• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Dark mode now has a single preference for the whole site! It's a simple toggle switch in the bottom right-hand corner of any page. As it uses a cookie to store your preference, you may need to dismiss the cookie banner before you can see it. Any problems, please let us know!

Adobe DNG works terribly with Canon R3 CR3 images

Status
Not open for further replies.

rebop

Active Member
Premium Classic Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
274
Location
Northborough, MA
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
6.x
Lightroom Version Number
6 Last version
Operating System
  1. Windows 10
I hope this is the best place for this. Please move if not.

Been Using Lightroom 6 forever. Not yet readyto change that. Just got an R3 and now want to convert the CR3 files to DNG. Got the latest Adobe DNG converter. It does a terribkle and unusable job.

I tried several other like Iridient which is better, but not good enough. I shoot a lot of low light concerts fso this is important for me!
DPP converting to 8bit TIFF works fine but soooo sloooow. And larger files, of course.

Here is a 100% crop of CR3 (not great but usable!) and the converted to DNG by Adobe. Latest version. Highest quality. Compatible with LR and PS 6. I appears that the issue is in the DNG converter. Has anyone tried with these files? And if not, what else could be the issue?

Thanks!

~Bob
 

Attachments

  • cr3.JPG
    cr3.JPG
    283 KB · Views: 139
  • dng.jpg
    dng.jpg
    405.3 KB · Views: 136
Just downloaded a DPReview sample EOS R6 sample CR3. Adobe DNG converter did fine with it. So either it is my files from my camera OR Adobe not doing well with R3 CR3 images.
 
Saying Adobe's no good with R3 images is like saying the new fuel is no good because my 25 year car doesn't run well on it. Technology moves on fast and your camera and LR version are a good few years apart. That said, it would be good to investigate to see where the problem is coming from, because it may be something you can solve without needing to upgrade.

LR6 can't open the R3's files natively, so what's the CR3 that you're comparing against? DPP perhaps? The DNG converter just changes the wrapper around the raw data, so the issue is unlikely to be the DNG conversion. That question could be answered easily trying the same file through a current LR version with and without conversion.

Bear in mind though, that the default raw conversion in LR (or any other software) will not be an exact match for Canon's software, especially in more extreme lighting conditions. For example, in those screenshots you can see that the program on the left applies a lot of noise reduction by default, whereas LR doesn't.
 
Thanks Victoria, but nooo. I said the Current Adobe DNG Converter has problems with Current R3 CR3 images. Nothing abbout Lightroom 6. Which does work well with 8 and 16 bit tiffs from DPP. Comparing current state of the technology. All this without ever ipening LR 6.

But agree, trying everything before upgrading as I hate subscriptions and I'm very comfortable with 6 and PS 6.

You saw my comparisons. But good question. I can view CR3 in both Fastone and DPP. Even at ISO 12800 they are wqorkable. And it seems that DNG converter does not like hi ISO images in particular. Though converting to TIFF does not mind at all.

Everyone says it just changes the wrapper, Victoria. But it appears it does more than that. I am using no in camera noise reduction. If that helps. And Standard picture styles.

Just checked both Faststone and DPP and no settings I could find to lower noise in CR3. They look fine at 12800 in both. Its the dng that is the issue. Now, Adobe says to view DNG use the Windows Photo Viewer and that works fine and is where the above image came from. Let me try PS. Same as Windows Photo Viewer, far degraded from CR3....

Anything to try?

Thanks.
 
As far as I know, Windows Photo Viewer just uses the built in previews... so the built in preview of the default raw conversion by Adobe vs. by Canon. It's not showing you the raw data, so the conversion isn't degrading the file.

DPP doesn't let you turn off their noise reduction, and I'm guessing that Faststone is showing you their built in preview, although I may be wrong on that. Adobe does let you turn off noise reduction, and does so by default, but you can apply noise reduction in LR of course.

Send me the CR3 file and the DNG file and I'll run them both through the current Lightroom version for comparison, just to confirm that the DNG converter isn't degrading the file. If it's not, then it's just a question of which company's default raw conversion you prefer.
 
And another thing you could try would be RawDigger (it has a 31-day free trial), which lets you examine the actual unconverted raw data, so you could compare the CR3 with the DNG so see if there is any difference (there shouldn't be of course).
 
As far as I know, Windows Photo Viewer just uses the built in previews... so the built in preview of the default raw conversion by Adobe vs. by Canon. It's not showing you the raw data, so the conversion isn't degrading the file.

DPP doesn't let you turn off their noise reduction, and I'm guessing that Faststone is showing you their built in preview, although I may be wrong on that. Adobe does let you turn off noise reduction, and does so by default, but you can apply noise reduction in LR of course.

Send me the CR3 file and the DNG file and I'll run them both through the current Lightroom version for comparison, just to confirm that the DNG converter isn't degrading the file. If it's not, then it's just a question of which company's default raw conversion you prefer.
Thanks Victoria. Iwould appreciate iot. Trying to learn the possibilties and limitations.

Large files. How would you like me to send them to you. And just to note, this was a first shoot to test limits, not for great shots or anything artistic :)
 
Got them, and I can confirm that the CR3 and DNG versions render identically in Lightroom Classic 12.1. The DNG converter is not degrading the file.

As expected, adding some noise reduction in Lightroom made the CR3/DNG look much more like your DPP rendering. You can do that in LR6 with the DNG file. Personally I preferred some of the other color profiles, which I don't think will be available in LR6. The DNG (and thereby the built in preview) had Adobe Standard as default. Even selecting Adobe Color was an improvement, so it'd be worth seeing if your LR version can do that.
 
LR6 cannot do other than Adobe Stabdard with DNG :(

So thanks. Odd that when I mporort DNG into LR6 it looks just like my sample image and phenominally noist=y. Very hard to process.So if the DNG looks like the CR3 to you in LR 12. then LR6, and Windows Photo Viewer are doing something to it on my computer. Cannot imagine what. For grins, I'll try updating video drivers today but doubt that would be it.

Hmmm...

Thanks again Victoria.
 
Yeah, the profiles are a big plus in LR Classic, I wouldn't leave it on Adobe Standard if I had a choice. That said, in LR6 with the DNG, whack Luminance NR and Sharpening both up to 40ish, and bump the contrast. It's only a quick and dirty fix, you'd need to play more to get a result you're happy with, but it's closer to DPP's defaults.

So if the DNG looks like the CR3 to you in LR 12. then LR6, and Windows Photo Viewer are doing something to it on my computer.

Let me clarify... LR's version of the CR3 and LR's version of the DNG are identical. That does not mean it matches Canon's CR3 rendering, which is what you're seeing when you look at the CR3 in other software.
 
Hmm, so my try at clarifying. The CR3 in DPP looks incredible and low noise. THe DNG in LR 6 shows unsuable noise.

You are saying that in LR12 the CR3 and DNG both show high noise? Or both show low levels of noise?

Sorry for beating near dead horses :)
 
Both show high levels of noise with noise reduction set to 0, but with NR applied (which you could set as a default setting) they look great. DPP is already applying a bunch of NR, which is why they look better by default. You can't turn it off in DPP, whereas in LR it's off by default.
 
Gotcha. That is why DPP looks great withoiut any or much processing. And why their exported tiffs looks the same.

Thanks again. I always learnb when I visit here.
 
Yep, you've got it.
 
It's done a lovely job with the detail
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top