Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon DPP v's CameraRaw

Go to last post
J

Jonathan Robson

Leading Member
Messages
906
Reaction score
106
Location
Naperville, US
Hi there,

I've been a Lightroom v1 and now v2 user since it came out. But tonight I thought I'd try importing some 5D Raw files using DPP as I'd heard good things about its Raw processing engine. I really like its results and am now wondering if there is a good way to incorporate DPP into my workflow. From what I can see the only way I can export an image from DPP is as a tiff or jpeg, is there anyway to export in a DNG type format so I can then import the converted file into Lightroom while at the same time keeping the original CR2 with it in a DNG type way?

May make no sense, but thought I'd ask.

Cheer
Jonathan

--

'When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown in
to the sea.' - Eric Cantona

http://jonathanrobsonphotography.com
 
I don't have Lightroom and am not familiar with it. I use only DPP and Photoshop for my processing. While DPP is probably the best RAW processor available, some other RAW processors are nearly as good and maybe even slightly better with some images. But the differences in RAW processors are minor and, if you like Lightroom and the DNG format, you might want to skip DPP and continue with your current workflow.

In my workflow I use DPP only to adjust the white balance and sometimes the exposure. Then I use DPP to convert the RAW image to 8-bit TIF. After that, all work is done in Photoshop. I archive the RAW images on one DVD and the TIF's on another DVD for redundancy. For a tricky image, I may save converti it to a 16-bit TIF instead of 8-bit.

As I recall, DPP won't convert to DNG. I'm not sure that DNG is all that useful. CR2 will probably be around as long or longer than DNG, so I'm happy archiving the original CR2 RAW images.
--
http://www.fantasy-photo.com
 
I don't think DNG can "hold" settings done in a RAW converter anyway.

Use Lightroom/Aperture as library and main RAW converter. Use DPP for the (small?) amount of images you need to print as poster size or bigger - if you think DDP is that much better. The latest incarnatinon of Aperture really impresses me with it's RAW conversion quality, user interface and library functions. I've been using DPP and Lightroom before.

--
Jonas Svedberg
http://www.pbase.com/designboy
 
In the adobe web site you can find beta versions of camera profiles for Lightroom v2 that are supposed to mimic the colors you get from DPP, including picture styles.

I have not done a detailed comparison to be able to tell you how effective they are.
 
Here's why:



This is from DPP



This is from ACR 4.5

Full shot looks like this from DPP



Full shot from ACR with +.3EV to comes close to DPP exposure



DPP gave most accurate color rendition & quality. All parameters set to 0 or neutral, WB fix value for both converters. I just can't get ACR to duplicate the exact same look as DPP.

Something i just don't understand... what's so bad about the DPP that comes free with the camera? The conversion is excellent & the batch processing saves so much time.
Jonathan Robson said:
Hi there,

I've been a Lightroom v1 and now v2 user since it came out. But
tonight I thought I'd try importing some 5D Raw files using DPP as
I'd heard good things about its Raw processing engine. I really like
its results and am now wondering if there is a good way to
incorporate DPP into my workflow. From what I can see the only way I
can export an image from DPP is as a tiff or jpeg, is there anyway to
export in a DNG type format so I can then import the converted file
into Lightroom while at the same time keeping the original CR2 with
it in a DNG type way?

May make no sense, but thought I'd ask.

Cheer
Jonathan

--
'When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think
sardines will be thrown in
to the sea.' - Eric Cantona

http://jonathanrobsonphotography.com
Click to expand...
 
You've reversed your images or something.. the deeper blue crop you've indicated as DPP, yet the full image with the deeper blue lights you indicated as ACR. I haven't had a problem getting the deep blues..

I prefer ACR most of the time. Occassionally i do find DPP better with skin tones.


silentstorm said:


This is from DPP



This is from ACR 4.5

Full shot looks like this from DPP



Full shot from ACR with +.3EV to comes close to DPP exposure



DPP gave most accurate color rendition & quality. All parameters set
to 0 or neutral, WB fix value for both converters. I just can't get
ACR to duplicate the exact same look as DPP.

Something i just don't understand... what's so bad about the DPP that
comes free with the camera? The conversion is excellent & the batch
processing saves so much time.
Jonathan Robson said:
Hi there,

I've been a Lightroom v1 and now v2 user since it came out. But
tonight I thought I'd try importing some 5D Raw files using DPP as
I'd heard good things about its Raw processing engine. I really like
its results and am now wondering if there is a good way to
incorporate DPP into my workflow. From what I can see the only way I
can export an image from DPP is as a tiff or jpeg, is there anyway to
export in a DNG type format so I can then import the converted file
into Lightroom while at the same time keeping the original CR2 with
it in a DNG type way?

May make no sense, but thought I'd ask.

Cheer
Jonathan

--
'When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think
sardines will be thrown in
to the sea.' - Eric Cantona

http://jonathanrobsonphotography.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
'Everything in photography boils down to what's sharp and what's fuzzy.'
-Gaylord Herron
 
There is nothing wrong with the engine of DPP, it's the user interface that is a thing of horror. Clunky, clunky, clunky.
 
only on Canon lenses, of course. You can correct these in ACR/LR and PS, but you'll have to do it manually.
 
A Owens said:
Download the latest Canon camera profiles and use them in ACR 4.5 or
LR 2.1. That will give you the DPP colors.
Click to expand...
Well, speaking for me it's not (only) the colors, why DPP is better than LR. Just like you can see in the comparsion above, the imgae processed by ACR looks more noisy. That's my experience, too - not in all, but in many cases! With DPP surfaces are just more "homogeneous", without loosing detail. I will upload some of my samples, if I find the time...

Therefore I have exactly the same problem, like many others: The RAW converter of DPP is my choice (no wonder, as Canon didn't have to reverse enginer, like Adobe had to), but the user interface, well.... has room for improvement!

--
http://www.photoartpro.com

No english native speaker, so please ignore any misspelling generously! :)
 
OK, here is why I'm with you at 100%:

Converted with LR



Converted with DPP



Shot with a 20D. To me the one converted with LR looks like made with a P&S! Look at the trees, the bricks... well, everything!

It was done with LR 1.1. I tried 2.0, too. Colors were better, with the new (beta) profiles, however, the rest of the (IMO bad) results stays the same.

So far I use DPP for ALL my RAW conversions, and export to TIFF or jpg (depending on the later use) for PS, if necessary. I really like the workflow of LR, but for me the quality of RAW conversion isn't worth it!

--
http://www.photoartpro.com

No english native speaker, so please ignore any misspelling generously! :)
 
Thank you for bringing this under my nose.

Back in 2004 DPP was too buggy to use. EOSViewer was my engine to convert cr2 to tiff. I found ACR color fidelity disappointing. The eos tool was impossible to use in workflow between application; Selecting in database -converting - photoshop forced me to switch to ACR...And I forgot to check Canons software updates for years..
Whoowie, what a suprise, this is sooo much more what my photos should be.

I love the initiative of DNG, but it strands on exactly the same reason for which it was created, propriety raw file formats.

DPP interface needs indeed a lot of Canons attention, (for instance it does not show up in active programs taskbar)
 
Staale S said:
There is nothing wrong with the engine of DPP, it's the user
interface that is a thing of horror. Clunky, clunky, clunky.
Click to expand...
I disagree. DPP's interface is not "clunky". It's simple. In fact, it's about as simple as you can get. Some might say it's too simple. But that's different from it being "clunky" or being a "horror".
 
I just started doing the same. Aperture for library and general conversions and DPP for those images that need the best processing. I'm also really impressed with aperture, it has replaced my c1, iview combo into one.
--
Down to one zoom and loving it!
 
I mostly try to stay in DPP, but I do tag images for processing in LR. The ones I tag for LR are images where I need highlight recovery. LR does do a very good job with highlight recovery. I've found that there is no perfect RAW converter. Each one has its pros and cons. That's why I typically have 2 or 3 RAW converters open to handle different kinds of images.
Jonathan Robson said:
Hi there,

I've been a Lightroom v1 and now v2 user since it came out. But
tonight I thought I'd try importing some 5D Raw files using DPP as
I'd heard good things about its Raw processing engine. I really like
its results and am now wondering if there is a good way to
incorporate DPP into my workflow. From what I can see the only way I
can export an image from DPP is as a tiff or jpeg, is there anyway to
export in a DNG type format so I can then import the converted file
into Lightroom while at the same time keeping the original CR2 with
it in a DNG type way?

May make no sense, but thought I'd ask.

Cheer
Jonathan

--
'When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think
sardines will be thrown in
to the sea.' - Eric Cantona

http://jonathanrobsonphotography.com
Click to expand...
 
This is really starting to have me worry.

I shoot RAW and JPEG. Most of the time, my concern with RAW images compared to the JPEGs out of the camera is that they seem to contain much more grain, which bothers me.

I don't use Canon's DPP, but after reading this thread, maybe I should.

From your observations, have you noticed Canon's DPP produce less grain compared to other RAW converters?

thanks
IA
 
PicOne said:
You've reversed your images or something.. the deeper blue crop
you've indicated as DPP, yet the full image with the deeper blue
lights you indicated as ACR. I haven't had a problem getting the
deep blues..

I prefer ACR most of the time. Occassionally i do find DPP better
with skin tones.
Click to expand...
Oh thats correct. The deeper blue is from ACR, which is the wrong colour. Sorry i put the discription at the bottom of the crops whereas the other 2 full pics i put itl on the top, thats what causing the confusion.

The actual look belongs to DPP, the light is purplish, not a block of blue. Seems like ACR has a prob of recognising the in between hues.

IMO DPP wins hands down in renderng the RAW files. Adobe wins with editing features, but i can always open the converted images with Pshop or Elements or LR from the DPP menu. Really not a biggie. Anyone can also opt to use freeware found on the web for basic editing like red eye reduction, cropping, etc.

Now with the announcement of the last ACR support for CS3, i'm definitely steering away from Adobe converters. DNG format is horrid too, in my eyes.
 
If only it was simple to use. But there is a difference between 'doesn't do much' and 'simple to use' which has eluded Canon.

So, yes, it's clunky. And the wrong kind of simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top