DPP 5.0

PhotonShark

EOS M50
Jun 10, 2020
25
16
DPP 4 is over 6 years old. Surely it's time for a new version? The interface is clunky, dated and really not in line with the modern and expensive bodies that Canon is producing.

Maybe it's time for Canon to enter into a partnership with a company that does better software?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,676
585
S Florida
DPP 4 is over 6 years old. Surely it's time for a new version? The interface is clunky, dated and really not in line with the modern and expensive bodies that Canon is producing.

Maybe it's time for Canon to enter into a partnership with a company that does better software?
I suggest you write to Canon and demand they return the money you paid for it.
 

PhotonShark

EOS M50
Jun 10, 2020
25
16
I suggest you write to Canon and demand they return the money you paid for it.
Such a helpful, considerate and well thought out reply. Added a lot of value. Thank you.

But, it is the bundled software with the roughly $4000 Canon EOS R5. The only software that has the manufacturer supplied lens correction data and that fully supports all the camera information written into the RAW files.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,670
2,062
Alberta, Canada
Such a helpful, considerate and well thought out reply. Added a lot of value. Thank you.

But, it is the bundled software with the roughly $4000 Canon EOS R5. The only software that has the manufacturer supplied lens correction data and that fully supports all the camera information written into the RAW files.
I'm using it, albeit with the 1DX2 and I find it to be relatively good for the basic corrections. Before I upgraded my computer to one that is not too far from the top some things were excessively slow, like spot retouching, but no complaints now. That's not to deny that it couldn't be better but I don't think Canon intends to get into that business. Compare it to Nikon's. ;)

Jack
 

PhotonShark

EOS M50
Jun 10, 2020
25
16
That's not to deny that it couldn't be better but I don't think Canon intends to get into that business. Compare it to Nikon's. ;)
That's the point I'm trying to make. I don't expect it to have the greatest DAM in the world, nor do I expect it to have the filters, artistic presets and all the other goodies that a photo artist might like. There are plenty of providers in that game.

But, it is 6 year old software and (for the sake of repeating myself) it is the only software that has the manufacturers lens data and RAW information. The level of "basic" that was acceptable in 2014 just isn't good enough in 2020. Not when it comes bundled with cameras that are up to $6500.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,136
315
But, it is the bundled software with the roughly $4000 Canon EOS R5. The only software that has the manufacturer supplied lens correction data and that fully supports all the camera information written into the RAW files.
You paid $4,000 for the R5. Others got it with a cheap rebel or powershot. That one time payment is split between R&D & manufacturing of the camera, and SW maintenance until the next time you buy a camera. And we all know that's going to be less & less frequent.

E.g. I upgraded DSLRs about every three years. The only reason I'm going to upgrade to an R5 is the benefits of mirrorless, and I'm waiting for prices to drop, which means at least a year. Then I'll upgrade lenses as well. So good luck for Canon with the next camera upgrade, the R5 might be the only one I'll buy this decade.

There are two reasons Adobe went subscription. Same reasons DxO release a new version every year, and add new cameras to the new version only. Their bottom line, and the need to pay salaries to SW developers every month, even if photographers decide to buy a upgrade versions every other year, or longer.
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
3,100
1,207
Germany
Hi PhotonShark!

I think we all know the big players in the image processing SW market.
I think we all know what we have to pay for their SW and features. Either in credits or in data.
I think if Canon was planning to enter this market, they would only do so if they would see a chance to be at least #2 in the share.
Do you think they would?
Do you think that SW would come out cheaper than the others?
I don't. And that's the reason why they handle DPP as they do now.

... it is the only software that has the manufacturers lens data and RAW information ...
Here you are right. And I don't know why Canon isn't willing to give that data away (proprietary data, company confidential???) or why those big players prefer to cook that data themselves and not willing to pay Canon for it.
If you don't feel well with their data alchemy feel free to use DPP just as RAW converter and transfer the converted pics to the SW you like most.

Personally, I am happy with DPP to have a decent SW
  • free of charge
  • NOT (!) cloud based
  • appropriate small
I have used that %&*# other companies give away with their cams free of charge and I am happy that Canon does it better.

To sum it up:
If your main complaint is about the RAW file cooking combined with a great image processing SW see the workaround above.
If you want a great image processing SW with all the bells and whistles for free, stop dreaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,340
7,123
It is not an unreasonable request that Canon improve their software. Canon also do not share key information with developers in general (though they may with some for all I know) as .cr3 files have had to be "reverse engineered" by others, and PhotoNinja has given up on them and you have to use a dng file via Adobe converter. I can't even install DPP4 and Canon Utilities on my fastest Mac and have had to use an older machine - it had the same problem as described here https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3990244 and on other sites. Having had to make do with DPP on my old laptop and LR for the past month since getting my R5, it was with great relief for me that DxO PL4 was released - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-save-30-on-new-purchases-and-upgrades.39524/

Canon is not a cheapjack company, but a market leading quality operation. If people in forums say they are prepared to put up with second-rate products from them, then that feedback is doing a disservice to the community.
 

YuengLinger

Sufficiently Pixilated
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,237
1,521
USA
There is much to be said for generous, quality extras. I buy frozen dumplings and always throw away those plastic packets of goo they call "sauce." On the other hand, I buy TJ's Orange Chicken, and the stuff in the packets is actually pretty good!

Anybody remember when cars came with real spare tires? Geesh. Now some don't even include the little donut.

Squeezing every penny of profit and savings in a diminishing market has consequences.

Sigh...
 

PhotonShark

EOS M50
Jun 10, 2020
25
16
If your main complaint is about the RAW file cooking combined with a great image processing SW see the workaround above.
If you want a great image processing SW with all the bells and whistles for free, stop dreaming.
I think I made my main complaint fairly clear. But, I'll repeat it.

I do not expect Canon to make a LightRoom replacement. I don't even expect them to make a PhotoShop Elements, or an ACDSee replacement. I'm more than happy to pay for that, should I need it.

But, they are a world leading camera manufacture. Some of their new lenses are specifically sold to be digitally corrected (RF 24-240mm springs to mind). They even tout their own software as, and I quote ...

Digital Photo Professional (DPP) is a high-performance RAW image processing, viewing and editing software for EOS digital cameras and PowerShot models with RAW capability. Using DPP you can easily perform basic and advanced editing and printing of RAW images. An example of the available editing functions are image rotation, white balance adjustment, dynamic-range adjustment, colour adjustment and fine-tuning of tone curve characteristics.

The software is over 6 years old. The interface is clunky and difficult to use. It is years past "high-performance". I don't think it's too much to ask that the software be brought up to date in order to use this functionality more easily.

Review sites like this could play a part in getting this sorted. Imagine if every review site simply stated that the bundled software is in need of a refresh when doing a review. They're quick to say that a camera still supports an old version of USB 3.1, that it has only a single card slot. But nowhere is it mentioned that the bundled software just isn't up to scratch.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,676
585
S Florida
I think I made my main complaint fairly clear. But, I'll repeat it.

I do not expect Canon to make a LightRoom replacement. I don't even expect them to make a PhotoShop Elements, or an ACDSee replacement. I'm more than happy to pay for that, should I need it.

But, they are a world leading camera manufacture. Some of their new lenses are specifically sold to be digitally corrected (RF 24-240mm springs to mind). They even tout their own software as, and I quote ...

Digital Photo Professional (DPP) is a high-performance RAW image processing, viewing and editing software for EOS digital cameras and PowerShot models with RAW capability. Using DPP you can easily perform basic and advanced editing and printing of RAW images. An example of the available editing functions are image rotation, white balance adjustment, dynamic-range adjustment, colour adjustment and fine-tuning of tone curve characteristics.

The software is over 6 years old. The interface is clunky and difficult to use. It is years past "high-performance". I don't think it's too much to ask that the software be brought up to date in order to use this functionality more easily.

Review sites like this could play a part in getting this sorted. Imagine if every review site simply stated that the bundled software is in need of a refresh when doing a review. They're quick to say that a camera still supports an old version of USB 3.1, that it has only a single card slot. But nowhere is it mentioned that the bundled software just isn't up to scratch.
Oh please. The program does exactly what they say it does and it does what it does as good or better than any other software out there. It does this at no perceivable added cost to the consumer. Could it have a slicker interface and be a faster? Sure. But, again, it does what it does very well for no added cost. You seem to take umbrage at the high-performance part. Write a letter to their marketing department since Canon must be the only company out there using overly flattering language to describe their product. You argue that a $4000 camera should come with better software? I'll argue that someone willing to pay $4000 for a camera should be willing to pry their wallet open one more time for some software if they feel the freebie isn't up to snuff. DXO has excellent lens profiles for all of the Canon lenses I own, but unfortunately those greedy buggers want money for their software. The world can be awful hard at times...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximilian

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
3,100
1,207
Germany
I think I made my main complaint fairly clear. But, I'll repeat it. ...
Yes you did. And I don't disagree with you. I just put in my 2 cents for you to consider.
By just repeating arguments again you start to sound like an LP with scratches.

Here are some new/extended arguments:
But, they are a world leading camera manufacture...
... and not a world leading imaging SW company. Correct.

Some of their new lenses are specifically sold to be digitally corrected (RF 24-240mm springs to mind). They even tout their own software as, and I quote ...

Digital Photo Professional (DPP) is a high-performance RAW image processing, viewing and editing software for EOS digital cameras and PowerShot models with RAW capability. Using DPP you can easily perform basic and advanced editing and printing of RAW images. An example of the available editing functions are image rotation, white balance adjustment, dynamic-range adjustment, colour adjustment and fine-tuning of tone curve characteristics.
What is wrong here? Esp. if it's for free?
I told you what you can do after RAW and lens cooking, if you don't feel fine with DPP.

The software is over 6 years old. The interface is clunky and difficult to use. It is years past "high-performance". I don't think it's too much to ask that the software be brought up to date in order to use this functionality more easily.
Of course it would be fine if Canon put in - say - 10, 20% of their stills R&D in DPP and still give it away for free.
But Canon is an enterprise. Their first goal is to make money. And they are "a world leading camera [and lens] manufacture" as you said.
And if you take a look at the complains some one or two years ago about not getting seriously into ML and see what they do now, you can imagine where they put their R&D ressources. And here they get ROI and EBIT because they can sell cams and lenses.
If they would think they could get EBIT with DPP then you would see a new version each year, I suppose.
But do you want to pay extra for a (slightly) better interface and a (little bit) faster DPP?
Me not.

Review sites like this could play a part in getting this sorted.
Don't overestimate these pages as long as cams and lenses are sold well...


In the end I would say:
Contine with your complaints. Maybe it will work. I don't think so.
Accept that others don't share your opinion - or at least put some other aspects into account, too.

As long as DPP stays free and not cloud based, I'll take every improvement with cheers. (y)
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,450
1,431
I'm surprised that we get a software package as good as Canons and its free, you can use it with your $200 P&S or your high end camera. Like any software, the user interface requires lots of practice to learn its functions and quirks. Its normal and reasonable that we each prefer different human interfaces, Lightroom, DXO, Phase One, ACDSEE all have different interfaces. I don't like DXO or Phase one because I don't like side cars. DXO puts edit information back into the CR* container, Adobe puts it into a database. No one besides Canon modifies the RAW file that I'm aware of but software that uses Adobe DNG containers can include edits in the file much like Canon does. Those basic methods of storing data have implications in the software interface as well.

I've owned a Nikon DSLR and found the software package to be very limited, I haven't used Sony's but I don't hear people bragging about it.

The tabs on DPP4 are organized by type of adjustment which might appeal to some or not. I don't use it a lot and am probably missing some of the things it can do. Abobe is able to spend millions of dollars optimizing and researching photo editing software and ways to enhance photos. It is far more difficult to learn than DPP4. You need some training to even get started or you won't find a single photo. That puts many people off. Once you have learned how to run it, its not a big deal and the catalog approach has many benefits to payback for the difficult import process.

I use LR/Photoshop for serious images and ACDSEE for simple or temporary images. I pre-ordered Luminar AI in order to see how well it reduces the amount that I need to use my hands and fingers in the editing process. I have serious problems with the pain from using them a lot.

I also have the free DXO version and have tried dozens of add-ins, enhancers and the like. Non seemed worth the effort to me but others obviously love them or they would not exist.

A big deal when you are editing thousands of photos is the time it takes per photo. Some seem to take forever and doing 2,000 photos seems to me to be incomprehensible but doing 100 over 2 or 3 days might be fine. I usually end up with 1200 - 1400 photos after culling. Maybe 150 of them get selected for a photobook but all of them go on a DVD for the customer to pick and choose. They often pick ones I wouldn't because I am influenced by technical quality but they are influenced by content that they want to remember.
 

PhotonShark

EOS M50
Jun 10, 2020
25
16
Could it have a slicker interface and be a faster? Sure.
That was 100% my point. Stated clearly, more than once.

But, again, it does what it does very well for no added cost.
Actually, it's part of the cost of the camera.

I'll argue that someone willing to pay $4000 for a camera should be willing to pry their wallet open one more time for some software if they feel the freebie isn't up to snuff.
Again, this is a straw man argument. I clearly stated that I am willing to pay for software. I clearly stated that a camera manufacture doesn't need to be in the competitive business of photo artistry and digital asset management.

However, these are digital cameras that produces RAW files that the manufacturer has chosen to keep proprietary. The manufacturer sells lenses that require digital correction that the manufacturer has also chosen to keep proprietary. Therefore, software is not an optional part of this product, it is a required part of this product. The manufacturer includes software as part of the bundle. It is over 6 years old and is well past due for an upgrade.
 

PhotonShark

EOS M50
Jun 10, 2020
25
16
Yes you did. And I don't disagree with you. I just put in my 2 cents for you to consider.
By just repeating arguments again you start to sound like an LP with scratches.
Sometimes you need to play the LP again, when questions are asked and the answers were in the song. ;-)

... and not a world leading imaging SW company. Correct.
Actually, they are very much a word leading imaging software company. There is extremely powerful code running in their cameras to process the raw data from the sensor and create the final images that are corrected at many frames per second for scene conditions and lens correction.

I told you what you can do after RAW and lens cooking, if you don't feel fine with DPP.
And, I told you what that I feel that DPP is in need of an upgrade. If you're going to put that record on again, I'm going to have to play it again. ;-)

Of course it would be fine if Canon put in - say - 10, 20% of their stills R&D in DPP and still give it away for free.
Canon sold 15 million cameras in 2019. Or around 100 million cameras since DPP was released. I think 10 cents a camera might just get us a new version of the software. Don't you?

And here they get ROI and EBIT because they can sell cams and lenses.
Agreed. But, as we all know, there is massive downward pressure on camera manufacturers as more and more people realise that they can capture the moment just fine with their smart phones and a consumer that expects to get get software for under a dollar.

If they would think they could get EBIT with DPP then you would see a new version each year, I suppose.
The return on investment is consumers who find the experience easy and turn to your products. Like it or not, the experience isn't just holding the camera and taking the snap. The experience ends with the final image. In 2020 that image is on a display. As a manufacturer, you would surely want that experience to be as pleasurable as possible. It should be easy to get the image off your camera and onto something that you can correct for lens issues and do a bit of basic image adjustment. Obtaining a .JPEG/.HEIC file for sharing and storage should be as easy as possible. Your software should be up to date and in line with the modern operating systems that consumers are used to.

But do you want to pay extra for a (slightly) better interface and a (little bit) faster DPP?
Me not.
Would you pay a buck? That's $100 million for Canon since DPP was released.

Contine with your complaints. Maybe it will work. I don't think so.
Accept that others don't share your opinion - or at least put some other aspects into account, too.

As long as DPP stays free and not cloud based, I'll take every improvement with cheers. (y)
I'm happy that people have other ideas. That's the great thing about the world. Difference is how we learn and correct for error. But, to be fair, I am at a loss as to why anyone (not pointing at you) would be defending 6 year old software that accompanies cameras being sold into the thousands of dollars. Even more if you add the lens sales. My opinion is that Canon needs to either up their software game, or give up on it completely and make their lens/raw data available for all and sundry. This middle ground isn't good for them, and it certainly isn't good for us.

Edit : Like a lot of things in the modern world, media sites and influencers hold a disproportionate amount of sway. I've even seen Apple change things because the media have got a bee in their bonnet about something. You would be surprised how much can change if one of the big sites like DPReview added a line to their conclusion. "The included software with the Eos R5 is starting to show its age. Basic lens and image correction is becoming a chore and potential buyers need to factor in the cost of additional software to get the most out of this camera. There will also be a wait period while software companies do their best to bring their products up to date as Canon do not share camera information".
 
Last edited:
  • Angry
Reactions: Maximilian

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,450
1,431
As long as any of us requests a slicker interface or a similar term that is meaningless, there is zero chance of someone being able to do what is wanted. Slicker means 100 different things to 100 people.
Various software packages appeal to different people. Are their some well thought out suggestions on how the interface should work? At least, that is something that could be discussed, but better or improved or slicker mean nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximilian

Czardoom

EOS 90D
Jan 27, 2020
135
315
The fact that is 6 years old is a somewhat meaningless argument. It is updated with new camera and lens releases, so all of it's main features are up to date. It is free, despite your arguments to the contrary. I have no complaints with it whatsoever. As others have nentioned, compared to what you get with other brands' cameras, this is better. It does the job and costs nothing - I guess for some folks that is not enough.