Hello all, I am now a big fan of PureRaw but one thing is quite annoying is that (unlike a raw file) when you open the DNG in Adobe Camera Raw it does not apply the default preset (which I have set to use Color Fidelity profiles for my R6ii, not apply lens corrections etc etc) - either the master default, or the camera specific default - It uses the basic “Adobe Color” preset and applies Adobe’s lens corrections etc.
Is PureRaw 6 writing something into the exif that means ACR just fundamentally does not recognise the file in some way?
DNGs from PureRAW are different in that they are “developed” and can contain changes that you’d not want ACR to apply again. PureRAW exports implement DxO’s idea of how colors should look and it’s maybe a good idea to not apply another rendering in Adobe’s view.
Mmm, but I have every other ACR setting set to 0 / no changes in my presets except for the colour profile - however Adobe applies the basic and that includes the lens corrections etc that PR has already done a better job of - the CF profiles are excellent and this bugginess means I just have to manually apply my supposedly default preset on every single file to add that CF profile and turn off the lens corrections and so on.
Just tried Adobe DNG Converter and the DNG that produces is fine, ACR immediately applies the default preset as expected - so it seems like Dx0 is definitely putting something in their DNGs that causes an issue. I’ll do a compare of the exif and see if I can spot anything.
Look at file sizes too. PR’s DNGs are linear, which means tat they are demosaiced and had color profiles applied. DNG Converter can write linear DNGs too, settings can be found if you look for them. Nevertheless, color rendering might differ. Every developer has its ideas of how images should look. For genuine looks, use Canon’s DPP and export, from all apps, to TIFF with the same color space and rendering intent. Verify that all apps use the same working color space too. You might need to resort to Adobe RGB which might be PureRAW’s WCS. Everything else is comparing Penguins and Eagles. Some Eagles eat fish, true, but Penguins won’t be able to catch rodents.
All things considered, it might be easier to think of PR’s exports as completely new and different files that you have to rework accordingly. Maybe ACR thinks so too
Adobe’s DNG converter copies the untouched, out-of-camera RAW data into a DNG container.
PureRAW, as mentioned by @platypus, is creating a whole new file. It’s is “linearised” (not a Bayer matrix any more) and has different pixels (distortion, vignetting, abberations, sharpening, denoising). It’s a long way from the original file in real terms.
What it retains, I understand, is the original dynamic range and the original colour space. Two things you want for any processing of light and colour.
Just a nitpick: Original colour space in context of RAW data extracted from a sensor is whatever it is - and has nothing to do with any of the well-defined colour spaces out there.
Haven’t looked at DNGs written by DxO PureRAW vs Adobe DNG Converter for some time now. I suppose that both apps might adjust the range of values upon export, subject to be verified.
From an artistic point of view, all of this does not matter. What matters imo is, what we make of a capture.
…found a few photos that I had exported as DNGs during a PR6 trial…and they have been imported into Lightroom Classic with the defined preset including a Canon specific picture style, changes of the tone curve plus CA correction.
CA correction isn’t relevant though, because the lens I used has no CA worth speaking of. Switching CA correction on and off does not change the image details as seen at 300% in Lightroom Classic 14.5.2.
Colours change considerably when I select a different profile and that is expected. Again, irrelevant in this case of a camera scan of a colour negative from the 1970s.
Anyways, I see that my default preset was applied. Settings and the protocol show it.
One might argue that Lightroom isn’t ACR, but ACR is used in Adobe’s apps dealing with RAW files. LrC advertises ACR as version 17.5
@mymuk , are you, by any chance, exporting the new compressed DNG?
Yes, but the first thing I tried was to export an uncompressed DNG, same result.
Experimentation today found that:
a cr3 raw processed directly in PR produces a DNG that fails to trigger the global default when opened in ACR
whereas
a cr3 raw that is first opened in ACR, has any “Light” settings changed (e.g. a +0.01 change to exposure) and is then processed in PR produces a DNG that does trigger the default
Comparing the Exif of both DNGs the only noticeable differences are in the ApplicationNotes section where there are a lot more numbers in the ACR first file.
doesn’t help me much of course, as opening everything in ACR first then sending to PR is more longwinded that just manually applying the default in ACR to the PR DNG
If you mean EXIF values, entirely likely. The theory is DNG converter does very little other than ‘repackage’ the data. However, there may be certain values required or expected in a DNG that are not in the original RAW, or the converter may not ‘recognise’ some values. DxO, on the other hand, is almost certain to make an opinionated ‘edit’ to the EXIF.
