Canon DPP equivelent?

[david_smith110]

<p>So I have been using DPP for some time but I will soon have need of editing software that will handle Sony RAW files. What is the closest Photoshop product to DPP in terms of being able to do what DPP will do without any extra bells and whistles? </p>

<p>Elements? Lightroom? Any help is appreciated. Thanks.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Lightroom.</p>

<p>This is one of the problems with camera vendor software, it won't support any other brands. </p>

[craigd]

<p>In my experience, software provided by camera vendors (and scanner vendors) is almost always buggy garbage with limited features. General-purpose apps like Lightroom and free raw processors such as Raw Therapee are usually far superior and have the additional benefit of being able to work with other camera brands should you decide to switch at some point.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>DPP is FAR from buggy garbage with limited features. It's an excellent RAW converter for Canon RAW files. I use it all the time.</p>

<p>Sony have their IDC (Image Data Converter) that you can probably download for free. Not sure how good it is though. I'll bet it's not as good as DPP is.</p>

<p>I have the Olympus and Nikon RAW converters they supply for free with their cameras. Neither is as good, fast or easy to use as DPP.</p>

<p>RAWTherapee is maybee the best of the free RAW converters, but it can at times be a bit of a memory hog. I used it to convert some large Nikon D800 NEF files and, though it took forever, it did a decent job</p>

<p>There's also DxO</p>

[craigd]

<p>DPP was buggy garbage with limited features the last time I looked at it, but that was a few years ago. If it's improved since, oh, 2008, good for Canon.</p>

<p>However, the point that camera vendors' software works only with their own cameras stands, and that's a serious problem if you work with more than one brand of camera, or if you switch.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I have no complaints about DPP! It's basic (which I like), and it does its job efficiently and well.</p>

<p>I used to use RawShooter Essentials. It wasn't too bad. It's certainly worth a look. There's also a premium version.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I, for one have never found DPP to be particularly buggy, or dificult to work with. If you only have a few RAWS to work with, and have plenty of time, it works, and works well (though not w/ Sony files of course). Of course that was back in '08 & '09, and since then, I've been using LR almost exlusively. (I also don't use buggy Mac OSes ;-) ) It works better, is more capable, faster, and optimized for if you have a lot of work to do - more so than any other RAW-capable editor I've used.</p>

<p> </p>

[lester_wareham]

Plus one, DPP is an excellent product that I now use in preference to Adobe raw derivatives.

 

Always worth trying the manufactures software, but others I doubt are as good as DPP.

[keith reeder]

<p>RawShooter has been dead <em>for years</em>, Sarah - it won't support any cameras newer than say, the Canon 30D. </p>

[henrik_lauridsen]

<p>+1 on Lightroom. With the current prices, it is IMO by far the most cost effective addition to your toolbox as a photographer, including new lenses, cameras etc.</p>

[peter_mckone]

<p>DPP is good when you don't need local editing.</p>

<p>I'm a big fan of Photoshop Elements. It has almost all of Photoshop's features for less than a hundred dollars.</p>

<p>Sometimes I use Lightroom (version 2), but it is often painfully slow to respond to mouse clicks. I think it is performing background tasks, like making thumbnails of photos that I don't intend to look at.</p>

<p> </p>

[drpath]

<p>If only. The Olympus raw converter that came with my (otherwise wonderful) E-PL1 is so lame you might as well shoot all JPEGs. Converting in PS Elements 10 and then opening the JPEG for work with enhancing tools produces a more or less equivalent result, at more or less twice the time and trouble as DPP.</p>

[joel_tomaneng2]

<p>+1 for Lightroom. I use Lightroom 4.1. It handles RAW very well, the interface seemed easy-to-learn (I never read a manual or book, but I've looked at the occasional help article). It sells for $149.<br>

Photoshop Elements Sells for $79 and comes with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). <br>

I feel like Lightroom is geared more towards folks with some Darkroom experience. Elements didn't seem to fit my "workflow" of moving 1000s of photos around. <br>

Overall, they're both good, are both capable of doing what DPP does, can handle multiple brands of Cameras, and have relatively minimal bells & whistles (compared to Photoshop). <br>

In any case, you can always try both for 30 days and decide for yourself. Both have free 30-day fully functioning trial licenses (well at least lightroom did). </p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Thanks everyone, lot of great info. I dont find DPP to be buggy at all. In fact, especially considering its free, it is an excellent photo editing platform.</p>

<p>Tons better then the Sony crap that came with my NEX 7. Talk about buggy. Trying to do even the most basic editing/slider movement results in an unworkable delay. Anywhere from 5-9 seconds. You simply cant edit a photo like that. Its not my computer either, which handles DPP and raws with no delay at all.</p>

<p>Sony has come a long way in the short time it has gotten serious about photography. But there are several lessons it can still learn from Canon. Software and Service top the list.</p>

[doug_landrum]

<p>Lightroom 4.1. It's amazing. The Luminous Landscape tutorials are very good to make the most of Lightroom.<br>

http://store.luminous-landscape.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=25&products_id=286<br>

I have nothing against DPP, and keep it current. LR4 is just so much more. </p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>DPP has really come a long ways in the past couple years. I actually started using it again as the RAW conversions--for certain files--will best Aperture and CS5/ACR. I've not encountered any bugs: stable and fast on my Mac Pro. The optimize and lens distortion features are really good. Wish Canon had a plugin version of DPP for PS. </p>

<p>But for photography oriented adjustments, my fav app is Aperture. I haven't used LR for a couple years but it is a program with similar capabilities to Aperture but with the typical Adobe interface.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>LR... is a program with... the typical Adobe interface.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure what you mean there - its interface isn't like any other Adobe program I use/have used.</p>