Canons own editing solutions

[mmmm]

I’m a LR user. Perfectly happy with it, but I’m looking to get the most out of the images with my new soon to arrive R1. (Happy!).

I have used DPP before and it does really make a pleasing image. But it’s a pain in the youknowwhat. It’s clunky and slow and only exports tiffs. That’s the main reason I’m asking what I’m asking. I realised that LR AInr (which is excellent) doesn’t work on tiffs.

So that got me down the rabbit hole where I learnt about NNIP. But that’s not available for a Mac. I’m not about to change to windows, least of all because I just spent to much on my R1 and I like being married.

That introduced me to image.canon. I read I can upload from the camera, the NR will be performed in the cloud, and then it will automatically go to LR, and in turn appear on my system in LRC. Boom. That seems quite nice, I could fit that into my workflow.

Then I read that Cloud Raw nr (or whatever it’s called) is being discontinued.

So what do people do? What are my options if I wish to use the lovely raw converter from DPP but wish to retain my ability to fully use Lightroom afterwards.

I have been blown away with AI nr, so I really want to try to keep that in the mix.

I have read the NNIP/DPP is being developed as a LR plugin. But I’ll believe that when I see it.

Cheers.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Switch to DxO for NR. If you want to move images to LR, you can just use PureRAW and output DNGs.

 

[mmmm]

Switch to DxO for NR. If you want to move images to LR, you can just use PureRAW and output DNGs.

I’m happy with lightrooms nr. That’s not the issue. I want to try to use DPP as a raw converter beforehand. Is DxO nr effective on a tiff? I would rather not add another subscription or heavy purchase if I don’t have to. I probably would just eliminate my desire to use DPP as a converter and stick with LR. The issue lies more with canon holding all the cards for the most ideal convertor for cr3’s but wrapping it all up in a clunky incompatible program.

 

[koenkooi]

If you like the DPP colours better than the default Adobe colours, give the ColorFidelity profiles a try, they get the colours close enough for me.
If the R1 profiles aren’t available yet, shoot Colin an email to get more information.

And like @neuroanatomist says, give DxO a try for NR, it has a 30 day trial and has its yearly discount this weekend as well.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I find DxO superior to DPP in pretty much every way. I only resort to DPP when a camera is too new for DxO (like the R1).

 

[mmmm]

And like @neuroanatomist says, give DxO a try for NR, it has a 30 day trial and has its yearly discount this weekend as well.

I find DxO superior to DPP in pretty much every way. I only resort to DPP when a camera is too new for DxO (like the R1).

I’ll take a look at dxo pure raw. I like dxo, I tested out the photo editor (not sure which version) a few years ago, I was pleased with the results. I was an extensive user of the Nik collection years and years ago (don’t think it was dxo at the time). I also tried capture one at about the same time and liked that too. Ultimately I stuck with lr because of convenience outweighing any small differences for better or worse. I have well over ten years of professional day in day out editing tied up in LR and Ps. Changing is always very interesting to me but ultimately I never go through with the hassle.

However, right now I’m going from shooting 5div into shooting R1; it’s a new mount, it’s a new type of camera tech, it’s basically all changed - perhaps it’s time to change my editing setup too.

 

[koenkooi]

I’m happy with LR+DxO PureRAW, it gives all the nice cataloging builtin to LR, with the option of using dxo if needed.

 

[AlanF]

I find DxO superior to DPP in pretty much every way. I only resort to DPP when a camera is too new for DxO (like the R1).

And it's a painful reminder when it happens. Sometimes worth waiting to buy a new model - price might fall and you don't have to use DPP.

 

[mmmm]

If you are a Lightroom user, then it really is simplest to just stick to using Lr on all of your devices.

Yeah I agree it’s easier, but the image quality is sacrificed in my opinion. It doesn’t convert the raw file as nicely as other solutions do, particularly with skin tones. Canons DPP 4 does look substantially better.
Also, using Lightroom Classic with the rest of the LR ecosystem isn’t exactly intuitive.

In the few months since I started this thread I have been through a few solutions.

I purchased pure raw 4, which bugged me a bit as they didn’t add r1 support until a few weeks ago. My fault for that I suppose. I like it, lens corrections and nr especially. But it still doesn’t render skin tones as well as dpp, and then I’m in the same place when back in lightroom as I was to start with.

My current solution has been to import my shoot directly on my back up drive, open DPP from that, cull and apply raw conversion edits in there, export the tiffs onto my scratch disk, import those into Lightroom. Then if I need to I can use lightrooms nr still. It’s annoying I can’t use pure raw nr on a tiff.

It’s a little bit of a rigmarole, but I’m getting much better results, requiring less editing and faffing in Lightroom at the end of the day.

 

[Juppeck]

I will not say, that DPP is bad, but it's real slow and has got very old school user interface. None if the programmer of dpp seems to had heard about usability. The DPP programm maby good enought to develop one or two pictures, if you have time enought to complete this.
For me, this is only used to get more of the embedded information of a raw files. I also prefere LR for doing delevopment and archiving and organize tousands of raw-pictures. Developing pictures is a fast and eazy job with it.
I know DxO and this maybe a cheaper way doing that too. The results are not as good as with LR. Adobe has invested mutch money and time to develop the raw converter and de-noising methods. And they had very good software UI-Designers who are responsible for the intuitive Handling LR (and other Adobe Software). But LR / PS are not cheap. That's often the backside of the medal.

 

[mmmm]

but it's real slow and has got very old school user interface. None if the programmer of dpp seems to had heard about usability. The DPP programm maby good enought to develop one or two pictures, if you have time enought to complete this.

It’s definitely slow. I don’t care about the interface. It does what it needs to do.

But when developing, assuming one uses LR afterwards for editing and cataloging, it’s not really that bad. Make a recipe for one photo and copy it to the rest. Then export the tiffs. It’s not really hard, and whilst it takes some time, the results I’m seeing are worth it over LR’s conversion. I still do everything else in LR and PS, but that initial image I’m working off is just so much nicer than if I had gone straight into LR.

 

[Juppeck]

If u have not a different going way to preprocess the raw image into a compatible one for lightroom, that's ok.
I am working with LR and an older version of capture one. The R5 Images was unable to read by capture one. So i descide me
use a pepetual LR license. I can process all images o want on one step in TIFF to import them into cap.One.
An update for C.O is to expensive. I am doing the photography as a hobby, and this is not the only one i have.
Well, DPP is not bad, but not so intuitive like LR. For me. LR is outstanding and uncompared. Just DxO is very close
in the ui and workwise, but lacks in denoising....LR is a very good designed product - but not cheap.