In camera JPGs vs DPP vs RAW with preset

[dbvirago]

I've been shooting RAW only for years, and am comfortable with my workflow in LR4. But for images, where I have nailed it in camera and I am completely happy with the image on the LCD, what do you think is the best process to grab that image and skip all processing? With two card slots, I don't have a problem writing RAW to one and JPG to the other if the in camera processing does a good job. (I have the picture type set to standard.) I have tried with the 40D and the MKIII to use the Canon standard preset when importing, but to my eye, it still doesn't look quite as good. I have used DPP in the past to do the same thing, and it works fine as long as there is no noise present. The ideal would have a preset in LR4 that did exactly the same thing, but the stock ones don't in my opinion and I don't have enough confidence in my ability to create one.

So, I guess I am asking, in terms of an automatic processing, which do you think does a better job? Also, do I need to download something to DPP to ensure it works properly with the MKIII. I installed the CD, but it said I already had DPP and did nothing

TIA

 

[KmH]

First off, the camera's rear LCD is not reliable for judging exposure or color by looking a the photo.
That can only be done by evaluating the histogram.

In camera, your only choices other than Raw are JPEG or TIFF (if your camera offers TIFF).

 

[Ysarex89 83]

Make sure DPP is updated by downloading the most recent release from Canon's website, and Keith is correct, you can't pass judgment on the image you see on the camera LCD.

Joe

 

[CanonJim]

If you have the ability, why not just save in raw and Large JPG. Using whatever preset you like, that process will only be applied to the JPG image anyway (I assume you know that). Then, when you get the images to the computer and can evaluate them, if the JPG is sufficient, you don't need to mess with the raw. That seems to be the easiest solution.

However, I can't answer the question "which software is better to fix photos with, DPP or LR4", which you also seem to be asking. I used DPP for a couple of years, and have recently begun using DxO Optics Pro, which is pretty slick, actually.

 

[dbvirago]

I actually tried doing that again that with the 5D MKIII writing one to each card. Maybe it was just my eye, but when I tried the same thing with the 40D, the RAW images with the preset applied didn't look the same as either the JPGs or the RAWs viewed in DPP. Now, side by side, I can't see any difference, so I have gone back to just shooting RAW. If they look good with the preset (camera standard) then I just export to jpg and done.

 

[bratkinson]

I shoot in RAW + JPG for two reasons. 1 - I use the JPGs to make 'quick decisions' what are keepers and what gets deleted before any processing. And 2 - If there's a shoot, or just a few frames I want to 'get out the door' (I'm happy with) as JPGs, then I go no further and use the JPGs.

Although my 5D3 does quite well with JPG white balance using AWB, my 60D wasn't as 'smart', so there were less keepers indoors with screwy combinations of lighting. My 30D of yore, not even close. The difference is internal JPG processing software in the camera and the combined 'years' of learning of those who wrote it and making improvements with each new camera (and firmware updates).

For outdoor photos, AWB works well in just about any camera.

And, as mentioned, even though the LCD picture may look good, I've been fooled too many times to count when looking at the result on my computer screen. Perhaps WB and composition look OK, but the 'details' are what fail...eyes closed, unnoticed details in the background, partially obscured subjects in groups, etc. So I ALWAYS look at the full-size pictures before deciding what to do.

 

[CanonJim]

And don't forget, the image on the LCD screen is either the "processed" JPG if you save them, or the JPG thumbnail that's embedded in every RAW, neither of which may bear any resemblance to the final image you get.