Can in DPP??

tomnovy

Good morning (the London time),
I have been using many RAW conversion programs: aperture, lightrom, capture one etc. I made tests and no matter what I do - canon free dpp software is much much better - noise reduction, sharpness, colours etc.

What do you guys and ladies think about Canon DPP???

Thank you for the answer in advance!

pathfinder

Tom I have not used it once in the last five years, so I do not know what I may be missing.

Feel free to post some examples of images that demonstrate the superiority you see with DPP, versus the current versions of images done via Photoshop CS5 with ACR 6.+, Lightroom3, or Aperture3. You have some nice work on your website.

What I do know, is that because 99+% of the folks whose work I do admire, use either Lightroom3, or Photoshop CS4 or CS5, or Aperture almost exclusively, I have chosen to follow their guidance.

I will admit that I have never tried to make comparable images via both workflows.

I will be interested in seeing your examples.

If you can post the RAW files via Dropbox, or an iDisk, so other folks can see them and try them as well, that would be even better.

tomnovy

pathfinder wrote: »

Tom I have not used it once in the last five years, so I do not know what I may be missing.

Feel free to post some examples of images that demonstrate the superiority you see with DPP, versus the current versions of images done via Photoshop CS5 with ACR 6.+, Lightroom3, or Aperture3. You have some nice work on your website.

What I do know, is that because 99+% of the folks whose work I do admire, use either Lightroom3, or Photoshop CS4 or CS5, or Aperture almost exclusively, I have chosen to follow their guidance.

I will admit that I have never tried to make comparable images via both workflows.

I will be interested in seeing your examples.

If you can post the RAW files via Dropbox, or an iDisk, so other folks can see them and try them as well, that would be even better.

Thank you for the post. I shall prepare a post for that.

David_S85

I use DPP (ver. 3.9.3 newest) 90% of the time as a front end for my workflow. I has everything I usually need; a full lens correction suite (Canon lenses only unfortunately) for vignetting and all abberations, noise correction with preview, highlight and shadow control, a very intuitive rotation tool that is cropping aware, RGB histogram, gamma, exposure, contrast, saturation, spots correction and an excellent cropping tool that is easily customized. It's white balance tool is simple and works for RAW or JPG shots. Of course, the other plus is that you can duplicate all the in-camera picture settings in post, including B&W modes. DPP output modes include batching. You can also export out tp PS directly without saving the file. The DPP browser ain't too bad either and is fast. DPP is made to read Canon's dust detection settings that you program in your camera, if your camera supports that function. DPP has a live full preview with a before and after view. Just make sure you get the latest update available free at Canon's site.

OK, now Camera Raw in PS or in Lightroom is way more robust of course, but for most purposes, I find I don't need to open PS at all unless I require advanced corrections such as layers, keystoning or spot removal (which it can do a much much better job at).

pathfinder

David, I should have remembered that you use DPP. But then I did say only 99%, not 100%

tomnovy

David_S85 wrote: »

I use DPP (ver. 3.9.3 newest) 90% of the time as a front end for my workflow. I has everything I usually need; a full lens correction suite (Canon lenses only unfortunately) for vignetting and all abberations, noise correction with preview, highlight and shadow control, a very intuitive rotation tool that is cropping aware, RGB histogram, gamma, exposure, contrast, saturation, spots correction and an excellent cropping tool that is easily customized. It's white balance tool is simple and works for RAW or JPG shots. Of course, the other plus is that you can duplicate all the in-camera picture settings in post, including B&W modes. DPP output modes include batching. You can also export out tp PS directly without saving the file. The DPP browser ain't too bad either and is fast. DPP is made to read Canon's dust detection settings that you program in your camera, if your camera supports that function. DPP has a live full preview with a before and after view. Just make sure you get the latest update available free at Canon's site.

OK, now Camera Raw in PS or in Lightroom is way more robust of course, but for most purposes, I find I don't need to open PS at all unless I require advanced corrections such as layers, keystoning or spot removal (which it can do a much much better job at).

David thats a great answer. I shall implement your opinion while writing an article on my blog - comparing Canon RAW conversion. Thanks for that.

Richard

Like PF, I haven't looked at DPP for years, but Tom's post is certainly intriguing.
:lurk

tomnovy

Richard wrote: »

Like PF, I haven't looked at DPP for years, but Tom's post is certainly intriguing.
:lurk

Wait for the test - I am writing it

<ed>

I have read some on this before,and some swear by DPP as Canon would know best how to convert their own files - but I guess at some point a 3rd party could take it to a higher level I guess. DPP for me !

tomnovy

DPP for me as well - it is amazing!

tomnovy

Thats edited in DPP

tomnovy

Hello again,
I have prepared small article on my blog about Canon DPP - have a look: http://tomnovy.co.uk/blog/reviews/canon-raw-conversion/

David_S85

tomnovy wrote: »

Hello again,
I have prepared small article on my blog about Canon DPP - have a look: http://tomnovy.co.uk/blog/reviews/canon-raw-conversion/

Tom, have you updated your copy from the one on the CD?

tomnovy

Yes - i went to canon web to www.canon.com

Richard

tomnovy wrote: »

Wait for the test - I am writing it

Tom,
Thanks for posting the pic and the link to your blog. The pic looks fine, but the question in my mind is, compared to what? I realize that it's hard to do PP comparisons--the default settings don't tell you much and the skill of the user may be even more important than the quality of the software. I guess I'll just have to do a few experiments myself and see. I'm glad you brought this up, though, as it's really tempting for lazy people like me to just keep on doing whatever I have been doing.

tomnovy

Richard if you looking for comparrisment to lightroom or aperture - one example the amount of details. Aperture and lightroom export jpg have about 4mb, canondpp 8-11mb and the quality is visible. But there are many more differences and reasons why dpp - have a try with it - you will see.

pathfinder

I think the final actual size of the exported file is up to the user in both LR and PS, Tom. I am not sure I see how this alone makes DPP better than LR or PS either one. The size of the file is only very indirectly related to the quality of the image within the file. You can have very large jpg files with very poor quality, and you can have smaller jpg files with stunning quality. Most of my files I upload to smugmug range anywhere from 500Kb to 18Mb, the largest files tend to be for uprezzed images or multiframe panos. But I upload 8-15Mb files from Lightroom frequently - I do not upload directly from LR, but export a jpg to a folder on my computer, and then upload that file directly via smugmugs basic uploader.

I have a 24 x 36 in print from a 1DsMkii, shot in Antelope Canyon, MLU, tripod, cable release, prime lens, that is grainless, sharp, and you can see the individual grains of sand falling in the lightbeam. It is only 5 Mb full size, up on smugmug, and was processed in ACR and PS in 2006. There have been dramatic improvements in the camera profiles and Raw engines in LR3 and ACR 6.3.

Which versions of LR and PS are you finding at a disadvantage to DPP?

paddler4

I think there are two discussions going on here. Everyone seems to agree that DPP is good. The question is whether it is better than LR3--or more reasonably, in what ways it is better and worse. The blog posting does not provide much information about the latter.

The post says:

Next thing that surprised me was the fact that the software did recognise the profile that I shot my photos in – Standard, Portrait, Landscape etc.

You can download Canon profiles for LR. I can't say how good they are, because after a lot of playing around, I decided that the Adobe Standard profile is a better starting point for almost all of my images.

If someone knows of a point-by-point comparison of LR3 and DPP, it would be great to have it posted. I have been using LR for several years but might switch if I knew DPP had enough advantages and few enough disadvantages.

tomnovy

My blog article is my first impressions - it is not a compartment. I mention some differences between lr and aperture but it is just a beginning.

pathfinder

Happy New Year!!

Tom, I was hoping to expand this discussion in a format suitable for Graduate School, like John Bongiovanni and I did here - http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=184730

tomnovy

Well I can see that I'm not good enough for "your post graduate" level here. As I said before - this article was just my first immersion on the software not a full Review. But since you are on this forum - you will keep the HIGH level. I think that was a little rude.

Richard

Tom,

Your original post made a strong claim:

I have been using many RAW conversion programs: aperture, lightrom, capture one etc. I made tests and no matter what I do - canon free dpp software is much much better - noise reduction, sharpness, colours etc.

I think people would be interested in seeing some supporting evidence. I made a single test comparison between DPP and ACR and did not see a significant difference in IQ, but I wouldn't call that conclusive.

I have reread this entire thread and I don't think anyone has been rude.

tomnovy

Then it's probably my poor English