DPP vs. Lightroom

I've been using DPP for quite awhile now and I'm pretty happy with it. However there's been many positive feedback about Lightroom being given out, so I thought I might look into that too.

I'll be back from a holiday this Friday and have around 3,000 RAW images to edit. The main thing about DPP compared to Lightroom which gets to me is DPP's inability to edit a mass amount of photos at once. I know with DPP, it'll take quite awhile. With LR, it probably won't.

On the other hand, I did a quick google of 'DPP vs. Lightroom' before and it seems some people feel DPP gives 'better colours', 'RAW conversion' etc. Also, because DPP must obviously support Canon-specific features like Picture Styles, it seems more appropriate for me to use DPP for that too (since I'm one of those folks which DON'T use Neutral, but have things changed around).

So what's everyone's opinion here? Does DPP potentially give better results for the RAW user? Pretty much the ONLY reason I would be getting Lightroom would be for it's mass-editing capabilities. Everything else with DPP I'm happy with.

Download the trial and give it a go.. can't do any harm. Unless you are happy with LR's output, to be honest, all it's other wizzbangs are kind of irrelevant!

I'd love to, but I'm still overseas right now and the internet connection is CRAP slow!

I'm pretty happy with DDP.. just wish it had mass edit abilities. The other thing, as mentioned above is how DPP allegedly performs better in some respects (via my googling, and hence the making of this thread). If LR is guaranteed to do an irrefutably better job with my RAW edits, then by all means I would get it, no questions asked.

I'm very happy with LR, but then I have never used DPP.

Collin85 wrote in post #3548545
If LR is guaranteed to do an irrefutably better job with my RAW edits, then by all means I would get it, no questions asked.

We all know what guarantees there are in life and I don't think RAW conversions fall into that category.

My preferred RAW converter is still C1Pro but I have been using Lightroom more and more while we await the next release from Phase One. I did alot of work in DPP when I first got my MK3 as it was the only thing that supported it. It does do excellent conversions and if you are a photographer that likes to utilize the picture styles in post production then this is your option, though you can build presets in Lightroom to emulate the same thing. I really hate the user interface of DPP but likes its results. I have done some tests on other bodies using the same RAW file and did conversions in DPP, Lightroom and C1. At the end it was really a toss up as they all provided generally equal results. I can turn out images faster in C1 than I can in anything else but that is just a matter of being very comfortable with the user interface.

If my only choices were DPP or Lightroom I would go with the latter. It is capable of providing RAW conversions that are just as good as DPP. Add in all the other things that Lightroom can do that DPP doesn't and it is good value and a great tool. It is, however, going to take some time to get used to the program. There is a learning curve in any software package.

I believe DPP DOES do mass edits.

I'll have to look thru the manual again (or the tutorials)


I use DPP ~90% of the time.

Ok, Pg 62 and 63 tells how to do mass edits. Basically change one, save those changes ('recipe'), and then you can apply that 'recipe' to a bunch of other pics even en mass using Ctrl-click to select them (or use the Checkmark function)

Download the manual thru here:
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ller?act=Downlo​adIndexAct

.

Thanks for the input, ssim. danpass, I'll definitely have to look into that one.

I assume if I load a RAW file with some Picture Styles preset applied to it, Lightroom won't load the preset - instead just loading it as if it had the 'Neutral' preset (i.e nothing applied)?

Also, which program runs better in general (e.g loading times, RAW conversion etc.)?

DPP is easier on the computer than Lightroom (I've used Lightroom as well on the same computer), quicker to do most everything

I have them all and i use DPP 99%, i downloaded LR and i didn't use it yet.
Photoshop is the best for sure but i feel DPP easier or lighter for most of my editing and PP.

you can definately do mass edits with DPP open all images in the edit window edit one then go to edit > save recipe > apply recipe to all images OR have DPP open to the main display window then select all the shots you want edited and apply the recipe, i only use DPP to srt out shots now and discard OOF or bad shots then do everything in CS2 but i shoot in JPEG mostly atm, if its RAW i use DPP, as someone said LR is heavy on CPU resources much like CS2 for me.

Of course with LR you can do batch edits even faster.

In the Develop module you would highlight all the files you want to edit in the Filmstrip. Then press CTRL and click AutoSync on the bottom of the right panel. Now, any edits made to the first photo automatically get carried over to all the other selected images. Super fast!

While DPP offers the Picture Style adjustments I find that I don't use them (mainly because I use an XT and they were not available to me). But in LR it would be possible to create presets that mirror the effect you get form the Picture Styles. It might take sometime to get them setup initially but from that point on they are a click away.

LR will allow you to go from the Raw straight to output (say, web or printer). No additional pass through PS needed. In theory you don't have to leave LR.
That won't work if you need to do local adjustments or edits at 'pixel level' (cloning and such): You still need PS for that.

DPP still doesn't allow cropping at an angle.
DPP doesn't recover highlights.
DPP gives better colors then LR in some circumstances. (Stage lighting for instance)

For images shot in daylight, generally LR can do an okay job, and it will probabley work faster. (Because with DPP every images needs to be opend in PS afterward, if only to crop and straigten).

I still use DPP.

I have both. Lightroom is so slow I changed back to DPP. DPP does allow you to do "mass" edits. A poster above describes it perfectly.

1. The process of copying and pasting recipes to multiple files in DPP is just as fast as LR's batch edits.

2. DPP definetly does batch editing as well.

3. DPP's output is better overall - there are plenty who will disagree, but after all of my personal comparisons, DPP does the better job. I can get LR to give me the same color output, but for me, it takes me way longer in LR than in DPP.

4. It will take you longer to edit and output the same raw file in LR, than it will take you do de the same edits in DPP.

5. Bottom line for me - DPP is faster, has better output, and costs $300 less than LR.

Yes, the iterface leaves a lot to be desired, its not as "pretty" as LR, but once you get used to using it, you don't even notice. As for the benefits of database management, LR style, my needs, and I say again, MY NEEDS, are perfectly met with Picasa, another great and also free app.

Don't fall for the "everyone is using Lightroom" trap. Just because its new, put out by Adobe, and costs money, doesn't necessarily mean its better suited for you.

Use both and compare them. Then make your choice that way.

Good Luck

I'll admit there is a certain 'coolness' factor to Lightroom

The 'Fill Light' and 'Blacks' sliders are extremely useful in LR.


But I do prefer the output of DPP.


Organizationally I like how it looks just like Windows Explorer on the left hand side. You can even add/change/rename folders and move pics just like in Windows Explorer.

As a side note: LR creates a 'changes' file whenever you make adjustments to pictures and saves them (without damaging the file) but when I do my Synchronization using Synctoy those changes are NOT saved because "the filename is too long"


.