Using DPP - Mistake?

Hi, I have always been using Digital Photo Professional for converting my RAW files.
But since I have been around in this forum I noticed that most people are using things like Lightroom or Aperture.

Is there any downside in using the Canon software?

Thanks for your answers!

shallowlife wrote in post #11300534
Is there any downside in using the Canon software?

No.

If it has all the features you want it to have, it's arguably the best RAW converter for Canon RAW files out there. I believe that most people use Lightroom etc. because it has better file management and editing options.

Personally I use DPP+Paint Shop Pro to do my editing and I'm quite happy with it. I tried Lightroom 3 but did not like it.

So bottom line is this: If you get the results you want, using DPP is a great choice.

If you're happy with DPP then no reason to change. If you're curious about all of the other editing options out there, most have free 30 day trials. Pick one and give it a try.

DPP does a great job with the RAW files. Arguably it's the best quality canon raw converter out there. The thing is, imho:
1. It's sharpening isn't quite as good as what's available in lightroom/ACR with the detail and masking features. However, for most lower-noise photos the new unsharp mask feature makes it very close or arguably as good, depending on the photo, etc. I find that in low ISO low-noise landscape photos, DPP is often the converter I choose to use, with a faithful (I like faithful better than neutral for outdoor photos usually) preset. The canon lens corrections usually work perfectly. For photos with my Tokina lens that need CA removal, it's always adobe camera raw for me, since DPP won't lens-correct it. Also, I find that in some mid-ISO photos, ACR does a more pleasing "organic" job with them than DPP does.
2. The luminance noise reduction in DPP isn't very good. For lower ISO images it does a *great* job on 1 or 2 strength, kills some of the tiny grain in some places without hurting detail at all. Above that, it doesn't work very well and if your image needs luma NR, lightroom 3/ACR is better (or a real 3rd party tool). Chroma noise reduction works very well, maybe not quite as good as lightroom 3, but damn good.

I use LR2 because it seems that everything in DPP is hidden in some menu or another obfuscated way.

Other than that, I heard it really kicks ass

I'm a heavy DPP user but also use CS3 as well if I want to play around with layers/filters, etc.

I use DPP 99% of the time. Easy and fast. But I’m not into masks, layers and other heavy PP.
This one was made with DPP only.

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'image/png'

DPP isn't the easiest tool to use if you have to manage a large volume of images, such as a wedding or sports shooter might. It's also not intended to be a "do everything" tool that can replace a pixel-level editor. If you've got a lot of enhancements you like making to an image, DPP isn't intended to substitute for a pixel-level editor in any way.

I'm rarely working with more than about 140 images in a session, and I'm primarily interested only in culling, tweaking exposure, and color balance in raw, then going on to Photoshop because I always have pixel-level editing to do. Lightroom could never replace Photoshop for any of my work that requires pixel-level editing, and it doesn't do anything in my workflow prior to Photoshop better than DPP does, so I stick with DPP.

IMO LR is a vastly superior converter. I get much better details / resolution / sharpness out of LR conversions in my experience. On the other hand DPP hides any banding that might be present in my 7D raw images - but once again at the expense of details.

Thanks for the comments. You guys are as always very helpful!
I will keep using Dpp for the raw files then. As the download speed I got right now is just a joke (I am in China) there is also no way to download a trial version of lightroom.

jthomps123 wrote in post #11300908
IMO LR is a vastly superior converter. I get much better details / resolution / sharpness out of LR conversions in my experience.

I found the opposite to be true.

jthomps123 wrote in post #11300908
IMO LR is a vastly superior converter. I get much better details / resolution / sharpness out of LR conversions in my experience. On the other hand DPP hides any banding that might be present in my 7D raw images - but once again at the expense of details.

That's interesting - I find less banding with the 400D pushed 2 stops in LR than I do with the same in DPP.

I get more details from Lightroom, but also a ton more noise. So far DPP seems to be the lowest noise RAW converter for my CR2s, but less detail than Lightroom'

DPP is great, especailly if you are using Canon lenses as it will correct distortion, CA, vignetting and colour blur automatically. With lots of images you are not waiting for PS to create a preview. It's great.

DPP will give you the best RAW result. People use other programs for flexibility and ease of editing.

I've been using DPP exclusively since acquiring my first 7D.

I have been dabbling with the 7D images in LR3 using Adobe Camera Raw 6.1. The noise handling in 6.1 is much better than earlier versions in my opinion, however that is not to say it is better then DPP.

Currently I use both from time to time and find that with some images DPP may be better while LR3 may be better with others.

As it is now everything is looked at in DPP before it goes to LR3, or PSE9.

I like the DPP interface and it makes weeding out the bad images a lot easier.

I will say the 7D drove me to using DPP.

evilr00t wrote in post #11301101
I get more details from Lightroom, but also a ton more noise.

Make sure you have the latest version of ACR, I believe it is 6.1