Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 14, 2005 3:11:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

Newbie here...

I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.

The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
photo selected instead of the default directory?

Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
contain your double clicked photo.

Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
February 14, 2005 8:51:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's improved
workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files substantially
misjudges the R component in images (compared to the camera's own
interpretation 10D & 20D).

Regards

DM

"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>
> Newbie here...
>
> I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
> other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
> handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
> Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>
> The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
> photo selected instead of the default directory?
>
> Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
> to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
> the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
> contain your double clicked photo.
>
> Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>
>
February 15, 2005 7:39:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

You have my attention...

What would you suggest instead?

Randall


"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's improved
> workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files substantially
> misjudges the R component in images (compared to the camera's own
> interpretation 10D & 20D).
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
> "Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
> news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>> Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>
>> Newbie here...
>>
>> I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>> other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>> handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>> Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>
>> The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>> photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>
>> Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
>> to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>> the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>> contain your double clicked photo.
>>
>> Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>
>>
>
>
Related resources
February 16, 2005 9:53:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall,

I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the RAW
conversions from...

1) EOS Viewer Utility
2) Breeze Browser Pro
3) Digital Photo Professional
4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
5) C1 Pro LE
6) DxO

The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but am
unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's Binary
Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I don't
want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
interested considering the nature of the group.

If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if you let me
have you email address I'll send them to you direct.

Regards

DM

"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> You have my attention...
>
> What would you suggest instead?
>
> Randall
>
>
> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>> improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>> substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>> camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> DM
>>
>> "Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>> news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>
>>> Newbie here...
>>>
>>> I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>> other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>> handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>> Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>
>>> The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>> photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>
>>> Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
>>> to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>>> the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>> contain your double clicked photo.
>>>
>>> Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
February 17, 2005 12:21:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them
here even if you did.

DM wrote:

> Randall,
>
> I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the RAW
> conversions from...
>
> 1) EOS Viewer Utility
> 2) Breeze Browser Pro
> 3) Digital Photo Professional
> 4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
> 5) C1 Pro LE
> 6) DxO
>
> The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but am
> unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's Binary
> Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I don't
> want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
> interested considering the nature of the group.
>
> If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if you let me
> have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
> "Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
> news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>You have my attention...
>>
>>What would you suggest instead?
>>
>>Randall
>>
>>
>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>DM
>>>
>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>>
>>>>Newbie here...
>>>>
>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>>
>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>>
>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>>>
>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 12:39:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I would be interested too. Is there anywhere you can post them?

"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_EMQd.16269$8B3.4337@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Randall,
>
> I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the RAW
> conversions from...
>
> 1) EOS Viewer Utility
> 2) Breeze Browser Pro
> 3) Digital Photo Professional
> 4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
> 5) C1 Pro LE
> 6) DxO
>
> The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but am
> unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's
> Binary
> Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I don't
> want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
> interested considering the nature of the group.
>
> If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if you let
> me
> have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
> "Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
> news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> You have my attention...
>>
>> What would you suggest instead?
>>
>> Randall
>>
>>
>> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>> improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>>> substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>>> camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> DM
>>>
>>> "Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>> news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>>
>>>> Newbie here...
>>>>
>>>> I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>>> other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>> handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>>> Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>>
>>>> The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>> photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>>
>>>> Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
>>>> to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>>>> the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>>> contain your double clicked photo.
>>>>
>>>> Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
February 18, 2005 4:19:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as directed.

Regards

DM

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
> I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
> http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
> Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them here
> even if you did.
>
> DM wrote:
>
>> Randall,
>>
>> I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the RAW
>> conversions from...
>>
>> 1) EOS Viewer Utility
>> 2) Breeze Browser Pro
>> 3) Digital Photo Professional
>> 4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>> 5) C1 Pro LE
>> 6) DxO
>>
>> The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but am
>> unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's
>> Binary
>> Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I
>> don't
>> want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
>> interested considering the nature of the group.
>>
>> If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if you let
>> me
>> have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> DM
>>
>> "Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>> news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>You have my attention...
>>>
>>>What would you suggest instead?
>>>
>>>Randall
>>>
>>>
>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>
>>>>DM
>>>>
>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>>>
>>>>>Newbie here...
>>>>>
>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>>>
>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>>>
>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
February 18, 2005 12:19:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I've got them here:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;

and below that, as simple images:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;


and with histograms:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
Quite some differences.

So any conclusions anyone?

How was the original created?


DM wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as directed.
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>
>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them here
>>even if you did.
>>
>>DM wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Randall,
>>>
>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the RAW
>>>conversions from...
>>>
>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>>>6) DxO
>>>
>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but am
>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's
>>>Binary
>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I
>>>don't
>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>>>
>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if you let
>>>me
>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>DM
>>>
>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>You have my attention...
>>>>
>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>>>>
>>>>Randall
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>DM
>>>>>
>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Newbie here...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
February 18, 2005 10:17:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DM wrote:
>
> By *'the original'* I take it you mean how did I arrive at the composite
> images side-by-side?


What program did you use to create the left/original image? It has less
clipping than any of them in the histogram. Is it possible the
differences are just due to different default settings and could be
equalized?

Digital Photo Pro seems the worst looking and C1 Pro LE. Photoshop seems
the noisiest. I am suprised how different they are.

>
> But just in case - to cover all bases...
>
> The original image was shot with a 20D early one morning at a
> Cross-Country meeting using both RAW and Max JPG. It comes from a
> sequence of 24 photo's that I'd originally processed using the EOS
> Viewer Util and then thought I'd see 'what extra' I could extract from
> the images using the Digital Photo 'Pro'. I love the interface but was
> appalled at it's handling of the R part of the colour matrix.
>
> */Perhaps we need to establish a point of principle here:/*
>
> Personally, I shoot RAW so I have the ability to correct any errors post
> shooting. However, if the original max quality JPG from the camera (shot
> simultaneously) looks correct - then I would expect the RAW conversion
> to give me what the camera JPG was as it's staring point. If, after
> that, I disagree with the camera's decision - at the time - I can then
> override it in the software. What I don't expect is to have a
> disagreement about what the starting point is!!!!
>
> As to arriving at the composited images...
>
>
> * Each 16 bit tif was converted using the respective packages
> default values and saved without editing, or further processing.
> The images were then cropped still as a tif (using Thumbs+ Pro) to
> give identical crops.
>
> [The crop of the jersey was chosen to highlight the problem under
> discussion without revealing any unnecessary bits of the kids - a
> topic photographers have to be constantly careful of these days.]
>
> * Once all the conversions were available I put them in separate
> directories for each image comparison & had Thumbsplus make a
> contact sheet of the 2 file directory with the 'thumbnail' size
> set to be the exact dimensions on the original tiffs.
> * Juxtaposing them together with the original jpg was done simply to
> make a direct comparison easy.
> * All the original files are available (both RAW & original
> conversions at max res) if someone doubts that the images shown
> really represent the accuracy & quality of the originals. None of
> these images have been altered or processed in any way other than
> as described above.
>
> Hope this helps folks make their own assessment of the images shown.
> Personally I was just so disappointed that the DPP from Canon - whose
> interface I love - was just so far out. However, it was only when I then
> decided to try out all of the current alternatives that I realised Canon
> was not alone in having difficulty enhancing on the basic accuracy of
> the camera's own JPG
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
>
> "paul" <paul@not.net <mailto:p aul@not.net>> wrote in message
> news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
> > I've got them here:
> >
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
> >
> > and below that, as simple images:
> >
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
> >
> >
> > and with histograms:
> >
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
> > Quite some differences.
> >
> > So any conclusions anyone?
> >
> > How was the original created?
> >
> >
> > DM wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as
> directed.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> DM
> >>
> >> "paul" <paul@not.net <mailto:p aul@not.net>> wrote in message
> >> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
> >>
> >>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
> >>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
> >>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them
> here
> >>>even if you did.
> >>>
> >>>DM wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Randall,
> >>>>
> >>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the RAW
> >>>>conversions from...
> >>>>
> >>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
> >>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
> >>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
> >>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
> >>>>5) C1 Pro LE
> >>>>6) DxO
> >>>>
> >>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but am
> >>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's
> >>>>Binary
> >>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I
> >>>>don't
> >>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
> >>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
> >>>>
> >>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if
> you let
> >>>>me
> >>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
> >>>>
> >>>>Regards
> >>>>
> >>>>DM
> >>>>
> >>>>"Randall" <x@x.com <mailto:x@x.com>> wrote in message
> >>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>You have my attention...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What would you suggest instead?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Randall
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk
> <mailto:D ungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk>> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
> >>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
> >>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
> >>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Regards
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>DM
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com <mailto:x@x.com>> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Newbie here...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
> >>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
> >>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
> >>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
> >>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
> >>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
> >>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
> >>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
February 19, 2005 1:58:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul,

Thanks first of all for taking the trouble to post these.

Secondly, the histogram analysis was fascinating but I wonder could you do
the same focusing just on the red jumper? The reason I ask is that, despite
showing a marked shift in certain programs I think it would be even more
marked if one just focused on the problem area?

Unfair? Maybe - but I'd be interested nonetheless...

Paul - thanks once again for taking the time to do this - I appreciate it.

Regards

DM

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
> I've got them here:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>
> and below that, as simple images:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>
>
> and with histograms:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
> Quite some differences.
>
> So any conclusions anyone?
>
> How was the original created?
>
>
> DM wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as
>> directed.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> DM
>>
>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them here
>>>even if you did.
>>>
>>>DM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Randall,
>>>>
>>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the RAW
>>>>conversions from...
>>>>
>>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>>>>6) DxO
>>>>
>>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but am
>>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's
>>>>Binary
>>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I
>>>>don't
>>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
>>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>>>>
>>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if you
>>>>let me
>>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>
>>>>DM
>>>>
>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You have my attention...
>>>>>
>>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>>>>>
>>>>>Randall
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>DM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Newbie here...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
>>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
February 19, 2005 1:58:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I think the histogram applies to the 'full' image.

This shot shows mostly the red jumper:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;

The EOS viewer util is almost identical to breeze browser. Photoshop
actually clipps the red channel the worst.



DM wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Thanks first of all for taking the trouble to post these.
>
> Secondly, the histogram analysis was fascinating but I wonder could you do
> the same focusing just on the red jumper? The reason I ask is that, despite
> showing a marked shift in certain programs I think it would be even more
> marked if one just focused on the problem area?
>
> Unfair? Maybe - but I'd be interested nonetheless...
>
> Paul - thanks once again for taking the time to do this - I appreciate it.
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
>
>>I've got them here:
>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>
>>and below that, as simple images:
>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>
>>
>>and with histograms:
>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>Quite some differences.
>>
>>So any conclusions anyone?
>>
>>How was the original created?
>>
>>
>>DM wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Paul,
>>>
>>>Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as
>>>directed.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>DM
>>>
>>>"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>>>news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>>>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>>>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them here
>>>>even if you did.
>>>>
>>>>DM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Randall,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the RAW
>>>>>conversions from...
>>>>>
>>>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>>>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>>>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>>>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>>>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>>>>>6) DxO
>>>>>
>>>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but am
>>>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's
>>>>>Binary
>>>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I
>>>>>don't
>>>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
>>>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>>>>>
>>>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if you
>>>>>let me
>>>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>DM
>>>>>
>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You have my attention...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Randall
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>>>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>>>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>DM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Newbie here...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
>>>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>>>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
>
February 19, 2005 9:03:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul,

The left image is a simple crop from the original max quality JPG shot
simultaneously with the 20D (unlike the 10D the 20 actually writes 2
separate files not some hybrid 'embedded thing that has to 'extracted')

Regards

DM

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:xsydnX43iZ9NMovfRVn-pg@speakeasy.net...
> DM wrote:
>> By *'the original'* I take it you mean how did I arrive at the composite
>> images side-by-side?
>
>
> What program did you use to create the left/original image? It has less
> clipping than any of them in the histogram. Is it possible the differences
> are just due to different default settings and could be equalized?
>
> Digital Photo Pro seems the worst looking and C1 Pro LE. Photoshop seems
> the noisiest. I am suprised how different they are.
>
>> But just in case - to cover all bases...
>> The original image was shot with a 20D early one morning at a
>> Cross-Country meeting using both RAW and Max JPG. It comes from a
>> sequence of 24 photo's that I'd originally processed using the EOS Viewer
>> Util and then thought I'd see 'what extra' I could extract from the
>> images using the Digital Photo 'Pro'. I love the interface but was
>> appalled at it's handling of the R part of the colour matrix.
>> */Perhaps we need to establish a point of principle here:/*
>> Personally, I shoot RAW so I have the ability to correct any errors post
>> shooting. However, if the original max quality JPG from the camera (shot
>> simultaneously) looks correct - then I would expect the RAW conversion to
>> give me what the camera JPG was as it's staring point. If, after that, I
>> disagree with the camera's decision - at the time - I can then override
>> it in the software. What I don't expect is to have a disagreement about
>> what the starting point is!!!!
>> As to arriving at the composited images...
>> * Each 16 bit tif was converted using the respective packages
>> default values and saved without editing, or further processing.
>> The images were then cropped still as a tif (using Thumbs+ Pro) to
>> give identical crops.
>>
>> [The crop of the jersey was chosen to highlight the problem under
>> discussion without revealing any unnecessary bits of the kids - a
>> topic photographers have to be constantly careful of these days.]
>>
>> * Once all the conversions were available I put them in separate
>> directories for each image comparison & had Thumbsplus make a
>> contact sheet of the 2 file directory with the 'thumbnail' size
>> set to be the exact dimensions on the original tiffs.
>> * Juxtaposing them together with the original jpg was done simply to
>> make a direct comparison easy.
>> * All the original files are available (both RAW & original
>> conversions at max res) if someone doubts that the images shown
>> really represent the accuracy & quality of the originals. None of
>> these images have been altered or processed in any way other than
>> as described above.
>>
>> Hope this helps folks make their own assessment of the images shown.
>> Personally I was just so disappointed that the DPP from Canon - whose
>> interface I love - was just so far out. However, it was only when I then
>> decided to try out all of the current alternatives that I realised Canon
>> was not alone in having difficulty enhancing on the basic accuracy of the
>> camera's own JPG
>> Regards
>> DM
>> "paul" <paul@not.net <mailto:p aul@not.net>> wrote in message
>> news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
>> > I've got them here:
>> >
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>> >
>> > and below that, as simple images:
>> >
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>> >
>> >
>> > and with histograms:
>> >
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>> > Quite some differences.
>> >
>> > So any conclusions anyone?
>> >
>> > How was the original created?
>> >
>> >
>> > DM wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Paul,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as
>> directed.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >>
>> >> DM
>> >>
>> >> "paul" <paul@not.net <mailto:p aul@not.net>> wrote in message
>> >> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>> >>
>> >>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>> >>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>> >>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them
>> here
>> >>>even if you did.
>> >>>
>> >>>DM wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Randall,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the
>> RAW
>> >>>>conversions from...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>> >>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>> >>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>> >>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>> >>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>> >>>>6) DxO
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but
>> am
>> >>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from
>> Blueyonder's
>> >>>>Binary
>> >>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I
>> >>>>don't
>> >>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may
>> be
>> >>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if
>> you let
>> >>>>me
>> >>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Regards
>> >>>>
>> >>>>DM
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Randall" <x@x.com <mailto:x@x.com>> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>You have my attention...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Randall
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk
>> <mailto:D ungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk>> wrote in message
>> >>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>> >>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>> >>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>> >>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Regards
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>DM
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com <mailto:x@x.com>> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Newbie here...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>> >>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>> >>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>> >>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>> >>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open
>> DPP
>> >>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to
>> either
>> >>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>> >>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
February 19, 2005 9:03:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hmmmm. I also found jpeg to be a lot less noisy than RAW in tests I did.
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
I guess that noise is good usable detail & the photoshop RAW converter
does the best according to that criteria though I don't know.
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;

BTW the D70 only does low quality jpegs with RAW but the jpeg is done
in-camera & is not as good as slower post-processing. Thoe other tests
above were shot as separate jpeg high quality mode against RAW.


DM wrote:

> Paul,
>
> The left image is a simple crop from the original max quality JPG shot
> simultaneously with the 20D (unlike the 10D the 20 actually writes 2
> separate files not some hybrid 'embedded thing that has to 'extracted')
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:xsydnX43iZ9NMovfRVn-pg@speakeasy.net...
>
>>DM wrote:
>>
>>> By *'the original'* I take it you mean how did I arrive at the composite
>>>images side-by-side?
>>
>>
>>What program did you use to create the left/original image? It has less
>>clipping than any of them in the histogram. Is it possible the differences
>>are just due to different default settings and could be equalized?
>>
>>Digital Photo Pro seems the worst looking and C1 Pro LE. Photoshop seems
>>the noisiest. I am suprised how different they are.
>>
>>
>>> But just in case - to cover all bases...
>>> The original image was shot with a 20D early one morning at a
>>>Cross-Country meeting using both RAW and Max JPG. It comes from a
>>>sequence of 24 photo's that I'd originally processed using the EOS Viewer
>>>Util and then thought I'd see 'what extra' I could extract from the
>>>images using the Digital Photo 'Pro'. I love the interface but was
>>>appalled at it's handling of the R part of the colour matrix.
>>> */Perhaps we need to establish a point of principle here:/*
>>> Personally, I shoot RAW so I have the ability to correct any errors post
>>>shooting. However, if the original max quality JPG from the camera (shot
>>>simultaneously) looks correct - then I would expect the RAW conversion to
>>>give me what the camera JPG was as it's staring point. If, after that, I
>>>disagree with the camera's decision - at the time - I can then override
>>>it in the software. What I don't expect is to have a disagreement about
>>>what the starting point is!!!!
>>> As to arriving at the composited images...
>>> * Each 16 bit tif was converted using the respective packages
>>> default values and saved without editing, or further processing.
>>> The images were then cropped still as a tif (using Thumbs+ Pro) to
>>> give identical crops.
>>>
>>> [The crop of the jersey was chosen to highlight the problem under
>>> discussion without revealing any unnecessary bits of the kids - a
>>> topic photographers have to be constantly careful of these days.]
>>>
>>> * Once all the conversions were available I put them in separate
>>> directories for each image comparison & had Thumbsplus make a
>>> contact sheet of the 2 file directory with the 'thumbnail' size
>>> set to be the exact dimensions on the original tiffs.
>>> * Juxtaposing them together with the original jpg was done simply to
>>> make a direct comparison easy.
>>> * All the original files are available (both RAW & original
>>> conversions at max res) if someone doubts that the images shown
>>> really represent the accuracy & quality of the originals. None of
>>> these images have been altered or processed in any way other than
>>> as described above.
>>>
>>>Hope this helps folks make their own assessment of the images shown.
>>>Personally I was just so disappointed that the DPP from Canon - whose
>>>interface I love - was just so far out. However, it was only when I then
>>>decided to try out all of the current alternatives that I realised Canon
>>>was not alone in having difficulty enhancing on the basic accuracy of the
>>>camera's own JPG
>>> Regards
>>> DM
>>> "paul" <paul@not.net <mailto:p aul@not.net>> wrote in message
>>>news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
>>> > I've got them here:
>>> >
>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>>> >
>>> > and below that, as simple images:
>>> >
>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > and with histograms:
>>> >
>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>>> > Quite some differences.
>>> >
>>> > So any conclusions anyone?
>>> >
>>> > How was the original created?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > DM wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Paul,
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as
>>>directed.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards
>>> >>
>>> >> DM
>>> >>
>>> >> "paul" <paul@not.net <mailto:p aul@not.net>> wrote in message
>>> >> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>>> >>
>>> >>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>>> >>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>>> >>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them
>>>here
>>> >>>even if you did.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>DM wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>Randall,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the
>>>RAW
>>> >>>>conversions from...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>>> >>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>>> >>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>>> >>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>>> >>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>>> >>>>6) DxO
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but
>>>am
>>> >>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from
>>>Blueyonder's
>>> >>>>Binary
>>> >>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I
>>> >>>>don't
>>> >>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may
>>>be
>>> >>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if
>>>you let
>>> >>>>me
>>> >>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Regards
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>DM
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>"Randall" <x@x.com <mailto:x@x.com>> wrote in message
>>> >>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>You have my attention...
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>Randall
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk
>>><mailto:D ungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk>> wrote in message
>>> >>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>> >>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>>> >>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>>> >>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>Regards
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>DM
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com <mailto:x@x.com>> wrote in message
>>> >>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>Newbie here...
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>> >>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>> >>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>> >>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>> >>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open
>>>DPP
>>> >>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to
>>>either
>>> >>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>> >>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>
>
>
>
February 19, 2005 11:50:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul,

Was that an attempt at subtle sarcasm (noise is good usable detail)? The
Photoshop attempt at the RAW conversion was disappointing due to the
extraneous noise introduced that just wasn't there with other conversions.

Regards

DM

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:bsednQg6NIwPfovfRVn-3g@speakeasy.net...
> Hmmmm. I also found jpeg to be a lot less noisy than RAW in tests I did.
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
> I guess that noise is good usable detail & the photoshop RAW converter
> does the best according to that criteria though I don't know.
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>
> BTW the D70 only does low quality jpegs with RAW but the jpeg is done
> in-camera & is not as good as slower post-processing. Thoe other tests
> above were shot as separate jpeg high quality mode against RAW.
>
>
> DM wrote:
>
>> Paul,
>>
>> The left image is a simple crop from the original max quality JPG shot
>> simultaneously with the 20D (unlike the 10D the 20 actually writes 2
>> separate files not some hybrid 'embedded thing that has to 'extracted')
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> DM
>>
>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>> news:xsydnX43iZ9NMovfRVn-pg@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>>DM wrote:
>>>
>>>> By *'the original'* I take it you mean how did I arrive at the
>>>> composite images side-by-side?
>>>
>>>
>>>What program did you use to create the left/original image? It has less
>>>clipping than any of them in the histogram. Is it possible the
>>>differences are just due to different default settings and could be
>>>equalized?
>>>
>>>Digital Photo Pro seems the worst looking and C1 Pro LE. Photoshop seems
>>>the noisiest. I am suprised how different they are.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But just in case - to cover all bases...
>>>> The original image was shot with a 20D early one morning at a
>>>> Cross-Country meeting using both RAW and Max JPG. It comes from a
>>>> sequence of 24 photo's that I'd originally processed using the EOS
>>>> Viewer Util and then thought I'd see 'what extra' I could extract from
>>>> the images using the Digital Photo 'Pro'. I love the interface but was
>>>> appalled at it's handling of the R part of the colour matrix.
>>>> */Perhaps we need to establish a point of principle here:/*
>>>> Personally, I shoot RAW so I have the ability to correct any errors
>>>> post shooting. However, if the original max quality JPG from the camera
>>>> (shot simultaneously) looks correct - then I would expect the RAW
>>>> conversion to give me what the camera JPG was as it's staring point.
>>>> If, after that, I disagree with the camera's decision - at the time - I
>>>> can then override it in the software. What I don't expect is to have a
>>>> disagreement about what the starting point is!!!!
>>>> As to arriving at the composited images...
>>>> * Each 16 bit tif was converted using the respective packages
>>>> default values and saved without editing, or further processing.
>>>> The images were then cropped still as a tif (using Thumbs+ Pro) to
>>>> give identical crops.
>>>>
>>>> [The crop of the jersey was chosen to highlight the problem under
>>>> discussion without revealing any unnecessary bits of the kids - a
>>>> topic photographers have to be constantly careful of these days.]
>>>>
>>>> * Once all the conversions were available I put them in separate
>>>> directories for each image comparison & had Thumbsplus make a
>>>> contact sheet of the 2 file directory with the 'thumbnail' size
>>>> set to be the exact dimensions on the original tiffs.
>>>> * Juxtaposing them together with the original jpg was done simply to
>>>> make a direct comparison easy.
>>>> * All the original files are available (both RAW & original
>>>> conversions at max res) if someone doubts that the images shown
>>>> really represent the accuracy & quality of the originals. None of
>>>> these images have been altered or processed in any way other than
>>>> as described above.
>>>>
>>>>Hope this helps folks make their own assessment of the images shown.
>>>>Personally I was just so disappointed that the DPP from Canon - whose
>>>>interface I love - was just so far out. However, it was only when I then
>>>>decided to try out all of the current alternatives that I realised Canon
>>>>was not alone in having difficulty enhancing on the basic accuracy of
>>>>the camera's own JPG
>>>> Regards
>>>> DM
>>>> "paul" <paul@not.net <mailto:p aul@not.net>> wrote in message
>>>> news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
>>>> > I've got them here:
>>>> >
>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>>>> >
>>>> > and below that, as simple images:
>>>> >
>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > and with histograms:
>>>> >
>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>>>> > Quite some differences.
>>>> >
>>>> > So any conclusions anyone?
>>>> >
>>>> > How was the original created?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > DM wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Hi Paul,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as
>>>>directed.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Regards
>>>> >>
>>>> >> DM
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "paul" <paul@not.net <mailto:p aul@not.net>> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>>>> >>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>>>> >>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them
>>>>here
>>>> >>>even if you did.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>DM wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>Randall,
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the
>>>>RAW
>>>> >>>>conversions from...
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>>>> >>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>>>> >>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>>>> >>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>>>> >>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>>>> >>>>6) DxO
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here
>>>> >>>>but
>>>>am
>>>> >>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from
>>>>Blueyonder's
>>>> >>>>Binary
>>>> >>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name
>>>> >>>>I
>>>> >>>>don't
>>>> >>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may
>>>>be
>>>> >>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if
>>>>you let
>>>> >>>>me
>>>> >>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>Regards
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>DM
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>"Randall" <x@x.com <mailto:x@x.com>> wrote in message
>>>> >>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>>You have my attention...
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>Randall
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk
>>>><mailto:D ungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk>> wrote in message
>>>> >>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>>> >>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW
>>>> >>>>>>files
>>>> >>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to
>>>> >>>>>>the
>>>> >>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>Regards
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>DM
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com <mailto:x@x.com>> wrote in message
>>>> >>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>Newbie here...
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have
>>>> >>>>>>>tried
>>>> >>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>> >>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital
>>>> >>>>>>>Photo
>>>> >>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>> >>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open
>>>>DPP
>>>> >>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to
>>>>either
>>>> >>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which
>>>> >>>>>>>may
>>>> >>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>
>>
>>
February 19, 2005 12:56:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Maybe the other versions were all softened like the original jpeg would
also be softer with less noise (and detail). The other test page I did
used Nikon Capture for the conversion and was also much noisier than the
in-camera jpeg. I agree it looks awful but I also think that other
test has a very gritty looking RAW:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
The out of camera raw conversion should look sharper than the in-camera
jpeg.


DM wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Was that an attempt at subtle sarcasm (noise is good usable detail)? The
> Photoshop attempt at the RAW conversion was disappointing due to the
> extraneous noise introduced that just wasn't there with other conversions.
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:bsednQg6NIwPfovfRVn-3g@speakeasy.net...
>
>>Hmmmm. I also found jpeg to be a lot less noisy than RAW in tests I did.
>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>I guess that noise is good usable detail & the photoshop RAW converter
>>does the best according to that criteria though I don't know.
>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>
>>BTW the D70 only does low quality jpegs with RAW but the jpeg is done
>>in-camera & is not as good as slower post-processing. Thoe other tests
>>above were shot as separate jpeg high quality mode against RAW.
>>
>>
>>DM wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Paul,
>>>
>>>The left image is a simple crop from the original max quality JPG shot
>>>simultaneously with the 20D (unlike the 10D the 20 actually writes 2
>>>separate files not some hybrid 'embedded thing that has to 'extracted')
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>DM
>>>
>>>"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>>>news:xsydnX43iZ9NMovfRVn-pg@speakeasy.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>DM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>By *'the original'* I take it you mean how did I arrive at the
>>>>>composite images side-by-side?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What program did you use to create the left/original image? It has less
>>>>clipping than any of them in the histogram. Is it possible the
>>>>differences are just due to different default settings and could be
>>>>equalized?
>>>>
>>>>Digital Photo Pro seems the worst looking and C1 Pro LE. Photoshop seems
>>>>the noisiest. I am suprised how different they are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But just in case - to cover all bases...
>>>>>The original image was shot with a 20D early one morning at a
>>>>>Cross-Country meeting using both RAW and Max JPG. It comes from a
>>>>>sequence of 24 photo's that I'd originally processed using the EOS
>>>>>Viewer Util and then thought I'd see 'what extra' I could extract from
>>>>>the images using the Digital Photo 'Pro'. I love the interface but was
>>>>>appalled at it's handling of the R part of the colour matrix.
>>>>>*/Perhaps we need to establish a point of principle here:/*
>>>>>Personally, I shoot RAW so I have the ability to correct any errors
>>>>>post shooting. However, if the original max quality JPG from the camera
>>>>>(shot simultaneously) looks correct - then I would expect the RAW
>>>>>conversion to give me what the camera JPG was as it's staring point.
>>>>>If, after that, I disagree with the camera's decision - at the time - I
>>>>>can then override it in the software. What I don't expect is to have a
>>>>>disagreement about what the starting point is!!!!
>>>>>As to arriving at the composited images...
>>>>>* Each 16 bit tif was converted using the respective packages
>>>>> default values and saved without editing, or further processing.
>>>>> The images were then cropped still as a tif (using Thumbs+ Pro) to
>>>>> give identical crops.
>>>>>
>>>>> [The crop of the jersey was chosen to highlight the problem under
>>>>> discussion without revealing any unnecessary bits of the kids - a
>>>>> topic photographers have to be constantly careful of these days.]
>>>>>
>>>>> * Once all the conversions were available I put them in separate
>>>>> directories for each image comparison & had Thumbsplus make a
>>>>> contact sheet of the 2 file directory with the 'thumbnail' size
>>>>> set to be the exact dimensions on the original tiffs.
>>>>> * Juxtaposing them together with the original jpg was done simply to
>>>>> make a direct comparison easy.
>>>>> * All the original files are available (both RAW & original
>>>>> conversions at max res) if someone doubts that the images shown
>>>>> really represent the accuracy & quality of the originals. None of
>>>>> these images have been altered or processed in any way other than
>>>>> as described above.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hope this helps folks make their own assessment of the images shown.
>>>>>Personally I was just so disappointed that the DPP from Canon - whose
>>>>>interface I love - was just so far out. However, it was only when I then
>>>>>decided to try out all of the current alternatives that I realised Canon
>>>>>was not alone in having difficulty enhancing on the basic accuracy of
>>>>>the camera's own JPG
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>DM
>>>>>"paul" <paul@not.net <mailto:p aul@not.net>> wrote in message
>>>>>news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>I've got them here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>>>>>
>>>>>>and below that, as simple images:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>and with histograms:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...
>>>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Quite some differences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So any conclusions anyone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How was the original created?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>DM wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as
>>>>>
>>>>>directed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>DM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"paul" <paul@not.net <mailto:p aul@not.net>> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>>>>>>>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>>>>>>>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them
>>>>>
>>>>>here
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>even if you did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>DM wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Randall,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the
>>>>>
>>>>>RAW
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>conversions from...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>>>>>>>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>>>>>>>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>>>>>>>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>>>>>>>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>>>>>>>>>6) DxO
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here
>>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>
>>>>>am
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from
>>>>>
>>>>>Blueyonder's
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Binary
>>>>>>>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name
>>>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>>>don't
>>>>>>>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may
>>>>>
>>>>>be
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if
>>>>>
>>>>>you let
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>me
>>>>>>>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>DM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com <mailto:x@x.com>> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You have my attention...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Randall
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>><mailto:D ungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk>> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>>>>>>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW
>>>>>>>>>>>files
>>>>>>>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>DM
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com <mailto:x@x.com>> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Newbie here...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>tried
>>>>>>>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>>>>>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital
>>>>>>>>>>>>Photo
>>>>>>>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open
>>>>>
>>>>>DPP
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to
>>>>>
>>>>>either
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which
>>>>>>>>>>>>may
>>>>>>>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 1:30:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Wow, thanks.

Any indication of the converter version numbers?


"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
> I've got them here:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>
> and below that, as simple images:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>
>
> and with histograms:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
> Quite some differences.
>
> So any conclusions anyone?
>
> How was the original created?
>
>
> DM wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as
>> directed.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> DM
>>
>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>>
>>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them here
>>>even if you did.
>>>
>>>DM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Randall,
>>>>
>>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the RAW
>>>>conversions from...
>>>>
>>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>>>>6) DxO
>>>>
>>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but am
>>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's
>>>>Binary
>>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I
>>>>don't
>>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
>>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>>>>
>>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if you
>>>>let me
>>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>
>>>>DM
>>>>
>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You have my attention...
>>>>>
>>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>>>>>
>>>>>Randall
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>DM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Newbie here...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
>>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 4:15:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Any indication of the converter version numbers?

Oh, also converter settings used. I take it all were conversion to jpg
rather than 16bit tif?

>
>
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
>> I've got them here:
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>
>> and below that, as simple images:
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>
>>
>> and with histograms:
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>> Quite some differences.
>>
>> So any conclusions anyone?
>>
>> How was the original created?
>>
>>
>> DM wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as
>>> directed.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> DM
>>>
>>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>>> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>>>
>>>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>>>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>>>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them
>>>>here even if you did.
>>>>
>>>>DM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Randall,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the RAW
>>>>>conversions from...
>>>>>
>>>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>>>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>>>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>>>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>>>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>>>>>6) DxO
>>>>>
>>>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but am
>>>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's
>>>>>Binary
>>>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I
>>>>>don't
>>>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
>>>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>>>>>
>>>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if you
>>>>>let me
>>>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>DM
>>>>>
>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You have my attention...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Randall
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>>>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>>>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>DM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Newbie here...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
>>>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>>>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
February 21, 2005 12:24:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Lester,

For settings see my reply to your earlier thread.

As previously stated, the conversions were all (initially) to 16-bit TIF -
not JPG (to give max flexibility for post processing). They were converted
to 8-bit JPG following the final crop & compositing.

Regards

DM

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42188d76$0$32602$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
> Any indication of the converter version numbers?
>
> Oh, also converter settings used. I take it all were conversion to jpg
> rather than 16bit tif?
>
>>
>>
>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>> news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
>>> I've got them here:
>>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>>
>>> and below that, as simple images:
>>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>>
>>>
>>> and with histograms:
>>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>> Quite some differences.
>>>
>>> So any conclusions anyone?
>>>
>>> How was the original created?
>>>
>>>
>>> DM wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as
>>>> directed.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> DM
>>>>
>>>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>>>>
>>>>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>>>>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>>>>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them
>>>>>here even if you did.
>>>>>
>>>>>DM wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Randall,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the RAW
>>>>>>conversions from...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>>>>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>>>>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>>>>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>>>>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>>>>>>6) DxO
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but
>>>>>>am
>>>>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's
>>>>>>Binary
>>>>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I
>>>>>>don't
>>>>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
>>>>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if you
>>>>>>let me
>>>>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>>DM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You have my attention...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Randall
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>>>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>>>>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>>>>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>DM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Newbie here...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>>>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>>>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open DPP
>>>>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>>>>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>>>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
February 22, 2005 8:16:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

WOW!

I never expected this kind of response to the original post. I never would
have guessed Canon would have problems processing of their own images. I
expected the lack of interoptability, but not the lack of accuaracy. Thank
you all for the extremely interesting posts. I too await DPP 2.0 and
suspect a similar thread will begin. The question is how do I do with DPP
with EOSVU?

Randall

"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xe7Sd.145143$B8.99602@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Lester,
>
> For settings see my reply to your earlier thread.
>
> As previously stated, the conversions were all (initially) to 16-bit TIF -
> not JPG (to give max flexibility for post processing). They were converted
> to 8-bit JPG following the final crop & compositing.
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:42188d76$0$32602$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> Any indication of the converter version numbers?
>>
>> Oh, also converter settings used. I take it all were conversion to jpg
>> rather than 16bit tif?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>>> news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
>>>> I've got them here:
>>>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>>>
>>>> and below that, as simple images:
>>>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and with histograms:
>>>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>>>> Quite some differences.
>>>>
>>>> So any conclusions anyone?
>>>>
>>>> How was the original created?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address as
>>>>> directed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> DM
>>>>>
>>>>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>>>>>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>>>>>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see them
>>>>>>here even if you did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>DM wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Randall,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and the
>>>>>>>RAW
>>>>>>>conversions from...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>>>>>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>>>>>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>>>>>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>>>>>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>>>>>>>6) DxO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them here but
>>>>>>>am
>>>>>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from Blueyonder's
>>>>>>>Binary
>>>>>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup name I
>>>>>>>don't
>>>>>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot may be
>>>>>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now, if you
>>>>>>>let me
>>>>>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>DM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You have my attention...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Randall
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
>>>>>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW files
>>>>>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared to the
>>>>>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>DM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Newbie here...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have tried
>>>>>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
>>>>>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital Photo
>>>>>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
>>>>>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not open
>>>>>>>>>>DPP
>>>>>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to either
>>>>>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of which may
>>>>>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
February 22, 2005 11:14:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

You don't mention the photoshop plug-in default settings but the default
settings are not "zero" for a few of the adjustable items. I've changed
my defaults, I think the shadows increase was at 5, the contrast and
brightness were also increased in the default settings.

I shoot with a D70 rather than Canon but I assume it's default settings
include some contrast increase as well for the jpeg setting, or maybe
not in which case that would explain the poor looking match with the PS
plugin. But it ought to be adjustable to match by playing with the settings.


DM wrote:
>
> It would not be a fair, or scientific study, if I started altering any
> of the default parameters from the conversion utilities from the
> ubiquitous 'as shot'.
>
> Thus in the EOS Viewer Util (version 1.2.1.14) the settings are:
>
>
> * DEC = 0
> * White Balance = Auto
> * B-A = 0
> * G-M = 0
> * Contrast = Standard
> * Color Tone = 0
> * B/W = Off
> * Color Space = sRGB
> * Sharpness = Standard
>
>
> In DPP this equates to...
>
> RAW
>
> * Brightness Adjustment = 0
> * White Balance Adjustment = Shot Settings
> * Dynamic Range Adjustment = Unaltered (0-4095)
> * Tone Curve Property = Shot Settings
> * Color Adjustment = Shot Settings
>
>
> RGB
>
> * Tone Curve Adjustment = None (ie 0-255 both axis)
> * Brightness = 0
> * Contrast = 0
> * Color Adjustment = 0
> * Saturation = 100
>
> As you can see this SHOULD give an unaltered image in both programs.
> However, you're quite right the EOS-VU is spot on and 'does exactly what
> it says on the tin' but the DPP (whilst having a great interface) tries
> hard but on certain shots has a real red weakness.
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
>
> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk <mailto:nospam@please.co.uk>>
> wrote in message news:4218984b$0$32616$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Hi DM
>
> Can you clarify the various settings you used in DPP and EOSV please.
>
> So for EOSV: White Balance, Contrast, Colour Sat, Colour Tone,
> Colour Space and Sharpness
>
> For DPP: White Balance, Dynamic Range/Tone Curve, Colour Adj (Shot,
> Faithful, Custom), Any RGB adjustments, Save Sharpness. What colour
> space is DPP working in.
>
> I guess all the other converters for other people also, though I
> don't have them...
>
> I assume you have used the default settings, but DPP seems to treat
> red differently on "as shot" and "faithful" though the manual is not
> too clear about what this means.
>
> I am interested in this myself (
> http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/convertertest... ) but
> only have access to the Canon converters, so I am trying to
> understand in additional expenditure is justified.
>
> On my tests the in EOSV colour seems closest to the in-camera jpg,
> although this may not be the best standard as the camera should be
> expected to have the most efficient algorithm in terms of processing
> requirements instead of quality.
>
> Just eyeballing these result on the screen with the originals in my
> hand the EOSV and in-camera jpg do look the most representative,
> particularly noticeable in the top two colour spots on the right. On
> the other hand the blues look better in DPP (possibly).
>
> I would be interested in others comments.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Lester
>
>
>
>
> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:%buRd.17971$8B3.14940@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Paul,
>
> By 'the original' I take it you mean how did I arrive at the
> composite images side-by-side?
>
> But just in case - to cover all bases...
>
> The original image was shot with a 20D early one morning at a
> Cross-Country meeting using both RAW and Max JPG. It comes from a
> sequence of 24 photo's that I'd originally processed using the EOS
> Viewer Util and then thought I'd see 'what extra' I could extract
> from the images using the Digital Photo 'Pro'. I love the interface
> but was appalled at it's handling of the R part of the colour matrix.
>
> Perhaps we need to establish a point of principle here:
>
> Personally, I shoot RAW so I have the ability to correct any errors
> post shooting. However, if the original max quality JPG from the
> camera (shot simultaneously) looks correct - then I would expect the
> RAW conversion to give me what the camera JPG was as it's staring
> point. If, after that, I disagree with the camera's decision - at
> the time - I can then override it in the software. What I don't
> expect is to have a disagreement about what the starting point is!!!!
>
> As to arriving at the composited images...
>
> Each 16 bit tif was converted using the respective packages default
> values and saved without editing, or further processing. The images
> were then cropped still as a tif (using Thumbs+ Pro) to give
> identical crops.
> [The crop of the jersey was chosen to highlight the problem under
> discussion without revealing any unnecessary bits of the kids - a
> topic photographers have to be constantly careful of these days.]
> Once all the conversions were available I put them in separate
> directories for each image comparison & had Thumbsplus make a
> contact sheet of the 2 file directory with the 'thumbnail' size set
> to be the exact dimensions on the original tiffs.
> Juxtaposing them together with the original jpg was done simply to
> make a direct comparison easy.
> All the original files are available (both RAW & original
> conversions at max res) if someone doubts that the images shown
> really represent the accuracy & quality of the originals. None of
> these images have been altered or processed in any way other than as
> described above.
> Hope this helps folks make their own assessment of the images shown.
> Personally I was just so disappointed that the DPP from Canon -
> whose interface I love - was just so far out. However, it was only
> when I then decided to try out all of the current alternatives that
> I realised Canon was not alone in having difficulty enhancing on the
> basic accuracy of the camera's own JPG
>
> Regards
>
> DM
>
>
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
> > I've got them here:
> >
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
> >
> > and below that, as simple images:
> >
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
> >
> >
> > and with histograms:
> >
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
> > Quite some differences.
> >
> > So any conclusions anyone?
> >
> > How was the original created?
> >
> >
> > DM wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address
> as directed.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> DM
> >>
> >> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> >> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
> >>
> >>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
> >>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
> >>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see
> them here
> >>>even if you did.
> >>>
> >>>DM wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Randall,
> >>>>
> >>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and
> the RAW
> >>>>conversions from...
> >>>>
> >>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
> >>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
> >>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
> >>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
> >>>>5) C1 Pro LE
> >>>>6) DxO
> >>>>
> >>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them
> here but am
> >>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from
> Blueyonder's
> >>>>Binary
> >>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup
> name I
> >>>>don't
> >>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot
> may be
> >>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
> >>>>
> >>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now,
> if you let
> >>>>me
> >>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
> >>>>
> >>>>Regards
> >>>>
> >>>>DM
> >>>>
> >>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>You have my attention...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What would you suggest instead?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Randall
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite it's
> >>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW
> files
> >>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared
> to the
> >>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Regards
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>DM
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Newbie here...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have
> tried
> >>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly and
> >>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital
> Photo
> >>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on the
> >>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not
> open DPP
> >>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to
> either
> >>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of
> which may
> >>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
February 22, 2005 11:40:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Paul,

I didn't mention the Photoshop plug-in settings as Lester mentioned he only
had access to the 2 Canon Utils and (let's face it) answering some of these
posts fully can be time consuming enough without giving a load of extra
stuff that wasn't asked for!

Regards

DM

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:b76dnTMhVc7Lx4bfRVn-2Q@speakeasy.net...
> You don't mention the photoshop plug-in default settings but the default
> settings are not "zero" for a few of the adjustable items. I've changed my
> defaults, I think the shadows increase was at 5, the contrast and
> brightness were also increased in the default settings.
>
> I shoot with a D70 rather than Canon but I assume it's default settings
> include some contrast increase as well for the jpeg setting, or maybe not
> in which case that would explain the poor looking match with the PS
> plugin. But it ought to be adjustable to match by playing with the
> settings.
>
>
> DM wrote:
>> It would not be a fair, or scientific study, if I started altering any
>> of the default parameters from the conversion utilities from the
>> ubiquitous 'as shot'.
>> Thus in the EOS Viewer Util (version 1.2.1.14) the settings are:
>> * DEC = 0
>> * White Balance = Auto
>> * B-A = 0
>> * G-M = 0
>> * Contrast = Standard
>> * Color Tone = 0
>> * B/W = Off
>> * Color Space = sRGB
>> * Sharpness = Standard
>>
>> In DPP this equates to...
>> RAW
>>
>> * Brightness Adjustment = 0
>> * White Balance Adjustment = Shot Settings
>> * Dynamic Range Adjustment = Unaltered (0-4095)
>> * Tone Curve Property = Shot Settings
>> * Color Adjustment = Shot Settings
>>
>> RGB
>>
>> * Tone Curve Adjustment = None (ie 0-255 both axis)
>> * Brightness = 0
>> * Contrast = 0
>> * Color Adjustment = 0
>> * Saturation = 100
>>
>> As you can see this SHOULD give an unaltered image in both programs.
>> However, you're quite right the EOS-VU is spot on and 'does exactly what
>> it says on the tin' but the DPP (whilst having a great interface) tries
>> hard but on certain shots has a real red weakness.
>> Regards
>> DM
>> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk <mailto:nospam@please.co.uk>>
>> wrote in message news:4218984b$0$32616$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Hi DM
>>
>> Can you clarify the various settings you used in DPP and EOSV please.
>>
>> So for EOSV: White Balance, Contrast, Colour Sat, Colour Tone,
>> Colour Space and Sharpness
>>
>> For DPP: White Balance, Dynamic Range/Tone Curve, Colour Adj (Shot,
>> Faithful, Custom), Any RGB adjustments, Save Sharpness. What colour
>> space is DPP working in.
>>
>> I guess all the other converters for other people also, though I
>> don't have them...
>>
>> I assume you have used the default settings, but DPP seems to treat
>> red differently on "as shot" and "faithful" though the manual is not
>> too clear about what this means.
>>
>> I am interested in this myself (
>> http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/convertertest... ) but
>> only have access to the Canon converters, so I am trying to
>> understand in additional expenditure is justified.
>>
>> On my tests the in EOSV colour seems closest to the in-camera jpg,
>> although this may not be the best standard as the camera should be
>> expected to have the most efficient algorithm in terms of processing
>> requirements instead of quality.
>>
>> Just eyeballing these result on the screen with the originals in my
>> hand the EOSV and in-camera jpg do look the most representative,
>> particularly noticeable in the top two colour spots on the right. On
>> the other hand the blues look better in DPP (possibly).
>>
>> I would be interested in others comments.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> Lester
>> "DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:%buRd.17971$8B3.14940@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Paul,
>>
>> By 'the original' I take it you mean how did I arrive at the
>> composite images side-by-side?
>>
>> But just in case - to cover all bases...
>>
>> The original image was shot with a 20D early one morning at a
>> Cross-Country meeting using both RAW and Max JPG. It comes from a
>> sequence of 24 photo's that I'd originally processed using the EOS
>> Viewer Util and then thought I'd see 'what extra' I could extract
>> from the images using the Digital Photo 'Pro'. I love the interface
>> but was appalled at it's handling of the R part of the colour matrix.
>>
>> Perhaps we need to establish a point of principle here:
>>
>> Personally, I shoot RAW so I have the ability to correct any errors
>> post shooting. However, if the original max quality JPG from the
>> camera (shot simultaneously) looks correct - then I would expect the
>> RAW conversion to give me what the camera JPG was as it's staring
>> point. If, after that, I disagree with the camera's decision - at
>> the time - I can then override it in the software. What I don't
>> expect is to have a disagreement about what the starting point is!!!!
>>
>> As to arriving at the composited images...
>>
>> Each 16 bit tif was converted using the respective packages default
>> values and saved without editing, or further processing. The images
>> were then cropped still as a tif (using Thumbs+ Pro) to give
>> identical crops.
>> [The crop of the jersey was chosen to highlight the problem under
>> discussion without revealing any unnecessary bits of the kids - a
>> topic photographers have to be constantly careful of these days.]
>> Once all the conversions were available I put them in separate
>> directories for each image comparison & had Thumbsplus make a
>> contact sheet of the 2 file directory with the 'thumbnail' size set
>> to be the exact dimensions on the original tiffs.
>> Juxtaposing them together with the original jpg was done simply to
>> make a direct comparison easy.
>> All the original files are available (both RAW & original
>> conversions at max res) if someone doubts that the images shown
>> really represent the accuracy & quality of the originals. None of
>> these images have been altered or processed in any way other than as
>> described above.
>> Hope this helps folks make their own assessment of the images shown.
>> Personally I was just so disappointed that the DPP from Canon -
>> whose interface I love - was just so far out. However, it was only
>> when I then decided to try out all of the current alternatives that
>> I realised Canon was not alone in having difficulty enhancing on the
>> basic accuracy of the camera's own JPG
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> DM
>>
>>
>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>> news:bcCdnWNijb0-vovfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
>> > I've got them here:
>> >
>>
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>> >
>> > and below that, as simple images:
>> >
>>
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>> >
>> >
>> > and with histograms:
>> >
>>
>> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>> > Quite some differences.
>> >
>> > So any conclusions anyone?
>> >
>> > How was the original created?
>> >
>> >
>> > DM wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Paul,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the offer - I've sent the files to the email address
>> as directed.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >>
>> >> DM
>> >>
>> >> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:l4-dnQoo0LlItInfRVn-uA@speakeasy.net...
>> >>
>> >>>I'll post them for everyone if you send to the address at:
>> >>>http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=mail.php
>> >>>Most providers will not allow binaries so most people won't see
>> them here
>> >>>even if you did.
>> >>>
>> >>>DM wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Randall,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I have a direct image comparison using an original 20D jpg and
>> the RAW
>> >>>>conversions from...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>1) EOS Viewer Utility
>> >>>>2) Breeze Browser Pro
>> >>>>3) Digital Photo Professional
>> >>>>4) Photoshop RAW Plug-In
>> >>>>5) C1 Pro LE
>> >>>>6) DxO
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The series comprises 6x ~200KB jpg files. I could post them
>> here but am
>> >>>>unsure of the group etiquette (I am picking this up from
>> Blueyonder's
>> >>>>Binary
>> >>>>Server but as there is no 'binary' component in the newsgroup
>> name I
>> >>>>don't
>> >>>>want to hack off a load of other users) - though I think a lot
>> may be
>> >>>>interested considering the nature of the group.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If enough users consent I post them here - otherwise, for now,
>> if you let
>> >>>>me
>> >>>>have you email address I'll send them to you direct.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Regards
>> >>>>
>> >>>>DM
>> >>>>
>> >>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:72fQd.702$IU.587@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>You have my attention...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>What would you suggest instead?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>Randall
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>"DM" <dungeon.master@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >>>>>news:w%WPd.94075$B8.4275@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>Personally I'd think long and hard before using DPP. Despite
>> it's
>> >>>>>>improved workflow interface it's 'interpretation' of the RAW
>> files
>> >>>>>>substantially misjudges the R component in images (compared
>> to the
>> >>>>>>camera's own interpretation 10D & 20D).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Regards
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>DM
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Randall" <x@x.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>news:T0SPd.925$W%5.795@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Newbie here...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>I use Zoombroser 5 to rate and catogorize my photos. I have
>> tried
>> >>>>>>>other software and have found nothing that loads as quickly
>> and
>> >>>>>>>handles my 7,000+ photos as easily. I started using Digital
>> Photo
>> >>>>>>>Professional 1.5 to edit my RAW's.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>The question is does anybody know how to get DPP to focus on
>> the
>> >>>>>>>photo selected instead of the default directory?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Double clicking on the RAW photo launches DPP but does not
>> open DPP
>> >>>>>>>to the double clicked photo! Instead DPP opens and looks to
>> either
>> >>>>>>>the last folder opened or the default folder neither of
>> which may
>> >>>>>>>contain your double clicked photo.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>Just asking, thanks in advance if anyone has the work around.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
!