Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing
Thread started 15 Aug 2016 (Monday) 13:30
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Lightroom vs Digital Photo Professional 4

 
Azathoth
" ...whose name no lips dare speak aloud"
Azathoth's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
Funchal
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by Azathoth. 3 edits done in total.
Aug 15, 2016 13:30 |  #1

I've been using Lightroom for some time. But this last week i got annoyed that it gets slower and slower. So i tried using DPP 4 and i found that although is actually slower than lightroom, I get much better, much more realistic colors. What is your experience with DPP?

It seems that in Lightroom i always battle in finding the best WB.... but in DPP i get an awesome WB with minimal tweaking.


500px (external link) | flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
anitaw2
Member
anitaw2's Avatar
242 posts
Joined Jun 2015
Canada
Aug 15, 2016 14:02 |  #2

I started having problems with LR 5 also. When I use the adj brush, the program freezes all the time. I don't know what is wrong. DPP is a good program for very basic editing.


Anita W.

LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
agedbriar's Avatar
2,506 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Slovenia
Aug 15, 2016 15:46 |  #3

The color wheel for white balance (Tune...) in DPP is something I couldn't part with.

The basic conversion is superb as well.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sued5320
Senior Member
sued5320's Avatar
Joined Mar 2009
Lincoln, NE
Aug 15, 2016 16:29 |  #4

Thank goodness there are some that like and support using DPP. I've gotten replies on a couple of different threads saying 'use LR - so much better than DPP'. DPP is free and can do many of the 'workflow' things that LR does (at least from what I've been able to find).


Sue MyFlickr (external link)
EOS 450 XSi * 50 1.8 * 70-200 2.8L IS II * Tamron 17-50 2.8 * 85 1.8 *EF-S 10-22

Nothing happens when you sit at home. I always make it a point to carry a camera with me at all times....I just shoot at what interests me at that moment. Elliott Erwitt

LOG IN TO REPLY
john ­ crossley
Goldmember
john crossley's Avatar
Joined Nov 2009
The Rhubarb Triangle
Aug 16, 2016 04:42 |  #5

Remember we are talking about photography here, there is no right or wrong, it is all about personal preference. At the end of the day no one can tell what software was used to process the image. So use whatever software you are most comfortable using.


Some days I'm the dog, some days I'm the lamppost.

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Aug 16, 2016 05:32 |  #6

I don't know about DPP4, not sure is it is supporting the 50D yet, my only option being stuck with a Win XP computer at the moment is a 3.x version of DPP, and let me say right now it is vastly worse than LR at dealing with both highlights and shadow detail. Personally I think even the previous Process Version, think it was PV2010, was better with highlights than DPP3! Shots that show plenty of highlight detail, with zero clipping in evidence, in PV2012 are simply unusable in DPP. Also since I have a range of older cameras, and of course image taken with them when they were current cameras, a RAW processing workflow system that cannot handle ALL of my image files isn't a lot of use to me.

That's the other thing, LR is so much more than a RAW processor. It is a comprehensive workflow solution. It covers everything from moving your images from the camera, organising them, in many and diverse ways, RAW processing with one of the top three RAW processing engines, based on features and quality of results. It then make handing off the image for additional RGB based processing steps in a pixel based image editor very easy should you need it, and then brings those RGB pixel based images back into LR for including in the aforementioned organisational system. It is then very good at producing your final output in again many forms, both digital files, and prints. So much so that for the last four years I have not kept a single finally outputted JPEG file on my computer, that was not being used as a desktop wallpaper.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Azathoth
THREAD ­ STARTER
" ...whose name no lips dare speak aloud"
Azathoth's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
Funchal
Aug 16, 2016 09:55 |  #7

Yeah DPP is worse at recovering shadow and hightlight detail. The hightlights slider is much more useful than the one in DPP. And we get more tools: lens profiles for third parties lenses, clarity, graduated filters, spot removal that also works like a clone tool, etc. But the color and WB of DPP for me gives me much better results.


500px (external link) | flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Aug 16, 2016 10:10 |  #8

Azathoth wrote in post #18097140 (external link)
Yeah DPP is worse at recovering shadow and hightlight detail. The hightlights slider is much more useful than the one in DPP. And we get more tools: lens profiles for third parties lenses, clarity, graduated filters, spot removal that also works like a clone tool, etc. But the color and WB of DPP for me gives me much better results.

Interesting. I wonder why you get better color from DPP. I have only used LR, at least for the last several years. Maybe it is time to have a look at DPP.

The problem is that it takes time to learn a new editing program, because photo editors are complicated. Few of us have the time or inclination to learn LR, DPP, GIMP, Photoshop, Paintshop Pro, Picasa, Elements and so on, and do a compare. Instead we check out what others are using and go with that.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
teekay
Goldmember
teekay's Avatar
2,712 posts
Joined Apr 2001
British Columbia, Canada
Aug 16, 2016 11:12 |  #9

I enjoyed using DPP but it wouldn't handle RW2 RAW files from my Panasonic FZ1000 so switched to LR - a steep learning curve but now I like it!




LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
tonylong's Avatar
54,625 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Vancouver, WA USA
Aug 16, 2016 13:37 |  #10

Interesting -- back in "the day" when I started to shoot RAW, because JPEG fell flat when it came to processing, well, it was Photoshop Adobe Camera Raw, and then Lightroom (which shares the same "engine" as ACR). I did try out DPP, and in fact have encouraged people to use it as "starting out" software, because 1) It's free for Canon users and 2) It "starts out" using your in-camera settings for your RAW preview.

However, that was with DPP 3.x, not DPP 4.x. DPP 4.x won't work with my older Canon cameras, so...!

So, a big question is, has DPP improved stuff such as their highlight/shadow processing to match what we've had in LR/ACR? If so, that's good to know, although the managing/output tools of LR will still be hard to beat, and also since it can work with a wider variety of cameras!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBaseexternal link
Wildlife project pics hereexternal link, Biking Photog shoots hereexternal link, "Suburbia" project hereexternal link! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics hereexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
agedbriar's Avatar
2,506 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Slovenia
Aug 16, 2016 14:03 |  #11

I use DPP 3.14.15, as no later version will work on Win XP, and the highlight/shadows rescue-ing ability is still limited.

No problem for my portraits and macro, but people who shoot wide DR scenes do in fact complain.




LOG IN TO REPLY
biscoitocruz
Hatchling
4 posts
Joined Feb 2018
Feb 06, 2018 07:24 as a reply to agedbriar's post |  #12

Hello Slovenia and greetings from Portugal. I've come across with your post and would like to know if you still use the 3.14.15 version of DPP and if you know where I can find it. I need to post process some photos on a Windows XP pc but it doesn't run the latest versions of DPP. The only versions I've found on line are updaters and since I bought a used recent camera I don't have an old cd. Thank you and regards.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Stiga
Goldmember
Stiga's Avatar
Joined Dec 2015
Nr Perth, Scotland
Feb 06, 2018 07:41 |  #13

john crossley wrote in post #18096981 (external link)
...............
At the end of the day no one can tell what software was used to process the image...............

The name of last software use for image modification will be embedded in the EXIF data


Martin
I'm not a gear guy but I have a tons of software :-)

LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
agedbriar's Avatar
2,506 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Slovenia
Post has been edited 15 days ago by agedbriar.
Feb 06, 2018 07:44 |  #14

Hi to Portugal,

The DPP installers for ver. 3 are the complete programs, but to install they indeed require either the presence of the CD or an earlier DPP installation already present on your HD.

You can resolve the problem by installing DPP ver. 1.0 (no requirements for this one) from this source

http://web.canon.jp/Im​aging/sdl/data/dpp100-e.exe (external link)

and following up by installing a ver. 3.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Stiga
Goldmember
Stiga's Avatar
Joined Dec 2015
Nr Perth, Scotland
Feb 06, 2018 07:53 |  #15

biscoitocruz wrote in post #18557559 (external link)
Hello Slovenia and greetings from Portugal. I've come across with your post and would like to know if you still use the 3.14.15 version of DPP and if you know where I can find it. I need to post process some photos on a Windows XP pc but it doesn't run the latest versions of DPP. The only versions I've found on line are updaters and since I bought a used recent camera I don't have an old cd. Thank you and regards.

Try this website: dpp 3.14.15 download (external link)

I hope it works for you, I have not tested it.


Martin
I'm not a gear guy but I have a tons of software :-)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

4,113 views & 11 likes for this thread
Lightroom vs Digital Photo Professional 4
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00118 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.06s
Latest registered member is sorrentino
1047 guests, 465 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017