DPP

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I've been using DPP ever since I bought my EOS DSLR and have seen no reason to use anything else</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it's got crappy highlight recovery, poor high ISO handling and - <em>at best</em> - mediocre detail rendering?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lightroom? Why on Earth would I need to complicate my life with that overly complex . . . thing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it's got great highlight recovery, great high ISO handling and great detail rendering.</p>

<p>I've looked at your gallery Michael, and - assuming you've converted those images in DPP - they show <em>much</em> more noise at 100 ISO than I get from Lr conversions at <em>well</em> in excess of 1000 ISO.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>I have used DPP ever since I had a Canon DSLR. The basic functions I need are there, the UI and speed are ok, nothing to complain much.<br>

The main point is I like Canon policy to serve their customers until getting the photos in standard formats. I dont like the idea that we have to buy software to process the results from the cameras. It would be like after buying a printer, we are forced to buy the driver otherwise the printer would be useless</p>

[d_young]

<p>I use DPP as a primary. I just like the way DPP resolves color and sharpness in my EOS RAW images compared to the other programs I have used. I also use Bridge in PS, however, each has certain application advantages. For quick edits and browsing lots of images, Bridge does well. As an all in one, with access to file info and XMP, it has advantages over DPP. It may be a personal preference, but for the initial conversion, DPP for EOS RAW images works best ... for me. But after the initial edits in RAW, the work flow has been going to Photoshop. .... Cant comment on Lightroom as I have not used it that much. <br>

<br />I guess Bridge may not be long on the list if Adobe takes Photoshop to the cloud as I am not going there.</p>

<p>D</p>