Using DPP - Mistake?

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"...?

You can download the most current version from the European Canon site....
http://software.canon-europe.com/products/00​10911.asp

danpass wrote in post #11303188
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)

Can you tell us a little more about this?
One of the things I miss the most in DPP is a shadow/highlight option like the one in photoshop. I have never been able to match the PS results with the two sliders in DPP.

As far as USM in DPP goes, instead, I seem to get better results with the "old" method, but I must admit I haven't tried a lot.

A part from the above I find DPP much faster and more convenient than PS. My ideal solution would be DPP with the ability to use plugins like Viveza and Portraiture.

Bye,
Luca

DPP, LR(1,2,3), PS, ACR, .... All good programs. With outstanding results.

Everyone shoots different, therefore PP's differently.

If the way you PP gives you the results you are looking for and you are comfortable with doing it that way, then however you PP will give you, your best results.

I use DPP as its a very good converter of the RAWs (and it should be) and it uses the incamera settings as default giving you a head start if you set your camera settings up how you want them. If i want further edits i save as a tif and take it into photoshop.

I've been using LR3/CS5 exclusively until now that is. I have been working on extended assignment in Boston and bought a G12 just for this trip. I have been using DPP and have found it to be a really nice tool for working with RAW. I will be able to see a side by side when I get back home this coming week.

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

Yes, DPP is like very limited in adjustment and controls. Lightroom by Adobe allows so much more adjustments and easier to fine tune them.

DPP is simple but simple doesnt do much! You get what u pay for and for DPP that is nothing!

Now, that's not accurate at all. Nikon charges its users over $100 for the same capability.

DPP is excellent as a raw converter, which is all it's intended to do. Basically, it does with the raw everything the camera can be adjusted to do--deliberately limited bells and whistles--and fully satisfactory for the great majority of users.

For sure, those who need the particular strengths of Lightroom and seldom need Photoshop can skip DPP. OTOH, those who always use Photoshop (like me) can just as easily go from DPP to Photoshop and have no need for Lightroom.

RDKirk wrote in post #11312650
For sure, those who need the particular strengths of Lightroom and seldom need Photoshop can skip DPP. OTOH, those who always use Photoshop (like me) can just as easily go from DPP to Photoshop and have no need for Lightroom.

Ditto.

pknight wrote in post #11311315
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.

If you save the changes in the image file, is it a permanent change (destructive)?

One of the things I really like about DPP is that the changes can be unchanged at any time. I've gone back and re-adjusted the raw RAW shots from a year ago - with DPP this is possible.

I have CS5 and the latest ACR but still prefer the RAW conversions from DPP. I do minimal work in DPP, just white balance (if reqd) exposure tweaks and cropping and then send to CS5 as a 16bit Tiff for the bulk of the editing.

I have Lightroom and choose to use DPP.

Fast Fredy wrote in post #11312593
Yes, DPP is like very limited in adjustment and controls. Lightroom by Adobe allows so much more adjustments and easier to fine tune them.

DPP is simple but simple doesnt do much! You get what u pay for and for DPP that is nothing!

Completely disagree with that. DPP has quite a few features (they do take a while to find but once you find them, simple and easy to use) and I find it very quick and efficient compared to most other programs. Yes, LR and the likes do offer quite a few more fine tuning adjustments, but DPP for sure isn't nothing .

PS didn't come online for windows users till sometime late 1992, so till then the 300D and the 1D, only had DPP. ( unless you had Mac ) even then PS was still in Diapers.
PS bought there way to the top in the early years until they could build all there own from the 0 up.

Adobe has there claws in me like millions of others, DPP on the other hand has been an in-house program designed for canon and canon only camera's.
- to say DPP is useless because it came with the camera, is like saying your brain is horse mud because it came with you at birth.

What you spend the time to learn and take it to the fuzzy edge, will always be what works best for you.

Adobe works so well because if someone creates a program with a feature that work better, Adobe makes them an offer hard to refuse and buys them out.

You use what you learn to and for some that's not very much!!

I spend 99.9% of my time in LR3, however if one spends the time to learn how to get things done in DPP, the results are just as good. IMO DPP gets the best out of the Canon raw files and it took me quite a while to match that in LR3. However, when it comes to file management, export & batch processing, LR3 is simply light years ahead.

DPP does good conversions but I don't like the user interface.

I do all web previews in Lightroom now and only open Photoshop for final edits for prints, or if I need things like layers for more creative changes.

If you use more than one camera brand it's also nice to use the same tools for all pictures.