially a custom profile that you can set in the camera. The "Standard" style is of the excessive contast and saturation variety you mention, but "Faithful" is quite reasonable. "Neutral" is too flat, and "Landscape" does the Velvia look quite nicely. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 400d RAW conversions
bmoag wrote:
If you want images that are finished on opening perhaps you should investigate the jpeg options in your camera? jpegs are fine if you have total control over the white balance and exposure, typically shooting under studio lights or similar, but aren't very useful for the type of shooting I do, where the white balance is rarely stable and exposure conditions are sometimes dicey. If you would really choose to shoot jpegs just because you want a finished image then you are missing out on a lot that RAW can offer. From your past posts I'm pretty sure that you know about RAW though ... I have no experience with newer Canon dSLRs but I find it interesting that you describe the Canon converter as opening images with color you find appealing. I posted samples of the three converters, so you can see the differences ... I'm guessing most people find the CS RAW default image too flat, but maybe not ... it looks awful to me. I presume you mean a certain degree of saturation and contrast that is higher than the relatively flat settings of the Adobe converter. Nikon does the same thing with its NX converter. This suggests that both Canon and Nikon have deliberately decided on these default settings because most people find saturation and contrast visually appealing regardless of whether it is appropriate for the particular image. The Capture One software lets you change the 'look' between 'linear' (very flat), 'film extra shadow', 'film standard' and 'film high contrast' by rolling the mouse wheel ... in a rough film analogy 'extra shadow' looks sorta like Astia, 'standard' like Provia 100F and 'high contrast' like Velvia. The default I posted is 'film standard' ... I've processed literally thousands of images with this converter and rarely found nature or wildlife shots that looked better with the flatter settings, so that's probably why Nikon and Canon (and Capture One) bias the settings that way. In addition to these four settings the C1 software lets you apply various ICC profiles to quickly get the best color. As an example, for the 1Ds they originally provided 10 custom ICC profiles, including some for studio settings ... here is a matrix of skin types shown with five different included 'skintone' or 'portrait' profiles ... http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/te..._profile_1.jpg http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/te..._profile_2.jpg So basically right off the bat the colors are more pleasing to most of us, then you have more precise ways of fine-tuning them with the profiles. You can of course get to a similar place with CS RAW but it takes a while. This is one of the reasons I don't use CS RAW, even though I have it free with Photoshop. Another reason is the conversions I did in my original tests had smoother demosaicing with Capture One than with Photoshop (ie, smoother out-of-focus backgrounds) and finer detail. Finally, if you have a lot of images to sort thru quickly CS RAW is very slow by comparison. Bill |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 400d RAW conversions
Bill,
I am using a 20D and have recently moved away from CS2 RAW to Canon DPP. Primarily because over time I found that CS2 RAW tended to create noisy shadows (with accompanying spikes at '0' in some of the color channel histograms). Even with all kinds of tweaking, this would not go away. There were also some other areas where I had a problem with CS2 RAW. Canon DPP created shadows with much less noise and as you implied, tended to give a better overall 'look' right out of the gate. I do truly miss the chromatic abberation in CS2 RAW though...the 'lens correction' in CS2 does not seem to do nearly as good a job. W Bill Hilton wrote: bmoag wrote: If you want images that are finished on opening perhaps you should investigate the jpeg options in your camera? jpegs are fine if you have total control over the white balance and exposure, typically shooting under studio lights or similar, but aren't very useful for the type of shooting I do, where the white balance is rarely stable and exposure conditions are sometimes dicey. If you would really choose to shoot jpegs just because you want a finished image then you are missing out on a lot that RAW can offer. From your past posts I'm pretty sure that you know about RAW though ... I have no experience with newer Canon dSLRs but I find it interesting that you describe the Canon converter as opening images with color you find appealing. I posted samples of the three converters, so you can see the differences ... I'm guessing most people find the CS RAW default image too flat, but maybe not ... it looks awful to me. I presume you mean a certain degree of saturation and contrast that is higher than the relatively flat settings of the Adobe converter. Nikon does the same thing with its NX converter. This suggests that both Canon and Nikon have deliberately decided on these default settings because most people find saturation and contrast visually appealing regardless of whether it is appropriate for the particular image. The Capture One software lets you change the 'look' between 'linear' (very flat), 'film extra shadow', 'film standard' and 'film high contrast' by rolling the mouse wheel ... in a rough film analogy 'extra shadow' looks sorta like Astia, 'standard' like Provia 100F and 'high contrast' like Velvia. The default I posted is 'film standard' ... I've processed literally thousands of images with this converter and rarely found nature or wildlife shots that looked better with the flatter settings, so that's probably why Nikon and Canon (and Capture One) bias the settings that way. In addition to these four settings the C1 software lets you apply various ICC profiles to quickly get the best color. As an example, for the 1Ds they originally provided 10 custom ICC profiles, including some for studio settings ... here is a matrix of skin types shown with five different included 'skintone' or 'portrait' profiles ... http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/te..._profile_1.jpg http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/te..._profile_2.jpg So basically right off the bat the colors are more pleasing to most of us, then you have more precise ways of fine-tuning them with the profiles. You can of course get to a similar place with CS RAW but it takes a while. This is one of the reasons I don't use CS RAW, even though I have it free with Photoshop. Another reason is the conversions I did in my original tests had smoother demosaicing with Capture One than with Photoshop (ie, smoother out-of-focus backgrounds) and finer detail. Finally, if you have a lot of images to sort thru quickly CS RAW is very slow by comparison. Bill |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
which lens to get for Canon 400D? | Stimp | Digital Photography | 15 | October 14th 06 06:02 AM |
Canon 400D stumbles right out of the blocks.... | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 16 | October 4th 06 05:29 PM |
Canon 400D | Jack | Digital SLR Cameras | 54 | August 29th 06 09:38 PM |
Canon 400D - DSLR | sharkbait999 | Digital Photography | 25 | August 26th 06 06:17 AM |
IR Conversions | Kelly B | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | December 10th 05 11:35 PM |