Alternative to camera raw?

Question

I don't know what forum this actually belongs in; Im trying to learn raw processing and I use LR.
I get that all raw processing, including OOC jpg, is an interpretation of sensor output, and that it's a misconception to regard any single interpretation as "the absolute right one".
I feel pretty confident with tonal interpretation (highlights/shadows/contrast etc).  But I'm struggling with color.
I shoot either jpg or raw + jpg. Not confident enough to shoot raw only.
I'm generally happy with the OOC jpg's I get from my Canon T5i. (99% of the time I use AWB with the Standard picture settings, with saturation not maxed but bumped a couple points above default.  Usually I love the color I get.
Processing a RAW in LR, I can usually get an image that I think is better toned than the camera jpg. (often LR's default is better.)
I can never get color similar to the OOC jpg. The difference is more than just saturation.  Canon seems to do things in the red-yellow range that I can't figure out.  4 out of 5 times I prefer the OOC jpg.
I'm wondering about using Canon DPP to initially process the raws for color, then import to LR for everything else.
My question is, is there common file format (maybe 16 bit TIFF?), supported by both LR & DPP, that represents the camera's full DR?
Hmm, maybe I need to ask this in a Canon forum, but I appreciate whatever tips anyone here can offer!

Answer 1

ski ne where,
The details "available upon request" had to do with readability of stuff they supposedly "can't" read, not the reasons they've not wanted to, yet.
In a nutshell:
We know they can, because:
* others are, for example: exiftool, Aperture, BreezeBrowser, PhotoMechanic, etc...
We know it's not that hard because:
* we can see example source code, by downloading exiftool source distribution, and inspecting it (and note also: one person wrote exiftool, and he works full-time, and wind-surfs a lot too.. - Phil Harvey).
So, back to the question: why doesn't Adobe read more camera settings, and take a whack at emulating them in Lightroom?
My guess: just not enough bang for buck, and to be honest, I think it prolongs it's users attachment to camera results, instead of weening.
I think most experienced Lightroom users rarely look at in-camera jpegs anymore, so the feature to start from in-camera results would be of very little value.
Most people who want their raws to look like their jpegs, even if only initially, are people who've become very attached to the in-camera results, and/or the camera settings used to get them, and haven't been able to get consistently superior results using Lightroom, yet.
Me? I think Adobe should do more in this regard, for example:
* support the option to choose a camera profile based on in-camera style chosen.
* maybe bump exposure when ADL (and similar) is enabled.
* display focus points.
* have better support for raw+jpeg shooting, and embedded preview.
for the sake of the people who would use such features.
5-10 years ago I would have loved such features - I started raw development with NX2 and later transitioned to Lightroom, and initially: results in Lightroom were frequently inferior to what I could do in NX2, so I was constantly comparing, in the interest of honing my Lightroom skills (and tastes..).
Now? - wouldn't use them much, except to satisfy idle curiosity: I shoot raw, develop in Lightroom, have my own camera profiles.., and don't look back...
Note: focus points are an exception, which I would still like to see support for in Lightroom - they have nothing to do with raw development and a lot to do with honing one's ability to focus the camera.
One of the main advantages of developing raws is the freedom to ignore camera settings (except for basic exposure and focusing of course) and concentrate on getting the shot.
Sorry for going on, but you kinda asked for it .
Cheers,
Rob