DPP vs. Lightroom

danpass wrote in post #3554954
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"


.

Do you mean the xmp file? As long as your LR catalog is backed up you don't really need to back these up too. But it's fine if you use syncback.

if i want to go full on with a process i will just do it in PS CS2, maybe because i am used to it but i just dont feel right using LR for some reason.

There were some things I could do in Lightroom that I could not do in DPP. Shadow highlighting, etc is a critical tool (in my opinion) for some pics that come out a tad underexposed in certain areas of the pic.

Here's an example. The first pic was processed with DPP. THe second pic was processed with Lightroom. Make your judgements of which is better.

You used "Fill Lighting"?

That is a pretty sweet tool.

That second one is a wall hanger for sure

.

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

For now, I've decided to stick with DPP.

Can't beat free

skanish wrote in post #3559977
There were some things I could do in Lightroom that I could not do in DPP. Shadow highlighting, etc is a critical tool (in my opinion) for some pics that come out a tad underexposed in certain areas of the pic.

Here's an example. The first pic was processed with DPP. THe second pic was processed with Lightroom. Make your judgements of which is better.

I love this image. I actually prefer the more contrasty version from DPP, though. The greens are just a bit overdone for my taste from the LR version.

That's the thing about this whole deal about comparing output from software. Unless we approach it from a purely technical perspective, we may never agree on which piece of software is "best". One man's "art", is another man's "picture".

Incidentally, have you considered applying HDR techniques to this image? I think it would make an awesome print with HDR applied.

skanish wrote in post #3559977
Make your judgements of which is better.

First

arg245 wrote in post #3561058
I love this image. I actually prefer the more contrasty version from DPP, though. The greens are just a bit overdone for my taste from the LR version.

I do tend to highlight my greens a bit, and I also boosted the yellow as well in the pic.

I have never tooled with HDR but I have become extremely interested as of late by seeing other posters examples. I may give it a go tonight.

I use DPP, for for shadows/highlight things i have to use PS or LR.

I don't use Lightroom but I use ACR 4.1 in CS3 which is the essentially the same RAW engine with the same controls. I've used DPP and used it exclusively until I upgraded my PC. OK, there's been an update to DPP in the last month I think and perhaps I am wrong since I haven't updated - so correct me if I am wrong. I think there is so much more that one can do in LR as opposed to DPP. The essential highlight recovery and shadow detail tools are missing from DPP. The ability to decrease color luminance is missing in DPP (it can be tone at the individual color level in LR). The ability to saturate indivdual colors is missing in DPP. The sharpening in DPP is crude compared to LR. Cropping is less sophisticated.
Lightroom 1.1 gives you so much more control over your image...but at the expense of a much longer workflow. Sometimes you fiddle for a while and end up with less than pleasing results. With DPP you pretty well know what you are going to get. Few surprises - and good ones when there are any.
Most of my photography is travel photography. Since I don't have alot of time when travelling one often takes shots during less than optimum times - middle of the day in harsh lighting. With shots like that DPP can't cut it. LR can reduce highlights and extract detail better as well as detail in shadows. Sure I make sure I am taking my shots early and late in the day - for these shots under optimum conditions DPP would be more than capable - in fact easier and faster. But for shots where the lighting was less than perfect (and I didn't have the oportunity to return another time) Lightroom can do the trick. Obviously a good photographer knows when the lighting is best and what exposure is best. In these situations DPP will be more than capable. But sometimes we don't have the time to get the exposure or lighting dead right. this is when you'll see the Lightroom advantage.
Don't get me wrong, DPP is simply a great free program that has it's limitations unfortunately. It does it's job well though I think LR can do so much more, but not without the expense of additional time, occassional frustration, self-doubt and loathing. I've tried to go back to DPP but I can't. It brings back fond memories but clearly I've moved on...to more sophisticated programs. I guess I really enjoy the challenge of LR (well ACR 4.1). It can give you better results but it ain't always easy. But still, DPP is a no nonsense easy to use great program that delivers...for free (well, for the price of a Canon DSLR).

philmar wrote in post #3566196
With shots like that DPP can't cut it. LR can reduce highlights and extract detail better as well as detail in shadows.

Try developing a CR2 twice: Once for the highlights (as long as they are not blown: DPP's highlight recovery is non existent), once for the shadows.
Then, in PS, blend exposures...

I should mention that I'm gonna pick up CS3 regardless. Absolutely silly question, but I assume CS3 can do everything LR can?

skanish wrote in post #3559977
Here's an example. The first pic was processed with DPP. THe second pic was processed with Lightroom. Make your judgements of which is better.

I don't mean no disrespect, but could it be you are not as proficient in DPP as you are in LR? The Curves tool in DPP is able to soften the Shadows/Highlights in your sample, and hence IMHO, is able to achieve the result just like LR.

Originally I used DPP because my old PC was too weak to handle CS2. I didn't have a calibrated monitor at the time - ok, I used Adobe Gamma, and used a 7 year old CRT. I bought a new PC and NEC20WMGX2 monitor, calibrated it and realized my photos looked like crap. With my new monitor and rig, I switched to ACR/CS2 and I ditched DPP because I liked the idea of a RAW converter integrated with PS. With DPP I was still going to PS for angled cropping, highlight/shadows, saturation, resizing and sharpening. I figured CS2 had a better workflow as it was already integrated into PS. Plus, I wasn't too happy with the results I had from DPP (which in retrospect was NOT DPP's fault but rather due to working in a unmanaged color environment and old uncalibrated monitor). I have upgraded to CS3 and really like it's UI compared to DPP.
I was surprised to see so many people using DPP on this thread. So after typing my long previous post extolling the virtues of CS3, I decided to play around with the upgrade to DPP and I have to say I am quite impressed. The UI is still crappy and cumbersome, the degree of control over certain aspects is somewhat limited compared to ACR but for some reason the colours are quite amazing. I really am going to give DPP another look. It really runs counter-intuitive that DPP, which offers control as compared to ACR 4.1, can still churn out sometimes better results than ACR 4.1
Maybe I'll be back to the ol' workflow of DPP and then PS. DPP really does give a better color rendition than ACR4.1. Maybe I'll use ACR strictly for important shots where I've bungled the exposure and need it's highlight recovery/shadow detail. I am fairly confident that ACR does beat DPP/PS combo for highlights/shadows.

Maybe there is greater merit to the argument that Canon knows its CR2 files better than Adobe and that help DPP process Canon RAWs better?