I've seen the Light! (room 4)

So I have been using DPP to process my RAW files. It has been pretty good for free software, but since Lightroom 4 Beta can be downloaded I decided to give it a shot. Well color me impressed Even as a complete Lightroom noob I think I was able to get great results. I feel like Lightroom has the ability to get more detail out of the image and there is no question that you have more control over everything in Lightroom.

Some of the differences in the examples below have to do with the fact that i have set different white balances and curves, but in the highlights I was definitely able to pull out more details.

Examples (DPP on top, Lightroom on bottom):

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bmorlok/6675988​103/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bmorlok/6649992​003/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bmorlok/6675990​011/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bmorlok/6649965​067/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bmorlok/6675985​463/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bmorlok/6649996​819/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bmorlok/6675993​253/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bmorlok/6649973​309/

Well, if you really worked at it I think you could get results that pretty well "matched" for most things between DPP and Lightroom, but it's true that Lightroom gives "more", both in the global controls and certainly with the local adjustment brushes.

POTN member Yn98 has been developing "add-on" software for DPP for some time and is now working on a "local adjustment" function that sounds cool.

But anyway, welcome to the Lightroom "world", and I'm glad you're happy with the results!

I have nothing against DPP I think it is great as well - though I do feel like I was able to coax a bit more out of the image (perhaps just more easily?) with Lightroom 4.

Yeah, I agree, like I said, that Lightroom offers "more"!

Those shots, especially the last one (IMO) are crying out for some local WB correction testing. Assuming that plastic sheets is white and not blue of course.
OP, if you get the time its well worth the effort.

I'm not going to invest in LR for now. I have been a DPP user for a long time. I used to hate ACR (long before version 6) but I have been playing with it for the last few weeks and I am finding the same things. Adobe has come a long way.

Could you please send me the RAW files of the 1st and last shot, if you don't mind ( dppplus [at] gmail [dot] com ) ?

I'm curious to see if I can achieve better results using the future version of DPP++ 10 . Thanks.

That is for PC only correct?

digital paradise wrote in post #13684350
That is for PC only correct?

Yes.

Any chance a Mac version will be out there some day?

digital paradise wrote in post #13684365
Any chance a Mac version will be out there some day?

Unfortunately, I don't think so. Sorry. I have done a poll for Mac users and the result was not encouraging. See here : https://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php​?t=955198

Oh well. In all honesty several years Canon was conducting a survey at DPreview prepping for a trade show. In the general comments section I responded that if Canon came out with an enhanced version of DPP, something like LR I would pay for it. Get your free version with the camera and then upgrade to DPP elite if you wish. Love DPP's engine but other manufactures are ever improving and Canon is moving pretty slow. Improvements with colour straight out of the camera are getting pretty close and besides I can still use picture styles in ACR.

I believe that only Canon knows it's own software and everything is reverse engineered but things are getting so evenly matched these days. I never thought I would say this.

dave_bass5 wrote in post #13684329
Those shots, especially the last one (IMO) are crying out for some local WB correction testing. Assuming that plastic sheets is white and not blue of course.
OP, if you get the time its well worth the effort.

I didn't try the white balance brush yet , good idea. Yb98 I'll send you those files. I'm interested in your dpp++ 10

I am looking closer at things now and even though I think i can get a little more detail out of lighroom 4's engine it does seem to end up with a noisier image than in DPP.

I also seem to have very little ability to remove color noise from the image in Lightroom (I am using the color section from the noise reduction tab and it isn't doing much). However, the lighroom sharpening algorithms seem to be more advanced than the DPP ones... very interesting stuff!

digital paradise wrote in post #13684415
Oh well. In all honesty several years Canon was conducting a survey at DPreview prepping for a trade show. In the general comments section I responded that if Canon came out with an enhanced version of DPP, something like LR I would pay for it. Get your free version with the camera and then upgrade to DPP elite if you wish. Love DPP's engine but other manufactures are ever improving and Canon is moving pretty slow. Improvements with colour straight out of the camera are getting pretty close and besides I can still use picture styles in ACR.

I believe that only Canon knows it's own software and everything is reverse engineered but things are getting so evenly matched these days. I never thought I would say this.

I think Canon's attitude is that they supply DPP because they have to, because every maker supplies at least some basic software, and besides their firmware engineers can spin it off without a whole lot of extra investment, but they are really not very interested in taking on Adobe.