DPP: how to use it at best?

[ulrico]

I have looked around to see what is the best raw converter for canon cameras and I was a bit surprised to read that, in terms of pure conversion, canon DPP does the best job. Then good news, because it is free, but I miss the controls on the image that other softwares have (ACR and Lightroom, for instance).
Now my question is: is there a good book, or site or whatever where I can be taught how to use DPP at best, how to use its limited controls to get the maximum from it? This is because I would like to work on raw format more than to convert it to tiff and use for example photoshop to improve the images. Does anybody have any suggestion? Thank tou in advance.

[davidcrebelxt]

Online tutorials here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=1228&fromTips=1

(Apparently they've been updated since I last looked at them.)

[davidcrebelxt]

BTW: do you have LR2 or CS3 already?

There are "beta" camera profiles you can download from Adobe which GREATLY improve conversion in that software.

[ulrico]

I am using the trial versions of CS3 and lightroom, and I downloaded the new camera profiles. They actually work better, but in some situations the difference from the results that I obtain with DPP are still evident. It is not only a question of colour rendition, but also and maybe more a question of better rendition of subtle nuances. I can see this especially in surfaces of uniform colour with reflections and gradual changes in light: DPP is strongly smoother, while LR2 and ACR loose most part of the subtle differences in color and are much less smooth. I tried to modify the results but the best I obtained is far from the DPP standard (especially in neutral picture style).

[ulrico]

Another difference that is really annoying is that in high iso picyures chroma noise is much more visible in LR2 e ACR than in DPP and the grain is much worse (setting the noise reduction to zero). This happens even if I do not apply any sharpening. DPP simply gives me a much cleaner image than LR2 and ACR.

[Beaufort 12]

Another difference that is really annoying is that in high iso picyures chroma noise is much more visible in LR2 e ACR than in DPP and the grain is much worse (setting the noise reduction to zero). This happens even if I do not apply any sharpening. DPP simply gives me a much cleaner image than LR2 and ACR.

Yes, DPP is far superior to Lightroom.

The "ease of use" in Lightroom only looks like it, because the sliders are so obvious, and you can start noodling it without consulting a manual.

But DPP actually allows you a much higher degress of control (the "cuves" function in the RGB tab) and can bring an image much closer to what you want it to look.

Also, for skin tones DPP is great.

The browsing/presentation abilities aren't great, but instead of spending 280$ on Lightroom, I recommend spending 160$ on Photo Mechanic.

Photo Mechanic is so superior to Lightroom in terms of browsing and image sorting and tagging, that Lightroom just look pathetic next to it. Also Photo Mechanic is much faster.


Regarding info about DPP:

The tutorials have already been mentioned.

Don't forget the PDF file that comes with your DPP disc. Take yourself time to study the pdf, and be patient when your first attempts to adjust images don't go too well.

The image tone you can get with DPP are wonderful, and you can get exciting tones and nuances out of your images. Nuances and colors, that get lost with Lightroom, and are replaced by drab, plasticky bluntness.

[davidcrebelxt]

Again it all depends on what you prefer and are used to... I get great results from LR, personally, whereas DPP blows color channels and cannot recover those highlights.

By all means, however, use what does the best for YOU. That's what matters in the end... that you are pleased with the results. For anyone just starting to process RAW, I think DPP is a very good choice. RawTherappee has also impressed me. And the cost for those choices can't be beat. ;)

[leadweight]

My opinion as a relative beginner is that DPP just works. The new color profiles are an improvement in Lightroom, but printing is a nightmare while with DPP it came out pretty good the first time. Besides, DPP is effectively free as it comes in the same box with with your Canon. That alone makes it a no brainer as the one to try first.

[ulrico]

Thanks for your suggestions, Beaoufurt12 and Davidcrebelxt, I really appreciated.
I agree with you Davidcrebelxt when you suggest to use what I prefer and used to, but my point was a bit different. What do you think about what I said on worse noise look in LR and ACR? Do you have a different experience? Have you compared DPP and LR with regard of this aspect? Maybe the problems I have with color and smoothness can be overcome once I can better use LR, but I can not really understand how the worse noise look in LR that I can clearly see can be a consequence of my (very) limited ability to use LR. This is the opinion of a non expert for sure, and if you would like to correct me where I may be wrong here I would really appreciate, thanks.

[Beaufort 12]

Beaoufurt12

That's a beautiful typo.

A double typo. I'll take it for my collection.

[ulrico]

oops... I am sorry... Beaufort 12...

[Mike55]

For a long time I was a big DPP fan. I even hated LR1. But LR2 changed that. The converted RAW to JPEG now look the same between DPP and LR2. Also, for me anyway the DPP preview modes can make pictures out of focus. I also notice this lower quality in the LR2 previews, but thankfully the converted RAW looks much better on output. Toss in amazing features like the Gradient Filter, local adjustments and the organizational tools and LR2 blows DPP out of the water. I plan to order copy when my trial expires.

[ulrico]

This is an example of the different chroma noise quality from the two softwares. Both are obtained by setting 0 sharpening, no noise reduction and neutral color style.

This is from DPP (crop, 100%):

295394

and this is from LR2 (crop, 100%):

295400

It seems to me that the grain is much smaller in DPP, and chroma noise is much less visible. Also, DPP seems to get more details (look at the rough surface on the right).

[Beaufort 12]

For a long time I was a big DPP fan. I even hated LR1. But LR2 changed that. The converted RAW to JPEG now look the same between DPP and LR2. Also, for me anyway the DPP preview modes can make pictures out of focus. I also notice this lower quality in the LR2 previews, but thankfully the converted RAW looks much better on output. Toss in amazing features like the Gradient Filter, local adjustments and the organizational tools and LR2 blows DPP out of the water. I plan to order copy when my trial expires.

Well, well, well, I wouldn't get my feet too wet in that ranking.

Fine you like LR2. Many seem to think it's better than LR1.

All those features you quoted aren't necessary if you use Photoshop.

What you really need is good RAW conversions, and good adjustments in the RAW stage.

Everyone will have to make his own statement. As many people use Lightroom and recommend it, it is necessary to point out that many quality concerned photographers have ditched Camera RAW/Lightroom.

Many newer photographers seem to think it's an either/or decision between Aperture and Lightroom, and it is not.

[Beaufort 12]

This is an example of the different chroma noise quality from the two softwares. Both are obtained by setting 0 sharpening, no noise reduction and neutral color style.

This is from DPP:

295394

and this is from LR2:

295400

It seems to me that the grain is much smaller in DPP, and chroma noise is much less visible.

Ulrico, work on some images you do. If it's portraits, do portraits. If you do landscape, do landscape.

If you go too close, you miss out on one real great advantage of DPP: the great quality of light, the fineness of detail, the whole image characteristics gets a bit lost if you go pixel peeping (and its also a reliable way to go crazy)

I generally like DPP for the unbeatable quality of detail reproduction, light quality, and colors, particularly skin tones (on which to get right I depend financially).

[Mike55]

Ulrico, work on some images you do. If it's portraits, do portraits. If you do landscape, do landscape.

If you go too close, you miss out on one real great advantage of DPP: the great quality of light, the fineness of detail, the whole image characteristics gets a bit lost if you go pixel peeping (and its also a reliable way to go crazy)

I've been comparing the same landscape images in LR2 and DPP and I find them to be identical for the most part. And I'm talking forests and grasses, images with all kinds of crazy tiny detail - not portraits.

For me, DPP 2.2.1 was the best. And for me, the preview mode got all weird after 2.2.1 , even making non-out of focus images look out of focus(especially in portrait orientation).

[ulrico]

You are completely right, Beaufort 12, I just posted those two crops as an example of what I said about chroma noise. These days I have been trying to understand if there was a raw converter that could give me more control on the image before converting to raw, so that I have been trying to understand if the image quality from other softwares can match what DPP can do. As you say, initially I thought that LR and ACR were the best around, and as you said it was the idea of an almost beginner in raw PP that thought that the inventors of Photoshop would be the best around also in raw converters. Then I tried, and something was not as I expected it would be. I do not have the experience to evaluate a photographic software, and maybe what I think is a problem is only an effect of my limited ability to use the software. Anyway, when I read comments like yours, I think that at least the answers are not so easy to find and that maybe my impressions are not completely wrong.
That said, I would like to ask you what you can and usually do with DPP and what you reserve to photoshop. What I like of LR2 is the wide control that you have on image, but maybe some of the things that LR2 does can be done with DPP making some more efforts. For example, the highlight recovery is something that is pretty useful, but I do not think that there is a way to do it in LR.



Ulrico, work on some images you do. If it's portraits, do portraits. If you do landscape, do landscape.

If you go too close, you miss out on one real great advantage of DPP: the great quality of light, the fineness of detail, the whole image characteristics gets a bit lost if you go pixel peeping (and its also a reliable way to go crazy)

I generally like DPP for the unbeatable quality of detail reproduction, light quality, and colors, particularly skin tones (on which to get right I depend financially).

[Beaufort 12]

initially I thought that LR and ACR were the best around, (...) that thought that the inventors of Photoshop would be the best around also in raw converters.

Many people think that, and then they find out it's not true.

Photoshop is a great program with an immense amount of capabilities. But more and more of its workings are now already possible to do with a RAW converter.

Things you can do in DPP before going to Photoshop:

1. White balance, like with every other RAW converter. But DPP has the advantage of the white balance wheel, that you find on the RAW tab. It shows you the wheel with all the colors on its borders, a square in its center, that you can move freely wherever the image needs it. If it's too red, you can move it towards blue, etc.

In my opinion, this gives much more control than two separate sliders for temp and tint.

But, of course, it is more difficult to drive a powerful Ferrari than a Honda Civic.

2. Luminance. In the RGB tab you find the luminance curve. If you only find R, G, B and RGB go to the preferences, choose luminance instead of RGB.

You can define 8 points on the luminance curve and it defines how shadows and lights are in the picture. Again, this is easy to mess up, much more difficult than the shadows, darks, lights, highlights sliders in LR, but more effectful once you get it.

3. R, G, B. Definitely for the advanced, as you have to think in opposites. Also, you may have to adjust two color channels to correct a third color. Takes really some time, and I mess up at it, like everybody else, but when it works out, you can get the greatest color moods.

Color wheel, luminance curve, and the separate R, G, B curves are a strength of DPP.

The only thing that is missing, that you can't use a color picker, that shows you, where on the curve a certain brightness value is (like you can in PHotoshop).

But it's absolutely non-destructive.

I tried out noise reduction and sharpening, and it works well.

For some final adjustments the blacks slider of LR are good, and for some, very limited tasks, the color sliders help. But for really changing the color mood in an image, the Lightroom/ACR controls are too weak.

Like many others, I trusted the brand name Adobe and got disappointed. I worked on thousands of images with Lightroom, and turned away, and don't look back.

Every time I work with DPP I enjoy the great nuances and the "quality of light" in it.

Many people underestimate this application, because it is free and doesn't have a flashy user-interface.

Of course, for keywording and image management you need some kind of software as your collection is growing. Photo Mechanic is a good choice.

So, to get back to your initial question: try to get as much done as possible in DPP before you export to Photoshop. I do a good deal of basic sharpening ( capture sharpening), white balance, color mood and as much in the luminance area as I can. For localized corrections and fine tuning color I use Photoshop.

[RAYJAY]

Beaufort 12: Just thought I would let you know that when in the RGB tab, that if you right click in the tab, you can move from Luminence to RGB and back again quite freely.

[neumanns]

Well wrote beaufort 12...

[davidcrebelxt]

I agree with you Davidcrebelxt when you suggest to use what I prefer and used to, but my point was a bit different. What do you think about what I said on worse noise look in LR and ACR? Do you have a different experience?

Lr seems to have noise well under control for me. Only see it in Higher ISO images, or when I need to increase exposure a stop or more. And even then, a couple seconds use of the noise controls typically satisfies me... even in DPP alot of that noise which may look bad a 1:1 won't be noticed in your standard 4x6, 5x7, or even 8x10 print.

Remember that LR's numbers don't relate directly to DPP. DPP may even be applying some minimal type of NR at setting 0. Whereas setting LR to 0 may TRULY mean no noise adjustment. (I examined a few low light ISo 100 and ISO400 in both and studied some shadow areas where I'd expect there to be noise, esp. after boosting exposure... and was actually surprised at how similar each looked when left at their default settings. Setting color noise to 0 in LR did increase it as expected... but when left at its default of 25, its hard to distinguish from DPP's setting of 0)

My point about using what you prefer still stands. No need arguing the point to death like some want to. Since the beta profiles came out for ACR, both work very well IMO. If you have a specific problem with a either LR or DPP, there are people here on the forums that are willing to help. But the whole reason there are so many different RAW converters out there is there isn't a one size fits all... we each have to make decisions based on what both fits our experience, workflow, way of thinking, etc.

Happy shooting.

[ulrico]

Thank you very much, Beaufort 12, you gave me a lot of very useful suggestions, I really appreciate. Now I want to get deeper inside the use of DPP and picture manipulation, I still have a lot of doubts that I want to solve.
Thank you Davidcrebelxt for sharing your experience with LR, I think I still have to better evaluate it, I was just surprised to see those differences, but I consider them pretty subtle and maybe not so important.
I think that before spending money in new software I will try to better use what I have for free, that for sure is more difficult to use but it will help me to better understand what I am doing.

[Beaufort 12]

Thank you very much, Beaufort 12, you gave me a lot of very useful suggestions, I really appreciate. Now I want to get deeper inside the use of DPP and picture manipulation, I still have a lot of doubts that I want to solve.
Thank you Davidcrebelxt for sharing your experience with LR, I think I still have to better evaluate it, I was just surprised to see those differences, but I consider them pretty subtle and maybe not so important.
I think that before spending money in new software I will try to better use what I have for free, that for sure is more difficult to use but it will help me to better understand what I am doing.

You're welcome.

Enjoy working on your pictures. Take risks, as you can always go back to as-shot. If you have an image, that you like, then you can copy the RAW, save the state of the current edit, start anew, and see if you can improve it. (you always can. It's just a matter of reason to say when to stop).

PS: DPP has incredible noise reduction abilities. Just try it on copies first. The usual softening of an image through noise reduction is very, very little with DPP.

[Zazoh]

Many people underestimate this application, because it is free and doesn't have a flashy user-interface.

I too am a lover of DPP. Took several hours to master the luminance curves, but once I did, seems very easy to me now. The key, a little bit goes a long way.

The ONLY thing I find missing is a straighten tool, wierd, they have a grid but no way to level horizons.

I bought lightroom but don't use anymore. DPP and Picasa2, both free, cover all my needs. I used to like all the preset abilities in LR, but can replicate them using the RGB and Luminance curves in DPP.

The ONLY thing I really liked about LR was the ability to click a color and increase or decrease that particular color.

[Mike55]

Don't forget the organizational tools and the local adjustments which blow DPP away. Heck, the Gradient Filter tool alone is amazing.

[ulrico]

Beaufort 12, thanks again. I have already started to use DPP trying to use curves, it is not easy at the beginning but I can see that after a short time I have already improved and I think I will really enjoy it once I can completely control the effects I can obtain. At the same time, I am really happy to have the opportunity to have a direct control on what I am doing on the image, I have never liked using automatic functions because one never knows what they actually do and control it. I well understand the need of some people to increase the speed of their workflow, but actually I do not have that problem and what I really would like to get is to improve my knowledge on image treatment and enjoy what I do.

[Beaufort 12]

Don't forget the organizational tools and the local adjustments which blow DPP away. Heck, the Gradient Filter tool alone is amazing.

Nothing blows away, Mike. The key thing is image quality. DPP is unbeatable in that. There are other good ones, like Capture One and DxO, which are good, too.

[Mike55]

Nothing blows away, Mike. The key thing is image quality. DPP is unbeatable in that. There are other good ones, like Capture One and DxO, which are good, too.

Sure it does. LR2 has amazing tools that DPP does not. See the local adjustments(which DPP completely lacks), the graduated filter, in depth organization features, among others.

Look, I championed DPP for a long time up until they messed up the preview modes after 2.2.1. I was no fan of LR1, especially the IQ. LR2 has changed that.

Here's an example image exported via jpeg from both programs. Both had zero sharpening applied. The LR one may have had slight noise reduction on. Both files were set to "neutral" and then had 300 0.2 0 smart sharpen applied in PS:

Full size:

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/2439/lr2fullgm3.jpg

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/8541/dppfullet2.jpg


100% crops(guess which one is which):

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7163/dpp100cropky1.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5926/lr2100cropjm5.jpg



And here's an example of what DPP can't do(It's just a slapped together example, not some masterpiece I'm working on):

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6403/lr2examplesfullxc3.jpg

This had a software gradient filter added, clarity added, sharpening from within LR2 and local adjustments to some of the trees and especially the center mountain. Just a 2 minute example.

If you are having IQ issues with LR2 compared to DPP, it's probably because you did not install the profiles for LR2. As for me, I'll always use DPP as a "quick viewer" due it's speed in that department. But I will be phasing all other aspects to LR2 as it's a complete system in one.

[Beaufort 12]

I don't use LR2. The additional features just don't attract me. The main image processing engine is close to what LR1 has.

I'm glad you like LR2. It's important you like the tools you are working with.

For localized correction I like Photoshop.

Sure, the process of making image adjustments non-destructive will lead to advances in the development of RAW editors (called converters up to now, but will be called editors in future... likely, possible, maybe...). Bibble is preparing the use of layers. But it will take time, and Photoshop is a quite mature application.

[Mike55]

I don't use LR2. The additional features just don't attract me. The main image processing engine is close to what LR1 has.

It's incredibly similar to DPP now. Try the LR2 trial and install the new profiles.


In the example I posted, how is DPP beating LR2 in image quality?




For localized correction I like Photoshop.


Doing it with RAW is far superior though when dealing with exposure.

[bohdank]

I wish DPP had the "Recovery" feature of ACR.

I wish PS did everything in RAW mode. I would imagine the next version will.

[René Damkot]

100% crops(guess which one is which):

First one has better detail. Sharpening looks quite different.

[Mike55]

Here's LR2 100% crop with all NR off:

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2928/lr2cropnonoisefx6.jpg

DPP 100% crop:

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/7163/dpp100cropky1.jpg

The only difference I see is what looks like slightly heavier noise reduction applied which doesn't show up in full images(as seen in my previous example with full sized images).

The "game changing" features in LR2 easily outweigh this tiny difference.