DPP 3.9.0 coming soon....

mailman88 · Sep 9, 2010

Canon Digital Photo Pro Version 3.9.0

While not available for download yet, Canon Digital Photo Pro Version 3.9.0 is shipping in the box with the new Canon cameras.

Notable new features include two additional check mark levels (4 & 5), a ratings system (Unrated, * through and Reject) with simple hotkey access and Unsharp Mask added to the RAW Tools Tab.

from.. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/

The Davinator · Sep 9, 2010

Now if it could only pull as much detail out of an image compared to Lightroom, or a DCRaw based processor, I'd be happy. As it stands, I find I can pull more detail from the 7D and every other Canon body with Lightroom than any version of DPP so far. The only thing DPP has going for it is that it's free.

Jerry-astro · Sep 9, 2010

Dave Luttmann said:
The only thing DPP has going for it is that it's free.

And don't forget that awesome and highly intuitive user interface.

The Davinator · Sep 9, 2010

Jerry-astro said:
Dave Luttmann said:

The only thing DPP has going for it is that it's free.

Click to expand...

And don't forget that awesome and highly intuitive user interface.

LOL....yes....most awesome! About the only way it could be better is if it had a DOS infterface like Lotus 123 from the 80's ;-)

kimvette · Sep 9, 2010

mailman88 said:
Canon Digital Photo Pro Version 3.9.0

Notable new features include two additional check mark levels (4 & 5), a ratings system (Unrated, * through and Reject) with simple hotkey access and Unsharp Mask added to the RAW Tools Tab.

I'd be a lot more excited if they licensed/integrated the algorithms from Topaz DeNoise, or provided the capability to run Photoshop plugins. Heck, even if they were to include those features in just a paid version of DPP, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. It would decrease PP time significantly.

The unsharp mask is definitely a welcome addition, but with my workflow, I save as JPG (or TIFF if using Photoshop), open the file in Gimp (or Photoshop), run Topaz Detail (boost microcontrast), then Topaz DeNoise (remove obvious noise), then either crop or downscale (or both) for the final image. I occasionally but rarely run an unsharp mask but why would I use DPP for that when I already exported to Photoshop or Gimp?

(and yes, even though I own Adobe CS, I use Gimp and Inkscape 99% of the time unless I need macros/droplets or layer effects)

mailman88 said:
from.. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/

--
Why hate newly-announced cameras when your current camera works perfectly well?

mmullen · Sep 9, 2010

Dave Luttmann said:
The only thing DPP has going for it is that it's free.

I disagree. It has some of the best tone curves by default for my preferences for converting RAW files to editable TIFF's. I still need to PP in PS3 but the Canon RAW converter doesn't mess up the colors.

Now that DPP has unsharp mask and tilt correction in the cropping tool I bet I'll be able to avoid using PS on files that are to be printed/published small.

--
Mike Mullen

The Davinator · Sep 9, 2010

mmullen said:
Dave Luttmann said:

The only thing DPP has going for it is that it's free.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It has some of the best tone curves by default for my preferences for converting RAW files to editable TIFF's. I still need to PP in PS3 but the Canon RAW converter doesn't mess up the colors.

Now that DPP has unsharp mask and tilt correction in the cropping tool I bet I'll be able to avoid using PS on files that are to be printed/published small.

--
Mike Mullen

You can disagree....but when I compare a conversion between ACDSee, DPP and Lightroom, DPP has the worst detail....after USM on all three.

I don't use canned tone curves as they are awful in their color.

As I said, I was talking about detail....and DPP is the worst.

mmullen · Sep 9, 2010

Dave Luttmann said:
As I said, I was talking about detail....and DPP is the worst.

I don't use any sharpening in DPP. You said the only thing good about DPP was that it's free . I said I like the tone curves/colors but I do my sharpening elsewhere.

Try to read before you respond.

--
Mike Mullen

The Davinator · Sep 9, 2010

mmullen said:
Dave Luttmann said:

As I said, I was talking about detail....and DPP is the worst.

Click to expand...

I don't use any sharpening in DPP. You said the only thing good about DPP was that it's free . I said I like the tone curves/colors but I do my sharpening elsewhere.

Try to read before you respond.

--
Mike Mullen

The I suggest you learn to read as well. I said DPP had the worst detail. You disagreed. Then you mentioned sharpening elsewhere….where is completely irrelevant if you don’t get the detail to start with.

If you don’t understand what the post says, and if you haven’t compared a couple of dozen Raw processors professionally like I have, then don’t respond.

By the way...you mentioned tha addition of sharpening in DPP via the new USM.

Jaims · Sep 9, 2010

kimvette said:
(and yes, even though I own Adobe CS, I use Gimp and Inkscape 99% of the time unless I need macros/droplets or layer effects)

I use The Gimp most often than not, I learned that before than Photoshop (I have the Elements version installed in my laptop) and never could learn the latter.

Cheers

--
http://jaimsthesweetspot.wordpress.com/

mmullen · Sep 9, 2010

Dave Luttmann said:
The I suggest you learn to read as well. I said DPP had the worst detail. You disagreed.

I did not disagree that DPP had the sorst detail. In fact, I said I don't do any sharpening in DPP. I guess I have to cut and paste it for you:

mmullen said:
[B] Dave Luttmann said:

The only thing DPP has going for it is that it's free.*

Click to expand...

I disagree. It has some of the best tone curves by default for my preferences for converting RAW files to editable TIFF's. I still need to PP in PS3 but the Canon RAW converter doesn't mess up the colors.

Now what was that I disagreed with?

--
Mike Mullen[/B]

The Davinator · Sep 9, 2010

mmullen said:
Dave Luttmann said:

The I suggest you learn to read as well. I said DPP had the worst detail. You disagreed.

Click to expand...

I did not disagree that DPP had the sorst detail. In fact, I said I don't do any sharpening in DPP. I guess I have to cut and paste it for you:

mmullen said:

[B] Dave Luttmann said:

The only thing DPP has going for it is that it's free.*

Click to expand...

I disagree. It has some of the best tone curves by default for my preferences for converting RAW files to editable TIFF's. I still need to PP in PS3 but the Canon RAW converter doesn't mess up the colors.

Click to expand...

Now what was that I disagreed with?

--
Mike Mullen

Added to ignore[/B]

macshark · Sep 9, 2010

One could argue that applying noise reduction and the initial sharpening before RAW to JPEG conversion (which is inherently a lossy process) would lead to higher image quality...

rndman · Sep 9, 2010

Unsharp Mask is good addition.

My nest wish list

HDR
Focus stack

mailman88 said:
Canon Digital Photo Pro Version 3.9.0

While not available for download yet, Canon Digital Photo Pro Version 3.9.0 is shipping in the box with the new Canon cameras.

Notable new features include two additional check mark levels (4 & 5), a ratings system (Unrated, * through and Reject) with simple hotkey access and Unsharp Mask added to the RAW Tools Tab.

from.. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rndman

schmegg · Sep 9, 2010

Dave Luttmann said:
Now if it could only pull as much detail out of an image compared to Lightroom, or a DCRaw based processor, I'd be happy. As it stands, I find I can pull more detail from the 7D and every other Canon body with Lightroom than any version of DPP so far. The only thing DPP has going for it is that it's free.

Meh - I get plenty of detail from DPP to keep my images looking just fine. And I don't need to spend more money on software that dictates to me how I should organise my files and workflow - I'm quite capable of doing that for myself.

The Davinator · Sep 9, 2010

schmegg said:
Dave Luttmann said:

Now if it could only pull as much detail out of an image compared to Lightroom, or a DCRaw based processor, I'd be happy. As it stands, I find I can pull more detail from the 7D and every other Canon body with Lightroom than any version of DPP so far. The only thing DPP has going for it is that it's free.

Click to expand...

Meh - I get plenty of detail from DPP to keep my images looking just fine. And I don't need to spend more money on software that dictates to me how I should organise my files and workflow - I'm quite capable of doing that for myself.

If it's enough detail for you, then that's fine. I found it to be a huge difference in 16x24 and 20x30 prints. People, when comparing, asked what was wrong with the DPP processed image.

I don't catalog images using Lightroom....I just process.

Larawanista · Sep 9, 2010

Thanks for the heads up.

I think Canon should also fix the bug in which it "presets" noise reduction levels even if the camera has not enabled some level of noise reduction (on long exposure or high ISO). When loading on DPP, it should all be zeroed out, so we save time having to change and apply the neutral settings.

--
Noogy
http://www.pbase.com/joshcruzphotos
Canon EOS 7D, Canon EOS 400D, Canon D10, Lumix TZ5, Kodak V1253

schmegg · Sep 9, 2010

Dave Luttmann said:
If it's enough detail for you, then that's fine. I found it to be a huge difference in 16x24 and 20x30 prints.

Fair enough - I don't usually print that large - not really sure how many people do - probably more than I think though ;-)

The Davinator said:
People, when comparing, asked what was wrong with the DPP processed image.

So would it be safe to say there's not much wrong with the DPP processed image unless you need to print at very large sizes? I could go along with that

The Davinator said:
I don't catalog images using Lightroom....I just process.

OK. I tried Lightroom a while back and hated the imposition of the cataloguing. I didn't really see the value of it beyond it's 'normal' paradigm because I have Photoshop etc and a mature workflow. Lightroom, for me, just doesn't add anything much to my setup that I think is worth the effort. That's just me though ;-)

Unnamed15 · Sep 9, 2010

Look at DPP properties/configuration settings. Default noise reduction levels can be configured there.

Alex

Majoren · Sep 10, 2010

Dave Luttmann said:
If it's enough detail for you, then that's fine. I found it to be a huge difference in 16x24 and 20x30 prints. People, when comparing, asked what was wrong with the DPP processed image.

hmm, I have just printed a 60x90cm (about 25x37inch) print from my 50D processed in DPP.

Comparing the shot with a 100% view on my 21" screen I dont seem to miss any details, but then again I am looking at DPP.

So how much better prints are we talking about?

Can you see the differance from normal viewing distance, or do you need to put your nose flat on the print to see it?
Majoren

DPP 3.9.0 coming soon....

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts