Raw processing of Canon files in DPP, have there been any improvements???

Started Mar 19, 2013 | Questions thread
StefanJ Regular Member • Posts: 371
Re: Shadow Highlight Re: Raw processing of Canon files in DPP, have there been any improvements???

plevyadophy wrote:

nbillythek wrote:

plevyadophy wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

If you have a Canon camera why don't you try the latest version yourself, nothing to lose right ? FWIW I've used DPP for several years and have always liked it.The interface is much the same and there has been a few additions like a hdr tool and a compositing tool.They've also added DLO (digital lens optimizer ) for use with specific Canon lenses.Haven't used it myself as my lenses are Sigma and Tamron but I've heard reports that it's a really useful feature.

Regards DS

If I had a Canon camera all I would be doing is looking at the DPP that came with the camera without any historical context that's why i posted my question here; so as to benefit from the experience of long term users.

I note your comments re DLO, which is good to know but, as pointed out in my original post, what really interests me is whether or not Canon have improved the processing logic over the years or whether they have just kept the same thing and updated the software with a few more bells and whistles and the ability to read a raw file from a new camera.


Some people swear by DPP. I'm one of the ones who swear at it.

Actually, I don't have strong feelings about DPP. I used it for a few months, but then switched to an Adobe based flow. I heard good things about DLO, so recently tried DPP again. Not a good experience. I saw no benefit for my particular lenses from DLO, and the shadow/highlight recovery was not as good as LR4. I freely admit that I'm not a particularly skilled DPP user, and perhaps if I spent more time learning it, I might get better results. However, the results I did get were not compelling enough to make me want to switch back. And, plus, I much prefer the LR/CS RAW workflow.

But I know some people do like DPP.

-- hide signature --

- Bill

So what's the deal then, is it that DPP has poor highlight and shadow recovery features and/or ability or that it's OK but Lr and CS are just much better?

And in either case, what exactly is it that DPP lacks?


It seems a lot like "your mileage may vary" applies in general depending on camera, settings, lenses, cosmic radiation etc. For example, I posted a thread here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/42510911?image=0 about a, what I believe is, rather large difference between ACR and DPP in shadow areas, but here the contrary. DPP was much better.

Even if DPP might be more cumbersome to use I do have faith in that Canon knows best how to interpret their RAW files.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow