DPP DLO vs. Lightroom 5 Lens Correction

Is one superior over the other for correcting lens distortion, vignetting, CA, etc? More specifically does it make sense to use Canon's own DPP prior to further Lightroom post-processing in order to get better lens correction? Or is it just as good (or better) to just stick with Lightroom 5 from beginning to end?

FYI, I'm shooting with a T4i and EOS M and only Canon lenses (for now at least).

DLO does a little more than just lens corrections. It enhances the resolution over the entire shot somehow. And it does a marvelous job in many cases. Do refer to the instructions in DPP for more effective use, as it is not intuitive to run as you might guess by just selecting the "Tune" button. I use DPP as a front end processor with RAW's and then port the result into other app's or make a 16-bit TIFF and work on the shot later.

DavidWatts wrote in post #16952817
DLO does a little more than just lens corrections. It enhances the resolution over the entire shot somehow. And it does a marvelous job in many cases. Do refer to the instructions in DPP for more effective use, as it is not intuitive to run as you might guess by just selecting the "Tune" button. I use DPP as a front end processor with RAW's and then port the result into other app's or make a 16-bit TIFF and work on the shot later.

All correct in my opinion, David ... my workflow is also RAW editing in DPP, then exporting as a 16-bit TIF to Photoshop CC. I might add that DPP++, written by a member of this forum, is a great addition to DPP, and allows easier and more comprehensive editing within DPP.

DLO is a great addition to DPP; it makes several lenses, such as the 17-40, much sharper, especially in the corners, at least in my experience.

Maxdave

As a rule, DLO is better and does corrections that are beyond the scope of LR. However, not every lens needs a lot of correction, nor every subject and output display size. You have to decide if it is worth the cost in double file size and tying the Raw workflow to DPP, including its clipping of highlighlights and lack of recovery.

There is another option, DxO does better corrections than LR (although maybe not as good as Canon) and sends to LR a linear DNG which is sort of halfway between a true Raw and a tiff.

A way to avoid the RAW file size doubling is to apply DLO, save the DLO job, convert ad save the image and re-invoke DLO to undo the job.

Not a very speedy workflow, but as Elie says, not every lens/subject needs that correction.

I could not believe it. A DPP die hard it took me years to convert to ACR/LR and at about the same time DLO came out. Figures. That is the main reason I miss DPP. I still use DPP from time to time but I will sacrifice DLO for the better highlight, etc control and my workflow using Adobe. Also NR and other settings are painfully slow using DPP.

I personally like the corrective processes in DPP and will always use those first, then create a copy to 'play with' ... and eventually use in work-flow. Time is valuable, but if you look for quality over quantity - my opinion - take the time, do it right, and move on when you're ready.

I find the optimization and lens correction process quite an improvement in the RAW image (When it needs it) -- so, process it first (a copy, I always leave the original) and use the copy for production.