A question on post-production work flow

[arcanej]

DPP seems to produce much sharper images from 5DIII raws than Lightroom. However, DPP doesn't pack as robust a suite of editing tools as Lightroom.

For those of you using the 5DIII, do you
-just use Lightroom and work a little more aggressively on sharpening?
-use DPP to convert raws into TIFFs and then work with the TIFFs in Lightroom?
-use DPP and not touch Lightroom at all?

[briansquibb]

DPP seems to produce much sharper images from 5DIII raws than Lightroom. However, DPP doesn't pack as robust a suite of editing tools as Lightroom.

For those of you using the 5DIII, do you
-just use Lightroom and work a little more aggressively on sharpening?
-use DPP to convert raws into TIFFs and then work with the TIFFs in Lightroom?
-use DPP and not touch Lightroom at all?

DPP + Elements is the way to go on a low budget - that is all I use

[pwp]

DPP's default settings deliver more sharpening than the LR default. But sharpening should always come as the very last step in your post production workflow. And you sharpen specifically for the output media. You'll sharpen quite differently for web, offset printing, inkjet, Frontier etc. There is plenty to learn out there on the www on this subject. I sharpen in Photoshop. Master files should be left unsharpened, then sharpen duplicates for their preferred output.

DPP is a curious program. It has a very pretty GUI but the backend is packed with flaws, glitches and some plain baffling workflow roadblocks. It's fine for a very small project, or just working carefully with a hero image, but when you need to work quickly with a large number of files, LR or ACR functionality make them the RAW converter of choice for most professionals.

The only time I turn to DPP is if I'm having trouble with skintones in a difficult & important file and it can provide a time saving solution.

Paul Wright

[TotoEC]

DPP seems to produce much sharper images from 5DIII raws than Lightroom. However, DPP doesn't pack as robust a suite of editing tools as Lightroom.

For those of you using the 5DIII, do you
-just use Lightroom and work a little more aggressively on sharpening?
-use DPP to convert raws into TIFFs and then work with the TIFFs in Lightroom?
-use DPP and not touch Lightroom at all?

DPP then PS

[TotoEC]

DPP's default settings deliver more sharpening than the LR default. But sharpening should always come as the very last step in your post production workflow. And you sharpen specifically for the output media. You'll sharpen quite differently for web, offset printing, inkjet, Frontier etc. There is plenty to learn out there on the www on this subject. I sharpen in Photoshop. Master files should be left unsharpened, then sharpen duplicates for their preferred output.

DPP is a curious program. It has a very pretty GUI but the backend is packed with flaws, glitches and some plain baffling workflow roadblocks. It's fine for a very small project, or just working carefully with a hero image, but when you need to work quickly with a large number of files, LR or ACR functionality make them the RAW converter of choice for most professionals.

The only time I turn to DPP is if I'm having trouble with skintones in a difficult & important file and it can provide a time saving solution.

Paul Wright

Nonsense.  Obviously, you don't know DPP or are biased to your own workflow.  Why do you need LR or ACR to convert RAW?  Just because people say you have to?  DPP can do this handsdown and within DPP you can call PS and edit your master piece if you like.

[RichATL]

I don't go into DPP at all...

Everything comes into LR, and converted to DNG immediately....and I work from the DNGs, not the CR2's
I use LR mainly because of it's cataloging capabilities...Going into DPP adds a couple extra steps to my process.
I also don't sharpen at all in LR... unless it's a quick turnaround job that doesn't go into PS.

All of my sharpening, on retouched files, is done in PS, and it's done meticulously, and they are saved as separate files.

Now... My workflow is different from others, and is designed around security, precision, and future proofing.

If you are looking for quick and efficient (as far as taking as few "clicks" to output files), then Yes I do apply sharpening in LR...but this only goes to client proofs, and or lower end clients.  I find, depending on the framing/type of shot, that 45, with a 1.5 radius in LR does a passable job for this case.
Again... going into DPP adds more steps I don't need.

I don't have anything against DPP, and it does some things pretty well, but it all boils down to how you choose to work.
For me, it's a step I need not take in my work.  For others...its invaluable.

in summary... I think ALL digital files require unique sharpening, when you get down to the nitty gritty pixel peeping level of analysis. 
If you really care about getting the best possible results, you have to take time to achieve them.
If you want fast and efficient... you have to make compromises... regardless of the camera you are using.

[TotoEC]

I don't go into DPP at all...

Everything comes into LR, and converted to DNG immediately....and I work from the DNGs, not the CR2's
I use LR mainly because of it's cataloging capabilities...Going into DPP adds a couple extra steps to my process.
I also don't sharpen at all in LR... unless it's a quick turnaround job that doesn't go into PS.

All of my sharpening, on retouched files, is done in PS, and it's done meticulously, and they are saved as separate files.

Now... My workflow is different from others, and is designed around security, precision, and future proofing.

If you are looking for quick and efficient (as far as taking as few "clicks" to output files), then Yes I do apply sharpening in LR...but this only goes to client proofs, and or lower end clients.  I find, depending on the framing/type of shot, that 45, with a 1.5 radius in LR does a passable job for this case.
Again... going into DPP adds more steps I don't need.

I don't have anything against DPP, and it does some things pretty well, but it all boils down to how you choose to work.
For me, it's a step I need not take in my work.  For others...its invaluable.

in summary... I think ALL digital files require unique sharpening, when you get down to the nitty gritty pixel peeping level of analysis. 
If you really care about getting the best possible results, you have to take time to achieve them.
If you want fast and efficient... you have to make compromises... regardless of the camera you are using.

I don’t have that extra step you mention because I shot RAW + Jpeg.  Once downloaded via DPP, you have both files available for editing in an instant.  No conversion needed and no extra file format (DNG) to contend with.
 
For quick editing, especially if your target audience is the ‘lower end clients’ I prefer to do this in DPP. 

Once you apply your preliminary adjustments, you save it as a ‘recipe.’  You then apply that recipe to similarly exposed shots then save.  You can have recipe for your RAW files and another for Jpegs. You can have multiple recipe with very descriptive name if you like.  That way it can be reused over, and over and over again.   You can also tweak the recipe setting until you are satisfied with the result.  Batch processing is also a breeze.  Convert RAW into Jpeg, reduce resolution or file size, etc.  Assign ratings onto the pictures and call up pictures by rating as well.  The pictures that I deemed candidate for ‘delivery to clients’ get added attention/processing in Photoshop.

Granted the tools are not that many as compared to LR or other 3rd party conversion tools but what is provided are more than what you need when your pictures are properly exposed in the first place. 

[pwp]

DPP is a curious program. It has a very pretty GUI but the backend is packed with flaws, glitches and some plain baffling workflow roadblocks. It's fine for a very small project, or just working carefully with a hero image, but when you need to work quickly with a large number of files, LR or ACR functionality make them the RAW converter of choice for most professionals.

Nonsense.  Obviously, you don't know DPP or are biased to your own workflow.  Why do you need LR or ACR to convert RAW?  Just because people say you have to?  DPP can do this handsdown and within DPP you can call PS and edit your master piece if you like.

With respect, I do know DPP a lot more intimately than you might imagine. There is no disputing the fact that DPP is highly capable of delivering beautifully processed files. Some might say unrivaled. For problem skintones it can be a godsend.

You may have misunderstood what I'm referring to as a master file. Different entirely to a masterpiece. It's a term in common usage that refers to a file that has generally had a great deal of work done to it all the way from RAW conversion, complex and often deep, time consuming processing in PS. It might be a multi layered PSD or a flattened TIFF with a lot of PP work behind it. Depending on personal output or client needs, it would be self defeating and unwise to sharpen this master file. My client may need the same image delivered for a billboard, a full page glossy magazine advert and for web. Each output has its unique sharpening requirements.

Most professionals and high output amateurs who choose to process through LR don't do so because they've succumbed to marketing or peer hype. I did complex and time consuming evaluation of every commercial RAW converter on the market. Each of them had unique standout qualities, even Silkypix. Raw Essentials which Adobe bought to build Lightroom V1.0 on was superb. But in a busy studio, a pragmatic choice is essential.  LR is a highly evolved efficient workflow tool that offers a suite of functions, each with neatly integrated controls and choices. If I need to properly process 100-500 RAW files between morning tea and lunchtime I know where I'll get the job done to meet my deadline...LR 4.0.

Paul Wright

[briansquibb]

If I need to properly process 100-500 RAW files between morning tea and lunchtime I know where I'll get the job done to meet my deadline...LR 4.0.

Paul Wright

I find that is what I do in DPP using recipe and batch. The biggest overhead is downloading from the CF and filtering out the keepers. Filtering out the keepers costs about 15 seconds per image on average, less if I am bursting when it is just a case of choosing which of 4 or 5 is the best. I only do pp on the keepers

When I was on film I used PSP (also used that in my job as well). Moving to digital in 2009 I just used DPP before deciding on which software to use.

I tried DxO - ghastly processing speed - and others. PSE suits my pp perfectly

DPP is very simple, quick and powerful. Unfortunately the new Lens Optimizer function (in 3.11)  has slowed the workflow but is very good. It is also free whcih is good - I try to channel as much of my budget to the sharp end of kit rather than support activities. I think in the way of - good glass and bodies plus DPP + PSE will me better images than low end kit + CS6.

My cataloging is very simple, create directory and drag all the files in. Backups etc are taken care of through SyncToy - another freebie, this time from MS

OK I am an amateur but I dont want to spend time in front of the screen all day - but if the automation takes an hour then I can mow the lawn or something at the same time so it isn't time wasted