iS ANYONE USING CANON'S DIGITAL PHOTO PROLFESSIONAL

[john_tanner]

<p>Is anyone using the free software from Canon for EOS cameras? I read that it does raw and removes lens specific problems Canon knows about and takes care of barrel distortation for specific known lens problems.</p>

[zml]

<p>Well, considering that in many ways DPP is the best RAW converter for Canon files, yes, I suppose one or two people might be using it :-)</p>

<p>Try it - it comes free with every Canon DSLR (you might want to download the most current update from the Canon's site.) Yes, it does correct many a lens problem and reads picture tags. What else would you like to know?</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, considering that in many ways DPP is the best RAW converter for Canon files, yes....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I couldn't agree more. By the way, in case you are working off the CDs that came with your camera, please be aware that a much improved version 3.8.0 is now available from Canon.</p>

[jim_mcdonald3]

<p>+1. Again, may I suggest a simple search?</p>

[swilson]

<p>I am not in love with it, but I don't want to pay for Lightroom so I am using it.<br>

I was using Rawshooter essentials, but it is no longer supported and will not convert my 50D raw files.</p>

[Michael Eckstein]

<p>I've tried most of the raw converters available and I haven't found any that do a better raw file conversion than DPP. Once you get used to the interface you'll be very happy with the results you get. </p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I normally prefer the look and control of RAW conversions in Aperture 3 over DPP 3.8x. But DPP is really good for free and sometimes nails conversions that don't workout in Aperture or ACR. It only has a basic tools set and is rather slow and awkward. Even if DPP isn't your main app, it's still useful as an alternative for difficult files. I actually prefer it for sunsets and high ISO (although Aperture 3 has improved high ISO NR greatly giving me less reason to use DPP).</p>

[martindomok]

<p>I do use Canon's soft daily. U can do the same thing in PS, however, my rather not the most efficient workflow works for me.<br>

I shoot raw, when uploading Raws and Jpegs in 2 different folders I view all jpegs in ACDsee, write down the file numbers that I will convert, anywhere between 20-200 files.<br>

<br /> Then I open Canons soft and will open up large RAW, adjust save as a jpeg by hitting CTRL+D. I do this will all raws selected. Then in ACDsee will move all new jpegs into a seperate folder and then wil adjust these in PS.<br>

I tried to do RAWs in PS directly and it is a fact that U can gain more from a RAW file in PS than in Canon's soft.<br>

My experience, Im sure others will agree.</p>

 

[jim_h.2]

<p>I use it often and I have lightroom, but the thing about lightroom is when you convert the pics the dpi the Megs are much less than the raw you started with, I like batch converting when i have a few hunderd to do and I can just walk off let the software do the work.So I think CP is very good all in all.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I love DPP's Canon raw conversions and its noise reduction is superior to Aperture for me.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>If DPP would show the histogram of the cropped portion of the image (as opposed to still showing

the histogram of the entire image), I’d probably use it whenever I need a colorimetrically-correct

rendering of a scene.</p>

 

<p>Not that DPP has any magic colorimetric faery dust to sprinkle on things, of course. What it has is

lens correction, dust removal, and all the rest.</p>

 

<p>But that bloody crop / histogram bug renders it useless, as it makes it impossible to get a perfect

white balance — something trivial to do in ACR. And a perfect white balance is the #1 most

important starting point in creating ICC profiles for a scene imaged with a camera.</p>

 

<p>When Canon fixes that, I’ll probably use DPP exclusively for art reproduction, but I doubt

I’ll ever use it in favor of ACR for other kinds of photography. Just using the development sliders

I can do 80% of everything creative I ever want to do with a photo. The channel mixer in ACR gets me

to 90%, and the adjustment brush to 95%. The rare occasions an image requires that additional 5%,

Photoshop is but a click away.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[enrique_bocanegra]

<p>Another vote for Aperture 3. It has improved so much in converting RAW for my 7D and 5Dmkii. Long time Lightroom user, now in love with Aperture 3. DPP is inferior to both lightroom and Aperture 3.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>DPP is inferior to both lightroom and Aperture 3.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I couldn't disagree more: the RAW conversion in general, and the quality of reds and yellows from hi-res Canon RAW files (from 5D2 and 1Ds3) in particular in DPP beats both Aperture and Lightroom hands down. DPP is a RAW converter with some rudimentary features and a spartan UI, not a robust image editing program, best for converting to TIFF and handing down the image to other software.</p>

[nirza_david]

<p>DPP is the only software I use. Mainly for RAW conversion and tweaking dynamics, brightness, contrast, sharpening etc. I have yet to use the lens correction features though as there hasn't been a need for it.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<blockquote>

<p>I couldn't disagree more: the RAW conversion in general, and the quality of reds and yellows from hi-res Canon RAW files (from 5D2 and 1Ds3) in particular in DPP beats both Aperture and Lightroom hands down. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was on the fence with Aperture 2 and bounced back and forth between it and DPP 3.7x for nearly a year. A2 did a good job but fell short with high ISO (no decent NR unless you bought a plugin) and sunsets. Then Aperture 3 happened. The improvement of the 5DII profile, NR and additional tools was astounding and now gives me little reason to disturb DPP 3.8x from sleep. DPP was whipped good.</p>

<p>As for "quality" of reds and yellows, Aperture 3 offers the finest control of individual colors possible. In comparison, it really takes some serious arm twisting to tweak to taste in DPP. DPP only has global color adjustments and lacks tweaks for individual colors, e.g., you can't directly reduce red saturation or brightness. But DPP is free and is a great tool but I, like most, see it as backup and an alternative for the rare problematic conversion.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>The only time I DONT use DPP is when I'm rendering HDR images. Other than that I use it exclusively for converting RAW files. We bought our first Canon digital camera in 2007 and have enjoyed the upgrades to DPP ever since. Photoshop has had 2 or 3 "updates" since then and you would have to buy them.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I use DPP to view RAW files. The interface is a bit rough. You can't move easily from image to image in full-screen mode with, for instance, arrow keys, and there's no slide show function. That said, DPP renders CR2 RAW files beautifully. I don't know of any distortion removal function in DPP, though. Please let me know where to find that function if it's available.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Open the Tools panel. Near the top is a tool bar selector labeled: RAW, RGB, NR/Lens/ALO. Click on NR/Lens/ALO and you'll see the lens aberration controls. Realize it only works with Canon EF and EF-S lenses. I can't remember when this feature was added but it was probably 3.6. DPP 3.8 has the most update database of lens specs for corrections, but still a few are missing.</p>

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

<p>DPP is the best IMO for .CR2 files.<br>

Easy to batch process images.<br>

Copy and paste recipes in one click (actually 2: one for copy and one for paste)<br>

Limited but accurate sliders :)<br>

Output files can be sized at any dpi<br>

Why one wouldn't use it ?</p>

[cabbiinc]

<blockquote>

<p>Realize it only works with Canon EF and EF-S lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't recall when it happened (I believe it was one or two updates since lens corrections was introduced) but you can use some third party lenses with the Lens Aberration Correction. However it is a rather basic tool and the third party lenses will not have the automatic "Shooting distance information" that somewhat affects the distortion.</p>

<p>The Auto Lighting Optimizer is only available for some bodies and some lenses.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>As for "quality" of reds and yellows, Aperture 3 offers the finest control of individual colors possible</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can't control it if it's not there to begin with...There is a huge difference between what a converter can extract from a RAW file and what a picture editing program can adjust. If your processing chain is fully calibrated it is easy to see (and measure) the differences and IMO (and not only mine) the DPP algorithm wins hands down.</p>

[peter_kervarec]

<p>Canon owners are lucky to get FREE RAW editing software at all. Nikon give you basically nothing as far as I am aware for RAW editing, you have to buy it.</p>

[iresh_zaker]

<p>I love the software. It's easy to use and processes pictures well. I was even more impressed when I used it to process files from my recently acquired G11, which has a lot more noise than my 5D MII and 7D.</p>

[karl_sch_rlund]

<blockquote>

<p>Canon owners are lucky to get FREE RAW editing software at all. Nikon give you basically nothing as far as I am aware for RAW editing, you have to buy it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon ViewNX is free and does RAW conversion and limited editing (exposure adjustment and some other controls I can't remember off the top of my head). I have no idea how it compares to DPP regarding editing features, though.</p>

[anthony_murray]

<p>I used DPP exclusively with my old Rebel XTi. ACR never really worked well for me - I think maybe I had the wrong camera profiles, but never explored it further. Images were flat looking and reds looked orange, really bad. Never used any of the lens correction options - this was added to later versions anyway, 3.5 or 3.6 I think. The latest version has a new straightening tool and the cropping feature (trimming) is excellent. DPP is very easy to use once you get the hang of it. For my purposes, results are excellent. I typically export a tiff for later minor corrections (usually shadows and levels) in PS Elements. <br>

That said, I've recently started playing with ACR 5.6 for RAW 7D files. I'm mildly surpirsed with the results. Results are very close to DPP. NR isn't bad either and you can't beat the shadow and highlight recovery. The equivalent feature in DPP is very poor. The jury is still out on if I will switch to ACR, I'm evaluating if it will make my workflow easier.</p>