Canon Picture Styles

[Tadjio]

One deficiency of AfterShot Pro compared with using Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) for RAW Conversion is the loss of Canon Picture Styles.
I see references in Bibble to Look Profiles and I guess in many ways these are similar to Picture Styles.
Without Picture Styles, you lose the Sharpening, Brightness, Contrast and other settings that can be set in the camera (or applied later in DPP).
These Picture Styles include Standard, Portrait (people), Landscape (views), Neutral, Faithful and Monochrome and can be defined in the camera by the user, for example to increase Sharpening.
The options available are Sharpness, Contrast, Saturation and Colour Tone but I suspect Canon incorporates other detail too.

When I view RAW+JPG Images from my Canon camera in ASP, I lose all the pre-defined Sharpness in the RAW version but not in the JPG, as well as some of the other features.
What I would like (in ASP v2?) is for ASP to recognise and use the Canon Picture Styles, ideally applying them non-destructively...

[df]

That will be the failing of all of the third party RAW converters. Picture Styles does more than just apply sharpening, contrast, and the other adjustments that could be changed within DPP, they adjust the intensity and saturation of the pixel color on a value by value level. In other words, portrait picture style will tone down the part of the red spectrum that's close to average and tanned skin tones but let the Little Red Ryder wagon pop. This can't be done simply by adjusting the saturation.

You and I are referring to Canon Picture Styles, but the other camera manufacturers likely have things that are similar. For Corel (Bibble) to reverse engineer all protocols for all camera makes and models would be a daunting task, and some of that may be copyrighted and off limits.

[Tadjio]

That will be the failing of all of the third party RAW converters. Picture Styles does more than just apply sharpening, contrast, and the other adjustments that could be changed within DPP, they adjust the intensity and saturation of the pixel color on a value by value level. In other words, portrait picture style will tone down the part of the red spectrum that's close to average and tanned skin tones but let the Little Red Ryder wagon pop. This can't be done simply by adjusting the saturation.
You and I are referring to Canon Picture Styles, but the other camera manufacturers likely have things that are similar. For Corel (Bibble) to reverse engineer all protocols for all camera makes and models would be a daunting task, and some of that may be copyrighted and off limits.

I did say "I suspect Canon incorporates other detail too" but I was't sure how to spell it out
DPReview comments: "The disappointing aspect of Picture Style is that the tone curve and color map are not revealed to the user, you have to experiment to understand the effect of each Picture Style" and has a summary table showing Tone Curve and Colour plus an interesting colour chart comparison at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page14.asp .
If they can reverse engineer that much, hopefully Corel / Bibble can too.
The other features to bare in mind are any Custom settings such as Noise Reduction.

Yes, I appreciate there are other camera manufacturers but Canon has one of the largest user bases of DSLR RAW users whose needs shouldn't be overlooked!

[afx]

Yes, I appreciate there are other camera manufacturers but Canon has one of the largest user bases of DSLR RAW users whose needs shouldn't be overlooked!

Why should they waste resources on something like this.
If you like the Canon rendering, use Canons Software.
There are much more important things to deal with than mimicking something that already exists.

cheers
afx

[Tadjio]

Why should they waste resources on something like this.
If you like the Canon rendering, use Canons Software.
There are much more important things to deal with than mimicking something that already exists.
cheers
afx

I did say AfterShot Pro Version 2

[grubernd]

if you really "depend" on the picture styles i suggest taking the time and approximate them with as few tools as possible in ASP, then save those to a preset. i have done so with a Sepia setting from my Nikon D700 and some funky styles from my Panasonic G2 because i needed those as a starting point for a shooting where customers would see the images on the back of the camera and then cull them with me on the laptop. getting close is good enough for that. until they get the final images i would have them optimized with all the glory of RAW power that a raw-converter allows anyway.

so matching color, saturation, contrast is mostly enough - i wouldnt try to mimic sharpening or noise reduction, you have so much more options in ASP. anything that needs 100% view to check can be ignored me thinks.

PS: i did those matched settings with the camera LCD and NOT the resulting jpg, because that is what i wanted - visual resemblance, not identical output.

[Tadjio]

if you really "depend" on the picture styles i suggest taking the time and approximate them with as few tools as possible in ASP, then save those to a preset... so matching color, saturation, contrast is mostly enough - i wouldnt try to mimic sharpening or noise reduction, you have so much more options in ASP. anything that needs 100% view to check can be ignored me thinks.

Thanks for the compromise, Grubernd. I had already decided that I need to explore something like this but as a newbie to ASP/Bibble I'm not yet confident about Presets and setting RAW Defaults. I will certainly do as you suggest.
I'm still finding my way around all the Tools and Plugins, let alone knowing how to fine-tune their settings and controls.
I know you say not Sharpening and Noise Reduction but these are two where I need a lot of trial and error to reproduce what the Picture Styles and camera settings gave me in Canon's DPP RAW Converter.

[grubernd]

for a beginner i would advise not to change the defaults.
create presets. they are easily applied, deleted, even changed (apply, change, save as new)

and better create presets per camera and iso, maybe lighting (tungsten needs different settings than LED etc), those can be very effective.

[DocBrown]

I don't find this to be a deficiency at all. Its what shooting RAW is all about in the first place. The JPG has the sharpness and other "features" because its processed by the Camera's computer, making all those decisions for you. If you are trying to mimic the final look of the JPG, then just shoot JPG only and leave it at that. If you want more flexibility and creativity options, and not be locked into Canon's processing decisions, shoot RAW and come up with your own set of defaults.

So, for you, as a beginner, I would suggest not bothering to look at the JPGs. Don't worry about the plugins either. Or the advance features like layers. Focus you energy on what you do already know how to do. All RAW convertors have the same basic components, White Balance, Histogram, Curves tool, Color correction, Exposure, Fill Light, etc. Use these and any other tools you already are familiar with to get the photo where you like it. Do that on a number shots, get comfortable. Then start playing with the advanced features, Noise Ninja Standard, Color Correction, Lens Correction, etc. Then learn how to set defaults and presets. The Help in AfterShot, unlike other software is actually, helpful. After all that is working, then try layers. After that, add a plugin or two.

[df]

Or, shoot in RAW since it provides so much more to life. Process in your camera's RAW software (DPP in this instance) and export as a 16 bit Tiff (or whatever high dynamic file type your software of choice supports) and then work those Tiffs over in ASP.

[grubernd]

Or, shoot in RAW since it provides so much more to life. Process in your camera's RAW software (DPP in this instance) and export as a 16 bit Tiff (or whatever high dynamic file type your software of choice supports) and then work those Tiffs over in ASP.

not something i can endorse. you are wasting time, effort, knowledge and hard disk space. if you like dpp better.. use that, learn it. it takes about a year of heavy usage to get to know a raw-converter. learning two programs to do the same (convert raw to some image) is not making your output better, because it will take you double the time and effort to reach the same result..

[df]

... because it will take you double the time and effort to reach the same result..

Oh, the irony.

[DocBrown]

Or, shoot in RAW since it provides so much more to life. Process in your camera's RAW software (DPP in this instance) and export as a 16 bit Tiff (or whatever high dynamic file type your software of choice supports) and then work those Tiffs over in ASP.

not something i can endorse. you are wasting time, effort, knowledge and hard disk space. if you like dpp better.. use that, learn it. it takes about a year of heavy usage to get to know a raw-converter. learning two programs to do the same (convert raw to some image) is not making your output better, because it will take you double the time and effort to reach the same result..

I wholeheartedly agree. However, if one would rather sit in front of a monitor instead of getting out and shooting...

[df]

I wholeheartedly agree. However, if one would rather sit in front of a monitor instead of getting out and shooting...

...then go ahead and try to replicate in ASP what's already in DPP which only take a few mouse clicks. Yep. I see your logic.

[grubernd]

df, you are so missing the point.

if you want EXACT SAME then use EXACT SAME. period.

if aftershot would be dpp then there would be no point in aftershot.
if you want to use and learn aftershot, well, expect some learning curve,
but dont complain that it doesnt work like so-and-so, because it just aint so-and-so.