DPP wishlist

Since DPP is my main RAW converter, I came across a few things I'm missing.

I thought I make a thread out of it, in the hope Canon reads it

1) Add IPTC support. Pretty please?
2) Highlight recovery is almost non existant: Blown highlights go 'gray' when pulling down exposure. Fix that.
2a) RIT does a better job with blown highlights then DPP. Fix that as well.
3) Some kind of 'clipping warning' (like in ACR) would be a great help. Either that, or an eyedropper tool that shows a line 'where you are' at the histogram.
4) Make the 'grey eyedropper' 'configurable': Now it samples at pixel size I think. Sampling an avarage of 5x5 pixels would make it actually usable
5) Nice that the color temperature scale goes down to 2500K, but make the steps smaller in the lower end of the scale: 100K is *way* too large a step. The scale should be more logarithmic. Have a look at the Mired scales...
6) While you're at it, make it possible to type in a value for color temp, and white/black point.
7) When using a floating Tool palette display (OSX), the program requires 2 clicks when for instance hitting the 'rotate' button. Silly.
8 ) Crop tool should include straightening.
9) DNG support would be nice. If I wouldn't prefer DPPs conversion, I'd be using DNG for workflow reasons (read the DAM book)
10) Could we please make the setting of the monitor profile automatic by default?

Thanks for the attention

I have a solution for you, Rene. Ditch DPP and get a better RAW converter.

Hehehe, yeah, that's an option. Thing is: I like the output and some workflow aspects of DPP better then that of other Raw converters I've tried... (ACR, C1, Silkypix, RIT, Lightroom, LightZone)

René Damkot wrote in post #3149577
Hehehe, yeah, that's an option. Thing is: I like the output and some workflow aspects of DPP better then that of other Raw converters I've tried... (ACR, C1, Silkypix, RIT, Lightroom, LightZone)

So did I, but after using LR extensively, I haven't looked back. More than anyting, I like the amount of control you have over highlights and shadows, and the ability to tweak different color channels to boost or decrease saturation levels on certain parts in a given image. I would say give LR another look and spend a good solid week with it before you completely write it off.

I agree, and will add a rant to Rene's observation.
There are some [RAW] shoots in difficult lighting where ONLY DPP provides satisfactory White Balance of all RAW converters.
I purchased LightRoom [LR], and am discarding it because LR has the worst crude "modal" interface of all RAW converters I've used. The conversions are high quality, but nothing I can't do in PSCS3. And since every RAW converter except for RAW Developer has poor insufficient output sharpening for going to print, one needs to own PSCS2 or PSCS3 anyway. Basically, LR's modal interface sucks, but it sits on a good RAW converter engine.

Rene, who cares about IPTC in the converter when we can do all the IPTC in iView Media Pro, and round trip to which ever RAW converter is the right one for the job?
The iView round trip would be ideal because I can use ANY RAW converter, but is ,imiting because the only way to see changes in iView previews is by going DNG, and I CAN'T go DNG, because DPP is not compatible with DNG! Thus, I feel your frustration, Sir.

I share frustration, and resigned myself to using multiple RAW converters, round-tripped from iView (for the IPTC). But, you can not imagine how angry I am at purchasing Adobe LR, and finding that its crude, modal interface is the worst thing I've used since ESRI GPS mapping/GIS databasing software. That is really modal stuff also. And they are the Microsoft of GIS.

Additionally, not only do I need DPP for white balance and other features, but I also use RAW Developer for when I need detail extracted from RAW images. There is NO raw converter that comes remotely close to Raw Developer for detail. It makes Adobe conversions look like sloppy mush. Here is a typical example I did comparing Adobe ACR with Raw Developer: http://aesop.rutgers.e​du …neDetail_RD_PSC​S2_100.htm. RD can extract and render hair details down to 1 or 2 pixels wide. Compare the insect's cuticle details and hairs in ACR vs. RD. Stunning difference in detail extraction.

So, we need PSCS for output sharpening for prints (with PhotoKit Sharpener), and DPP for accurate white balance in difficult light, and Raw Developer for macro work.

How in the hell am I supposed to round trip .CR2 RAW images from Lightroom to DPP or RD and back? It exports converted .TIF files darn-it! I also discovered when you rename a folder in LR, it does not rename the actial folder, only a virtual folder in the program. And, you can't use multiple monitors with LR.

The only advantage to PSCS3/LightRoom for the RAW conversion over DPP is the highlight recovery and shadow recovery. But with careful DPP curves use, I get pretty darn close. It requires curves instead of easy sliders.

I am go try Aperture because it has far better database than LightRoom, and is not modal in operation like antiquated Windows software.

In the meantime, I'll stick with iView for IPTC and database, round tripping to whichever converter is the best for the image at hand.

I am so pissed LightRoom, after all hoopla, missed the user interface mark by a wide margin. I find it clumsy. I normally don't comment hard on POTN, but I "feel your wish-list" for the single converter, database, IPTC application that would do it all. It does not exist. And I'm pissed at throwing money out on LR.

Jack

I tried the Beta of LR, and didn't like the workflow.
I just DLed the trial, and will have a look at it, but I still don't like some aspects of it from what I saw... 'Stacking' seems nice however.

I agree DPP gives the best colors in some difficult situations, allthough in some instances out of the camera jpgs(!) or RIT seems to do better with blown highlights (transition to white).

I do use iView to batch over IPTC from the CR2 files (Script "Copy from Items with same name") (To get the script to work as it should: Read here)
Only problem that still exists is my first name: There seems to be something not standard in how IPTC handles an "é". If I add copyright info in PSCS2 (since the default seems to be " Copyright status: Unknown"), I end up with something with a SQR sign in iView

In short, I now use DPP, convert a few versions if needed (say a 'normal and a lighter one), blend them in PSCS2, and do yet another conversion in ACR if I need to recover highlights (IMO DPP sucks at that)

Might have to give RAW Developer another try (Still have the demo on my HDD)...

I wish it can save the recipie files automatically. I don't like to modify the raw file to save the editing parameters.

I guess you mean 'seperately' instead of 'automatically?

I don't agree however. I *hate* sidecar files...

Also, I don't see the problem: You are not modifying the 'image' part of the raw file, just the 'discription' part.

René Damkot wrote in post #3155662
I guess you mean 'seperately' instead of 'automatically?

I don't agree however. I *hate* sidecar files...

Also, I don't see the problem: You are not modifying the 'image' part of the raw file, just the 'discription' part.

I don't like the sidecar files also but what I'm afraid about is that may be in the futur we will see new good non-canon raw converters which will be able to read direct canon camera-out raw files but will not be able to read raw files modified by DPP. I don't know if the structure of the raw file is changed by dpp or not (even if the raw data are not) but since the raw file size changes, there is a risk, don't you think so René ?

Yacine -
Over the last couple years I have tried just about every converter on the market that will run on Windows and I've never had a problem with a file in which editing in DPP had prevously been saved. I once thought, like you, that it was best to "play it safe" and save the recipe separately but then I thought about the fact that Canon s/w people are expert at having the firmware write editing defaults (the camera parameters) to the metadata so why shouldn't they be equally knowledgable about DPP doing it? I don't think DPP actually changes anything in the metadata, merely adds a few new lines of code that other converters are blind to. Still, I agree that it should be a selectable default in Preferences how the editing is saved.

I am with Tzalman on this...

René Damkot wrote in post #3144422
Since DPP is my main RAW converter, I came across a few things I'm missing.

I thought I make a thread out of it, in the hope Canon reads it

René, I couldn't agree more. Have you considered maybe e-mailing this to Canon somehow as well? I don't know what is with them, but it sure looks like they do not listen to users very much, especially on the software end of things. I may be wrong, but that is the perception I have of them. and there are rumors of them visiting POTN from time to time, but honestly, have we really seen any evidence of this?

In my opinion, they are way behind in the raw converter scene. Sure, it's a free app, but that doesn't justify its deficiencies when compared to some of the other offerings out there.

As for Lightroom, well, I too have tried it, in beta, and then for the 30 day trial. While it is a worthy app, I just don't see its benefit, at least in my workflow, when I compare its ouptput against DPP. Yes, it is capable of some great and comparable output to DPP, but I found I had to tweak the image way more in Lightroom to achieve the look which DPP gave me with just a few keystokes.

Ah yes, if only DPP had that hightligh recovery tool.........

arg245 wrote in post #3156314
René, I couldn't agree more. Have you considered maybe e-mailing this to Canon somehow as well?

Well, I did put about the same post on openphotographyforums.​com
It seems that Chuck Westfall visits there...
I mailed Chuck Westfall, and the dutch CPS representative once about the lack of IPTC support a while back. (IIRC I wrote it kinda defied the last "P"). Never heard back, strangely enough

arg245 wrote in post #3156314
Yes, it is capable of some great and comparable output to DPP, but I found I had to tweak the image way more in Lightroom to achieve the look which DPP gave me with just a few keystokes.

I tried the trial as well today, and found the same.
Need to do some more testing I suppose, also on different images.
Did you calibrate LR by the way? I didn't, but I think that would make a huge difference.

Another thing comes to mind: Would be nice if I were able to use a seperate 'floating' display for each seperate tab. I don't use a second monitor for nothing.

Oh, and while I'm asking: Make sure the colors as displayed in DPP are identical to what they are in PS. There is a light difference now. For some reason the image also changes a bit in DPP when switching from (say) WideGamut RGB to sRGB...

René Damkot wrote in post #3165344
Oh, and while I'm asking: Make sure the colors as displayed in DPP are identical to what they are in PS. There is a light difference now. ...

I think there will always be a bit of difference because DPP accesses the OS's color management engine while Adobe have their own. My editing program, Picture Window Pro, allows a choice of either using Windows' engine or lcms and I can see a slight change when switching back and forth between them.