Why Would I use Canon's DPP?

JumboShrimp

EOS RP
Sep 9, 2012
275
0
USA
I don't really relish PP all that much, and am perfectly happy with Elements and a few plug-ins. I never use RAW, and have no interest in video. I do try my best to practice good in-camera technique for my stills. That said, what am I missing by not using Canon's DPP?
 

Valvebounce

EOS 5D SR
Apr 3, 2013
4,296
230
52
Isle of Wight
Hi JumboShrimp.
My guess is if you are dead set on only using out of camera jpeg, DPP will probably give you little if anything you don’t already have with elements, there is not much you can do with a baked cake except slice it through, add a layer of jam and add some icing! :)
Raw cake on the other hand, well you can tweak the recipe, add some lemon to sharpen it up etc!
This is from someone who used to think jpeg was great, hated doing pp until I spent some time comparing raw files processed with a simple preset and mostly default settings (in DxO, but DPP can do a lot too,the more you do the quicker it gets :) ) and camera jpegs, the PC processed versions were night and day better!

Cheers, Graham.

JumboShrimp said:
I don't really relish PP all that much, and am perfectly happy with Elements and a few plug-ins. I never use RAW, and have no interest in video. I do try my best to practice good in-camera technique for my stills. That said, what am I missing by not using Canon's DPP?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,634
2,140
DPP is a RAW converter. If you're shooting jpg, there's no need. If the question you're really trying to ask is, "Why should I shoot RAW?," that's a bigger question.

I started shooting only jpg. Then I tried RAW+JPG for a short time, only processing the RAW for 'special' images, but soon switched to only RAW. RAW lets you adjust white balance, make exposure adjustments before you've thrown away lots of data by compressing to an 8-bit file, etc.
 

Orangutan

EOR R
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
neuroanatomist said:
DPP is a RAW converter. If you're shooting jpg, there's no need. If the question you're really trying to ask is, "Why should I shoot RAW?," that's a bigger question.

I started shooting only jpg. Then I tried RAW+JPG for a short time, only processing the RAW for 'special' images, but soon switched to only RAW. RAW lets you adjust white balance, make exposure adjustments before you've thrown away lots of data by compressing to an 8-bit file, etc.
This was my path also, about 10 years ago. For me, the magic of RAW (and DPP) became apparent for low-light photos. Take a slightly underexposed photo in low light/ISO 6400, then raise exposure on both. The difference should be apparent.
 

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
As mentioned, if you don't shoot RAW, then no need to use DPP. Unlike most here, I find that I need to use RAW in very few instances. JPG is so good out of Canon cameras (and Olympus, my other camera) that I only use the RAW file when I have overexposed the pic, or need to correct the distortion, or find that the Lens Optimizer (in DPP) makes a noticeable difference, which it sometimes does. I have often done adjustments with both the JPG and the RAW file and found little or no difference in the final result - in fact, occasionally the adjusted JPG looks better.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,253
454
JumboShrimp said:
I don't really relish PP all that much, and am perfectly happy with Elements and a few plug-ins. I never use RAW, and have no interest in video. I do try my best to practice good in-camera technique for my stills. That said, what am I missing by not using Canon's DPP?
As above, DPP is really a raw converter with bits built on, and when you use out of camera jpegs, the camera is effectively applying DPP for you.
The best description for using raw that I have ever read is that you use raw to do something different, not to replicate the OOC jpeg. That is a bit simplistic but is basically true. But the beauty of modern cameras is that you can often save certain settings, especially on the mid-to-higher range. So for example you can have one set ting for bright days (apply highlight optimisation), one set for sports and/or one set for apply landscape. You can select the in camera landscape setting and tweak it to your liking.
To be honest, most of the time I find it hard to beat the ooc jpeg and my preference for raw came many years ago with my 30D where I found burnt-out highlights on wet fur could be recovered in the raw more than they could be recovered in ooc jpeg - I am sure that in-camera processing has improved since then but my habits are set.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,002
3,695
If you are attempting to extract the maximum quality and tweaking results, especially a large corrections in exposure, then RAW is much better. Also DPP is not the best RAW converter. I can rescue otherwise very noisy or very underexposed images using DxO that would look horrible from DPP. This is especially important in bird photography when a tiny subject is flitting across backlit and dark areas, and the image is highly cropped. I couldn’t use jpeg for many of these.
 

scottkinfw

Wildlife photography is my passion
With raw, you choose which pixels to remove, not the jpeg algorithm. Also, you have lossless editing, can change wb, have better range of color saturation, to name a few. Why not use all the pixels your sensor can give you- you paid for them?

Scott
 

takesome1

EOS 6D MK II
Aug 23, 2013
1,490
122
98
Licking, Missouri
You said you didn't like to PP. That is probably the best tool for that attitude if you want some flexibility.

By saving your photo's in RAW, and then processing with DPP if you mass process you have done the same thing as if you have processed in your camera. Select all and a few clicks.

If you want to change just using the same basic settings in the camera you can. Say you want the landscape instead of standard setting. You just change it.

Since you saved your files in RAW, for some reason if you want to work over a picture you have that option.

Just like most people I started out using JPG, then switched to JPG and RAW, then I was a RAW purist and finally reached the point that I realized it was a waste of time to process 100% of my pictures when 98% of the pictures were adequate for the intended purpose that I took them for. (Documentation of work, kids, grand kids, vacation and memory pics). Now I do RAW plus JPG and save both files. The occasional picture when I have one special (Landscapes, Wildlife, Macro etc..) that I am trying to create and I want to add to and PP I do it in LR and use the RAW file. I still have the compulsive behavior of saving every RAW file I ever shot.
 

applecider

EOS 7D MK II
May 20, 2012
487
43
Portland Oregon, Cape Cod
Sticking with jpeg Is a time saver and gives you more time to focus on photography. Beside the five fingers on the other hand raw manipulation can make the best images better.

DPP just does not have a workflow that works for me. I like to view and sort-delete images before doing much raw manipulation and conversion. The ability that adobe camera raw has to view images fairly fast at some magnification makes it, ACR, the PP software of choice for me.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,634
2,140
applecider said:
DPP just does not have a workflow that works for me. I like to view and sort-delete images before doing much raw manipulation and conversion. The ability that adobe camera raw has to view images fairly fast at some magnification makes it, ACR, the PP software of choice for me.
I prefer DxO for RAW conversion, but like DPP it isn't ideal for triaging images. For that, and for archiving, I use Aperture (for now).
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,237
1,855
Canada
The great masses do not have Lightroom or photoshop. They use DPP because the price is hard to beat.....
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,595
808
Like many, on my first Cameras like my Nikon CP-990 and then my Canon digital rebel, I used jpeg and edited in a simple editor called ACDsee. Then, as I started hitting the limits of using jpeg images, I switched to raw.

I still use jpeg for quick and dirty images like photos for craigslist, but looking back at imahes where I started using RAW, I can reprocess them and improve them considerably with the updated raw processors, particularly high ISO images.

I see a place for both types, those images that you want saved, potentially forever are best done in RAW, while those that you plan to discard are usually fine in jpeg. Its a decision each of us makes, so its a good question for you to ask.


A unasked question might be "how will I find a image once I have 80,000 or 1,000,000 of them?" Sorting them into separate directories becomes pretty useless, as I have learned by experience, so if a person plans to save their images for years, its a good idea to start out now with keywording and a image database.
 

Ian_of_glos

EOS RP
Jun 12, 2012
249
32
England
Valvebounce said:
Hi JumboShrimp.
My guess is if you are dead set on only using out of camera jpeg, DPP will probably give you little if anything you don’t already have with elements, there is not much you can do with a baked cake except slice it through, add a layer of jam and add some icing! :)
Raw cake on the other hand, well you can tweak the recipe, add some lemon to sharpen it up etc!
This is from someone who used to think jpeg was great, hated doing pp until I spent some time comparing raw files processed with a simple preset and mostly default settings (in DxO, but DPP can do a lot too,the more you do the quicker it gets :) ) and camera jpegs, the PC processed versions were night and day better!

Cheers, Graham.

JumboShrimp said:
I don't really relish PP all that much, and am perfectly happy with Elements and a few plug-ins. I never use RAW, and have no interest in video. I do try my best to practice good in-camera technique for my stills. That said, what am I missing by not using Canon's DPP?
This is a very good analogy and just as I end up with a horrible tasteless, gooey mess whenever I try to bake a cake, every time I have tried to process a RAW file the results have been dreadful. After working on a picture for hours I always discard the RAW file and just use the JPEG that the camera produced. It is usually good enough for what I want and way better than anything I can create from the RAW file.
There are many videos on youtube that claim to explain how to process a RAW file to produce realistic images but in reality all they are unhelpful. They usually involve an expert showing everyone how competent he or she is at using Lightroom, flying between different sliders, moving one up another one down without ever explaining why they made each adjustment or how they know how far to adjust each one. The viewer is left baffled and unable to apply any of the techniques to their own photo processing.
I have even read two books on Lightroom and yet as soon as I see that horrible Lightroom screen appear on the computer my mind goes blank and I run for the cover of the JPEG that the camera produced.
The photo editing programs that I have used are all so complex and difficult to use that it is not surprising that, like me, many people have given up and just make do with JPEGs. It has the secondary benefit of saving me half a terabyte of disc space.
 

Valvebounce

EOS 5D SR
Apr 3, 2013
4,296
230
52
Isle of Wight
Hi Ian.
Very nicely done, a for argument turned upside down! ;D ;D
As hinted in my first reply, I started as most in jpeg, my first use of raw was when flying over the Grand Canyon, I put my 300D in raw on takeoff and back to jpeg on landing (left it on P)! I put the folder in DPP and processed it, they looked like camera jpegs! ::)
Since then I got DxO, I started by just using the default settings, much better in most cases, but it was 5he cases where it didn’t work ‘straight out of the box’ that made me fiddle with things, oh my, that created some crap, but reset is your friend! Eventually I found that selecting different presets gave better results than I could manage, but it showed my error, small changes, make small changes to the sliders! Since I started on DxO 9, it has got more intelligent and there are more automatic selections which intelligently analyse each shot and apply different levels of effect depending on subject, for example finding a face will turn off microcontrast so as not to accentuate skin blemishes!
I have started to revisit that first raw folder and have found that improvements can be found.

Cheers, Graham.

Ian_of_glos said:
This is a very good analogy and just as I end up with a horrible tasteless, gooey mess whenever I try to bake a cake, every time I have tried to process a RAW file the results have been dreadful. After working on a picture for hours I always discard the RAW file and just use the JPEG that the camera produced. It is usually good enough for what I want and way better than anything I can create from the RAW file.
There are many videos on youtube that claim to explain how to process a RAW file to produce realistic images but in reality all they are unhelpful. They usually involve an expert showing everyone how competent he or she is at using Lightroom, flying between different sliders, moving one up another one down without ever explaining why they made each adjustment or how they know how far to adjust each one. The viewer is left baffled and unable to apply any of the techniques to their own photo processing.
I have even read two books on Lightroom and yet as soon as I see that horrible Lightroom screen appear on the computer my mind goes blank and I run for the cover of the JPEG that the camera produced.
The photo editing programs that I have used are all so complex and difficult to use that it is not surprising that, like me, many people have given up and just make do with JPEGs. It has the secondary benefit of saving me half a terabyte of disc space.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,741
891
Southeastern USA
On every single computer I've ever used for photo processing, no software has been faster for initial reviewing and culling of images than DPP. It lets me quickly choose the RAW files which I import into Lightroom Classic.

In a pinch, that is, if I were using a computer that doesn't have LR or PS, DPP still produces very good results--with some patience.
 

Ian_of_glos

EOS RP
Jun 12, 2012
249
32
England
Valvebounce said:
Hi Ian.
Very nicely done, a for argument turned upside down! ;D ;D
As hinted in my first reply, I started as most in jpeg, my first use of raw was when flying over the Grand Canyon, I put my 300D in raw on takeoff and back to jpeg on landing (left it on P)! I put the folder in DPP and processed it, they looked like camera jpegs! ::)
Since then I got DxO, I started by just using the default settings, much better in most cases, but it was 5he cases where it didn’t work ‘straight out of the box’ that made me fiddle with things, oh my, that created some crap, but reset is your friend! Eventually I found that selecting different presets gave better results than I could manage, but it showed my error, small changes, make small changes to the sliders! Since I started on DxO 9, it has got more intelligent and there are more automatic selections which intelligently analyse each shot and apply different levels of effect depending on subject, for example finding a face will turn off microcontrast so as not to accentuate skin blemishes!
I have started to revisit that first raw folder and have found that improvements can be found.

Cheers, Graham.

Ian_of_glos said:
This is a very good analogy and just as I end up with a horrible tasteless, gooey mess whenever I try to bake a cake, every time I have tried to process a RAW file the results have been dreadful. After working on a picture for hours I always discard the RAW file and just use the JPEG that the camera produced. It is usually good enough for what I want and way better than anything I can create from the RAW file.
There are many videos on youtube that claim to explain how to process a RAW file to produce realistic images but in reality all they are unhelpful. They usually involve an expert showing everyone how competent he or she is at using Lightroom, flying between different sliders, moving one up another one down without ever explaining why they made each adjustment or how they know how far to adjust each one. The viewer is left baffled and unable to apply any of the techniques to their own photo processing.
I have even read two books on Lightroom and yet as soon as I see that horrible Lightroom screen appear on the computer my mind goes blank and I run for the cover of the JPEG that the camera produced.
The photo editing programs that I have used are all so complex and difficult to use that it is not surprising that, like me, many people have given up and just make do with JPEGs. It has the secondary benefit of saving me half a terabyte of disc space.
The biggest problem I have is with colour. The colours never look right after I have adjusted them and I always end up reverting to the JPEG, because the colours always look quite good.
Are there any simple techniques for making the colours look right as they always look pale and lifeless in the unedited RAW file. I would be happy if it simply copied the colours from the JPEG, if there is a simple way of doing this.
If you watch some of the videos on youtube that claim to show you how to manage colour they always fly through far too quickly and they never explain why they made each adjustment.