DPP and Lightroom

Hi all,

I have been using DPP for the past couple years and I shoot RAW only. My friend said he will give his lightroom 3 for me next month and I am just wondering, once I got lightroom, do I still need DPP?

OR shall I ask, what can one do in DPP but not in lightroom?

Thanks.

iamdogdog wrote in post #12443140
Hi all,

I have been using DPP for the past couple years and I shoot RAW only. My friend said he will give his lightroom 3 for me next month and I am just wondering, once I got lightroom, do I still need DPP?

OR shall I ask, what can one do in DPP but not in lightroom?

Thanks.

No! but it won't hurt to hang onto it.
Lightroom will do everything DPP does and then much more.

I enjoy using both, DPP for nice quick conversions, Lightroom for more "serious" processing, managing my Library, and various output tasks.

For a long time I didn't have DPP but they have made some nice upgrades over the past year or so which makes it a nice app to use!

Oh, you should realize -- if your friend is going to "give" you his copy of Lightroom, you should make sure he has uninstalled his copy, otherwise your use of it will be both limited and illegitimate...

They sometimes do a very different conversion.
DPP is free, so keep it.

http://www.getcolorman​aged.com …t/problems/rawc​onverters/

DPP is excellent for a very fast conversion. With LR you have to go through the whole importing routine, waiting for it to build previews. etc. In my OS file associations CR2 is associated with DPP Viewer Module.exe. With a double click in Explorer the file immediately opens in the full screen Edit window, I don't even have to go through the thumbnail page.

René Damkot wrote in post #12444704
They sometimes do a very different conversion.
DPP is free, so keep it.

http://www.getcolorman​aged.com …t/problems/rawc​onverters/

Thanks for the link, it said DPP is better at sharpening and noise reduction(I thought this are the 2 most important feature, no?).

In terms of learning curse, I see tons of tutorial of LR but not much for DPP, so I assume in a long run, it might be easier for me to master LR instead, right?

iamdogdog wrote in post #12447493
In terms of learning curse, I see tons of tutorial of LR but not much for DPP, so I assume in a long run, it might be easier for me to master LR instead, right?

http://www.learn.usa.c​anon.com …rials/dpp_tutor​ials.shtml

iamdogdog wrote in post #12447493
Thanks for the link, it said DPP is better at sharpening and noise reduction(I thought this are the 2 most important feature, no?).

LR3 is a lot better then LR2 in this respect.
Nowadays I hardly, if ever, have to revert to DPP...

The best way is to try by yourself and then make a choice.
Personnally I prefere DPP because it suits better my needs for fast editing while preserving excellent results. However my needs are not necessarely the same as yours. So try and choose.

I do use both DPP 3.11 and Lightroom 4.1, and while I find both converters excellent, I do get more consistent results from the latest DPP. With both my 5D Mk II and 7D and all "L" lenses I will go to DPP if I encounter a difficult color or white balance problem. I also use Dxo 7.5 Elite, which is fantastic, but I always come back to DPP when the most critical color, tone and sharpness is required.

LR 4.1 is better at just about everything than DPP. And the LR changes translate directly into PS and PSE for additional editing. DPP edits can't be seen in PS unless exported and converted first. I still have DPP on my computer, but I haven't used it in months.

Preeb wrote in post #14588016
LR 4.1 is better at just about everything than DPP.

"Different: For sure.
"Better": Not necessarily.

Preeb wrote in post #14588016
DPP edits can't be seen in PS unless exported and converted first.

Which is exactly the same for LR… You cannot edit a Raw file in Photoshop proper. You need either LR or ACR to convert it.

Preeb wrote in post #14588016
I still have DPP on my computer, but I haven't used it in months.

I still use it occasionally. It does some things better and/or easier then LR.

René Damkot wrote in post #14594883
Which is exactly the same for LR… You cannot edit a Raw file in Photoshop proper. You need either LR or ACR to convert it.
.

The advantage for me is that with LR I do a direct import to the Library from the card, then apply keywords and make my basic edits as needed (sometimes no more than applying a simple preset). Then if more is needed, I can click "Edit in" PS Elements 10 and have LR make a copy in .psd and open directly into Elements with all LR edits applied. I make my edits and save and it's still in my LR Library. It just takes several fewer steps and it's much easier to keep organized. If I then need to Export a jpeg, the LR dialog can handle any possible requirement for conversion, from just converting a copy to the same folder to burning a DVD.

It's a seamless workflow, and I've spent too much time in the past program hopping. Working with LR and PSE is a breeze, and I can do anything I ever needed to do with those 2 applications, plus a couple of plugins.

I use DPP and love it.

I tried LR4.0 and didn't like it all that much for the following reasons.
Slow on my computer
Disk management
All of my processing came out dark for some reason.
I think LR saves edits to a separate file, instead of inside the raw file itself. So, there are multiple files for an edited raw. (I could be wrong on this one).

What was awesome about LR: Plugins. The fact that I could have a smugmug shortcut, flickr, facebook, etc. directly in LR and simply drop the edited raw into a gallery (created within LR as well) then publish was great. I miss that.

Most of my problems with LR comes from an older laptop. Limited space means that I am pretty active about archiving stuff that isn't necessary. I would most certainly benefit from an upgrade, but don't have the $$.

Other than that, LR changed my workflow too much, I didn't like it.

Noitca wrote in post #14599813
I use DPP and love it.

I tried LR4.0 and didn't like it all that much for the following reasons.
Slow on my computer
All of my processing came out dark for some reason.
I think LR saves edits to a separate file, instead of inside the raw file itself. So, there are multiple files for an edited raw.

Slow: That's mostly fixed in 4.1
If everything "came out dark" and it doesn't with DPP, that sounds like a color management issue, or you are using ALO for instance (which DPP picks up, LR not so much). You should set the correct display profile in DPP prefs. LR finds out what display profile to use from the OS by default.
Separate file: Yes, LR saves (if you tell it to) metadata and edits to an .xmp sidecar file.