New DPP better than LR?

woos wrote in post #14016526
I rarely use DPP...doesn't mean I'm not excited to see how good this tech works though. ^_^ It claims to be able to counteract just about everything--coma, both types of CA, etc.

I agree! I'm a bit confused about how to incorporate DPP in my workflow though since I use LR for organizing.

gjl711 wrote in post #14014198
I use both DPP and ARC (in LR and PS) Sometimes DPP does a better job converting a raw and sometimes ARC does.

Me too. I like DPP skin tones better.

I do not think DPP is "better" than LR. It is different. LR has more features, it is a more complete program.

I have two different workflows:
DPP>Photoshop AND LR>Photoshop.

I mainly use DPP for quick-and-easy editing. Having a program that can read all the in-camera setting is one of the big advantages + consistent color rendition.

The new DLO function will probably be nice but I do not expect miracles. There´s a limit to how much details you can bring back. Will be interesting to try, anyway.

J_R2 wrote in post #14018732
The new DLO function will probably be nice but I do not expect miracles. There´s a limit to how much details you can bring back. Will be interesting to try, anyway.

Obviously we will have to wait and try it before we can say anything meaningful. DLO will, of course, apply only to Canon lenses and DPP already does optical corrections for them (as do other programs) and it seems likely that the primary change will be the addition of capture sharpening appropriate to the body. Many people already use DPP's regular sharpening as capture/input sharpening (although with less scientific knowledge of how much is required), reserving their final sharpening until later.

As to HDR and multiple exposure blending, just about every maker has been incorporating them into P&S firmware for some time, and a few have them in more advanced cameras also. My impression is that done in-camera it rarely rises above the level of "amusing gimmick", most serious practitioners of the art preferring to do it in dedicated HDR programs. We don't know yet if DPP's version will be simply a reiteration of what is in the firmware or more serious, but I suspect the more pertinent question will be, "is DPP better than Photomatix?"

Canon´s software in general reflects the functions you find in the firmware. Programs like LR and Photomatix will always have more ( better ? ) functions than what you will have in free programs like DPP. I don´t believe Canon ever will bring the wow-factor into DPP but I don´t mind beeing wrong

J_R2 wrote in post #14019038
Canon´s software in general reflects the functions you find in the firmware. Programs like LR and Photomatix will always have more ( better ? ) functions than what you will have in free programs like DPP. I don´t believe Canon ever will bring the wow-factor into DPP but I don´t mind beeing wrong

And bells and whistles are fine, often useful, and make great marketing tools. However, is it not true the ultimate (and final) goal is to produce the best quality conversion possible? And DPP does that best.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #14019472
And bells and whistles are fine, often useful, and make great marketing tools. However, is it not true the ultimate (and final) goal is to produce the best quality conversion possible? And DPP does that best.

Hmm, I don't know about "best" -- I happen to prefer the advanced tools of Lightroom/Camera Raw for massaging the "best" for most of my work, but I'd say that DPP is the "quick and easy way" to get good results, and for many photos that's all you want!

digital paradise wrote in post #14018329
Me too. I like DPP skin tones better.

What picture style in DPP / what camera calibration in ACR? Makes a huge difference…

Easier might be better for some folks, but on POTN the greatest number of folks use Lightroom as their RAW convertor of choice. There must be a reason for that, in view of DPP being no-cost, and LR costs money to buy.

Workflow is very different, which (for me) make LR the software to use when editing lots of images.

If an image get's processed in PS however, I use DPP more often then ACR (Unless the image needs editing easier done in ACR or ACR renders the colors better).

They are different. DPP used to give better image quality (both sharpness, detail, chromaNR and color rendering) then LR1 and (less so) LR2.

Since LR3, LR took a big leap forward. There now are things LR does better, yet there still are things/images DPP does better…

Wilt wrote in post #14021392
Easier might be better for some folks, but on POTN the greatest number of folks use Lightroom as their RAW convertor of choice. There must be a reason for that, in view of DPP being no-cost, and LR costs money to buy.

Lightroom does a lot more than act as a raw converter. It's really a photo organizer that has a raw converter included.

In my experience there are some images where dpp will still do the best job, but... I find DPP's sharpening to be really lacking compared to the new adobe camera raw. ACR will pull out a lot more detail without looking way over sharpened. DPP's noise reduction is also poor compared to ACR/LR3. This may solve the sharpening side of things, anyway.

If DR is a consideration (it isn't always - in portraits, for instance, the tonal range is only 5, 6 stops, but for landscapes it is very important), LR3 is already miles ahead of DPP and LR4 is miles ahead of LR3.

tzalman wrote in post #14022222
If DR is a consideration (it isn't always - in portraits, for instance, the tonal range is only 5, 6 stops, but for landscapes it is very important), LR3 is already miles ahead of DPP and LR4 is miles ahead of LR3.

Yeah hl recovery in lr4/acr7 is great, caught up to raw therapee in that respect imho (woot)--but lr4 is easier to use, in rt you hafta work to get it just right lol.

digital paradise wrote in post #14018329
Me too. I like DPP skin tones better.

Try one of these two things, in ACR7/LR4:

A. Option #1
1. Camera faithful
2. -10 clarity
3. 10 vibrance
4. -10 saturation

B. Option #2 (don't try this in LR3/ACR6!)
1. Camera landscape (trust me)!
2. -10 clarity
3. Negative vibrance, between 10 and 25
4. Saturation 0.