Professional Web Applications Themes

Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus - Photography

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 ...

  1. #1

    Default Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus



    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.


    Randall Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    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" <xx.com> wrote in message
    news:T0SPd.925$W%news.pas.earthlink.net... 


    DM Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    You have my attention...

    What would you suggest instead?

    Randall


    "DM" <blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:w%WPd.94075$news.blueyonder.co.uk... 
    >
    >[/ref]


    Randall Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    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" <xx.com> wrote in message
    news:72fQd.702$news.pas.earthlink.net... 
    >>
    >>[/ref]
    >
    >[/ref]



    DM Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

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

    "DM" <blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:_EMQd.16269$news.blueyonder.co.uk... 
    >>
    >>[/ref]
    >
    >
    >[/ref]


    Lester Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    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:
     
    >>[/ref]
    >
    >
    >[/ref]
    paul Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    Hi Paul,

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

    Regards

    DM

    "paul" <net> wrote in message
    news:net... 
    >>
    >>[/ref][/ref]

    DM Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    I've got them here:
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion>

    and below that, as simple images:
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/crop&PICS=9>


    and with histograms:
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/histogram&PICS=9>
    Quite some differences.

    So any conclusions anyone?

    How was the original created?


    DM wrote:
     [/ref]
    >[/ref]
    paul Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    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...

    a.. 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.]
    a.. 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.
    b.. Juxtaposing them together with the original jpg was done simply to make a direct comparison easy.
    c.. 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" <net> wrote in message news:net... 
    >>[/ref][/ref]
    DM Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    Paul,

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

    Secondly, the histogram ysis 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" <net> wrote in message
    news:net... 
    >>[/ref][/ref]


    DM Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    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/photography/raw-conversion/crop&PG=1&PIC=8&PICS=9>

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



    DM wrote: [/ref]
    >
    >[/ref]
    paul Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    DM wrote: 


    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.
     
    > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion
    > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion>> 
    > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/crop&PICS=9
    > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/crop&PICS=9>> 
    > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/histogram&PICS=9
    > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/histogram&PICS=9>> [/ref]
    > directed. [/ref]
    > here [/ref]
    > you let [/ref]
    > <mailto:blueyonder.co.uk>> wrote in message [/ref][/ref]
    paul Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    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" <net> wrote in message
    news:net... 
    >
    >
    > 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.

    >> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion
    >> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion>> 
    >> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/crop&PICS=9
    >> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/crop&PICS=9>> 
    >> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/histogram&PICS=9
    >> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/histogram&PICS=9>> 
    >> directed. 
    >> here 
    >> RAW 
    >> am 
    >> Blueyonder's 
    >> be 
    >> you let 
    >> <mailto:blueyonder.co.uk>> wrote in message 
    >> DPP 
    >> either [/ref][/ref]


    DM Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    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/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=3>
    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/photography/raw-conversion/crop&PG=1&PIC=8&PICS=9>

    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:
     
    >>
    >>
    >>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.
    >>
    >> [/ref]
    >
    >
    >[/ref]
    paul Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    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" <net> wrote in message
    news:net... 
    >>
    >>[/ref][/ref]

    DM Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    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/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=3>
    The out of camera raw conversion should look sharper than the in-camera
    jpeg.


    DM wrote: [/ref]
    >[/ref]
    paul Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    Wow, thanks.

    Any indication of the converter version numbers?


    "paul" <net> wrote in message
    news:net... 
    >>[/ref][/ref]


    Lester Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus



    Any indication of the converter version numbers?

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


    Lester Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    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/convertertests.htm ) 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" <blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:%buRd.17971$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" <net> wrote in message news:net... 
    >>[/ref][/ref]
    Lester Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Digital Photo Proffessional > Focus

    Lester,

    I've just replied to a forwarded email of your's from Paul (who kindly hosted the comparison images). However, you raise some other questions here.

    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:

    a.. DEC = 0
    b.. White Balance = Auto
    c.. B-A = 0
    d.. G-M = 0
    e.. Contrast = Standard
    f.. Color Tone = 0
    g.. B/W = Off
    h.. Color Space = sRGB
    i.. Sharpness = Standard

    In DPP this equates to...

    RAW
    a.. Brightness Adjustment = 0
    b.. White Balance Adjustment = Shot Settings
    c.. Dynamic Range Adjustment = Unaltered (0-4095)
    d.. Tone Curve Property = Shot Settings
    e.. Color Adjustment = Shot Settings

    RGB
    a.. Tone Curve Adjustment = None (ie 0-255 both axis)
    b.. Brightness = 0
    c.. Contrast = 0
    d.. Color Adjustment = 0
    e.. 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" <co.uk> wrote in message news:4218984b$0$32616$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/convertertests.htm ) 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" <blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:%buRd.17971$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" <net> wrote in message news:net... 
    >>[/ref][/ref]
    DM Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Digital Rebel LCD focus blurry
    By RichardClinton in forum Photography
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 20th, 08:00 AM
  2. aus.photo.digital ?
    By John in forum Photography
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: September 23rd, 12:08 AM
  3. Beginner Digital Photo ?s
    By Norm in forum Mac Applications & Software
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 13th, 08:05 PM
  4. Digital image focus echos
    By Admiral in forum Photography
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 5th, 02:19 PM
  5. Adjustment of a digital photo?
    By charles eaves in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 23rd, 11:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139