DPP vs. Lightroom

[Collin85]

I've been using DPP for quite awhile now and I'm pretty happy with it. However there's been many positive feedback about Lightroom being given out, so I thought I might look into that too.

I'll be back from a holiday this Friday and have around 3,000 RAW images to edit. The main thing about DPP compared to Lightroom which gets to me is DPP's inability to edit a mass amount of photos at once. I know with DPP, it'll take quite awhile. With LR, it probably won't.

On the other hand, I did a quick google of 'DPP vs. Lightroom' before and it seems some people feel DPP gives 'better colours', 'RAW conversion' etc. Also, because DPP must obviously support Canon-specific features like Picture Styles, it seems more appropriate for me to use DPP for that too (since I'm one of those folks which DON'T use Neutral, but have things changed around).

So what's everyone's opinion here? Does DPP potentially give better results for the RAW user? Pretty much the ONLY reason I would be getting Lightroom would be for it's mass-editing capabilities. Everything else with DPP I'm happy with.

[EOSAddict]

Download the trial and give it a go.. can't do any harm. Unless you are happy with LR's output, to be honest, all it's other wizzbangs are kind of irrelevant!

[Collin85]

I'd love to, but I'm still overseas right now and the internet connection is CRAP slow!

I'm pretty happy with DDP.. just wish it had mass edit abilities. The other thing, as mentioned above is how DPP allegedly performs better in some respects (via my googling, and hence the making of this thread). If LR is guaranteed to do an irrefutably better job with my RAW edits, then by all means I would get it, no questions asked.

[EOSAddict]

I'm very happy with LR, but then I have never used DPP.

[ssim]

If LR is guaranteed to do an irrefutably better job with my RAW edits, then by all means I would get it, no questions asked.

We all know what guarantees there are in life and I don't think RAW conversions fall into that category.:D:D

My preferred RAW converter is still C1Pro but I have been using Lightroom more and more while we await the next release from Phase One. I did alot of work in DPP when I first got my MK3 as it was the only thing that supported it. It does do excellent conversions and if you are a photographer that likes to utilize the picture styles in post production then this is your option, though you can build presets in Lightroom to emulate the same thing. I really hate the user interface of DPP but likes its results. I have done some tests on other bodies using the same RAW file and did conversions in DPP, Lightroom and C1. At the end it was really a toss up as they all provided generally equal results. I can turn out images faster in C1 than I can in anything else but that is just a matter of being very comfortable with the user interface.

If my only choices were DPP or Lightroom I would go with the latter. It is capable of providing RAW conversions that are just as good as DPP. Add in all the other things that Lightroom can do that DPP doesn't and it is good value and a great tool. It is, however, going to take some time to get used to the program. There is a learning curve in any software package.

[danpass]

I believe DPP DOES do mass edits.

I'll have to look thru the manual again (or the tutorials)


I use DPP ~90% of the time.



Ok, Pg 62 and 63 tells how to do mass edits. Basically change one, save those changes ('recipe'), and then you can apply that 'recipe' to a bunch of other pics even en mass using Ctrl-click to select them (or use the Checkmark function)

Download the manual thru here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=DownloadIndexAct






.

[Collin85]

Thanks for the input, ssim. danpass, I'll definitely have to look into that one.

I assume if I load a RAW file with some Picture Styles preset applied to it, Lightroom won't load the preset - instead just loading it as if it had the 'Neutral' preset (i.e nothing applied)?

Also, which program runs better in general (e.g loading times, RAW conversion etc.)?

[danpass]

DPP is easier on the computer than Lightroom (I've used Lightroom as well on the same computer), quicker to do most everything

[Tareq]

I have them all and i use DPP 99%, i downloaded LR and i didn't use it yet.
Photoshop is the best for sure but i feel DPP easier or lighter for most of my editing and PP.

[michael_]

you can definately do mass edits with DPP open all images in the edit window edit one then go to edit > save recipe > apply recipe to all images OR have DPP open to the main display window then select all the shots you want edited and apply the recipe, i only use DPP to srt out shots now and discard OOF or bad shots then do everything in CS2 but i shoot in JPEG mostly atm, if its RAW i use DPP, as someone said LR is heavy on CPU resources much like CS2 for me.

[In2Photos]

Of course with LR you can do batch edits even faster.

In the Develop module you would highlight all the files you want to edit in the Filmstrip. Then press CTRL and click AutoSync on the bottom of the right panel. Now, any edits made to the first photo automatically get carried over to all the other selected images. Super fast!

While DPP offers the Picture Style adjustments I find that I don't use them (mainly because I use an XT and they were not available to me). But in LR it would be possible to create presets that mirror the effect you get form the Picture Styles. It might take sometime to get them setup initially but from that point on they are a click away.

[René Damkot]

LR will allow you to go from the Raw straight to output (say, web or printer). No additional pass through PS needed. In theory you don't have to leave LR.
That won't work if you need to do local adjustments or edits at 'pixel level' (cloning and such): You still need PS for that.

DPP still doesn't allow cropping at an angle.
DPP doesn't recover highlights.
DPP gives better colors then LR in some circumstances. (Stage lighting (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=337343) for instance)

For images shot in daylight, generally LR can do an okay job, and it will probabley work faster. (Because with DPP every images needs to be opend in PS afterward, if only to crop and straigten).

I still use DPP.

[Bob Sherwood]

I have both. Lightroom is so slow I changed back to DPP. DPP does allow you to do "mass" edits. A poster above describes it perfectly.

[arg245]

1. The process of copying and pasting recipes to multiple files in DPP is just as fast as LR's batch edits.

2. DPP definetly does batch editing as well.

3. DPP's output is better overall - there are plenty who will disagree, but after all of my personal comparisons, DPP does the better job. I can get LR to give me the same color output, but for me, it takes me way longer in LR than in DPP.

4. It will take you longer to edit and output the same raw file in LR, than it will take you do de the same edits in DPP.

5. Bottom line for me - DPP is faster, has better output, and costs $300 less than LR.

Yes, the iterface leaves a lot to be desired, its not as "pretty" as LR, but once you get used to using it, you don't even notice. As for the benefits of database management, LR style, my needs, and I say again, MY NEEDS, are perfectly met with Picasa, another great and also free app.

Don't fall for the "everyone is using Lightroom" trap. Just because its new, put out by Adobe, and costs money, doesn't necessarily mean its better suited for you.

Use both and compare them. Then make your choice that way.

Good Luck

[danpass]

I'll admit there is a certain 'coolness' factor to Lightroom :mrgreen:

The 'Fill Light' and 'Blacks' sliders are extremely useful in LR.


But I do prefer the output of DPP.


Organizationally I like how it looks just like Windows Explorer on the left hand side. You can even add/change/rename folders and move pics just like in Windows Explorer.



As a side note: LR creates a 'changes' file whenever you make adjustments to pictures and saves them (without damaging the file) but when I do my Synchronization using Synctoy those changes are NOT saved because "the filename is too long" :shock:


.

[EOSAddict]

As a side note: LR creates a 'changes' file whenever you make adjustments to pictures and saves them (without damaging the file) but when I do my Synchronization using Synctoy those changes are NOT saved because "the filename is too long" :shock:


.

Do you mean the xmp file? As long as your LR catalog is backed up you don't really need to back these up too. But it's fine if you use syncback.

[michael_]

if i want to go full on with a process i will just do it in PS CS2, maybe because i am used to it but i just dont feel right using LR for some reason.

[skanish]

There were some things I could do in Lightroom that I could not do in DPP. Shadow highlighting, etc is a critical tool (in my opinion) for some pics that come out a tad underexposed in certain areas of the pic.

Here's an example. The first pic was processed with DPP. THe second pic was processed with Lightroom. Make your judgements of which is better.

http://mariskanish.smugmug.com/photos/171449326-L.jpg

http://mariskanish.smugmug.com/photos/172393920-L.jpg

[danpass]

You used "Fill Lighting"?

That is a pretty sweet tool.



That second one is a wall hanger for sure :mrgreen:



.

[Collin85]

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

For now, I've decided to stick with DPP.

[danpass]

Can't beat free :mrgreen:

[arg245]

There were some things I could do in Lightroom that I could not do in DPP. Shadow highlighting, etc is a critical tool (in my opinion) for some pics that come out a tad underexposed in certain areas of the pic.

Here's an example. The first pic was processed with DPP. THe second pic was processed with Lightroom. Make your judgements of which is better.



I love this image. I actually prefer the more contrasty version from DPP, though. The greens are just a bit overdone for my taste from the LR version.

That's the thing about this whole deal about comparing output from software. Unless we approach it from a purely technical perspective, we may never agree on which piece of software is "best". One man's "art", is another man's "picture".

Incidentally, have you considered applying HDR techniques to this image? I think it would make an awesome print with HDR applied.

[René Damkot]

Make your judgements of which is better.

First

[skanish]

I love this image. I actually prefer the more contrasty version from DPP, though. The greens are just a bit overdone for my taste from the LR version.

I do tend to highlight my greens a bit, and I also boosted the yellow as well in the pic.


Incidentally, have you considered applying HDR techniques to this image? I think it would make an awesome print with HDR applied.

I have never tooled with HDR but I have become extremely interested as of late by seeing other posters examples. I may give it a go tonight.

[Tareq]

I use DPP, for for shadows/highlight things i have to use PS or LR.

[philmar]

I don't use Lightroom but I use ACR 4.1 in CS3 which is the essentially the same RAW engine with the same controls. I've used DPP and used it exclusively until I upgraded my PC. OK, there's been an update to DPP in the last month I think and perhaps I am wrong since I haven't updated - so correct me if I am wrong. I think there is so much more that one can do in LR as opposed to DPP. The essential highlight recovery and shadow detail tools are missing from DPP. The ability to decrease color luminance is missing in DPP (it can be tone at the individual color level in LR). The ability to saturate indivdual colors is missing in DPP. The sharpening in DPP is crude compared to LR. Cropping is less sophisticated.
Lightroom 1.1 gives you so much more control over your image...but at the expense of a much longer workflow. Sometimes you fiddle for a while and end up with less than pleasing results. With DPP you pretty well know what you are going to get. Few surprises - and good ones when there are any.
Most of my photography is travel photography. Since I don't have alot of time when travelling one often takes shots during less than optimum times - middle of the day in harsh lighting. With shots like that DPP can't cut it. LR can reduce highlights and extract detail better as well as detail in shadows. Sure I make sure I am taking my shots early and late in the day - for these shots under optimum conditions DPP would be more than capable - in fact easier and faster. But for shots where the lighting was less than perfect (and I didn't have the oportunity to return another time) Lightroom can do the trick. Obviously a good photographer knows when the lighting is best and what exposure is best. In these situations DPP will be more than capable. But sometimes we don't have the time to get the exposure or lighting dead right. this is when you'll see the Lightroom advantage.
Don't get me wrong, DPP is simply a great free program that has it's limitations unfortunately. It does it's job well though I think LR can do so much more, but not without the expense of additional time, occassional frustration, self-doubt and loathing. I've tried to go back to DPP but I can't. It brings back fond memories but clearly I've moved on...to more sophisticated programs. I guess I really enjoy the challenge of LR (well ACR 4.1). It can give you better results but it ain't always easy. But still, DPP is a no nonsense easy to use great program that delivers...for free (well, for the price of a Canon DSLR).

[René Damkot]

With shots like that DPP can't cut it. LR can reduce highlights and extract detail better as well as detail in shadows.

Try developing a CR2 twice: Once for the highlights (as long as they are not blown: DPP's highlight recovery is non existent), once for the shadows.
Then, in PS, blend exposures (http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/videos/BlendedExposures.mov)...
;)

[Collin85]

I should mention that I'm gonna pick up CS3 regardless. Absolutely silly question, but I assume CS3 can do everything LR can?

[cfcRebel]

Here's an example. The first pic was processed with DPP. THe second pic was processed with Lightroom. Make your judgements of which is better.I don't mean no disrespect, but could it be you are not as proficient in DPP as you are in LR? The Curves tool in DPP is able to soften the Shadows/Highlights in your sample, and hence IMHO, is able to achieve the result just like LR.

[philmar]

Originally I used DPP because my old PC was too weak to handle CS2. I didn't have a calibrated monitor at the time - ok, I used Adobe Gamma, and used a 7 year old CRT. I bought a new PC and NEC20WMGX2 monitor, calibrated it and realized my photos looked like crap. With my new monitor and rig, I switched to ACR/CS2 and I ditched DPP because I liked the idea of a RAW converter integrated with PS. With DPP I was still going to PS for angled cropping, highlight/shadows, saturation, resizing and sharpening. I figured CS2 had a better workflow as it was already integrated into PS. Plus, I wasn't too happy with the results I had from DPP (which in retrospect was NOT DPP's fault but rather due to working in a unmanaged color environment and old uncalibrated monitor). I have upgraded to CS3 and really like it's UI compared to DPP.
I was surprised to see so many people using DPP on this thread. So after typing my long previous post extolling the virtues of CS3, I decided to play around with the upgrade to DPP and I have to say I am quite impressed. The UI is still crappy and cumbersome, the degree of control over certain aspects is somewhat limited compared to ACR but for some reason the colours are quite amazing. I really am going to give DPP another look. It really runs counter-intuitive that DPP, which offers control as compared to ACR 4.1, can still churn out sometimes better results than ACR 4.1
Maybe I'll be back to the ol' workflow of DPP and then PS. DPP really does give a better color rendition than ACR4.1. Maybe I'll use ACR strictly for important shots where I've bungled the exposure and need it's highlight recovery/shadow detail. I am fairly confident that ACR does beat DPP/PS combo for highlights/shadows.

Maybe there is greater merit to the argument that Canon knows its CR2 files better than Adobe and that help DPP process Canon RAWs better?

[davidcrebelxt]

Problem (as I see it) is two-fold:

1) Canon (and other makers) keep their RAW stuff secret... 3rd parites like adobe have to reverse engineer to use it, and they don't know what to do with some of the proprietary stuff embeds into the raw to help it display better. I suggest people bug Canon about this.


2) Adobe does sub-par camera profiling, apparently, or else does not wish to delve too deeply into the proprietary code to figure out what its doing. Many have reported this, especially with Canon cameras (reds tend to go orange in ACR for many of us.) Yet Adobe does not improve, while other converters don't display these color problems.

So until Canon shares some information and/or Adobe improves its Camera profiling; I'm guessing DPP will do better in terms of "pleasing colors" while Adobe will do better in its wealth of adjustment tools.

[toneyw]

I used to use DPP but switched to LR. No regrets. I came back from a China trip last week with over 3,000 RAW images to process. LR took care of them in a snap. Extra features in LR 1.1 (free upgrade) made things better, IMHO.

[philmar]

too bad the DPP user interface blows chunks....but the image quality beats ACR/LR

[lowcrust]

Could some of the people who wrote that the images comes out better in DPP please post an example of an otherwise non-processed image converted in DPP and LR or other raw converters please? Or am I missing the point and you're all saying that DPP will let you process and edit your images to a better result?

Oh and I did see René Damkot's "stage lightning" example. I'm gonna try the raw file myself later this weekend.

[davidcrebelxt]

Could some of the people who wrote that the images comes out better in DPP please post an example of an otherwise non-processed image converted in DPP and LR or other raw converters please? Or am I missing the point and you're all saying that DPP will let you process and edit your images to a better result?

Oh and I did see René Damkot's "stage lightning" example. I'm gonna try the raw file myself later this weekend.

I think you understand correctly that isn't really possible to do, since each RAW converter's initial coversion will be different.

BOTH can give excellent results. LR for me, though, since it can give better results when recovering highlights when DPP refused to. And I ran into that situation numeroud times. More extensive set of tools and controls in LR too.

But DPP does a better initial conversion (as far as colors go) so it makes it feel EASIER to get to a similar point because you don't start off with the odd color casts that ACR and LR often give. (Setting up a calibration preset for LR helps the initial conversion a bit.)

[stasber]

What David C said, mostly.

As with much of photography, results will depend on subject and lighting conditions, which directly affects how an image may be processed, or the possibilities therein. ""Horses for courses" as the saying goes.

Overall I (still) find DPP to give overall 'punchier' results than LR alone. I shoot mostly concert stuff. So far I've been doing main processing in DPP, export as JPG then top & tailing in LR. This includes metadata, straighten, maybe clone/heal if too tricky for DPP and a develop pass for blocks&blows and apply some final corrections to give some more clarity/depth.

Shame about the export to JPG at that stage but I'm only ever one more save away from final and the changes are minor so image quality is usually acceptable. One advantage here, though, is that I can import to LR without any LR presets or settings being applied, which includes Camera preset or any such 'default', so what output from DPP is what I get in LR (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

[Alex_c70]

But DPP does a better initial conversion (as far as colors go) so it makes it feel EASIER to get to a similar point because you don't start off with the odd color casts that ACR and LR often give. (Setting up a calibration preset for LR helps the initial conversion a bit.)


David C, when you mention a calibration preset, are you referring to shooting a color checker chart and calibrating from that? I just purchased "Skin" by Lee Varis; he is supposed to have a method of calibrating ACR that is good for (as the title suggests) accurately reproducing skin tones. If you're familiar with the book, is this similar to your calibration preset?

[philmar]

ACR does have more features, but many agree that for straight conversions, DPP does it with better detail and truer colors. Basically, if you need highlight recovery and fill light and other tools, ACR and LR are up to the task while DPP does not. But for images that don't need these tools, DPP tends to do a better conversion. DPP has a powerful Luminance curve in the RGB tab that is often overlooked. It is powerful but unfortunately crude and difficult to master.
make no mistake about it...DPP often does a better job than ACR 4.1 processing Canon RAW files. Canon has better algorithms because they designed the RAW files that run on the algorithms. Adobe has to reverse engineer.

DPP's problem is it's ugly user interface and lack of adjustment options. It is not fun working in DPP. Also I find the results are not consistent. The adjustment sliders are crude, less graduated and not as responsive as ACR.

I get better results with DPP but it does take a lot longer and it is not as easy. ACR is a joy to use and it's array of adjustments make it better for certain files that DPP cannot handle as easily - over-exposed.

DPP has a luminance curve that really gives you a lot of control. But it takes a while to learn how to use it properly and to it's greatest capacity. This curve is different from the RGB curve. It really works wonders....after a lot of work.

I am at a bit of a conundrum. I really like the results from DPP but not the amount of work it often takes to get them.
I fear that being a lazy person I may have to go to the bother of calibrating ACR for my camera. Hmmm....I have a Canon 30D - anyone know if there are sites where people have listed their presets based on camera type?

[davidcrebelxt]

David C, when you mention a calibration preset, are you referring to shooting a color checker chart and calibrating from that? I just purchased "Skin" by Lee Varis; he is supposed to have a method of calibrating ACR that is good for (as the title suggests) accurately reproducing skin tones. If you're familiar with the book, is this similar to your calibration preset?

There are several scripts out there that use a shot from a color checker. The ones I use are from tips from other users, and alot of trial and error. (I don't have CS2/3 so the scripts don't work for me.)

Looks like Philmar already found this, but this thread has someone starting to put up some presets to share:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=351905

[lowcrust]

But if someone makes a statement that "my cr2 file will be better processed by DPP than LR" there should be no problem doing the transfer twice, once with DPP and once with LR. Then post the result and point at the evidence?

What am I missing?

[René Damkot]

Here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=337343) is a (not too avarage) example...

[davidcrebelxt]

But if someone makes a statement that "my cr2 file will be better processed by DPP than LR" there should be no problem doing the transfer twice, once with DPP and once with LR. Then post the result and point at the evidence?

What am I missing?

Well, depends if you're trying to compare for better initial conversion or better final output.

Initial conversion may be easy judge, but doesn't necesscarily equate to final output. Each converter's initial take may be quite different; and you'd typically do futher tweaks to the image... rarely if EVER using the default conversion as is.

Final output is much more difficult to measure between converters. Settings don't typically equate between two different converters. So final output is dependant on the tools available and very much on individuals experience with each converter.

[philmar]

But if someone makes a statement that "my cr2 file will be better processed by DPP than LR" there should be no problem doing the transfer twice, once with DPP and once with LR. Then post the result and point at the evidence?

What am I missing?


Cyberspace is full of examples.


http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/p111684532/

[lowcrust]

Well, depends if you're trying to compare for better initial conversion or better final output.

Obviously "initial conversion". That's what people were talking about, right? All that talk about Adobe reverse-enigeneering and that. I asked for examples of straight conversion without post processing so that I can see this for myself. I've only used DPP briefly but never experienced or noticed this phenomena.

[lowcrust]

Here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=337343) is a (not too avarage) example...

Yeah, I actually mentioned in my first post that I did see your thread, René.

Cyberspace is full of examples.


http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/p111684532/


Thanks Phil, that's what I was talking about.

[davidcrebelxt]

Obviously "initial conversion". That's what people were talking about, right? All that talk about Adobe reverse-enigeneering and that. I asked for examples of straight conversion without post processing so that I can see this for myself. I've only used DPP briefly but never experienced or noticed this phenomena.

Sorry, wasn't sure what you meant... I based my reply on this part of the question:

"But if someone makes a statement that "my cr2 file will be better processed by DPP than LR" "

When people make those statments I take it to mean they like the final output better from one or the other.

That garyjean link was good... I see an even bigger colorshift with my camera using ACR than what they show... Candy apple reds sometimes go dull orange using the default settings.

[René Damkot]

Yeah, I actually mentioned in my first post that I did see your thread, René.


Oops. All the LR vs. DPP threads must have gotten me confused ;)

[Collin85]

Guys, I'm back.

Went and got CS3. Now I understand it uses ACR 4.0+ for it's RAW files, which is pretty much exactly what Lightroom boasts, right? I'm VERY pleased with the abundance of tools available, especially the highlight recovery tool.

I went and did a few tests to see ACR vs. DPP myself, and now I get what people meant by 'punchier results' and 'better colours' with DPP. I straight converted some RAW files with CS3 and did it with the same files with DPP (made sure to negate all those PS settings prior to converting) and the result differences are definitely noticable.

A few silly questions:

1) Does the ACR 4.0+ RAW plugin in CS3 contain more tools than Lightroom? I'm very impressed with the ACR plugin in CS3.

2) Suppose I wanted to use tools like highlight recovery which are not available in DPP. Assume I have CS3 and DPP, but not LR.

What should I do? Should I do the all the necessary adjustments in DPP, do the initial conversion to TIFF/JPEG and then use the highlight recovery tool in CS3..
or should I just bite it hard and not use DPP at all for that particular shot. In other words, do all the work with ACR and then do the RAW conversion there instead?
Pretend time isn't an issue here. For instance, I know the former process mentioned would be pretty damn time-intensive, but I'm just looking for advice at the moment regarding methodology.

3) From my trip, there were some shots which were just blown highlights galore (mainly skies). I guess some shots I didn't view valuble enough to bother with bracketed exposures for HDR composition later on, but now that I think about it.. I shouldn't of been so negligent.

My question is, is there some function/tool in CS3 which just allows me to select/highlight all the areas of an image which is pretty much white. I thought perhaps I could even just apply a consistent light blue over all of those areas.. would atleast look much much better than pure white.

Thanks guys.

[Curtis N]

Hopefully this will clarify, rather than confuse.While DPP offers the Picture Style adjustments I find that I don't use them (mainly because I use an XT and they were not available to me).You can use DPP's picture styles, whether or not your camera supports them. So I could make a 20D file look like a 30D file, simply by choosing the picture style.

Regardless whether you have a "picture styles" camera or the older models with separate adjustments for contrast, sharpness and saturation, DPP's initial rendering will use the camera's settings. A DPP conversion without adjustment will be theoretically identical to a JPEG produced by the camera.

Since non-Canon software ignores these camera settings, their output will always be different if you're doing a straight conversion without adjustment.

What makes Lightroom worth the $$$ (to some people) is not its RAW conversion quality or its wholesale editing capability. Any decent RAW converter will do these things. It's the extra wiz-bang features for printing, slideshows and web presentation that are incredible time-savers. The other day it took me only a few minutes to print a contact sheet and create a PDF slideshow for a client. Time is money.

[René Damkot]

Should I do the all the necessary adjustments in DPP, do the initial conversion to TIFF/JPEG and then use the highlight recovery tool in CS3.

That's what I do: Do a 'base' conversion in DPP, then use ACR for a darker version, recovering the highlights. Then I blend the two in PS, masking the darker layer, so only the highlights are visible.

[johnj2803]

sorry to revive this thread :D but i am new to all these, I have been using DPP 3.6.1 with all my RAW files and have been pleased with it. the only bummer i have is the ability of organizing my photos. I am a mac user and I am fond of iphoto and the way it organizes my pictures.

that is why i tried lightroom 2.4.

the question here is, with the updated versions of these 2 softwares, what is "better" for our images. or do all the comments stated here still hold true. DPP good output than LR. but more options in LR. or did i get them all mixed? :D

[René Damkot]

IMHO, DPP is better, at least where sharpening and NR is concerned.
LR might have an edge color wise, but that would be just in some very difficult circumstances. Otherwise, both are fine.

If you don't do sharpening / NR in the raw converter, then I wouldn't hesitate to say: go for LR.

Why not download the trial?

[johnj2803]

IMHO, DPP is better, at least where sharpening and NR is concerned.
LR might have an edge color wise, but that would be just in some very difficult circumstances. Otherwise, both are fine.

If you don't do sharpening / NR in the raw converter, then I wouldn't hesitate to say: go for LR.

Why not download the trial?


i have the trial on now and i'm liking it! I even have plug ins for flickr and facebook! :D but the one thing that really is annoying is the sharpening, i would really like to do it easily with LR. is there a way to do it by batch? can't seem to find the sharpen tool! :D

[tonylong]

Sharpening and noise reduction are in the Details panel a ways down the Development module. LR also has "output sharpening" that can be applied to prints as well as exported files, although not with the controls you can use in the Develop module.

LR2 also has some ability to localize sharpening using adjustment brushes.

It's probably pretty accurate, though, that better sharpening and noise reduction results can be gotten either through Photoshop or specialized applications. Photoshop has excellent sharpening tools and noise reduction apps have been developed that work well with LR2. For me, I use LR noise reduction and sharpening for most of my Web images but have Photoshop and Noise Ninja on hand for critical needs.

[René Damkot]

LR > Develop Module > Detail tab. Here's how it works:
http://lightroom-news.com/lightroom-11-update/sharpening/

[philmar]

Disclaimer - I use CS4, not LR.

I assume LR has the same ability to do local adjustments to files with exposure, clarity, saturation, sharpness ect.

THAT alone would be a reason to use it over DPP (I haven't used DPP in 3 years so I apologise if it now has that ability). The ability to do local adjustments directly to the RAW file is a HUGE advantage. Highlight recovery is another reason why I never look at DPP any more (I once prefered it to CS2, but that changed with CS3). The ability to tweak individual colors is HUGE as well.

But still - think about it...LOCAL ADJUSTMENTS to files...NON-destructively.

DPP has the overwhelming price advantage tho....but you still will need at least Elements.

[philmar]

oh...it's an old revived thread? OK - disregard my previous comments.

[johnj2803]

But still - think about it...LOCAL ADJUSTMENTS to files...NON-destructively.


you can do this with the new DPP

[tzalman]

I assume LR has the same ability to do local adjustments to files with exposure, clarity, saturation, sharpness ect.

THAT alone would be a reason to use it over DPP (I haven't used DPP in 3 years so I apologise if it now has that ability). The ability to do local adjustments directly to the RAW file is a HUGE advantage. Highlight recovery is another reason why I never look at DPP any more (I once prefered it to CS2, but that changed with CS3). The ability to tweak individual colors is HUGE as well.

But still - think about it...LOCAL ADJUSTMENTS to files...NON-destructively.
Yep, that's why I bid a tearful farewell to DPP.
you can do this with the new DPP
YOU CAN? I have 3.6.0. I've heard that there is a 3.6.2 but didn't realize that such an enormous addition would be accompanied by such a modest version number change. Is it easy to apply the masks?

[Mike55]

Guys, I'm back.

I went and did a few tests to see ACR vs. DPP myself, and now I get what people meant by 'punchier results' and 'better colours' with DPP. I straight converted some RAW files with CS3 and did it with the same files with DPP (made sure to negate all those PS settings prior to converting) and the result differences are definitely noticable.

Really? I've run endless tests on landscapes and notice no difference when DPP and LR2 are set to neutral or faithful picture modes. See the examples here:


In this test, the latest version of LR2 beats DPP with default settings in detail:

http://camerablognetwork.com/2009/06/lightroom-2-versus-dpp-3610-with-canon-50d/

and in this one, I really don't notice any color weakness:

http://camerablognetwork.com/2008/08/lightroom-2-versus-canon-dpp-showdown-2/


What was your subject matter?

[USER876]

I have them both. DPP is much faster, but lightroom is superior with editing. I feel DPP does a much better job with the eye dropper for white balance. It also does a better job than lightroom with sharpening. With DPP I can usually get a feel for what the picture will look like on the screen and be done. With lightroom I usually end up going back a second time because I don't like the first export....not sure why.........but just the facts.

[René Damkot]

you can do this with the new DPP
No. You cannot. (At least not in 3.6.0)

[johnj2803]

No. You cannot. (At least not in 3.6.0)


let me try to explain. you CAN do NON DESTRUCTIVE EDITING with the current version of DPP 3.6.1

[René Damkot]

let me try to explain. you CAN do NON DESTRUCTIVE EDITING with the current version of DPP 3.6.1

Yeah. You can do non destructive editing with DPP since 1.0. The same goes for Photoshop 4. I hate the term non destructive editing by the way... :rolleyes:
But you cannot do local adjustments in DPP...

[johnj2803]

ok :D sorry about that :D

[philmar]

But you cannot do local adjustments in DPP...

Thanks for clarifying that or else I might have wasted another few hours of my life playing around with DPP's butt ugly user interface!!
But I hear it is still free.

[Echoherbie]

I know the current version of DPP cannot do straightening which is frustrating. Can Lightroom do straightening?

[tzalman]

Yes, both manual or semi-automatic or by the numbers.

[René Damkot]

Straightening as in: Rotate a crop: Yes.
Straightening as in: Correct keystoning: No.

[babel_fish]

With DPP I can usually get a feel for what the picture will look like on the screen and be done. With lightroom I usually end up going back a second time because I don't like the first export....not sure why.........but just the facts.

I find myself doing this as well.

[ione]

I'm wondering if anybody has the same experience with DPP viewing RAW created by G9. I can see all my RAWs that were shot with my EOS bodies but not G9.

Any suggestions?

[René Damkot]

Digital Photo Professional (DPP) cannot read G9 raw files. You need Zoombrowser (Raw Image Task).

[tzalman]

Digital Photo Professional (DPP) cannot read G9 raw files. You need Zoombrowser (Raw Image Task).
Or Raw Therapee.

[ione]

Believe me I do use ImageBrowswer (name for Mac users), but it tends to crash frequently regardless if I use a new or an old Mac.

I would hope that by now Canon would supply a fix or something. So they sold and keep selling a whole bunch G cameras and then what

[tzalman]

From the G10 they started adding support for G-series in DPP.

[ione]

Well I guess I would have to wait until Canon decides to add G9 because I'm not upgrading

[René Damkot]

They won't. Ever. The camera isn't made anymore, so why would they add support now?
Use different software.

[ione]

Hmmm
Interesting, but I don't think it would make any impact for those of us using a G9

[tzalman]

Hmmm
Interesting, but I don't think it would make any impact for those of us using a G9

Until it breaks. Digital cameras aren't forever.

[ione]

Well, knock, knock

So far I have been beating the odds and lots of control no upgrading my camera every year lol....