Canon DPP to Lightroom workflow

Hi folks, I'm a portrait photographer, and I'm relatively new to the Canon ecosystem (I previously used Fuji and Nikon). Like others, I've been disappointed in how the images look after importing to Lightroom. There seems to be way more noise than you would think for low ISOs. And the "camera matching" colour profiles Adobe has for Canon don't look anything like they do in camera. Adobe doesn't even include all of them. I never had this issue with Fuji or Nikon. The raw images in Lightroom looked exactly like they did in camera.

Having said that, I have read that it's better to use DPP to import/convert raw images from Canon. That way I can get the noise and the colour profile right, and then move them to Lightroom and make any further adjustments as necessary. Does anyone here do that, and do you have any suggestions for an efficient workflow? Do you cull in DPP as well? If anyone can point me to tutorials or articles, that would be great. And if anyone here uses DPP exclusively (with Photoshop for serious editing), should I drop Lightroom altogether? That's what I'm familiar with, but I want to make the most of my images and have the most efficient workflow.

First off which version of Lightroom are you using? While it should not matter much if subscription which one? LrC or Lr?

You can transfer a file directly from DPP to PS but it opens a a TFF. Also if you convert a file you can either choose Jpeg or TFF and then import it into LrC. Again you are working with a TIFF. I'm not sure if that works for you or not.

I believe by default DPP applies NR. Have you tried working with NR after importing a RAW file into Lightroom? If you import a TIFF into LrC or transfer a file from DPP to PS you cannot use Adobe Denoise AI - yet. It only works on RAW files.

https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/04/18/denoise-demystified

Have you tried these profiles? Some claim they are closer to DPP.

https://colorfidelity.com

I used to open files in DPP and then sent them to PS. For event editing it was a nightmare. I decided to get Lightroom which made things much easier. Now I use LrC all of the time and use Adobe Neutral. It is very flat at first but after applying Auto (assuming you are not using LR6 or older) and tweaking a bit I find the files look more natural.

You may find this interesting. The author likes to use Canon Neutral but I think Auto works better with Adobe Neutral.

https://www.alex-kunz.com/linear-profiles-refutation/

Yes I always use DPP to pre-cull my files before importing into LrC. I select All files, open Quick Check and Full Screen. I scroll left or right and X the ones I don't want. I exit Quick Check and select Edit - Rating - Select Rejected Images Only followed by Edit - Move to Trash. You can't rate files because LrC won't understand that but you can rate in LrC.

--
You just need to keep the forests wet

I just compared a 160 ISO file at 100% with my R6II on both DPP and LrC. DPP set both color and Lum noise to .7. LrC had no Lum but Color was set to the default of 25. I didn't see any difference. Both looked clean. Perhaps you can post some samples/comparisons and describe what you see.

I use DPP for initial editing, and often that's all I need. I don't cull as such, but only edit the pictures I'll use, and then save them in a separate folder. I use the Windows directory structure for cataloging.

If I need more serious editing, I use Affinity Photo. In those cases, I usually do colour, contrast, exposure correction, cropping and tilting in DPP, save a 16-bit TIFF and work on that in Affinity Photo.

Sometimes (with files from my Sony RX100M2 always) I do everything in AP.

Free trial available. Optical profiles and colour profiles are excellent, plus noise reduction is probably the best available. Can easily export to LR or PS, not completely seamless as involves an intermediate tiff or dng.

This has worked for me for >10 years through many cameras and software versions.

Brett Elizabeth said:

Hi folks, I'm a portrait photographer, and I'm relatively new to the Canon ecosystem (I previously used Fuji and Nikon). Like others, I've been disappointed in how the images look after importing to Lightroom. There seems to be way more noise than you would think for low ISOs. And the "camera matching" colour profiles Adobe has for Canon don't look anything like they do in camera. Adobe doesn't even include all of them. I never had this issue with Fuji or Nikon. The raw images in Lightroom looked exactly like they did in camera.

Having said that, I have read that it's better to use DPP to import/convert raw images from Canon. That way I can get the noise and the colour profile right, and then move them to Lightroom and make any further adjustments as necessary. Does anyone here do that, and do you have any suggestions for an efficient workflow? Do you cull in DPP as well? If anyone can point me to tutorials or articles, that would be great. And if anyone here uses DPP exclusively (with Photoshop for serious editing), should I drop Lightroom altogether? That's what I'm familiar with, but I want to make the most of my images and have the most efficient workflow.

Click to expand...

It has been many years since I have used any Adobe products and I do wildlife instead of portraits, but I hope some of this might be helpful anyway. I use mostly Canon DPP or sometimes rawtherapee for raw development. I hope some information about my habits using DPP might be helpful.

Some possible differences when using Canon. For color consistency from camera model to camera model, Canon uses the "Standard" picture style. Setting this in the camera menus might make editing easier, or just use the "Portrait" picture style in camera if that works for you. ( It will start an argument if I say that it appears to me that changing the picture style in the camera menu will sometimes change what raw data is captured for recent cameras )

I turn off peripheral illumination correction, turn off auto lighting optimizer, and turn off distortion correction in the camera menus because it seems to me those are better done later and if using auto exposure they may change the exposure and increase noise. DPP uses the picture style as a starting point and all color edits in DPP are relative offsets from that starting point.

If I plan to do further editing outside of DPP with another program,

1. If using a Canon lens, then use digital lens optimizer in DPP

2. If shot saving DPRAW, use DPRAW tool in DPP

3. set white balance in DPP and make any color adjustments

4. set dynamic range https://cam.start.canon/en/S002/manual/html/UG-04_EditImage_0040.html#EditImage_0050_11 so that no color channels are clipped in the data that goes to another program

5. decide whether to do unsharp mask in DPP or in another program and disable in DPP if doing in another program

6. decide which program to use for noise reduction and disable in DPP if needed

7. if "clarity" setting is available for your camera in DPP, try "-1" or "-2" for softer skin

8. Choose which program to use for peripheral illumination correction or for distortion correction or for face lighting correction

9. save as a 16 bit TIFF to edit in other program

I use rawtherapee when I am not using a Canon lens because the "capture sharpening" in rawtherapee is nearly as good as the "digital lens optimizer" in DPP. I do not know what is the equivalent in Adobe software. (Richardson/Lucy deconvolution)

I use gimp or hugin or other programs to edit the 16 bit TIFF files from DPP, but I expect Adobe products will be easier if you are accustomed to them.

I save recipe .dr4 files from DPP as a record of my edits and as a way to quickly apply the same edits to another raw file.

If one can get Adobe to use the black level number that Canon cameras put into the metadata of the raw files, then the colors will be closer to the out of camera JPEG.

Brett Elizabeth said:

Hi folks, I'm a portrait photographer, and I'm relatively new to the Canon ecosystem (I previously used Fuji and Nikon). Like others, I've been disappointed in how the images look after importing to Lightroom. There seems to be way more noise than you would think for low ISOs.

Click to expand...

Adobe noise (especially with default sharpening) is awful on Canon - unless you use the AI Denoise tool - which is slow and laborious on a low-mid spec computer.

Brett Elizabeth said:

And the "camera matching" colour profiles Adobe has for Canon don't look anything like they do in camera. Adobe doesn't even include all of them. I never had this issue with Fuji or Nikon. The raw images in Lightroom looked exactly like they did in camera.

Click to expand...

I have seen the same - but some canon cameras are better than others. Color Fidelity also sell lightroom profiles but they IMHO are not perfect either. My M6II is the worst, R5 a bit better. I can only assume Adobe cant really be bothered with Canon lower end cameras - and Canon dont play nicely with Adobe on high end.

I have created some of my own LR profiles with the Calibrite Color checker classic which can work well for me if the lighting is similar in the photo shoot to what you shot the calibrite chart with.

Brett Elizabeth said:

Having said that, I have read that it's better to use DPP to import/convert raw images from Canon. That way I can get the noise and the colour profile right, and then move them to Lightroom and make any further adjustments as necessary. Does anyone here do that, and do you have any suggestions for an efficient workflow? Do you cull in DPP as well? If anyone can point me to tutorials or articles, that would be great. And if anyone here uses DPP exclusively (with Photoshop for serious editing), should I drop Lightroom altogether? That's what I'm familiar with, but I want to make the most of my images and have the most efficient workflow.

Click to expand...

I don't really like and use DPP - but it does match the in in camera jpeg.

I mostly use DXO - and their profiles you can adjust as well I find more easily with a slider to the extent a DXO profile is applied - plus also very easy in DXO to create personal profiles from the Color checker - again the M6II I find has the most issues with DXO too.

I definitely prefer DXO colours (adjusted) to most LR ones.

In terms of culling / viewing - LR is the best. Nothing to stop you screening in LR - exporting just the ones you want - RAW processing in DPP or DXO and then bringing back into LR.

I reread the post and I noticed a few things. The images in Lightroom don't look like anything in the camera. The images you see on a Canon LCD are basically developed Jpegs. I don't know how other manufacturers display them. That is why I use DPP Quick Check to pre-cull. DPP's downsizing algorithm for fit to screen display is very good. It's contrasty, sharpened, etc. The finished product.

As for Profiles Adobe is only missing one. Fine Detail. I don't think Auto counts.

DPP



LrC



I'm using LrC 13 and the latest Process Version is 6. For these two examples I set both the Camera Standard and applied absolutely nothing to the LrC files. The DPP files have NR and USM applied at their base settings which is very little.

DPP on the right.



Canon reds do have deeper reds than LrC which has always been the case. More yellow with LrC. It's not a perfect match because Adobe emulates Canon colours but they emulate competitors as well. People say Color Fidelity is even closer.



--
You just need to keep the forests wet

I have used Canon, Nikon, and Sony and have never seen a RAW file in Photoshop that looked like the in camera photo, so I assumed that was the norm, and processed the RAW file to my liking. My understanding is that a RAW file is essentially nothing more than a negative.

Because I use PS CS6, which has no support for new cameras, I was very recently forced to use Canon DPP to process my CR3 images. I tested using the exported .tiff format but quickly realized that using Adobe's DNG converter is far more accurate, and seamless.

I first do a quick cull in DPP, and do some preliminary ratings (that do show in PS). Then I convert to DNG. I do absolutely no processing in DPP. I then stick with PS and ACR for all editing.

I keep all the original CR3 files in case I ever choose to go the Abobe CC route. Then I have the DNG and the final TIFF.

I have grown to like using DPP alongside Adobe Bridge for culling even my CR2 files, and for photo/folder management.

John Crowe said:

I have used Canon, Nikon, and Sony and have never seen a RAW file in Photoshop that looked like the in camera photo, so I assumed that was the norm, and processed the RAW file to my liking. My understanding is that a RAW file is essentially nothing more than a negative.

Because I use PS CS6, which has no support for new cameras, I was very recently forced to use Canon DPP to process my CR3 images. I tested using the exported .tiff format but quickly realized that using Adobe's DNG converter is far more accurate, and seamless.

I first do a quick cull in DPP, and do some preliminary ratings (that do show in PS). Then I convert to DNG. I do absolutely no processing in DPP. I then stick with PS and ACR for all editing.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that ratings show in PS. I've never tried with LrC so maybe they do. I only use DPP to delete unwanted/unusable files. Less clutter in LrC.

John Crowe said:

I keep all the original CR3 files in case I ever choose to go the Abobe CC route. Then I have the DNG and the final TIFF.

I have grown to like using DPP alongside Adobe Bridge for culling even my CR2 files, and for photo/folder management.

Click to expand...

I will double check. I only started this system in the past couple of weeks. I know when I exported TIFF from DPP the rating went with it. Not sure now if the DNG carries the rating.

John Crowe said:

I will double check. I only started this system in the past couple of weeks. I know when I exported TIFF from DPP the rating went with it. Not sure now if the DNG carries the rating.

Click to expand...

The rating from the Canon camera or from DPP goes into the XMP metadata section. XMP was developed by Adobe and is now a standard. I would be very surprised if it is not in a DNG created by Adobe software, but it might be skipped if the rating is zero.

[XMP:XMP-xmp:Image] Rating

I just tested it. The DNG does carry the rating into PS Bridge.

Good to know.

I went through DPP Quick Check and added some stars and numbers in the ratings. Imported those files that were RAW into LrC and I didn't see any ratings. There is an option for metadata modification at import. I tried checking that box and it did not carry over the DPP ratings. Next time I decided to add 3 starts in the line and all the files had a three star rating.

I admit I'm not an expert with this. DPP has a transfer to PS command while LrC does not. I wonder if they only added the rating system to be recognized with PS and Bridge

I'm still only going to rate in LrC as I'm used to it. As long as I get rid of most of the files I won't edit before I import into LrC import that works for me.



--
You just need to keep the forests wet

Some posted a video review of either the R1 or R5II but it was in French, which I don't understand . The presenter claimed that Canon and Adobe were working together and LrC/ACR will offer actual Canon profiles instead of emulations. Another poster said that was also in a German video.

So who knows if that is true or not. Since the R3 Adobe has been releasing RAW support which included the emulated Canon profiles when the camera was announced being shipped. It used to take about 6 weeks after release. Obviously Canon must be supplying the info Adobe needs pre-release.

I've always hoped for that but I won't hold my breath. I don't know if that will specific to the new cameras only and moving forward or all Canon bodies will be included, if this is actually true.

I'll be torn yet again because I have a pretty good workflow now using Adobe Neutral. In that blog I posted the author was correct. You can't save blown highlights (which we all know) but if you start with a cooked profile like Adobe Color it does make it worse and you have more control over the sliders, which includes the blacks. This includes whites that aren't blown out but get pushed into that area using a baked profile. Same goes for Canon emulations. He likes to start with Canon Neutral.

The camera matching profiles in LR do not look like those in DPP, and this is just the way it is.

Noise is similar. As someone mentioned, DPP applies some Luminance NR by default, check the noise module. You can set it to zero and save it as a new default.

I do not export TIFF with DPP to send to LR. Too much trouble. When I need the best colors, I just use DPP. LR has more powerful editing tools however.

DXO can create linear DNGs which you can import in LR. I never liked the DXO colors though, and they have a myriad of color profiles. Some of them can create a special look but for general photography, I found DPP > LR > DXO.

J A C S said:

The camera matching profiles in LR do not look like those in DPP, and this is just the way it is.

Noise is similar. As someone mentioned, DPP applies some Luminance NR by default, check the noise module. You can set it to zero and save it as a new default.

Click to expand...

Yes or in the Preferences.

J A C S said:

I do not export TIFF with DPP to send to LR. Too much trouble. When I need the best colors, I just use DPP. LR has more powerful editing tools however.

Click to expand...

I would find the same. too much trouble. These days I work with LrC only. I have not sent a file to PS since LrC v11. I apply Adobe Denoise AI only to select files. My 2019 iMac Intel takes 33. My 2020 MacBook Air M1, 16GB RAM used to take 115 seconds but since Adobe fixed the Neural engine problem it now takes 25 seconds. DeepPrime and DR XD also ranged between 25 an 45 seconds. Photo AI took 45 but that was a few years ago. I occasionally use Topaz Sharpen AI and that is about it.

J A C S said:

DXO can create linear DNGs which you can import in LR. I never liked the DXO colors though, and they have a myriad of color profiles. Some of them can create a special look but for general photography, I found DPP > LR > DXO.

Click to expand...

Unless you are profiling for specific reasons colour is subjective. These days I just go with pleasing colours and people who weren't there will never know the difference. I think I remember the colours I seen but who knows back at home. Unless something is really off, under/over saturated then it is noticeable. Portrait Photography is more involved.

Just playing around a bit more. Camera Standard for both and no adjustments.



Then I hit Auto on with LrC. I have an apply an Import preset that applies Auto at import and some tweaks to the Presence tab. Auto does not adjust that tab. It's a decent start point that saves me some time and then I edit.







--
You just need to keep the forests wet

Brett Elizabeth said:

Like others, I've been disappointed in how the images look after importing to Lightroom. There seems to be way more noise than you would think for low ISOs. And the "camera matching" colour profiles Adobe has for Canon don't look anything like they do in camera.

I want to make the most of my images and have the most efficient workflow.

Click to expand...

Hi there.

Had these same exact concerns about the Adobe RAW workflow a few years back, after Canon's R5 release. Adobe's standard RAW profiles were just so ridiculously f-ugly! (And Adobe didn't make any attempts at manufacturer-matching profiles for years!) So the Lightroom RAW conversion workflow began to feel like a drudgery of wholesale re-engineering the color and tone of every single frame I shot.

I just got SO TIRED of looking at grid after Lightroom grid of dull, sallow, grimy frames that had been beautiful and vibrant on the camera back screen when I'd shot them! Ugh. What pointlessness. Hated, hated, hated it.

SO I decided to completely re-think my personal photography workflow, using DPP and Canon's Picture Style software to inform my in-camera JPEG settings and shooting decisions.

Where I used to shoot-for-the-best-RAW-file and then make all color-tone-edit decisions in post (with Lightroom & Adobe Camera RAW), I now aim to shoot for the best possible JPEG I can get on the camera screen, and I use DPP and Canon's Picture Style editor to help me understand how to make the best possible camera-setting decisions in the moment.

This means that I still shoot RAW, culling and processing in DPP (and round-trip TIFFing to Photoshop where necessary). But when you edit RAW file processing parameters in DPP (or adjust Picture Styles in the picture style editor), you are using settings that mirror those offered by your camera's onboard processing software, and thus you're learning how to set your camera to produce a similar look in a similar future shooting situations. So the more you use DPP, the less you end up using DPP, if you get my drift. It can be kind of a slog at first--the software's flow isn't "slick" like Lightroom--but then you start applying what DPP teaches you to your in-camera settings and, after a short while, you realize you're barely editing your RAW files at all in post, any more. Your post-processing time commitment declines dramatically.

Let me say it this way: DPP is built for an entirely different-way-of-thinking about a photography workflow. It's not a comprehensive replacement for Lightroom; it's not the centerpiece of a workflow designed to encourage post-shoot ideation or maximize post-production latitude . Rather, DPP is conceived to make your camera the photography workflow centerpiece, around the idea that you want to get as much "right" in camera, in the shooting moment, as possible. It's a direct software reinforcement of your camera's full imaging capabilities, not "another set of capabilities" that relegates the camera to the role of "RAW data collection device."

This changes the way you shoot, wholesale. The first big thing I had to get my head around is the loss of Adobe's radical RAW highlight and shadow recovery capability--your camera, and DPP, just don't offer the same latitude (I suspect because it would compromise the color and tonal responses they've engineered). So right off the cuff you shoot differently, your photography's relationship with light is different. You rely on your camera's ALO response-curve settings to express your vision the way you might learn the dynamic range response of different film stocks to do so. I can see that alone being a non-starter for many photographers, but I have grown to prefer it immensely. These days, I just don't shoot images that require "saving" or "fixing" or are more an expression of post-production graphic ideation than they are a light-exposure moment. I've become persnickety about shooting in meaningful light, I've become better at seeing meaningful light, and my photography now speaks to that in ways it didn't in the past.

DPP (and your camera's internal software) also does some things so much better than Adobe. It's not just color and tone, though that is radically improved. Optical corrections for Canon lenses are vastly more precise (which, honestly, is something I wouldn't have believed anyone else telling me--but then just started to notice and couldn't believe how janky some Lightroom corrections looked by comparison). Noise Reduction is better. Sharpening is better. The overall "texture" of images just looks better.

I also have a lot of fun with Canon's Picture Styles, which are basically RAW edit presets you can design with the Picture Style Editor software and then upload to your camera for real-time use--basically Canon's version of Fuji's "film style" system. if you shoot RAW and process in DPP, you can of course always change the picture style you initially used on scene--just pick a different one in DPP's pull-down menu and pay attention to how different picture styles work (or do not work) in different light or different situations--knowledge you can then apply on-site and in-camera at your next shoot. I've made a bunch of my own custom Picture Styles, but to get started and just get a sense of what might be possible, I purchased a couple of packs from these vendors:

https://www.camera-profiles.com/ (my personal favorite--three to five presets per pack, each pack about $40)

https://lehungphotography.com/canon-picture-style-download/ (one master preset per pack, about $25 - $40 each)

https://thomasfransson.gumroad.com/ (unlike the two vendors above, these sets from Thomas are offered for free, on a pay-what-you-want model)

Hope that perspective helps as you think the possibilities through. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any specific or technical questions about how you'd apply this approach to your flow.

Cheers!

Something else I just thought off. X-Rite ColorChecker Passport. I didn't like how it saturated some colours but skin tones were awesome. Since I don't shoot portraits it wasn't for me. I'd check that out.

Sorry for bumping. I spend time on youtube videos looking for LrC tips. I found this interesting and the presenter says you can apply this ti any developer. It's pretty simple.