Canon DPP and other software

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I purchased a 40D a couple of weeks ago and I'm looking for software to process my RAW files. I've tried to download DPP and it asks for a CD. Can someone provide a link to the software that doesn't need a CD?<br>

I have another question regarding software; I'm looking for something that lets me process images from my Nikon D300s and 40D, would Light Room be a good choice? My wife uses a Sony, would it be possible to use one software application for all 3 cameras? I'm currently using the software that came with the Nikon and Sony which we purchased new but the Canon is used and all I can find are DPP update files.</p>

[Dave410]

<p>Lightroom would be a great choice for organizing and processing images from all three cameras. Download and install a free trial, watch a couple of tutorial videos from YouTube to see how it works, and you'll be hooked.</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>There's a clever workaround that Rob Bernhard could tell you about. Basically, there's some old version of DPP that you can download and install freely. Once you have that installed on your computer, you can upgrade to the most recent version. I suppose they might have fixed that loophole by now, though.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Try <a href="http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/sdl/data/dpp100-e.exe" rel="nofollow">http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/sdl/data/dpp100-e.exe</a></p>

<p>Once you have any version of DPP on your system, you can download the latest update.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>While I really like DPP, if I had multiple brands of cameras I'd certainly look at Lightroom or Corel Aftershot Pro or something else that would support all of the cameras I owned.</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>Bob, thanks for the link to DPP. A few minutes ago I ordered Lr 5 from Amazon, I had enough points saved up on my Discover card that I got it for $87. I also downloaded the trial version so I will start with a few YouTube videos to get me started. </p>

[kerry_grim]

I used DPP for a number of years, until going to a new computer and Lightroom. DPP is very simple.

Lightroom has a learning curve but well worth the effort to learn it. After using Lightroom, I never looked

back.

[Dave410]

<p>Good luck, Mark. Once you climb the learning curve a bit, you'll be very impressed with Lightroom, especially since it will be one program for the images for all three cameras.</p>

<p>Here's tutorial you might enjoy. It's an hour and forty-five minutes on just the Develop module, which is one of the seven modules in Lightroom. Good stuff.</p>

<p><a href="

[bobatkins]

<p>I use DPP. It's gotten better through the years and is now pretty good. Other than the fact that it only converts Canon files it's as good as anything out there and better than some as far as converted image quality goes.</p>

[dennisgg]

<p>Canon finally allows the full download:<br>

<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_70d#DriversAndSoftware">http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_70d#DriversAndSoftware</a></p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p> it's as good as anything out there</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Bob, but in a number of completely objective, readily observable ways, it's <em>not even close</em> to being as good as some of the third party converters.</p>

<p>Just three that matter to me, by way of example: </p>

<p><strong>It's not in the same league as Lightroom for highlight recovery;</strong><br>

<strong>It's not in the same game as DxO Optics Pro in high ISO noise handling;</strong><br>

<strong>It's not remotely as good at rendering artefact-free fine detail and sharpness as Photo Ninja</strong>.</p>

<p>It's OK for nothing, but even in that space, Raw Therapee is a far better, for more capable converter.</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>Keith is right about these weaknesses, but for 90% of shots DPP gives the best instant results in terms of colors and contrast. Texture detail and recovery of contrasty scenes are not great, but such detail you won't see if the purpose is to produce web sized images. <br>

Any other converter and I found myself tweaking all the sliders, with annoyingly small increments, settling at something that looks pretty good, but when opening the same file later it just looked cheesy and I could start all over again. Some converters like RawTherapee used to be incredibly slow compared to DPP but this may have improved.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I'd suggest trying LR and DxO on a free trial basis. They're both great, but each has its own feel and interface. BTW, DxO recently introduced v. 9.0 which further enhanced its noise management and highlight recovery.</p>

<p>With all of these software, DPP, DxO and LR, make sure that you've enabled Digital Lens Optimization (DxO will prompt you, but the others may not). DLO corrects for lens/camera errors in geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, softness, etc. at every aperture and every focal length with every lens/body combination. You're not seeing the best your lenses can do, particularly zooms, unless you're using DLO.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lightroom and DxO always get mentioned, but certainly worth mentioning is CaptureOne 7 (Express edition is affordable, the Pro edition quite a bit less). The latest version 7.1.5 convinced to leave my "all-Nikon-software" workflow behind, as the image quality impresses me a lot, and it solved a number of other workflow issues for me. In my view it delivers great output quality, and fast too.<br>

Being a Nikon shooter, I have no experience with DPP; the free alternative for Nikon NEF files (ViewNX2) isn't bad, but has limited editing options. Their better option, CaptureNX2 is paid-for, and a good program but far from ideal if you have files from multiple brands. Plus, it seems development of the "3rd party" software is moving along a lot faster, and prices have dropped considerably for all these packages. They're well worth their money, in my view.<br>

If I were you, I'd download trial versions of Lightroom, DxO, CaptureOne, PhotoNinja and the free RawTherapee, and give them a serious try. Some user interfaces will work for you, some not. Some programs may run horribly slow on your PC, some not - in the end, there is a level of personal preference involved, so it's impossible to give you a hard simple answer what is the best choice.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I've read great things about CaptureOne, but I don't know anyone actually using it. I think that Shutterbug tested it recently, with high praise. Wouter provided a pretty complete list of the Raw conversion options for the serious photographer. If you haven't made your move yet, then investing the time to try them all may make a lot of sense. Once you commit, then changing gets harder, so now's the time to do your homework.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>DPP has one thing going for it. The price. </p>

<p>Lightroom is a better program and it does other important things, such as manage your library of images and more. It is well worth the relatively small cost. It is also a very common application used by probably more photographers today than any of the others, so it is very easy to find instructional information and get your questions answered.</p>

<p>(From the "I'm Not Biased" department - Yes I do have Lightroom. But I'm mainly a Photoshop/ACR guy.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I don't like using DPP, but, it is a leader at rendering detail in properly exposed images.</p>

<p>Arash Hazeghi uses DPP for his Raw conversion and has written a guide for using it. He achieves excellent results. See:</p>

<p><a href="http://ari1982.smugmug.com/Avian/Raptors/White-tailed-Kites/12533571_VQvFQ3#!i=2054472771&k=gmhMB7t">http://ari1982.smugmug.com/Avian/Raptors/White-tailed-Kites/12533571_VQvFQ3#!i=2054472771&k=gmhMB7t</a></p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>Just three that matter to me, by way of example:<br /> <strong>It's not in the same league as Lightroom for highlight recovery;</strong><br /><strong>It's not in the same game as DxO Optics Pro in high ISO noise handling;</strong><br /><strong>It's not remotely as good at rendering artefact-free fine detail and sharpness as Photo Ninja</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't say if these particular statements are true or not, or whether they depend on who is doing the testing and what image they are converting, but is DPP better overall than either of those three? I mean, I'm not going to have three different programs to do my RAW Conversion and chose one based on what I want to do - especially if I have to pay for each one.</p>

<p>Someone mentioned RawTherapee. I have it and use it occasionally since it converts most RAW formats (not just Canon). However it's still SLOW and it's a real memory hog (to the point that it can crash if you don't have a over 4GB RAM and an OS that supports it). It's an interesting program with lots and lots of options, but I only use it when I have to.</p>

<p>DPP (which is free) is reasonably fast, easy to use, has most features most people will need and, as mentioned above, possibly does the best job on images that don't need extensive manipulation and a good job on any image (as long as you know how to use it). If you ldo earn how to use it properly I'd still say it's competitive with any commercial software for the vast majority of users. Whether in technical tests under some conditions other software can be shown to slightly better it in some aspects I'll leave it to others to determine. I've seen tests of DPP against other RAW converters and sometimes DPP does better, sometimes an alternate does better, but generally the differences are pretty minor and unless you're looking at 100% screen shots or very large prints, the differences are rarely significant. </p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>I recently installed DPP on a new Windows 8 computer, I downloaded the DPP from Canon website from support/ software-drivers for my 7D, it only asked for the serial number of my 7D. I do have the disk, but I did the download thinking the disk was pre Windows 8. The DPP is also working fine with my 40D. Perhaps Canon has seen no real need for the disk as the software pretty much can see you are using a Canon Camera, not sure if it is verifying the serial number given is actually registered to the name given or some such thing. Try downloading the software from a newer higher end camera. It may just ask for your 40D serial number. If you still have problems, I'm sure any small camera shop that is a Canon authorized dealer could help you.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>A thought... A lot of the huffing and puffing about which application does the "best" RAW conversion is, I think, rather misplaced. In fact, they pretty much all do a fine job of that basic task when you come right down to it. The notion that DPP (or some other program) will do a better of job of "rendering detail in properly exposed images" doesn't quite pass the sniff test. There are a <em>lot </em>of photographers who ,are producing wonderfully detailed images using other programs, and one writer who happens to have gotten stuck on an outlier program does not really prove otherwise. </p>

<p>More important to almost all users are the other features of these programs and things that relate to their usability. A few of these include:</p>

<ul>

<li>The range of truly useful features that the program includes - things like dust removal and other methods of cloning out spots and so forth, useful modes of adjustment for things like color balance, curves, white and black points, details in shadows and highlights, and much more.</li>

<li>The ease of use and the logic of operation of the program - the consistency and design of its interface.</li>

<li>How well the program plays with other related programs that you might want to use.</li>

<li>The control the program gives you over output - printing, jpg export, export to movies, export to the web and so forth</li>

<li>The power and ease of use of the asset management features of the application: image tagging, searching, comparing images, and much more.</li>

<li>The availability of support materials, learning and training resources, and help when you need it.</li>

<li>The likelihood of future reliable support for the product.</li>

<li>Price</li>

</ul>

<p>Although Lightroom is not my primary photograph editing and management program, there are very strong arguments that today it is the best option for those who are somewhat serious about their photographs and who produce a fairly large number of images. It is a powerful and effective program in all these areas, its cost is quite low, it is well supported, and it is used by more photographers than any of the other options.</p>

<p>DPP could be OK if you are more concerned about not spending the relatively low cost of Lightroom, but it falls short on just about everything else on the list save price. Some of the other third-party options are fine, but the benefits they offer to most photographers over Lightroom are open to serious debate. For some who are very casual about their photography, applications like Apple's iPhoto can be fine, but they are not in the same league.</p>

<p>These days, I urge anyone who is just trying to figure out which image processing and management application to use to simply not waste a lot of time thinking about this, and to get Lightroom and get on with the process of making photographs.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Or you can do what I do. Use DPP for it's primary and intended function - to convert Canon RAW files to the optimum JPEG (or TIFF). You can crop, rotate, level, remove dust spots, tweak exposure, color, contrast, white balance, sharpness, noise reduction parameters, lens correction parameters, adjust highlights and shadows etc. on a global basis for any image, then save as JPEG or TIFF under whatever file name you choose and at whatever size you want.</p>

<p>Then you use your regular image editor/cataloging program (Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro or whatever) for local editing and selective area corrections.</p>

<p>I guess Lightroom might be best for someone who wants to do everything in one program and who processes a lot of images (e.g. Wedding and event photographers). Personally I find DPP faster and easier to use, but maybe that's just me and I don't ever need to simultaneously process hundreds of images.</p>

<p>Just note that Lightroom won't run on Windows XP machines (well, it will, but not versions 4 and up, so you're out of luck if you want new camera support). Also, DPP is upgraded in terms of features (sometimes) and supported cameras and lenses for <em><strong>free</strong></em> every time a new camera is released and when significant new lenses are introduced. It has built in corrections (tunable) for CA, distortion and vignetting for most Canon lenses.</p>

 

[w_t1]

<p>I actually <em>prefer</em> DPP to initially view and cull raw photos from a shoot. I will typically have 150-300 shots from a soccer game, for example. I will use dpp as a quick editor to rate and then delete the out of focus or uninteresting shots. After that first editing I will typically import into LR. I also use as a general picture viewer over multiple folders.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I have been using Lightroom for a couple of years now and prefer it because I change camera vendors ever few years. I started with Sony, now I am with Canon but looking to pickup a Nikon soon. So, Lightroom works with all the types of files I may ever use not just Canon files like DPP.</p>

[d_young]

<p>I prefer DPP to the other programs Ive tried. Sometimes I will use Bridge for a quick look and edit of images, but use DPP for conversion of selected images. Granted, DPP could be a lot better, but it seems to work better for me at this point. Therefore, I have to concur with Bob on all points he has made above.</p>