November 01, 2014, 03:42:08 AM

Author Topic: Lightroom vs. DPP  (Read 11486 times)

dppaskewitz

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2013, 12:51:30 PM »
Does it matter in this discussion that LR does not affect your original Raw file?  It's always there.  If I understand the process, no Raw conversion occurs.  There are simply instructions that are contained in a separate file that tell LR how to display your photo after adjustment (developing or, for example, applying a Canon picture style on import).

For those who use both DPP and LR, have you compared images after Raw conversion in DPP vs. applying only a Canon picture style (obviously, whatever you have your camera set to) in LR?  Seems as if they should be nearly the same.
5Dc; 6D; M; several lenses.  Enthusiast.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2013, 12:51:30 PM »

petrosv

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2013, 01:50:35 PM »
Capture one pro my first choice ,second DPP and LR third.
In tethering mode always DPP.
Photos editing in LR are a little "dale" for printing
I chek this with  my 1dsIII, 5DIII, and 7D in full calibrating work flow ,monitor etc....

Lurker

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2013, 02:56:33 PM »
The following is from Arthur Morris and copied from the birdsasart.com store page.

I had long resisted doing conversions in Digital Photo Professional (DPP), the software that comes on a CD in the box with your new Canon camera. I tried it a few times, found that the interface was not as user-friendly as with Adobe Camera RAW (ACR), and did not see any great advantages to using it. ACR was fast and the results were excellent.
 
When I began working with images from my new EOS-1D X, I noticed right off the bat that the colors were off and that the image quality was poor at best. Skilled photographer Arash Hazeghi had been using DPP for quite some time, often touting its benefits in the Avian Forum at BirdPhotographer's.Net.

With phone help from Arash, I began converting my 1D X images in DPP explicitly following his instructions. The images looked so good and so clean with accurate color that before long I was converting all my 5D Mark III, 1D Mark IV, and 1D X images in DPP and loving the results.


I tried DPP and the images were better, but I like the LR workflow, interface, and features.  According to Arash there is no way to combine the 2 and maintain the benefits of DPP.  I would like to be able to bring the RAW image into DPP and save it as tiff or png and then do all the other processing in LR but I guess it doesn't work like that.

The basic premis is that Adobe uses a generic RAW converter process that works well with many RAW file formats.  DPP is tuned to work with Canon RAW files and therefore does it better.

GammyKnee

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2013, 04:23:03 PM »
According to Arash there is no way to combine the 2 and maintain the benefits of DPP.  I would like to be able to bring the RAW image into DPP and save it as tiff or png and then do all the other processing in LR but I guess it doesn't work like that.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't feel that doing say RAW conversion, white balance & DLO in DPP, then exporting as TIFF and finishing off in LR loses me anything (except a bit extra time / storage space). Of course you have to be clear about where the division of responsibility lies, e.g.
- if do white balance in DPP, reset to "As shot" on import to LR so that it doesn't change
- if you do sharpening in DPP, then reduce/eliminate sharpening in LR accordingly
- ditto for NR, lens correction and so on.


Jack Douglas

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2013, 04:48:09 PM »
Hi All,

I'm new to digital and have been using DPP.  It seems to me to be rather limited and in particular I don't see any option allowing sharpening as one here has suggested.  Are there different versions??  Mine came with my 6D CD. 

I came from one year using Nikon NX2 and it seemed more useful to me, including a means for a slide show and the ability to adjust color saturation, sharpness etc.  Seems I'm missing something about DPP - any thoughts.

Also some months back I bought Corel Paint Shop, for peanuts (maybe $30 on sale) and it seems to have a lot of features and works good with Jpgs - is this software OK - anyone know??

Jack
6D  24-70 F4  70-200 F2.8 II  300 F2.8 II  1.4X III  2X III

D.

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2013, 04:51:30 PM »
Lurker, thank you for the post. I'm planning on checking out Arthur's DPP Raw Conversion Guide

D.

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2013, 05:31:01 PM »
Jack,

In DPP you can adjust sharpening by selecting view / tool palette - raw tab or use the digial lens optimizer in the view / tool palette - lens tab. You can use the help function in DPP to explain how to use these tools. Canon also posted video tutorials for DPP at the following link - http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/tutorials/dpp_tutorials.shtml. You can also update DPP at the canon usa website to make sure you have the latest version

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2013, 05:31:01 PM »

Jack Douglas

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2013, 05:47:19 PM »
Thanks D. !  I was just playing around and there is a lot more there than I realized.  That's great.

Is it standard practice to apply some sharpening to photos.  I'm pretty happy with my 6D/300F2.8II results so should they be left as is?  What is considered a typical treatment?

Jack
6D  24-70 F4  70-200 F2.8 II  300 F2.8 II  1.4X III  2X III

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2013, 06:31:30 PM »
Does it matter in this discussion that LR does not affect your original Raw file?  It's always there.  If I understand the process, no Raw conversion occurs. 

It does. LR stores lower resolution "previews" somewhere and this is what you see. On the top of that, LR is a very lousy viewer. If you are not converting your RAWs, and not viewing them with a decent viewer, you still have not seen your pictures, literally.

Mr Bean

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2013, 06:54:33 PM »
I've been using DPP for years.  Decided to try out LR.  Didn't like it.  Even opening the RAW file showed me huge differences immediately (shot in "faithful" with sharpening at 0 from the camera).  Add to that the complexity of using LR and I quickly went back to DPP.

That's because DPP applies "faithful" when you import.  By default LR applies Adobe Standard.  You need to set up an import preset in Lightroom to apply the camera calibration "faithful" on import. 
I expect that this is also what the OP was seeing when he talks about the original RAW's .
Yep. When I first went from DPP to LR4, I was disappointed in the noise of the images, until I understood why. On occasion, I might use DPP (mainly to see where focus points were active), but the workflow in LR is far better for me (in particular the cataloging / tagging of images). Both apps have their pros and cons. It's just a matter of knowing which bits suit what you're trying to achieve.
5D mk3 with grip, 300 f4 L, 100 IS Macro L, 50 f1.4, 50 f1.8, 40 f2.8 pancake, 35 f2, 1.4x TC III, Zeiss 15mm f2.8, 24 f1.4 L
580EX II, MT-24EX Macro Flash
EF 12mm and 25mm II Extension tubes

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2013, 06:59:14 PM »
Try saving highlights with DPP.

TonyMM

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2013, 09:20:34 PM »
Pi:  I gather you are saying that the LR slideshow or full screen view of a finished Developed image is not as good as what you would see on another viewer (software app?) ?  I use the final calibrated monitor screen as my objective for final printing (I use soft proofing to visualize printing with a specific paper and paper profile).  I realize that there are other destinations for viewing and would take the lighting in a specific destination into consideration as well as paper choice and brightness, etc.  For other screen viewings, I know there are other adjustments necessary, but likely not as good IQ as what I'm seeing on my monitor.

With all these choices, what "viewers" do you use/consider best and why are they better/when should I use them vs. my monitor on LR ?

Tony M

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2013, 03:00:30 AM »
The LR color management is fine, no problem with that. But the resampling is vey soft, and it is not user friendly.

Better viewer: no need to look past Canon. ZB is the best viewer I have tried, and I have tried them all (well, almost). Click twice: full screen. Left/right arrows act as they should, etc. The second best is the Fastpictureviewer. DPP is among the best, as well, but not designed to be a viewer (no easy way for full screen, left/right arrow support, etc.). Nikon's software renders quality images but not user friendly.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2013, 03:00:30 AM »

mb66energy

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2013, 04:20:54 AM »
Thanks D. !  I was just playing around and there is a lot more there than I realized.  That's great.

Is it standard practice to apply some sharpening to photos.  I'm pretty happy with my 6D/300F2.8II results so should they be left as is?  What is considered a typical treatment?

Jack

As far as I know the anti aliasing filters of typical cameras (6d included) "smear" ultrafine detail to avoid interferences with the subject and the pixel pattern. A slight softness in the images is the result.

I have observed that I get the best results in DPP  with
  Luminance and Chrominance Noise Reduction set to ZERO
  Sharpness set to THREE and using the standard sharpening method (never unsharp mask)
I speak about non-spectacluar lenses like the shorty 40 or the f/2.0 100 which deliver high percepted sharpness comparable with your lens. Camera is the 40D with comparable pixel density like your 6D.

The problem with higher sharpness settings or especially "unsharp mask" is that the results look very unnaturally: e.g. bright halos around black lines or grainy areas ... noise gets also sharper. With the above mentioned setting I get (IMO) photographic results which are similar to the percepted sharpness of Kodachrome 25 or Velvia 50 film.

So slight sharpening is helpful for laaaarge prints or 100% views without destroying the "texture" of the image/the subjects.
TOOLS: EF-S 10-22 | 60 || EF 2.8/24 | 2.8/40* | 2.8 100 Macro* |2.0/100 | 4.0/70-200* | 5.6/400* || 2 x 40D | 600D | EOS M  [* most used lenses]

mb66energy

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2013, 04:52:36 AM »
[...]

 Makes me wonder if I should go back to Canon's program, although I like many features in Lightroom better.

Thanks for starting this thread - it is really helpful for me because I am in the process of decision between LR (or DxO or ...). A very good starting point to evaluate the different software solutions!


Best - Michael
TOOLS: EF-S 10-22 | 60 || EF 2.8/24 | 2.8/40* | 2.8 100 Macro* |2.0/100 | 4.0/70-200* | 5.6/400* || 2 x 40D | 600D | EOS M  [* most used lenses]

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2013, 04:52:36 AM »