DPP

[bill_force]

<h2>DPP</h2>

<p>With all the flap over Adobe changing their marketing policy I wonder how many Canon users use DPP for converting RAW files and PP them with DPP. I recently bought a 6D and included was the standard Canon software so I tried DPP as an experiment. My main editor for many years has been Adobe PS but I'm not too keen on a monthly fee when sometimes I may not even use the editor for a long period, I still shoot 35mm film and scan it, takes a bit of my time.<br>

Actually I kinda like DPP, especially some of the batch features etc. I've been a Canon film shooter since they started making the "A" series but since 1998 I've used Nikon and Fuji for digital and used Adobe CS since they started CS and "7" before that but no more. I liked the features of the 6D and thought I would give a Canon Digital a try especially since they include the Editor and Nikon charges an arm and a leg for an editor and a tethering program. Add the price of Nikon's software to the base price of a DSLR and it's way over the competitions price.<br>

Do any of you use Dpp and what do you think of it?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I tried it for a short period of time. There's no way I would use it instead of Lightroom. If you are using Photoshop primarily as a RAW converter, which is about all that DPP is really good for, then Photoshop is a waste to begin with.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>DPP is more than a RAW converter, but it's not meant to be a real image editor. You can crop and rotate, clone out dust spots, do all the RAW stuff (white balance, exposure, contrast, saturation, unsharp making, highlight and shadow control, noise reduction, aberration compensation - vignetting, CA and distortion) as well as tweaking the curves for the 3 color channels. You can also select color space, image color profiles etc.</p>

<p>In addition you can rate and check mark images for future selection and batch processing and mark images as "rejects".</p>

<p>The limitation as an image editor is that it's not an image editor. All functions (except for cloning) are applied to the whole image. You can't selectively edit only parts. Therefore it's not a full image editor, but it makes an excellent "pre-processor" for any number of low cost, shareware or open source free image editors that can do pretty much everything that Photoshop can and that the vast majority of photographers will ever need.</p>

<p>I use DPP all the time, despite having access to a number of other RAW converters and image editors with RAW conversion capability. I think it's an excellent program. Maybe it would get more respect if Canon charged for it!</p>

<p>One nice feature is that correction factors for new lenses are available for free, and when Canon bring out a new camera, the RAW conversion utility for it is also available for free.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I like DPP as well. It's a simple tool, but it does its job well. After outputting a 16 bit TIFF, I go straight to CS5 with it.</p>

[lester_wareham]

I like DPP too. I used PS with my 20D but switched back to DPP for the 7D. The only thing I use photoshop for is

sharpenjng with masked layers, other masked operations etc.

 

I agree it would be difficult to manage without PS but I just don't bother to upgrade it any more.

[lester_wareham]

I like DPP too. I used PS with my 20D but switched back to DPP for the 7D. The only thing I use photoshop for is

sharpenjng with masked layers, other masked operations etc.

 

I agree it would be difficult to manage without PS but I just don't bother to upgrade it any more.

[lester_wareham]

I like DPP too. I used PS with my 20D but switched back to DPP for the 7D. The only thing I use photoshop for is

sharpenjng with masked layers, other masked operations etc.

 

I agree it would be difficult to manage without PS but I just don't bother to upgrade it any more.

[keith reeder]

<p>I simply don't like the image quality of conversions from DPP - they're not remotely as good as those from Lightroom, Photo Ninja etc.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Keith Reeder wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I simply don't like the image quality of conversions from DPP - they're not remotely as good as those from Lightroom, Photo Ninja etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously what you like is entirely up to you. That's no evidence for claiming that other converters are superior in any objective sense.</p>

[dan_south]

I use DPP on occasion to evaluate the sharpness of images and to view the manufacturers expectation of what the raw

file should look like, but that's about it. I'm a Lightroom enthusiast. Let's just hope that LR doesn't follow PS into the

subscription cloud.

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I love DPP. It's simple, straightforward and does most of what I need. I only jump into Lightroom if I have a noisy image that needs cleaning up. </p>

[phule]

<p>I dislike DPP with the power of 1000 suns. The UI was designed by someone who saw a computer once, in a catalog, in 1974. The lack of lens correction modules for more than half of Canon's lenses is absurd (and rather telling), and the lack of control one has over images makes me doubt anyone at Canon has ever opened a dictionary and looked up the word "Professional." </p>

<p>But it's free, so who am I to complain? </p>

[don_pugh]

<p>I have Lightroom 4.4 set up to automatically apply lens correction profiles (available in Lightroom for all the Canon lenses I own and use) and apply standard tweaks (as a starting point) to all RAW files that are imported into it. I know there is plenty you can do in Lightroom that you can't do in DPP. Is there anything you can do in DPP that you can't do in Lightroom? If not, I don't see a reason to spend the time running images through an extra program even if it is free.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I prefer ACR most of the time; I find it easier to get the results I want from it and it fits my workflow much better. Let me be clear: this is merely a personal preference, and probably a result of having used ACR much more over the years than DPP.</p>

 

<p>However, I find some images benefit greatly from DPP's <abbr title="Digital Lens Optimizer">DLO</abbr>, so I use whichever one I feel is the best fit for a particular image. I do at least partly agree with the criticism above regarding DPP's UI; there are many things that I find clunky, unintuitive, or in desperate need of streamlining. But that doesn't stop me from using it when I need DLO.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>That's no evidence for claiming that other converters are superior in any objective sense.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That'll be why I didn't do that, then...</p>

<p>Just to remind you, Robin, the OP asked this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do any of you use Dpp <strong><em>and what do you think of it?</em></strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I answer that question?</p>

 

[matthijs]

I only use DPP.

 

For RAW conversion, simple PP (WB, rotation, cropping, contrast and B&W conversions).

That's enough for me, conservative editing and no fuss.

 

The results look good to me.

 

I'm in no way a professional but have a few decades of shooting behind me.

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Keith, you said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>they're not remotely as good as those from Lightroom, Photo Ninja etc</p>

</blockquote>

<p>which could easily be read as a statement of fact rather than a personel opinion. But I am happy to accept that opinion is all you are claiming for it.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I often wonder if people who don't like DPP have updated it in the last decade. At one time it was pretty basic, but that's no longer the case.</p>

<p>I'd agree that one feature that would be SIMPLE to provide would be the ability to manually correct aberration for lenses that it doesn't support. You can manually correct lenses that it does support, so obviously the function is in the program. They just grey out the sliders if DPP doesn't see a lens that it can automatically correct. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I suppose they could be trying to avoid supporting the use of 3rd party lenses, but if that's the case they could at least allow it for Canon lenses (and they should know that from the EXIF data in most cases). In fact you can hack the EXIF data to allow corrections for non-supported lenses, but it's more trouble than it's worth.</p>

<p>I believe the DPP demosaicing algorithm as as good as most and better than some. I've compared it to others and never really found it lacking. You'd think that Canon would know how to convert their own RAW files as well as anyone. I suppose you could be wrong in thinking that, but I really haven't found it to be the case.</p>

<p>Lightroom may be fine, but in a masterful move of customer appreciation v4 won't run on Windows XP. Off hand I can't think of any other current popular software that won't run on XP SP3. Just Adobe's way of showing they care I guess.

[dan_south]

<p>One thing I hate about DPP. When viewing images in full screen mode (all I ever do in DPP), you can't move to the next image using cursor keys. Are you KIDDING me? How basic a UI concept is that? Nikon's ViewNX 2 lets you do it. It's a much friendlier program.</p>

<p>Lightroom and Aperture are just so much more advanced. Their benefits are worth the price and the (not very steep) learning curve. </p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I could never just use DPP but it certainly has improved during the last few years and has some great tools. Wish Canon would make the image optimization, lens aberration, Pic Style profiles, etc., features available in a standard plugin. I mainly use Aperture but PS and DPP are great backups and sometimes nail a tricky RAW conversion I couldn't get right in Aperture.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I only used DPP for a short time before I started using Lightroom. I use Lightroom as much to organize and rate my RAW photos as editing and conversion. Since converting to Lightroom I have had no need for PhotoShop and although I own CS5 haven't used it in a long time.<br>

DPP to me was very limitied in features compared to Lightroom. I heavily use the Export to Zenfolio feature which is simply a great way to deliver my products directly to the web and my customers in one simple move.</p>

[kerry_grim]

I've used DPP for a number of years. I think it is excellent, but I moved to Lightroom recently after getting a

new computer. Not really fair to compare the two. The learning curve is little for DPP. Lightroom does have

a fairly substantial learning curve, but I am enjoying learning it. The capabilities of the program are

remarkable (more than I need) for a program that I bought for $100. The workflow features are excellent and

the editing capabilities are far in excess of DPP.

[sjluke]

<p>I use DPP for RAW conversion and do everything else in CS5. Seems like Canon probably knows how to convert their own files well enough.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>One thing I hate about DPP. When viewing images in full screen mode (all I ever do in DPP), you can't move to the next image using cursor keys. Are you KIDDING me? How basic a UI concept is that? Nikon's ViewNX 2 lets you do it. It's a much friendlier program.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Select a block of images you want to view, and then use the "Quick Check" tool in full screen mode. Hit the cursor keys for next and back, and hit the number keys to rate/sort.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I've been using DPP ever since I bought my EOS DSLR and have seen no reason to use anything else. I've played around some with both PS's and PSP's raw converters, and they're fine, but not great enough for me to set aside DPP. I mean, DPP is simple and basic and for the few quick initial steps I use it for in my image processing routines, it gets the job done nicely and quickly. Lightroom? Why on Earth would I need to complicate my life with that overly complex . . . thing?</p>