DPP vs. Lightroom

lowcrust wrote in post #3607927
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.

Sorry, wasn't sure what you meant... I based my reply on this part of the question:

"But if someone makes a statement that "my cr2 file will be better processed by DPP than LR" "

When people make those statments I take it to mean they like the final output better from one or the other.

That garyjean link was good... I see an even bigger colorshift with my camera using ACR than what they show... Candy apple reds sometimes go dull orange using the default settings.

lowcrust wrote in post #3607954
Yeah, I actually mentioned in my first post that I did see your thread, René.

Oops. All the LR vs. DPP threads must have gotten me confused

Guys, I'm back.

Went and got CS3. Now I understand it uses ACR 4.0+ for it's RAW files, which is pretty much exactly what Lightroom boasts, right? I'm VERY pleased with the abundance of tools available, especially the highlight recovery tool.

I went and did a few tests to see ACR vs. DPP myself, and now I get what people meant by 'punchier results' and 'better colours' with DPP. I straight converted some RAW files with CS3 and did it with the same files with DPP (made sure to negate all those PS settings prior to converting) and the result differences are definitely noticable.

A few silly questions:

1) Does the ACR 4.0+ RAW plugin in CS3 contain more tools than Lightroom? I'm very impressed with the ACR plugin in CS3.

2) Suppose I wanted to use tools like highlight recovery which are not available in DPP. Assume I have CS3 and DPP, but not LR.

What should I do? Should I do the all the necessary adjustments in DPP, do the initial conversion to TIFF/JPEG and then use the highlight recovery tool in CS3..
or should I just bite it hard and not use DPP at all for that particular shot. In other words, do all the work with ACR and then do the RAW conversion there instead?
Pretend time isn't an issue here. For instance, I know the former process mentioned would be pretty damn time-intensive, but I'm just looking for advice at the moment regarding methodology.

3) From my trip, there were some shots which were just blown highlights galore (mainly skies). I guess some shots I didn't view valuble enough to bother with bracketed exposures for HDR composition later on, but now that I think about it.. I shouldn't of been so negligent.

My question is, is there some function/tool in CS3 which just allows me to select/highlight all the areas of an image which is pretty much white. I thought perhaps I could even just apply a consistent light blue over all of those areas.. would atleast look much much better than pure white.

Thanks guys.

Hopefully this will clarify, rather than confuse.

In2Photos wrote in post #3553579
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).

You can use DPP's picture styles, whether or not your camera supports them. So I could make a 20D file look like a 30D file, simply by choosing the picture style.

Regardless whether you have a "picture styles" camera or the older models with separate adjustments for contrast, sharpness and saturation, DPP's initial rendering will use the camera's settings. A DPP conversion without adjustment will be theoretically identical to a JPEG produced by the camera.

Since non-Canon software ignores these camera settings, their output will always be different if you're doing a straight conversion without adjustment.

What makes Lightroom worth the $$$ (to some people) is not its RAW conversion quality or its wholesale editing capability. Any decent RAW converter will do these things. It's the extra wiz-bang features for printing, slideshows and web presentation that are incredible time-savers. The other day it took me only a few minutes to print a contact sheet and create a PDF slideshow for a client. Time is money.

Collin85 wrote in post #3618570
Should I do the all the necessary adjustments in DPP, do the initial conversion to TIFF/JPEG and then use the highlight recovery tool in CS3.

That's what I do: Do a 'base' conversion in DPP, then use ACR for a darker version, recovering the highlights. Then I blend the two in PS, masking the darker layer, so only the highlights are visible.

sorry to revive this thread but i am new to all these, I have been using DPP 3.6.1 with all my RAW files and have been pleased with it. the only bummer i have is the ability of organizing my photos. I am a mac user and I am fond of iphoto and the way it organizes my pictures.

that is why i tried lightroom 2.4.

the question here is, with the updated versions of these 2 softwares, what is "better" for our images. or do all the comments stated here still hold true. DPP good output than LR. but more options in LR. or did i get them all mixed?

IMHO, DPP is better, at least where sharpening and NR is concerned.
LR might have an edge color wise, but that would be just in some very difficult circumstances. Otherwise, both are fine.

If you don't do sharpening / NR in the raw converter, then I wouldn't hesitate to say: go for LR.

Why not download the trial?

René Damkot wrote in post #8285356
IMHO, DPP is better, at least where sharpening and NR is concerned.
LR might have an edge color wise, but that would be just in some very difficult circumstances. Otherwise, both are fine.

If you don't do sharpening / NR in the raw converter, then I wouldn't hesitate to say: go for LR.

Why not download the trial?

i have the trial on now and i'm liking it! I even have plug ins for flickr and facebook! but the one thing that really is annoying is the sharpening, i would really like to do it easily with LR. is there a way to do it by batch? can't seem to find the sharpen tool!

Sharpening and noise reduction are in the Details panel a ways down the Development module. LR also has "output sharpening" that can be applied to prints as well as exported files, although not with the controls you can use in the Develop module.

LR2 also has some ability to localize sharpening using adjustment brushes.

It's probably pretty accurate, though, that better sharpening and noise reduction results can be gotten either through Photoshop or specialized applications. Photoshop has excellent sharpening tools and noise reduction apps have been developed that work well with LR2. For me, I use LR noise reduction and sharpening for most of my Web images but have Photoshop and Noise Ninja on hand for critical needs.

LR > Develop Module > Detail tab. Here's how it works:
http://lightroom-news.com …oom-11-update/sharpening/

Disclaimer - I use CS4, not LR.

I assume LR has the same ability to do local adjustments to files with exposure, clarity, saturation, sharpness ect.

THAT alone would be a reason to use it over DPP (I haven't used DPP in 3 years so I apologise if it now has that ability). The ability to do local adjustments directly to the RAW file is a HUGE advantage. Highlight recovery is another reason why I never look at DPP any more (I once prefered it to CS2, but that changed with CS3). The ability to tweak individual colors is HUGE as well.

But still - think about it...LOCAL ADJUSTMENTS to files...NON-destructively.

DPP has the overwhelming price advantage tho....but you still will need at least Elements.

oh...it's an old revived thread? OK - disregard my previous comments.

philmar wrote in post #8286365
But still - think about it...LOCAL ADJUSTMENTS to files...NON-destructively.

you can do this with the new DPP

Yep, that's why I bid a tearful farewell to DPP.

YOU CAN? I have 3.6.0. I've heard that there is a 3.6.2 but didn't realize that such an enormous addition would be accompanied by such a modest version number change. Is it easy to apply the masks?

Collin85 wrote in post #3618570
Guys, I'm back.

I went and did a few tests to see ACR vs. DPP myself, and now I get what people meant by 'punchier results' and 'better colours' with DPP. I straight converted some RAW files with CS3 and did it with the same files with DPP (made sure to negate all those PS settings prior to converting) and the result differences are definitely noticable.

Really? I've run endless tests on landscapes and notice no difference when DPP and LR2 are set to neutral or faithful picture modes. See the examples here:

In this test, the latest version of LR2 beats DPP with default settings in detail:

http://camerablognetwo​rk.com …-dpp-3610-with-canon-50d/

and in this one, I really don't notice any color weakness:

http://camerablognetwo​rk.com …sus-canon-dpp-showdown-2/

What was your subject matter?