DPP image quality better than Lightroom?

I've been using both, but is it me or is DPP better in processing and converting final results? I find pictures converted by LR not as clear as DPP and LR colors slightly washed out and not as true as DPP or real life colors. When I write this I'm talking about pictures that don't need too much editing and processing, just a few simple adjustments here and there like family/vacation photos. Obviously LR blows DPP away when taking things a step further when needing to manipulate the photos.

"Different": Yes.
"Better": Depends on the image and settings.

And the beholder, as in "Beauty is in the eye of ..."

Every RAW converter I've ever used has produced different results than the next one. There are usually minor differences in color and sharpness. Which on is better is a matter of preference.

I've tried using different picture style settings, moved sliders up and down and cant seem to get the pictures in LR as good and as clear as in DPP. LR is much better for me when manipulating the photo and using many of the tools LR offers. I wonder if its because Canon knows their hardware so much better than Adobe, that DPP is able to convert better final images.

If you have your camera set to use a Picture Style other than Neutral or Faithful then it applies some levels of Saturation, Contrast and Sharpness to the preview and a resulting conversion that will be different from the "bare bones" Raw data. Lightroom does have the calibration profiles, but to my eye they aren't quite the same as the DPP picture styles. Historically, Lightroom has followed a "toned down" model that is close to the Canon Neutral/Faithful settings, and I think with the profiles Lightroom would still rather be cautious and let the user make the processing choices.

So, it's pretty common to hear users who are learning all this Raw processing stuff make the same remarks that you have.

I myself have been using LR since the beginning and am quite used to tweaking things to my taste. In fact, the one time I did a big shoot using Raw+jpeg, I was happy with working with the Raw files and just irritated with having hundreds of jpegs clogging my folder, so I zapped them! Since DPP renders a like-jpeg preview and, if you do it quickly, a jpeg-like conversion to an actual jpeg, well, there ya go!

I will say, though, that I do enjoy occasionally working with DPP for the "quickness" factor -- if all I want is a jpeg-like conversion, maybe or maybe not with a few tweaks, DPP can be nice to have around!

You can fiddle and make import defaults that look better than DPP but DPP looks better straight out of the box because it can read and render the raw picture styles.

cdifoto wrote in post #12795202
You can fiddle and make import defaults that look better than DPP but DPP looks better straight out of the box because it can read and render the raw picture styles.

Thats what I've been trying to due without no avail. I admit I do shoot standard so maybe thats the problem there. But I'm talking about final product, not straight out the box. My finalized pictures come out more clear and color is better in DPP than LR. Its like LR loses data when imported to LR. Like today I did adjustments in DPP, saved as TIFF, then imported to LR. When I opened the TIFF in LR, the quality of the TIFF was lower than the image in DPP.

Read this:
Why did Lightroom ruin my picture?
http://www.lightroomfo​rums.net …hy-did-Lr-ruin-my-picture

So now, you want to match your monitor/calibrations setting. Lightroom uses one thing, DPP uses another unless your monitor is calibrated and DPP has been specifically set to use the calibration profile! Otherwise, they will display things differently!

Well, for me, LR produces much better images than does DPP. But DPP is a lot better than Capture One. But that's probably because I hardly ever use DPP and I've only used CO once. On the other hand I use LR nearly every day and I have custom profiles set up for all my cameras.

Ady2glude707 wrote in post #12796453
Thats what I've been trying to due without no avail. I admit I do shoot standard so maybe thats the problem there. But I'm talking about final product, not straight out the box. My finalized pictures come out more clear and color is better in DPP than LR. Its like LR loses data when imported to LR. Like today I did adjustments in DPP, saved as TIFF, then imported to LR. When I opened the TIFF in LR, the quality of the TIFF was lower than the image in DPP.

Actually, I might know the answer.

Are you comparing a dpp exported jpg or tiff to a Lightroom one, in a third party file viewer?

If not, I've had the same thing - in the editor the Lightroom picture always looks less sharp than the dpp version of the same thing. However, when I export them this is no longer the case.

And actually - this always use to drive me crazy in dpp because it would look one way in the editor, then I'd export it, and the exported version never looked as sharp as the dpp version.

What I've read is that dpp has a bug...err, "feature" where it sharpens the picture when you're viewing it at the size that you're viewing it at. However, when you export it it sharpens it at the pixel level, which results in a lot less sharpening. In other words the picture in dpp is oversharped (or nicely sharpened, depending on the picture) but the same picture viewed outside dpp is less sharpened.

That's what I've read at least...I know I was always annoyed that pictures never seemed to come out looking quite the same when exported as they did in dpp. You could export a file, reopen it with dpp and compare to the original in dpp, and they would look slightly different. It was annoying.

Yeah, ever RAW processor has its feel, look, and issues. You can see one such case here. ACR is effectively the same as LR.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …thelostvertex/4​818826666/

Well I'll jump in on this one. I know a lot of people like LR and I took lessons on it and downloaded the trial version. If I was a pro and had to do mass editing I would use it. NR is better and it has so many more options. Not that I have not come up with procedures for mass editing using DPP.

I just find also that DPP edges out LR when it comes to crisp images. Also personally for what I do I think PS is far better at sharpening than LR. I like to do birding and I like the eyes and beaks to be as crisp as possible. I have this sample.

digital paradise wrote in post #12800779
Maybe I don't and have not made enough effort do so but I did offer the RAW file and challenged anyone to match it and tell me what they did. Only one person posted an image and it did not look much better. I tried and I don't give up too easy. I'll take something on and spend weeks or months to figure it out.

Maybe if you posted a link to the Raw file for some of us to take a whack we could give some meaningful feedback!