DPP vs. Lightroom

Problem (as I see it) is two-fold:

1) Canon (and other makers) keep their RAW stuff secret... 3rd parites like adobe have to reverse engineer to use it, and they don't know what to do with some of the proprietary stuff embeds into the raw to help it display better. I suggest people bug Canon about this.


2) Adobe does sub-par camera profiling, apparently, or else does not wish to delve too deeply into the proprietary code to figure out what its doing. Many have reported this, especially with Canon cameras (reds tend to go orange in ACR for many of us.) Yet Adobe does not improve, while other converters don't display these color problems.

So until Canon shares some information and/or Adobe improves its Camera profiling; I'm guessing DPP will do better in terms of "pleasing colors" while Adobe will do better in its wealth of adjustment tools.

I used to use DPP but switched to LR. No regrets. I came back from a China trip last week with over 3,000 RAW images to process. LR took care of them in a snap. Extra features in LR 1.1 (free upgrade) made things better, IMHO.

too bad the DPP user interface blows chunks....but the image quality beats ACR/LR

Could some of the people who wrote that the images comes out better in DPP please post an example of an otherwise non-processed image converted in DPP and LR or other raw converters please? Or am I missing the point and you're all saying that DPP will let you process and edit your images to a better result?

Oh and I did see René Damkot's "stage lightning" example. I'm gonna try the raw file myself later this weekend.

lowcrust wrote in post #3584355
Could some of the people who wrote that the images comes out better in DPP please post an example of an otherwise non-processed image converted in DPP and LR or other raw converters please? Or am I missing the point and you're all saying that DPP will let you process and edit your images to a better result?

Oh and I did see René Damkot's "stage lightning" example. I'm gonna try the raw file myself later this weekend.

I think you understand correctly that isn't really possible to do, since each RAW converter's initial coversion will be different.

BOTH can give excellent results. LR for me, though, since it can give better results when recovering highlights when DPP refused to. And I ran into that situation numeroud times. More extensive set of tools and controls in LR too.

But DPP does a better initial conversion (as far as colors go) so it makes it feel EASIER to get to a similar point because you don't start off with the odd color casts that ACR and LR often give. (Setting up a calibration preset for LR helps the initial conversion a bit.)

What David C said, mostly.

As with much of photography, results will depend on subject and lighting conditions, which directly affects how an image may be processed, or the possibilities therein. ""Horses for courses" as the saying goes.

Overall I (still) find DPP to give overall 'punchier' results than LR alone. I shoot mostly concert stuff. So far I've been doing main processing in DPP, export as JPG then top & tailing in LR. This includes metadata, straighten, maybe clone/heal if too tricky for DPP and a develop pass for blocks&blows and apply some final corrections to give some more clarity/depth.

Shame about the export to JPG at that stage but I'm only ever one more save away from final and the changes are minor so image quality is usually acceptable. One advantage here, though, is that I can import to LR without any LR presets or settings being applied, which includes Camera preset or any such 'default', so what output from DPP is what I get in LR (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #3595277
But DPP does a better initial conversion (as far as colors go) so it makes it feel EASIER to get to a similar point because you don't start off with the odd color casts that ACR and LR often give. (Setting up a calibration preset for LR helps the initial conversion a bit.)

David C, when you mention a calibration preset, are you referring to shooting a color checker chart and calibrating from that? I just purchased "Skin" by Lee Varis; he is supposed to have a method of calibrating ACR that is good for (as the title suggests) accurately reproducing skin tones. If you're familiar with the book, is this similar to your calibration preset?

ACR does have more features, but many agree that for straight conversions, DPP does it with better detail and truer colors. Basically, if you need highlight recovery and fill light and other tools, ACR and LR are up to the task while DPP does not. But for images that don't need these tools, DPP tends to do a better conversion. DPP has a powerful Luminance curve in the RGB tab that is often overlooked. It is powerful but unfortunately crude and difficult to master.
make no mistake about it...DPP often does a better job than ACR 4.1 processing Canon RAW files. Canon has better algorithms because they designed the RAW files that run on the algorithms. Adobe has to reverse engineer.

DPP's problem is it's ugly user interface and lack of adjustment options. It is not fun working in DPP. Also I find the results are not consistent. The adjustment sliders are crude, less graduated and not as responsive as ACR.

I get better results with DPP but it does take a lot longer and it is not as easy. ACR is a joy to use and it's array of adjustments make it better for certain files that DPP cannot handle as easily - over-exposed.

DPP has a luminance curve that really gives you a lot of control. But it takes a while to learn how to use it properly and to it's greatest capacity. This curve is different from the RGB curve. It really works wonders....after a lot of work.

I am at a bit of a conundrum. I really like the results from DPP but not the amount of work it often takes to get them.
I fear that being a lazy person I may have to go to the bother of calibrating ACR for my camera. Hmmm....I have a Canon 30D - anyone know if there are sites where people have listed their presets based on camera type?

Alex_c70 wrote in post #3601717
David C, when you mention a calibration preset, are you referring to shooting a color checker chart and calibrating from that? I just purchased "Skin" by Lee Varis; he is supposed to have a method of calibrating ACR that is good for (as the title suggests) accurately reproducing skin tones. If you're familiar with the book, is this similar to your calibration preset?

There are several scripts out there that use a shot from a color checker. The ones I use are from tips from other users, and alot of trial and error. (I don't have CS2/3 so the scripts don't work for me.)

Looks like Philmar already found this, but this thread has someone starting to put up some presets to share:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=351905

But if someone makes a statement that "my cr2 file will be better processed by DPP than LR" there should be no problem doing the transfer twice, once with DPP and once with LR. Then post the result and point at the evidence?

What am I missing?

Here is a (not too avarage) example...

lowcrust wrote in post #3604157
But if someone makes a statement that "my cr2 file will be better processed by DPP than LR" there should be no problem doing the transfer twice, once with DPP and once with LR. Then post the result and point at the evidence?

What am I missing?

Well, depends if you're trying to compare for better initial conversion or better final output.

Initial conversion may be easy judge, but doesn't necesscarily equate to final output. Each converter's initial take may be quite different; and you'd typically do futher tweaks to the image... rarely if EVER using the default conversion as is.

Final output is much more difficult to measure between converters. Settings don't typically equate between two different converters. So final output is dependant on the tools available and very much on individuals experience with each converter.

lowcrust wrote in post #3604157
But if someone makes a statement that "my cr2 file will be better processed by DPP than LR" there should be no problem doing the transfer twice, once with DPP and once with LR. Then post the result and point at the evidence?

What am I missing?

Cyberspace is full of examples.

http://garyjean.zenfol​io.com/p111684532/

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #3607700
Well, depends if you're trying to compare for better initial conversion or better final output.

Obviously "initial conversion". That's what people were talking about, right? All that talk about Adobe reverse-enigeneering and that. I asked for examples of straight conversion without post processing so that I can see this for myself. I've only used DPP briefly but never experienced or noticed this phenomena.

René Damkot wrote in post #3607257
Here is a (not too avarage) example...

Yeah, I actually mentioned in my first post that I did see your thread, René.

philmar wrote in post #3607890
Cyberspace is full of examples.

http://garyjean.zenfol​io.com/p111684532/

Thanks Phil, that's what I was talking about.