A Digital Revelation re: ACR/Zoombrowser (long post)
Discussion
6 replies
Posted by Todd Caudle on January 16, 2007 at 5:19 PM
I came to an inescapable conclusion a week or two ago, and maybe some of my online brethren can share their thoughts. I'll try to detail my workflow to better illustrate what happened.
For the first several months of using my EOS 5D, I set the picture style to "neutral" or "faithful." This produced images on the LCD when I was in the field that were so bland that I'd routinely add a jpeg image set on "landscape" picture style, just to see what was possible with the scene I was shooting. I'd get home, download my images, and open Adobe Bridge. I'd then watch as Bridge would make a bunch of auto adjustments to the RAW files, altering the images somewhat, but still leaving them looking bland, or adding unnecessary contrast, but generally making them look like they needed a lot of work. I would then work on them in PS, to try to get them to look more like the snappy jpeg I shot.
I was talking to Jerry (Greer) about my frustration with the LCD look of the images - it's all psychological, but isn't so much of artistic expression? - and he suggested shooting in "landscape" mode anyways, even with RAW files, since Bridge was going to ultimately zero out the "landscape" setting. (I noticed this early on, when I would set the picture style to "monochrome," only to have Bridge ditch the grayscale image in favor of that same, flat-color RAW file.) Setting the 5D to "landscape" mode immediately added to my enjoyment in the field, as I could see the true potential of the scene in front of me on the LCD, not the flat lighting/color/contrast of the "neutral" setting I used previously. Still, when I returned home, I had a lot of work to do to the files to extract the true beauty of the scene in the way Velvia would record it. (An analogy between "neutral/faithful" and "landscape" would be the difference between Kodachrome and Velvia, except Kodachrome, while flatter color than Velvia, still looked better than these RAW files do.)
When I was out east shooting with Jerry last October, I noticed he was looking over his images on the road with Canon's Zoombrowser EX loaded on his laptop. As he explained it, Bridge is just too damn slooooow. I agree!
So last week I was looking through some images from last fall, and decided to try Zoombrowser EX to do so instead of Bridge. It is so much quicker! I got to one particular page, and as I scrolled the cursor over a set of files, something caught my eye. "Holy sh_t!," I thought, "what was that bright red stuff?" I opened the folder, and to my amazement, I found a whole series of images of Pikes Peak I had all but forgotten about. There's a spot I've returned to over the course of almost 15 years (even made a four-seasons poster of the scene which has sold well over the years), and last fall there was a stand of aspens that, like few times before, had turned vibrant red. I didn't even blink twice when the images opened in Bridge back when I first downloaded them, but to my amazement, in Zoombrowser, which obviously retained the "landscape" picture style parameters in color and contrast, the photo looked incredible! (see here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=14550&b=vf10&st=0&la=1929&ph=6&sid=12462&u=12462)
I suddenly came to the realization that all the photos I had shot since late-July, when I had turned the camera to "landscape" mode, had taken up much, much more time in post-processing than they should have. We're talking hundreds of hours spent on files, trying to get them to look like they do with just a simple "open" command in Zoombrowser.
Now, the questions: Why do Bridge and ACR alter the image so drastically (and poorly, imo), and how can I get Bridge/ACR to retain the settings of my camera's "landscape" mode? I've looked in the preferences in Bridge, and despite that it might be staring me in the face, I can't find a command to just tell it to leave the images alone. Same goes for ACR - I can set it to not do the auto adjustments when I open an image from Bridge to process it in ACR, but that just means it won't further adjust the image from what Bridge has already done.
If there isn't a way to get Bridge/ACR to leave the images alone and do a simple conversion from RAW file to tiff, is there a way to get Zoombrowser EX to convert the RAW file in 16-bit?
Or, is this all a moot point and I should really be using something other than ACR or ZBEX? Is there another RAW converter that will convert my RAW files like I shot them, and give 'em to me in 16-bit?
Posted by Rod Barbee on January 16, 2007 at 6:44 PM
if you don't want ACR/Bridge to apply the auto settings, open an image in ACR and uncheck all the auto settings. Then click the little arrow up by the Settings drop-down and choose "Reset Camera Raw Defaults". You'll have to do this for each camera you use.
I don't know if this will retain settings in "Landscape Mode" or not (those settings may only be in-camera processing that can only be applied to jpg files), but it will keep ACR from choosing what it thinks is best.
Posted by Robert Helms on January 16, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Todd, I'm really the last person who should comment on this, but if I read your post correctly my response is that Zoombrowser does allow one to save a TIFF as 16bit. When I open my RAW files in Zoom I right click on the image > process RAW file and then click save when done and the drop down menu allows JPEG with varying degrees of compression and also 8 or 16bit TIFF.
Best I can do with my limited, but increasing knowledge, forgive me if I read your post incorrectly.
Posted by Robert Ganz on January 16, 2007 at 9:57 PM
I have not found any converters other than DPP and ZoomBrowser (both Canon) that can read the Canon Camera profiles. I do believe that both can give you 16-bit images after conversion (I know DPP can).
It is precisely because I have started using in-camera profiles more that I have begun depending on DPP more for my conversions.
I wish Capture One LE could read them, so if anyone can give me a tip on how to get *that* to work I would appreciate it!
Posted by Keith Bauer on January 16, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Todd:
About 3 or 4 months ago, I did a test with an image that I wasn't happy with when converted with ACR. Just couldn't seem to get any punch from the colors. I've had DPP on my machine since I bought my 20D 2 years ago. I now have the 20D and the 5D. With the picture styles of the 5D, I decided to give DPP a try to see what happened. To make a long story short, I now only use DPP to do my raw conversions. Picture styles can be applied to any Canon raw file in DPP (not just from the cameras that allow you to choose a picture style in camera). I'm getting much better color control, better sharpness, better control on highlights and shadows than I was able to achieve with ACR. A simple "Transfer to Photoshop" from DPP gets the image opened in Photoshop. I process everything in 16 bit at this point. I've since gone back and tried to reproduce the post processing with ACR that I do in DPP. On some images, I can get the same results. On most, I'm not able to. It is certainly worth a try to see what you are able to get. Sounds like your issue revolves around the post processing software leaving your images as you shot them. DPP will certainly do that, but allows you to change the picture style later, apply all of the typical raw post processing techniques. Assuming your monitor is color calibrated, go into DPP and tell it the name of the ICC profile you've created and be assured that the colors you see are the calibrated ones.
Just my 2 cents..
Keith
Posted by Craig Schultz on January 18, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Todd, Keith is right on here. Use Digital Photo Professional (DPP) from Canon and you can apply any of the "camera presets" to any raw file you have ever taken with your 5D. Make sure you upgrade to the latest version and download all the new profiles that the camera can't even use from their site too. Some cool stuff there, especially the Autumn Hues for fall shots.
I'm assuming they have them for the 5D, but my 400D can use them so...
Have fun, Craig
BTW, only Canon software can use these Canon type presets. Just one more proprietary setup they don't want others to get their gubby little hands on.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 25, 2007 at 12:48 PM
I have a 350D which came with DPP. This had been on my list for a while, but last night I finally got around to downloading DPP 2.2.1 which is the current version for the 5D. I'm happy to say that it not only downloaded and installed without issue, but that I can now apply the picture styles to my Rebel XT raw files as well and that I get the batch processing ability too.
I was having some issues with my PC locking up (Celeron 2.66GHz, 2GB RAM), so I'll have to look at this. DPP was pulling well over 1GB of RAM, and I was only trying to process one image. I have been a bit concerned about the health of this PC lately though. I think there is some hardware on the machine that is getting close to the end of its usuable life.
Discussion
6 repliesFor the first several months of using my EOS 5D, I set the picture style to "neutral" or "faithful." This produced images on the LCD when I was in the field that were so bland that I'd routinely add a jpeg image set on "landscape" picture style, just to see what was possible with the scene I was shooting. I'd get home, download my images, and open Adobe Bridge. I'd then watch as Bridge would make a bunch of auto adjustments to the RAW files, altering the images somewhat, but still leaving them looking bland, or adding unnecessary contrast, but generally making them look like they needed a lot of work. I would then work on them in PS, to try to get them to look more like the snappy jpeg I shot.
I was talking to Jerry (Greer) about my frustration with the LCD look of the images - it's all psychological, but isn't so much of artistic expression? - and he suggested shooting in "landscape" mode anyways, even with RAW files, since Bridge was going to ultimately zero out the "landscape" setting. (I noticed this early on, when I would set the picture style to "monochrome," only to have Bridge ditch the grayscale image in favor of that same, flat-color RAW file.) Setting the 5D to "landscape" mode immediately added to my enjoyment in the field, as I could see the true potential of the scene in front of me on the LCD, not the flat lighting/color/contrast of the "neutral" setting I used previously. Still, when I returned home, I had a lot of work to do to the files to extract the true beauty of the scene in the way Velvia would record it. (An analogy between "neutral/faithful" and "landscape" would be the difference between Kodachrome and Velvia, except Kodachrome, while flatter color than Velvia, still looked better than these RAW files do.)
When I was out east shooting with Jerry last October, I noticed he was looking over his images on the road with Canon's Zoombrowser EX loaded on his laptop. As he explained it, Bridge is just too damn slooooow. I agree!
So last week I was looking through some images from last fall, and decided to try Zoombrowser EX to do so instead of Bridge. It is so much quicker! I got to one particular page, and as I scrolled the cursor over a set of files, something caught my eye. "Holy sh_t!," I thought, "what was that bright red stuff?" I opened the folder, and to my amazement, I found a whole series of images of Pikes Peak I had all but forgotten about. There's a spot I've returned to over the course of almost 15 years (even made a four-seasons poster of the scene which has sold well over the years), and last fall there was a stand of aspens that, like few times before, had turned vibrant red. I didn't even blink twice when the images opened in Bridge back when I first downloaded them, but to my amazement, in Zoombrowser, which obviously retained the "landscape" picture style parameters in color and contrast, the photo looked incredible! (see here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=14550&b=vf10&st=0&la=1929&ph=6&sid=12462&u=12462)
I suddenly came to the realization that all the photos I had shot since late-July, when I had turned the camera to "landscape" mode, had taken up much, much more time in post-processing than they should have. We're talking hundreds of hours spent on files, trying to get them to look like they do with just a simple "open" command in Zoombrowser.
Now, the questions: Why do Bridge and ACR alter the image so drastically (and poorly, imo), and how can I get Bridge/ACR to retain the settings of my camera's "landscape" mode? I've looked in the preferences in Bridge, and despite that it might be staring me in the face, I can't find a command to just tell it to leave the images alone. Same goes for ACR - I can set it to not do the auto adjustments when I open an image from Bridge to process it in ACR, but that just means it won't further adjust the image from what Bridge has already done.
If there isn't a way to get Bridge/ACR to leave the images alone and do a simple conversion from RAW file to tiff, is there a way to get Zoombrowser EX to convert the RAW file in 16-bit?
Or, is this all a moot point and I should really be using something other than ACR or ZBEX? Is there another RAW converter that will convert my RAW files like I shot them, and give 'em to me in 16-bit?
I don't know if this will retain settings in "Landscape Mode" or not (those settings may only be in-camera processing that can only be applied to jpg files), but it will keep ACR from choosing what it thinks is best.
Best I can do with my limited, but increasing knowledge, forgive me if I read your post incorrectly.
It is precisely because I have started using in-camera profiles more that I have begun depending on DPP more for my conversions.
I wish Capture One LE could read them, so if anyone can give me a tip on how to get *that* to work I would appreciate it!
About 3 or 4 months ago, I did a test with an image that I wasn't happy with when converted with ACR. Just couldn't seem to get any punch from the colors. I've had DPP on my machine since I bought my 20D 2 years ago. I now have the 20D and the 5D. With the picture styles of the 5D, I decided to give DPP a try to see what happened. To make a long story short, I now only use DPP to do my raw conversions. Picture styles can be applied to any Canon raw file in DPP (not just from the cameras that allow you to choose a picture style in camera). I'm getting much better color control, better sharpness, better control on highlights and shadows than I was able to achieve with ACR. A simple "Transfer to Photoshop" from DPP gets the image opened in Photoshop. I process everything in 16 bit at this point. I've since gone back and tried to reproduce the post processing with ACR that I do in DPP. On some images, I can get the same results. On most, I'm not able to. It is certainly worth a try to see what you are able to get. Sounds like your issue revolves around the post processing software leaving your images as you shot them. DPP will certainly do that, but allows you to change the picture style later, apply all of the typical raw post processing techniques. Assuming your monitor is color calibrated, go into DPP and tell it the name of the ICC profile you've created and be assured that the colors you see are the calibrated ones.
Just my 2 cents..
Keith
I'm assuming they have them for the 5D, but my 400D can use them so...
Have fun, Craig
BTW, only Canon software can use these Canon type presets. Just one more proprietary setup they don't want others to get their gubby little hands on.
I was having some issues with my PC locking up (Celeron 2.66GHz, 2GB RAM), so I'll have to look at this. DPP was pulling well over 1GB of RAM, and I was only trying to process one image. I have been a bit concerned about the health of this PC lately though. I think there is some hardware on the machine that is getting close to the end of its usuable life.