Canon Picture Styles

[df]

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.

I'm pretty sure that anyone using a RAW editor with presets, be it ASP or DPP or whatever, is to use those presets as a starting point. If you're using the in camera adjustments as an ending point then the Jpeg will give you the same result. With that said, some people use the in camera adjustments as a starting point and enhance from there, but with 3rd party RAW converters you have to start over. I'm not aware of any 3rd party RAW converter that can read the in camera processing and apply it accordingly. Adobe has something that mimics Canon's stuff from what I've heard, but it doesn't read the in camera settings.

I made the comment that you could convert to Tiff in DPP, import to ASP, and go from there. That implies that you're going to make other edits. Why is this so hard to understand? And how is it "EXACT SAME"? Are you just getting upset that someone has the audacity to think differently than you do?

Go back to the first posting here. The question was basically asked how do I use the in camera presets like in DPP? I'm the ONLY person who has posted how you really could do it. I'm sorry if that ruffles your feathers.

[grubernd]

takes a bit more to ruffle my feathers.

while your approach is a valid one, i think it is only good for shortterm usage and for very specialized projects.

let me explain:
first you would multiply your harddisk requirements by a rough factor of 7 or more before you get to the point of creating output.
(16mpix file to 16bit TIFF full resolution is 96MB - the raw file has usually 16 to 20MB)
shoot 100 pics and we are talking about 2GB vs 11.6GB.
or the other way round: 62500 pics on the TeraByte vs 8620 pics. (16mpix raw sized 20MB)
(are you trying to sell harddisks?)

with no adjustments in dpp you assume you have a near perfect raw-file - use the JPG and be happy.
start to adjust in dpp, then you divert from the picture style anyway, so either stick to dpp and finish the job
or you transfer to asp, then what? double edits? and you are exactly where i said: you have to learn two programs.

so.. you miss out to learn the in's and out's of your raw-converter of choice, because you dont use either one really.
that will be a hard thing in the beginning (hey, you are basically running a lab while mixing your own chemicals!)
but you have to get through that, otherwise just shoot JPGs and be happy.

so your advise may be technically correct, it is just not really practical to use.

[tomsi42]

I made the comment that you could convert to Tiff in DPP, import to ASP, and go from there. That implies that you're going to make other edits.

That is of course a possibility - but if you are in TIFF, you are not in RAW anymore. 16 bits TIFF is way better than JPEG, but it's not ASP forte, so it might as well be as easy to continue in PSP or that other program ...

I think it is a better approach to use DPP to create some JPEGs using the Picture styles but without any editing, and use those as a target when processing the RAWs in ASP.

I did use DPP for some time when I had Canon cameras, but ended up switching to other tools, because the adjustment tools are too crude. Which is a pity; because otherwise it is a nice program.

[ashmoore]

Why bother with DPP if all you are interested in is the picture style.
Shoot raw+jpeg, the jpeg will have the selected picture style already applied in camera.
Then use that as a target.

Seems to be a waste of time though.
Learn the profile methods for our chosen application and move on.
Any presets I have are my own presets, not canned profiles like Canon, especially as ASP lets me set a per camera setup.

[DocBrown]

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.

Already did that. Only a few mouse clicks in ASP. Oh, wait, I don't use the picture styles, so replicating the nice flat default look of DPP in ASP is pretty quick and easy. I don't want the software or the camera's processing to make decisions for me. That's the point of shooting RAW. The only time I want the camera to make decisions is when shooting family snapshots. Then I just shoot JPG.

Sorry but the logic of shooting in RAW then attempting to mimic the camera's processing presets seems backward to me.

[Tadjio]

Sorry but the logic of shooting in RAW then attempting to mimic the camera's processing presets seems backward to me.

I don't want to pick a fight or to labour the point, but I don't agree.

At a guesss, on a good day with decent light, over 80% or my photos are fine as produced by my Canon camera, using Picture Styles, so why do I have to mimic the Picture Style again in ASP to achieve the same result?
With ASP I want to work in RAW so that the others (< 20%) can be manipulated as appropriate, and then I will fine tune all photos with any Straightening, Cropping, extra Sharpening and Levels/Curves, as I used to do in PSP.
Before I had ASP, I often skipped the RAW stage in DPP and loaded the (good) JPGs straight into PSP but now with ASP it is more of a fiddle switching between RAW and JPG.

[andysalay]

Tadijo,

please give it a try - Bibble/ASP has excellent preset system.

Anyhow, first you need to know basics of your raw converter, how tonality changes work, curves, how EXACTLY behave various sliders like HR, fill light, blacks, contrast, exposure. (I mean their behaviour in ASP, not general meaning, as there are always small nuances regarding with different RAW converters.)

When you are "at home" with the abilities to tweak contrast, saturation, you are able to push your image wherever you would like.

Then, step TWO:

Take few RAW images together with their JPEG siblings out-of-camera, with particular rendering (canon picture style). Take these images from various shooting conditions (dull day, bright day, to have covered many conditions). Then load a RAW into ASF, display it with its JPEG sibling in multiimage mode. Now you can fiddle with sliders (on RAW) to get very close to what the particular picture style does. What comes next, is important. When you are close, or had achieved exactly what you want, you can save changed parameters as a preset, and yes, you can name it according to "its model", canon picture style.

This way you can get many, maybe dozens of your own picture styles, appliable with single click!

You can share them with us!

Regards,
Andy Salay

[Hobgoblin]

Sorry but the logic of shooting in RAW then attempting to mimic the camera's processing presets seems backward to me.

I don't want to pick a fight or to labour the point, but I don't agree.

At a guesss, on a good day with decent light, over 80% or my photos are fine as produced by my Canon camera, using Picture Styles, so why do I have to mimic the Picture Style again in ASP to achieve the same result?
With ASP I want to work in RAW so that the others (< 20%) can be manipulated as appropriate, and then I will fine tune all photos with any Straightening, Cropping, extra Sharpening and Levels/Curves, as I used to do in PSP.
Before I had ASP, I often skipped the RAW stage in DPP and loaded the (good) JPGs straight into PSP but now with ASP it is more of a fiddle switching between RAW and JPG.

@DocBrown
I am sure you are right in your observation.

@Tadjio
Of course, if the Camera provides the output you desire that's great, but it is the creative opportunities of RAW that make ASP such a great tool.
ASP will give you a starting point for 'creative development' of your own images.
If you remember back to wet film in the darkroom, most of the fun of the hobby was getting more from the film than you initially believed possible.
That is the real art of it photography.

R.

[Tadjio]

Tadijo,
please give it a try - Bibble/ASP has excellent preset system.
[SNIP 2 steps]
You can share them with us!
Regards,
Andy Salay

Thanks, Andy, for your sound advice!
I haven't as yet really tried Presets but I will do so.

I have 'given up' my Canon DPP / ZoomBrowser / PSP work flow and committed to ASP alone. I shoot in RAW+JPG.
So far I haven't tried to use DPP for RAW conversion.
I still use ZoomBrowser for basic image file & folder managemnt, including viewing and selection as I am not totally happy with ASP here. For example, copying / moving images and creating / renaming folders.
I only resort to PSP as an External Editor if I don't think something can be achieved in ASP, but this is seldom with plugins now available.
Once Jeff has improved Highlights and Recovery, I think I will be fully committed to AfterShot Pro...

[Rob Greenstein]

I've been using DPP nearly exclusively for the past several years. I turned to Bibble Pro 4 when my needs exceeded DPP's features. I passed on BP5, and am now determined to use ASP predominantly. I am still finding preferable results from DPP when the default settings of both programs (most current versions) are used. I have DPP set for Standard Picture Style. The most noticeable differences occur under daylight conditions with AWB set in the camera. DPP's colors appear very normal, whereas ASP's colors have a slightly cooler shift towards blue. This regardless of adjusting the WB and Kelvin settings in both programs. My heaviest use of BP4 and ASP have been under theatrical lighting conditions where daylight color accuracy is not pertinent.

Nonetheless, I have begun dialing in the slight adjustments in ASP to get ever closer to the an equivalent RAW conversion from DPP of the CR2 files from my Canon EOS 1D MK II N. I am hoping to find just the right set of tweaks to ASP's settings to preserve in a Preset. If I find an ideal blend of settings or even a satisfactory set of settings in ASP to approximate the results I get from DPP I will post them here on the Forums. Should others have already discovered such a satisfactory blend, I would be very interested to know your configuration of settings for ASP.

[Tadjio]

I've been using DPP nearly exclusively for the past several years. [SNIP]
I am hoping to find just the right set of tweaks to ASP's settings to preserve in a Preset. If I find an ideal blend of settings or even a satisfactory set of settings in ASP to approximate the results I get from DPP I will post them here on the Forums. Should others have already discovered such a satisfactory blend, I would be very interested to know your configuration of settings for ASP.

It's good to hear you are looking at the same area as me, Rob. I use DPP version 3.10.2.0
I haven't had the chance to try yet, but I suspect that ASP is closer to Picture Style 'Neutral' or possibly 'Faithful'.
Please do post your findings and Presets.

[Rob Greenstein]

I've been using DPP nearly exclusively for the past several years. [SNIP]
I am hoping to find just the right set of tweaks to ASP's settings to preserve in a Preset. If I find an ideal blend of settings or even a satisfactory set of settings in ASP to approximate the results I get from DPP I will post them here on the Forums. Should others have already discovered such a satisfactory blend, I would be very interested to know your configuration of settings for ASP.

It's good to hear you are looking at the same area as me, Rob. I use DPP version 3.10.2.0
I haven't had the chance to try yet, but I suspect that ASP is closer to Picture Style 'Neutral' or possibly 'Faithful'.
Please do post your findings and Presets.

Tadjio:

As I most often use the Standard Picture Style, I have only rarely ventured into the Picture Style feature set of Canon's software. A few years ago, I did get into Canon's Picture Style editor to explore the nearly infinite variations it offered. I concluded that the Standard Setting best suited my needs. Nonetheless, I do have a few tweaks set in my camera body's attributes, and I never felt that using a custom named Picture Style was needed.

I doubt that you and I are the only ones with this situation.

The massive number of Canon shooters provides ASP with an great opportunity where it could, and likely should, deliver Canon RAW conversions equal to or better than that generated by DPP's defaults. I have not yet found that to be the case from BP4, BP5 (when I tested it), nor currently from ASP. Granted switching from Kodak's Color Management System to ASP's current method has shifted things substantially.

Nonetheless, as ASP supports a numerous slate of camera and RAW file conversions, and it is now striving for marketplace recognition and attracting an ever expanding user base, it would be terrific if ASP's camera body intelligent defaults (or camera body presets) delivered enhanced and superior conversions, without having to subtly tweak and adjust ASP's controls. In other words, a closer starting point to DPP's conversions would be a welcome virtue.

As the kids' Baseball season has just gotten underway, there will be lots of images captured in the months ahead. I should have ample exposure to chew through the raw material and see if I can achieve the ideal equivalency in ASP to that which DPP provides. I'll post my findings as they develop. (puns intended!)

[DocBrown]

Sorry but the logic of shooting in RAW then attempting to mimic the camera's processing presets seems backward to me.

I don't want to pick a fight or to labour the point, but I don't agree.

At a guesss, on a good day with decent light, over 80% or my photos are fine as produced by my Canon camera, using Picture Styles, so why do I have to mimic the Picture Style again in ASP to achieve the same result?
With ASP I want to work in RAW so that the others (< 20%) can be manipulated as appropriate, and then I will fine tune all photos with any Straightening, Cropping, extra Sharpening and Levels/Curves, as I used to do in PSP.
Before I had ASP, I often skipped the RAW stage in DPP and loaded the (good) JPGs straight into PSP but now with ASP it is more of a fiddle switching between RAW and JPG.

No worries, no fighting. Laboring the point? Well, maybe...

Every RAW convertor I have ever worked with has its own default settings and its own interpretation of rendering what comes out of the camera. Part of this is due to huge task of reverse engineering proprietary data. I've tried just about every one of them at one point or another. DPP for me was always the de facto starting point for my comparisons. For the very reasons you are struggling with this, I gave up on RAW+JPG long ago. Too much hassle to try and replicate any "look" between the various convertors. If I'm shooting family snapshots, I shoot JPG, perform some minor color and lighting corrections in PS or ACDSee Pro and I'm done. For everything else I just shoot RAW and don't bother to mimic anything. Just work the shot as it appeals to me. So it sounds like you and I have a similar workflow with different goals.

[Tadjio]

I haven't had the chance to try yet, but I suspect that ASP is closer to Picture Style 'Neutral' or possibly 'Faithful'.

Tadjio:
As I most often use the Standard Picture Style, I have only rarely ventured into the Picture Style feature set of Canon's software... I doubt that you and I are the only ones with this situation.
The massive number of Canon shooters provides ASP with an great opportunity where it could, and likely should, deliver Canon RAW conversions equal to or better than that generated by DPP's defaults.

Regarding 'Neutral' Picture Style, I reckon if one changes the camera from 'Standard' to 'Neutral', the resultant image is closer to DPP in ASP RAW Conversion.
As to the main thrust of your posting, it might interest you to know I received the following from the Senior Product manager:

Thanks for your feedback. We’ve added this to the update and future discussion lists with the development team.

I suggest you put your point of view to the Survey Monkey...