Raw Processing Software - Canon vs Aperture or ?

smugdoug

I've been teaching myself digital photography.
And the more I learn, the more confused I get.
I use a Canon Rebel xti (lusting after a 7D) I use Aperture to process the RAW files as well as organize everything and do basic image-adjustments. A Canon rep said I'd get better results using Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) for processing, and suggested I use that to make adjustments and then bring it into Aperture. I'm willing to change it all up, but is that worth it?

I am trying to follow the KISS axiom, (Keep It Simple Stupid), but getting more sophisticated with digital photo seems to resist that tremendously.:scratch

thanks much-
smugdoug

run_kmc

smugdoug wrote:

A Canon rep said

That's the first hint.

If Canon's software is anything like Olympus, it's capable of reproducing the various ways the camera would process a JPG. Aperture, Lightroom and (especially) Capture One take more effort, but are capable of far greater results.

aquaticvideographer

My experience with DPP vs. Aperture is that Aperture is way easier to use, and has lots of asset management features that make life oh-so-much easier to boot. I think DPP is a little simpler/less feature laden but for me that hasn't translated into "easier to use". I will admit that I haven't looked closely at DPP in a while, so it may have changed more recently. I'd be curious to hear others' experience with it as I just upgraded to Aperture 3 and am quite happy.

I suppose you could process everything in DPP and then bring it into Aperture just for the asset management aspect of the program, but that to me seems like a waste of a few hundred dollars. For my purposes, Aperture's RAW processing abilities-the RAW converter is baked into OS X-is more than adequate, it does a great job.

I think of Aperture as my one-stop-shop for global adjustments and asset management. I seldom blow the dust off of DPP long enough to use it for anything significant.

smugdoug

Raw in Aperture vs. Canon DPP
Right - I'm in synch with both of your comments.

Sure, "Canon rep said..." but in this situation, I am already a customer - and fan of the Canons. I'm sold. I felt that he was steering me honestly - his reason was that their logarithms - in the Canon Raw conversion software - are made to work with the Canon files (.CR2 files), while the logarithms in Aperture are made by Apple to work with many types of files.

And as for ease and utility of Aperture... I love it. Am loath to add another level of complexity to my workflow process. Unless it really helps with digital noise, with colors, with sharpness.. with the overall quality of the image.

aquaticvideographer

smugdoug wrote:

...their logarithms - in the Canon Raw conversion software - are made to work with the Canon files (.CR2 files), while the logarithms in Aperture are made by Apple to work with many types of files...

It's my understanding that Apple provides specific RAW conversion profiles for many different cameras, and these profiles, tailored to each supported camera model, are actually part of the OS, not written just as a part of Aperture.

smugdoug

whoops - I think I was supposed to post this in the finishing school thread Don't know how to change it or if it matters that much...

mercphoto

smugdoug wrote:

I've been teaching myself digital photography.
And the more I learn, the more confused I get.
I use a Canon Rebel xti (lusting after a 7D) I use Aperture to process the RAW files as well as organize everything and do basic image-adjustments. A Canon rep said I'd get better results using Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) for processing, and suggested I use that to make adjustments and then bring it into Aperture. I'm willing to change it all up, but is that worth it?

I am trying to follow the KISS axiom, (Keep It Simple Stupid), but getting more sophisticated with digital photo seems to resist that tremendously.

thanks much-
smugdoug

DPP will certainly look different than Aperture conversions. But a big question will be if those differences look big to you, or little. And also which one of the two looks best to you. And in the end you might find you like both.

Its all going to boil down to what trade-offs you personally want to make. For me its keep everything, as much as can be, in Aperture. It just makes life simpler that way.

smugdoug

OK - thanks for the feedback.
So there is no 'best' - but each program does the RAW processing a bit differently.
Therefore the idea that that Canon DPP software is 'better' for Canon RAW files does not hold water...

W.W. Webster

smugdoug wrote:

A Canon rep said I'd get better results using Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) for processing, and suggested I use that to make adjustments and then bring it into Aperture. I'm willing to change it all up, but is that worth it?

No!

:uhoh

dlplumer

A3 is all you need imo and the conversions are superb.

ABCL

As a Canon user, imo, Canon's RAW software is in no way better than Aperture.

Aperture is easier to use and organise RAW files, reps don't sell you competitors software, they sell you 'theirs'

smugdoug

dlplumer wrote:

A3 is all you need imo and the conversions are superb.

took me a minute to realize you mean Aperture 3. Quite frankly, I'm happy with A2 -
Is A3 better in raw processing? that makes a difference to me as opposed to features/bells/whistles...

thanks

dlplumer

smugdoug wrote:

took me a minute to realize you mean Aperture 3. Quite frankly, I'm happy with A2 -
Is A3 better in raw processing? that makes a difference to me as opposed to features/bells/whistles...

thanks

Technical folks say it is, but I do not notice it. However, do not overlook the new features, i.e. non-destructive selective brushes including curves are fantastic If you can afford it, buy it.