5dmIII RAW processing - LR4.1 vs Aperture 3 vs DPP

[photo]

Is there a consensus yet as to whether LR4.1, Aperture 3 and DPP are all equal in 5D Mark III RAW processing or whether one is superior or if there are issues with any of them?

[photo]

Anyone?

[wickidwombat]

i'm using LR4.1 and so far i'm pretty happy with it on the 5Dmk3

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There will never be a consensus, because each of us has different skills, perceptions, and of course biases.
 
When converting from Raw, the skill of the operator is also a factor.  For someone just wanting to convert and get a nice sharp image, DXO may be the best.  However, there is a lot more to photography than just raw conversions, so pick your poison.
 
The reason why LR is popular is that it does more than just converting raws, a lot more, so its cost effective.
 
I could live very nicely with any of them, but, for now, I use lightroom 4.
 
Most have a free trial, take advantage of it and see what you like.  Its ok to like something besides Lightroom, a huge number of people prefer something else.

[Rockets95]

As I understand stand it, RAW processing and conversions made with the camera manufacturer's software (Canon and DPP) provide the best results.

[pwp]

As I understand stand it, RAW processing and conversions made with the camera manufacturer's software (Canon and DPP) provide the best results.

Sometimes that may well be the case. But why do you suppose most professionals or enthusiasts who work with high volumes of files choose a program like LR over DPP? It's all about a great set of tools and options and the ability to work through large numbers of files very very quickly, especially once you skill up.

Very occasionally I'll call on DPP if I'm struggling with skintones in LR. Personally I like the output from DPP, but find that in spite of a very pretty GUI, the backend is fairly under developed with unexpected workflow roadblocks that push it away from high volume shooters. If you're working with low volumes of files it's perfectly fine, plus it has the distinct advantage of coming free with your Canon camera.   

PW

[Rockets95]

As I understand stand it, RAW processing and conversions made with the camera manufacturer's software (Canon and DPP) provide the best results.

Sometimes that may well be the case. But why do you suppose most professionals or enthusiasts who work with high volumes of files choose a program like LR over DPP? It's all about a great set of tools and options and the ability to work through large numbers of files very very quickly, especially once you skill up.

Very occasionally I'll call on DPP if I'm struggling with skintones in LR. Personally I like the output from DPP, but find that in spite of a very pretty GUI, the backend is fairly under developed with unexpected workflow roadblocks that push it away from high volume shooters. If you're working with low volumes of files it's perfectly fine, plus it has the distinct advantage of coming free with your Canon camera.   

PW

I agree with everything you've said. I like the results I get from DPP with a few of the basic settings, but then you need to convert RAW to TIFF for post processing in LR or PS. I just wish DPP, LR, PS would all play nicely together, but I know that will never happen.

[Old Shooter]

Is anyone using DxO for your 5DMIII RAW files? If so, what have your results been like?

[MarkB]

When I got the mark iii, I downloaded the LR trial and compared it to aperture.  I used both for about two weeks on the same images and saw about the same image quality.  I have to say that I saw much smoother and faster workflow with aperture.

[Kernuak]

I agree with everything you've said. I like the results I get from DPP with a few of the basic settings, but then you need to convert RAW to TIFF for post processing in LR or PS. I just wish DPP, LR, PS would all play nicely together, but I know that will never happen.

That actually isn't correct. Both Lightroom and Photoshop handle RAW files and are a perfect complement to each other, as they were designed to be. However, not everyone needs to have both and either will work just as well alone. Personally, I find that the DPP GUI is a bit of a pain to use (although admittedly, I haven't really used it for a while) and lacks some of the tools that LR, for example, has. Conversely, they weren't designed to work with DPP, so you are right in that respect.

[robbymack]

i've found from a workflow perspective and ease of use nothing beats Aperture 3, I find LR just a bit more cumbersome to deal with.  That being said I don't think you can go wrong with either.  I've never really seen the point of using DPP if you also use LR or Aperture, but I know some people who swear by it.  For me it just adds another unnecessary step.  A better question is what is the usefulness of Photoshop any more?  I honestly only use it for 5% or less of what I do as Aperture can handle everything else.  Certainly for the price tag of the current version it's not worth it IMHO, just buy a older copy and save some $ if you need it. 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I agree with everything you've said. I like the results I get from DPP with a few of the basic settings, but then you need to convert RAW to TIFF for post processing in LR or PS. I just wish DPP, LR, PS would all play nicely together, but I know that will never happen.

Haven't you used the export to photoshop in the DPP batch actions?  You can convert a whole group, of images and export and edit them in photoshop with a click of one button.
 
LR and photoshop work together even better, since they use the same conversion engine.

[Waterdonkey]

I use Aperture 3 and like the functionality and logic of the interface- but then Apple is just more intuitive to me. When I first received the 5D mIII, Aperture 3 did not have RAW support for it yet and there was a free LR4 demo out there that did.  So I got to play around in LR4 with the Raw picts.  Ive since gone back to Aperture 3 just because I fully understand how to use it..... BUT  I did notice that LR4 produced pictures with what seemed like... Finer(?) lines VS Aperture where the picts look good but some how not as... Crisp(?).  I don't have the Camera vocabulary to describe this properly. The gradient filter in LR4 is a wonderful tool, as is the lens correction tool and LR4 seems to process noise better as well. But at the end of the day I use Aperture 3, its easy, intuitive, and logical in regards to archiving albums and projects.

[peederj]

I get stuff turned around really quickly in Aperture and it is what I'm comfortable with (I've used it since it first came out), but for NR and lens correction and PS integration LR wins. I strive to get things right optically so I don't need LR, and my images have a different look to them from your typical because I don't use LR's features and most do.

[VirtualRain]

I recently compared DPP with Aperture processing of my 5D3 RAW files and there was no difference in the initial RAW conversion. So i can rest easy knowing Aperture is interpreting the RAW data correctly.  How the adjustments work after that is a whole different thing. I do not like DPPs UI or the way it's two sharpening modes work (introduce noticeable artifacts too easily).  I'm too invested in Aperture to consider LR.