Reading mode: Light Dark

DPP

Go to last post
N

neildavid

Active member
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Location
Kalmar, SE
Im really enjoying my updated version of DPP; I like it more than the CS II raw converter, except for the noise reduction, number 2 on the slider seems like it could do with just a little extra, but Number 3 seems to be to much and details become lost. Does anyone else agree or am I to fussy ?
(it is free afterall)

Regards

Neil
 
Hi Neil,

Over the time, DPP became very good raw converter ( my opinion, based on my needs). But, as you've noticed, noise reduction is quite poor implemented. That is, for any serious "noise work", one simply need some 3rd pary tool.

Greetings,
Bogdan
 
After years of Capture One, I love DPP. But you're right... noise reduction it's is one major weakness.
neildavid said:
Im really enjoying my updated version of DPP; I like it more than the CS II raw converter, except for the noise reduction, number 2 on the slider seems like it could do with just a little extra, but Number 3 seems to be to much and details become lost. Does anyone else agree or am I to fussy ?
(it is free afterall)

Regards

Neil
Click to expand...
--
Michael Thomas Mitchell
 
I find that DPP has the least amount of detail extraction out of any raw processor I own. Use Photoshop, Capture One and ACDSee 3 to process raw. ACDSee 3 pulls the most, DPP the least. There is a smeared look to images that I can't stand. I don't see it in other convertors.
 
Dave,

What were the noise reduction settings with DPP? My first expereinces with DPP were AWFUL, but I had the noise reduction cranked somewhat similar to what I'd been doing with it in C1. I couldn't believe what I was seeing coming out of OEM software. Of course, these were default settings based upon what was in the camera. Turing them down dramatically changed things. No more smeared or blotchy images.
Dave Luttmann said:
I find that DPP has the least amount of detail extraction out of any raw processor I own. Use Photoshop, Capture One and ACDSee 3 to process raw. ACDSee 3 pulls the most, DPP the least. There is a smeared look to images that I can't stand. I don't see it in other convertors.
Click to expand...
--
Michael Thomas Mitchell
 
Hi Dave,

No, I don't think you're the "odd one" :)

Of course, DPP is far from being perfect... I would say it is just very good compromise:
  • arguable, but I think it delivers the best "starting" colors. Some say they have "jpg look", but I don't buy that term (invented to "impress", IMO).
  • reasonable fast and easy to use.
  • for overall well exposed photos, only essential settings available in DPP are enough to get "good" results quite fast, and...
  • ..it's free.
Now, you mentioned Photoshop and C1 -both first class software and quite expensive. I've tried many other as well, but guess what? When printing on small format (A4) printer, results from Photoshop were no better than those from DPP. And if we consider, that many aren't printing above 6x4" (or don't print at all), what's the point? To "peep" on screen at 200% magnification? That's why I think DPP is (very) good... or good enough?
But, I respect and share your opinion, of course.

Wish you the best,
Bogdan
 
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
Dave,

What were the noise reduction settings with DPP? My first expereinces with DPP were AWFUL, but I had the noise reduction cranked somewhat similar to what I'd been doing with it in C1. I couldn't believe what I was seeing coming out of OEM software. Of course, these were default settings based upon what was in the camera. Turing them down dramatically changed things. No more smeared or blotchy images.
Click to expand...
Noise reduction set to 0...and turned off.
Member said:
Dave Luttmann said:
I find that DPP has the least amount of detail extraction out of any raw processor I own. Use Photoshop, Capture One and ACDSee 3 to process raw. ACDSee 3 pulls the most, DPP the least. There is a smeared look to images that I can't stand. I don't see it in other convertors.
Click to expand...
--
Michael Thomas Mitchell
Click to expand...
 
hbx2004 said:
Hi Dave,

No, I don't think you're the "odd one" :)

Of course, DPP is far from being perfect... I would say it is just very good compromise:
  • arguable, but I think it delivers the best "starting" colors. Some say they have "jpg look", but I don't buy that term (invented to "impress", IMO).
  • reasonable fast and easy to use.
  • for overall well exposed photos, only essential settings available in DPP are enough to get "good" results quite fast, and...
  • ..it's free.
Now, you mentioned Photoshop and C1 -both first class software and quite expensive. I've tried many other as well, but guess what? When printing on small format (A4) printer, results from Photoshop were no better than those from DPP. And if we consider, that many aren't printing above 6x4" (or don't print at all), what's the point? To "peep" on screen at 200% magnification? That's why I think DPP is (very) good... or good enough?
But, I respect and share your opinion, of course.

Wish you the best,
Bogdan
Click to expand...
I agree. On small prints, 8x10 and smaller, it doesn't matter. The print sizes I'm looking at are 14x21, 16x24, 20x30 and 24x36.
 
I have 3.8.10 version.

I usually turn off noise reduction in DPP. Noise reduction (in DPP) has always been useless in my opinion. At 100 ISO images look a little blurry with noise reduction, and there is not much noise to reduce. At higher ISOs I rather take noise than blur.

In my opinion some old DPP tried too much to be sharp and it invented details which weren't there really. My version seems to be better, I did not see that strange pattern in my photos now.

I often get horizon not level, so angle adjustment is very useful.

I like DPP, it has a great value=features/prize. But perhaps NASA should calculate its exact value.

Regards
Leif
neildavid said:
Im really enjoying my updated version of DPP; I like it more than the CS II raw converter, except for the noise reduction, number 2 on the slider seems like it could do with just a little extra, but Number 3 seems to be to much and details become lost. Does anyone else agree or am I to fussy ?
(it is free afterall)

Regards

Neil
Click to expand...
 
..since 2004. I think way too many 'photographers' with more time spent at internet than shooting are the worst whiners with complaints of 100% screen captions.

Nowadays cameras are producing files covering 1,5 meter or five feet on screen at 100%. And that file (if captured well) can easily support 90x60cm or 36x24" prints with very good quality.

If you now think what can go wrong on those size of original files: starting from tripod, settings, camera handling etc, I wouldn't put DPP down if it is used at least half correctly. I never had any problems with noise reduction, but of course I'm not assuming miracles from severely underexposed ISO3200 either.

--
http://www.jussivakkala.com/blog
 
You will get a much cleaner image and then use smart sharpen in PS or better yet, use Nik Raw Sharpen to bring out great detail.

If you really looking to bring out the most detail, use Raw Developer to process your raw files.
 
neildavid said:
Im really enjoying my updated version of DPP; I like it more than the CS II raw converter, except for the noise reduction, number 2 on the slider seems like it could do with just a little extra, but Number 3 seems to be to much and details become lost. Does anyone else agree or am I to fussy ?
(it is free afterall)
Click to expand...
With Lightroom 3 (and ACR 6) and the new demosiacing and noise reduction algorithms this has become the benchmark against which all other RAW converters will be compared. LR 3 extracts an incredible amount of details and the noise reduction works really well. When you factor in the workflow advantages I see no reason to bother with DPP any more :)

--
Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- http://www.hanskrusephotography.com , http://www.hanskruse.com
Workshops -- http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/workshops

Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hans-Kruse-Photography/271477435625
 
neildavid said:
Im really enjoying my updated version of DPP; I like it more than the CS II raw converter, except for the noise reduction, number 2 on the slider seems like it could do with just a little extra, but Number 3 seems to be to much and details become lost. Does anyone else agree or am I to fussy ?
Click to expand...
No...you are not too fussy.

I agree with everything you wrote. I love DPP...especially the current version. I hope Canon keeps improving it. I just don't use the NR section...plus...I make sure to reset the default NR to zero. I use some other NR software...Topaz DeNoise and Noise Ninja II. Well...for most of my shots I don't need them anyway.

Cheers!

Danny Tuason :)
neildavid said:
(it is free afterall)

Regards

Neil
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/dtuason

When people lose everything and they have nothing left to lose, they lose it.

~ Gerald Celente

It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

~ Henry Ford
 
I like the look that DPP provides, in terms of colour and tone. But the NR is less than great, and the sharpening is ridiculous! What's the point of shooting 21mp, and then trashing a fair portion of the captured detail through NR and sharpening?

It makes a good starting point from which to process in PS, but it's hardly any kind of complete solution to high fidelity imaging.

I agree that Raw Developer extracts the maximum amount of details from Canon RAW files. In that respect, it's absolutely awesome!

SB
 
Slideshow Bob said:
I like the look that DPP provides, in terms of colour and tone. But the NR is less than great, and the sharpening is ridiculous! What's the point of shooting 21mp, and then trashing a fair portion of the captured detail through NR and sharpening?

It makes a good starting point from which to process in PS, but it's hardly any kind of complete solution to high fidelity imaging.

I agree that Raw Developer extracts the maximum amount of details from Canon RAW files. In that respect, it's absolutely awesome!
Click to expand...
It's the first time I have looked at RAW Developer since I got a MacBook Pro. So curious I downloaded it and checked a couple of pictures at default settings between Lightroom 3 and Raw Developer. I didn't see that RAW Developer had any more details than LR3. But LR2 was clearly not on the same level, so I would say that for those who like the detail rendenring of RAW Developer take a look at Lightroom 3 (or ACR 6 in PS CS5). There is no reason to work with awful workflows to get the best RAW conversion any more.

--
Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- http://www.hanskrusephotography.com , http://www.hanskruse.com
Workshops -- http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/workshops

Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hans-Kruse-Photography/271477435625
 
DYPhoto said:
You will get a much cleaner image and then use smart sharpen in PS or better yet, use Nik Raw Sharpen to bring out great detail.

If you really looking to bring out the most detail, use Raw Developer to process your raw files.
Click to expand...
Lucy-Richardson deconvolution?
 
DPP color noise removal works well, luminance noise removes too much detail.

Some years ago I tried Silkypix which extracted more detail than DPP, but then introduced also more noise in the sky (and that program was running incredibly slow compared to DPP)
--
Weather & Photography
http://www.lightningwizard.com
 
oscarvdvelde said:
DPP color noise removal works well, luminance noise removes too much detail.

Some years ago I tried Silkypix which extracted more detail than DPP, but then introduced also more noise in the sky (and that program was running incredibly slow compared to DPP)
Click to expand...
having done alot of IR work .. and the massive amount of sharpening that entails .. i mean you wouldn't believe how much sharpening..

I find it odd how people want a "all in one" sharpening technique .. I usually run three layers of sharpening with IR .. the first layer massiave detail sharpening to foilage .. then a lessor one, and then finally a much lessor one.. and work the various layers in depending on what is there on the scene .. skies I fail to see the need to sharpen . .. it's umm sky .. so brushing more with NR and striking a balance between the NR on and off regions is far more appropriate.

however I have to admit raw tharepee is one of the best tools I've found that's close to not having to work on final multiple layers .. but if I'm printing large, it's always photoshop layers. DPP does a good first pass and i'd rather something quick that can do bulk changes and flagging and out to PS for final work under the majority of cases.
 
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