Using DPP - Mistake?

I had Elements a long time ago but just use DPP now.

I use mostly DPP for my raw conversion, new version come better and better and more user frendly. You can do the batch processing very easely and apply some setting to all the image like WB, sharpening, etc... Unfortunatly for now, the printing processing are not up to other. I rarely go on CS4 or lightroom 3 anymore unless i have to do something special(like printing). Lots of peoples are snob about DPP, you don't have to...

I'm a DPP fan, especially with the Unsharp Mask in the new version.

The basics are taken care of by DPP and then any finetuning I'll do in Photoshop, such as dodging or burning specific areas. I'll also crop & save for the web via Photoshop.

Tried the Lightroom trial and did NOT like having two files for one image. With DPP all the data for any changes made are saved with the one file, and changes are also non-destructive.

I and others did some comparison conversions in this thread https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=941666, and concluded that LR3 and ACR 6.X were superior to DPP for handling the noise while preserving details in 7D RAW files.

Comparison shots:
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11054736&po​stcount=17
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11060180&po​stcount=33
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11060357&po​stcount=34
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11064115&po​stcount=43
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11066117&po​stcount=47
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11067551&po​stcount=48

If DPP meets your needs, No.

I find DPP gives excellent results. It's only downside for me is it lacks a few features and speed that some of the others offer.

This can be seen as a plus too, as it is not overloaded with other stuff..

All my work to date is processed through DPP and then if needed Gimp for more advanced editing.

I tried Lr3 beta for a little and found it on the slow side compared to DPP for quickly processing photos on my current systems and I also found it seemed to introduce more noise/grain into the photos. I loved the organizational tools and all the editing in one place but I found I could process faster through DPP and the quality seems better to my eye for my current bodies.

I found DPP to give more depth in a photo. I tried to duplicate the look in the shadows/contrast with LR but it remains flat (in comparison)

stsva wrote in post #11302850
I and others did some comparison conversions in this thread https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=941666, and concluded that LR3 and ACR 6.X were superior to DPP for handling the noise while preserving details in 7D RAW files.

The 7D made me start using DPP versus CS4 as I liked the results better. The above thread convinced me to try LR3 and I get better results using LR3, although my original intent was to prove it wrong.

In the past I used DPP for higher ISO images... It offered better noise control than Lightroom or Photoshop.

Now with Lightroom 3 and PS CS5, I use DPP a lot less. Both the Adobe products now do a much better job dealing with noise than their predecessors. I don't know if DPP is any better or worse handling noise.... I haven't done any close comparisons. I just use LR3 or CS5 since I'm using them already for other things, and there is no reason to open the file in another software when I really don't have to.

LR3 is a better high speed batch processing software. It integrates good cataloging and archiving tools, too.

Photoshop is, well, Photoshop. It's about the most powerful imaging software out there. It's certainly not for everyone. There is a steep learning curve. I'm not sure a 30 day trial can really do it any justice, unless you buy a guide book or two first, spend some time with online tutorials and put in about 8 hours a day with it during the month. Otherwise you won't really get into some of the things it can do. I've been working with PS since version 4, and sometimes feel like I've only barely scratched the surface.

I'd recommend anyone considering the Adobe products use Elements for a while, then step up to Lightroom and/or Photoshop if needed. Elements is sort of a scaled down version, with some aspects of each of the other two.

However, if DPP does all you need it to, there really is no reason not to keep using it.

stsva wrote in post #11302850
I and others did some comparison conversions in this thread https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=941666, and concluded that LR3 and ACR 6.X were superior to DPP for handling the noise while preserving details in 7D RAW files.

Comparison shots:
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11054736&po​stcount=17
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11060180&po​stcount=33
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11060357&po​stcount=34
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11064115&po​stcount=43
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11066117&po​stcount=47
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11067551&po​stcount=48

These were pretty much my findings exactly. I could never, ever find a way to get DPP to convert a raw better than LR/ACR. The LR came in with a tad more noise (that is easily cleaned up) but held SO MUCH MORE detail in my experience that is wasnt even close.

Granted I didnt test hi-iso shots between the two but at ISO100 there was an obvious advantage to LR over DPP.

I use DPP for the RAW files and a variety of other programs once I convert the files to jpeg. I have never purchased any imaging program and am quite happy with my results.

sue.t wrote in post #11302694
I'm a DPP fan, especially with the Unsharp Mask in the new version.
.

I believe I have the latest version of DPP (v. 3.8.1.0) - I have never seen any "Unsharp Mask" setting. I tried the help drop down and typed in "unsharp mask" and got "nothing found"...?

HoosierJoe wrote in post #11304081
I use DPP for the RAW files and a variety of other programs once I convert the files to jpeg. I have never purchased any imaging program and am quite happy with my results.

I like DPP and think it does what it's designed to do very well. Understanding how to save "recipes" and apply them in batch processing can be a big time- saver. Seeing "before and after" effects when using curves is a very useful feature IMO and essentially it's just easier to use and therefore faster to use when doing certain types of PP than the Adobe products.

But if I need to use layers, I have no choice. And sometimes it's just unavoidable - like a shoot that's scheduled to be done outdoors and I get rain. Using layers I can add the background after shooting the subject or subjects indoors - with DPP, no such option.

So it all depends on need. I don't prefer using PhotoShop, I just have to on occasion.

DPP for RAW file tweaks and conversion to JPEG.
ACDSee Pro2 for JPEG editing.

Delija wrote in post #11310472
I believe I have the latest version of DPP (v. 3.8.1.0) - I have never seen any "Unsharp Mask" setting. I tried the help drop down and typed in "unsharp mask" and got "nothing found"...?

There's a newer version that came out after the 60D... might be 3.9.2 (I'm not at home right now).

The only thing I wish DPP did was estimate the size of jpegs as you select the quality level. That would be great when saving images for this forum! At the moment I convert to 8 bit tif and then use gimp to convert to jpeg.

sue.t wrote in post #11302694
I'm a DPP fan, especially with the Unsharp Mask in the new version.

The basics are taken care of by DPP and then any finetuning I'll do in Photoshop, such as dodging or burning specific areas. I'll also crop & save for the web via Photoshop.

Tried the Lightroom trial and did NOT like having two files for one image. With DPP all the data for any changes made are saved with the one file, and changes are also non-destructive.

The reason I use LR is that it is so much more than a RAW converter. Its cataloging features are worth the price of admssion. The fact that it does a great job as a RAW converter means that adding DPP just for that would complicate the workflow unnecessarily.

I used to use PS for things you mention, like dodging and burning, but with the brush tool in LR, there is no longer a need for me to use PS for this sort of thing. Occasionally I might need to do some work with layers and edit an image in PS, but not often.

As far as having two files is concerned, it is a simple, one-time menu option to have LR save your changes in the image file. This is the first thing I did when I got LR.