Canon updates DPP and EOS Utility, adds full EOS R6 and EOS-1D X Mark III support

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
don't think I can understand if people hanging around in a forum like this discussing all the latest gear for thousands and thousands of dollars would even blink an eye at subscription costs of the Adobe photography plan of about 12 dollars per month ... in comparison to any lately announced lens or body this is so negligible that in relation it can also be considered 'free'

Some of us don't use DPP because it's free. We have plenty of paid applications that we use for all of our non-Canon images.

We use DPP because of the Digital Lens Optimizer and also because we prefer the color we get, and the much more granular level of control we get controlling color, than what ACR (via either LR or PS) provides.

Yes, it's slow and clunky, even when using an NVidia GPU with enough Cuda cores. But it gives me results I can't get with Adobe products or anyone else's. So I use it most of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

yeahright

EOS 90D
Aug 28, 2014
135
102
Some of us don't use DPP because it's free. We have plenty of paid applications that we use for all of our non-Canon images.

We use DPP because of the Digital Lens Optimizer and also because we prefer the color we get, and the much more granular level of control we get controlling color, than what ACR (via either LR or PS) provides.

Yes, it's slow and clunky, even when using an NVidia GPU with enough Cuda cores. But it gives me results I can't get with Adobe products or anyone else's. So I use it most of the time.
I, too, miss DLO in LR, and there are some other things as well. However, there are more functions that I would miss in LR - color grading, geometry rectification, panorama stitching, texture, vibrance, local edits, etc., and LR allows me to use Loupedeck+ for editing, which speeds up things big time. And I also cannot live with DPP modifiying CR2-files by writing the development information directly in the file. Originals must remain unedited, period. Exporting all the development information as recipes instead is extremely cumbersome, as is combining DPP and LR by performing lens optimization in DPP, then exporting to an intermediate format, e.g. 16-bit TIFF, and then continuing in LR. And it blows up storage requirements. So there's no realistic workflow using both programs, therefore, I'm using the one that has the options I use more frequently, which is LR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
I, too, miss DLO in LR, and there are some other things as well. However, there are more functions that I would miss in LR - color grading, geometry rectification, panorama stitching, texture, vibrance, local edits, etc., and LR allows me to use Loupedeck+ for editing, which speeds up things big time. And I also cannot live with DPP modifiying CR2-files by writing the development information directly in the file. Originals must remain unedited, period. Exporting all the development information as recipes instead is extremely cumbersome, as is combining DPP and LR by performing lens optimization in DPP, then exporting to an intermediate format, e.g. 16-bit TIFF, and then continuing in LR. And it blows up storage requirements. So there's no realistic workflow using both programs, therefore, I'm using the one that has the options I use more frequently, which is LR.

Well good for you. Use whatever you want.

But please stop assuming everyone who uses DPP does so only because it is "free".
 

yeahright

EOS 90D
Aug 28, 2014
135
102
Well good for you. Use whatever you want.

But please stop assuming everyone who uses DPP does so only because it is "free".
I never wrote that I assume that.

I wrote that I don't think that the price of the Adobe photography plan could be a valid argument for not using it in comparison to owning gear worth many years' worth of subscription.
 

becceric

Making clumsy photographic mistakes since 1980
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2016
217
381
I never wrote that I assume that.

I wrote that I don't think that the price of the Adobe photography plan could be a valid argument for not using it in comparison to owning gear worth many years' worth of subscription.
I personally don’t care for the subscription business model in most cases. Especially if any form of auto pay is involved. Having payments become a background event has the effect of accepting multiple hands in one’s wallet,thus diminishing my savings towards my next lens purchase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Jasonmc89

EOS RP
Feb 7, 2019
360
412
UK
Some of us don't use DPP because it's free. We have plenty of paid applications that we use for all of our non-Canon images.

We use DPP because of the Digital Lens Optimizer and also because we prefer the color we get, and the much more granular level of control we get controlling color, than what ACR (via either LR or PS) provides.

Yes, it's slow and clunky, even when using an NVidia GPU with enough Cuda cores. But it gives me results I can't get with Adobe products or anyone else's. So I use it most of the time.
Same. I don’t even find it all that slow to be honest.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,010
2,284
I never wrote that I assume that.

I wrote that I don't think that the price of the Adobe photography plan could be a valid argument for not using it in comparison to owning gear worth many years' worth of subscription.

You wrote that you can't understand why people who spend thousands on gear aren't willing to pay $10-12 per month for a LR subscription. That strongly implied that you think the reason people use DPP instead of LR is because it's "free", not because they might find DPP more useful for their needs than LR (or Capture One, On1, DxO, etc.). I don't use LR, but I do use C1 and On1 when I find them useful for a specific image or set of images. I update On1 every year and C1 usually every other year. But I use DPP for most of my raw processing/conversion because I prefer the results I get from it more than the results I get from the others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

yeahright

EOS 90D
Aug 28, 2014
135
102
You wrote that you can't understand why people who spend thousands on gear aren't willing to pay $10-12 per month for a LR subscription. That strongly implied that you think the reason people use DPP instead of LR is because it's "free", not because they might find DPP more useful for their needs than LR (or Capture One, On1, DxO, etc.). I don't use LR, but I do use C1 and On1 when I find them useful for a specific image or set of images. I update On1 every year and C1 usually every other year. But I use DPP for most of my raw processing/conversion because I prefer the results I get from it more than the results I get from the others.
my post was only in response to
Be careful. There are those who vigorously defend this software because it’s “free”.

Have a look at the replies to this thread.

DPP 5.0
so I was only talking about those said people who defend DPP *because it is free* (i.e., for whom this aspect is a primary reason for using it). I did not intend to imply anything about people using it for any other reason. So I do not say that many people use it because it's free, but for those people who do, I say this argument is questionable.