-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Calling All Canon DPP4 Users!
- Thread starter GR8
- Start date
I keep it updated, but haven't used it in years. I think the last time was when I first got my R5, several years ago. I used it for a few days until I decided what editing software to get. I'm always reading that it's great for culling images so I may start using it for that instead of doing the preview from File Explorer.
Not everyone likes to pay rentThank you, I learned a lot from your torture test, and it wasn't all that I was expecting - my dxo didn't handle CA noise as well - And the new DPP has improved, but needs AI in the future
I also tend to balk at shooting above iso 12,800 and would have considered using a slower ss and my 800 mm lens on FF. Once you are at very high iso and can't fill the frame and will have to crop adding even more noise, the alarm bells would be going off in my head if I should even take the shot for a common subject that is in the dark.
but hey, for this torture test shot you proved you were able to salvage with LRC and AI which I could not salvage to my satisfaction with DXO PL or DPP or paintshop pro. But hey on the positive side - I don't pay rent for LRC anymore
When I open it looks dark at Dropbox. Didn't on DPP. I reverted all settings to as shot.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8m7u...ey=oej8yycr0455kshyk8u2ozv62&st=g9k6wrh5&dl=0
--
When you fail - always "Fail Forward".
That is something I’ll consider if I ever drop Adobe. I’m not sure it’s as big a success as Canon had of hoped for.
So how does that work? Do you have to send the file to their servers? How much is fee? I guess that is monthly. Unlimited usage or is it a credit based system?
Dareshooter
Veteran Member
Thanks
this has been my workflow for about a month, so it’s still been tweaked
Jack Calypso
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,399
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 831
From Adobe Bridge, you can open TIFs and JPGs in ACR by right-clicking on them, and choosing "Open in Camera Raw".
ACR opens tiffs
Thats how I do it, but tiffs also open in ACR in photoshop as a raw does
"Magic," indeed. At what point is it no longer the same photograph (or even the same bird?). Fortunately, I don't shoot anything at 1/5000s or where a 500mm focal length would not be long enough, so I clearly demand less of my editing processor than othersthat appears to have added lots of edge (green CA) LOCA - beak, other edges, etcSorry about that. It was not maxed out. Had a brain fart last night. I have the camera set apply NR automatically and this what it did. I thought the sliders were all the way to the right.Thanks. Can you post the RAW file? I never max out the NR sliders and try not to push them more than necessary. Did you do anything in DPP other than choose a picture style and max out the NR (e.g., gamma adjustment, ALO, saturation)?Nice and smooth results. Can you share what you did and/or provide a RAW file?
Here is an ISO 20000 shot with good exposure.
DPP maxed out with both Lum and Chrome noise. Picture style STD.
LRC with Adobe Denoise AI and Adaptive Color profile. This is not an anti DPP post. I like DPP. I'm just curious about my results a what could I improve. DPP example is cropped in a bit more but not enough for such a nog difference in results.
I will figure out how post a RAW file. I can'r remember doing that before and I seldom use.
This is with both at 20. Likely more than required but the sample shows what it can do.
also by not getting close enough, and having to crop, it has become even noisier than if you had been able to fill the frame - so iso 20,000 on a crop sensor becomes even noisier when cropped
I think AI did some magic vs DPP
hmm, a bit of sarcasm there...?"Magic," indeed.that appears to have added lots of edge (green CA) LOCA - beak, other edges, etcSorry about that. It was not maxed out. Had a brain fart last night. I have the camera set apply NR automatically and this what it did. I thought the sliders were all the way to the right.Thanks. Can you post the RAW file? I never max out the NR sliders and try not to push them more than necessary. Did you do anything in DPP other than choose a picture style and max out the NR (e.g., gamma adjustment, ALO, saturation)?Nice and smooth results. Can you share what you did and/or provide a RAW file?
Here is an ISO 20000 shot with good exposure.
DPP maxed out with both Lum and Chrome noise. Picture style STD.
LRC with Adobe Denoise AI and Adaptive Color profile. This is not an anti DPP post. I like DPP. I'm just curious about my results a what could I improve. DPP example is cropped in a bit more but not enough for such a nog difference in results.
I will figure out how post a RAW file. I can'r remember doing that before and I seldom use.
This is with both at 20. Likely more than required but the sample shows what it can do.
also by not getting close enough, and having to crop, it has become even noisier than if you had been able to fill the frame - so iso 20,000 on a crop sensor becomes even noisier when cropped
I think AI did some magic vs DPP
Well in Zeee's LRC processed shot, imo Zeee salvaged a non-usable image into a useable image. We spend a lot of money on gear and better software can expand our usage of that expensive gear so we are not spending more and more on gear. One doesn't have to be so rigid as to say it needs to be a SOOC pj shot to be the same photograph, in fact Zee created a much better photograph and I'm sure the bird wouldn't mind Zee taking liberties with the latest and greatest software. I enjoyed what Zeee did.
but I like magical Hollywood processing so I'm not always looking at dull journalistic shots with too much noise or too soft
if that bird flapped its wings, 1/5000 would come in handy
I use to use DPP a lot. And it has improved. But one can widen their horizon and useability range by working with better software, and I appreciate what Zeee showed us.or where a 500mm focal length would not be long enough, so I clearly demand less of my editing processor than others
That is good info. I have not used PS is so many years even if I had know back then I would have forgotten. I ave not sent a file from LrC to PS since LrC 11 I think. It was from whenever the advanced masking came into play.
Please don't take my comment the wrong way. I'm grateful for Zeee's contribution and am really quite impressed by what Zeee and LRC/AI did with such a difficult image. But I don't think it's unfair to question generally at what point AI transforms a photograph into something that is truly artificial, even if the final product is beautiful.
No doubt. To be clear, I'm relatively new to all of this and I've been using DPP4 as my RAW editing processor because I did not have to pay anything extra for it and it seems to work well enough for my purposes. I presume that alternative pay-for software is better than DPP4; if it wasn't, I don't know why any Canon user would pay for it. So, I'm not trying to convince anyone that DPP4 is better than the alternatives (it probably isn't, especially for folks who do this professionally). I started this thread simply because I'm hoping to get advice from others who do use DPP4 about how to make it work better for me going forward.but I like magical Hollywood processing so I'm not always looking at dull journalistic shots with too much noise or too soft
if that bird flapped its wings, 1/5000 would come in handy
I use to use DPP a lot. And it has improved. But one can widen their horizon and useability range by working with better software, and I appreciate what Zeee showed us.or where a 500mm focal length would not be long enough, so I clearly demand less of my editing processor than others
I did some photojournalism for an on-line magazine, and generating fake images was definitely not allowed because we were recording history.
But, in generating art these days, fake is a part of the art.
That is the way I started. And DPP has really improved.No doubt. To be clear, I'm relatively new to all of this and I've been using DPP4 as my RAW editing processor because I did not have to pay anything extra for it and it seems to work well enough for my purposes.but I like magical Hollywood processing so I'm not always looking at dull journalistic shots with too much noise or too soft
if that bird flapped its wings, 1/5000 would come in handy
I use to use DPP a lot. And it has improved. But one can widen their horizon and useability range by working with better software, and I appreciate what Zeee showed us.or where a 500mm focal length would not be long enough, so I clearly demand less of my editing processor than others
Someday if you decide on more LRC or DXO PL Elite are great options.
Great thread btw - I'm learning stuff about DPP as well - eg, R2's use to select and cull photos
best wishes on your journey
I assume it goes to their servers, but I'm not really sure. it's 5€99 a month for unlimited usage.
Understood and I don't doubt that these tools are incredibly useful for many people. But it makes you wonder how authentic almost any image is these days. FWIW, I don't consider myself an artist; I'm only looking to produce high-quality, faithful photographs.
Thank you. I know these are popular options and I'm sure they're wonderful. We'll see if I ever find DPP4 too frustrating to use or insufficient for my purposes.
That is the way I started. And DPP has really improved.No doubt. To be clear, I'm relatively new to all of this and I've been using DPP4 as my RAW editing processor because I did not have to pay anything extra for it and it seems to work well enough for my purposes.but I like magical Hollywood processing so I'm not always looking at dull journalistic shots with too much noise or too soft
if that bird flapped its wings, 1/5000 would come in handy
I use to use DPP a lot. And it has improved. But one can widen their horizon and useability range by working with better software, and I appreciate what Zeee showed us.or where a 500mm focal length would not be long enough, so I clearly demand less of my editing processor than others
Someday if you decide on more LRC or DXO PL Elite are great options.
I agree, although I'm still hopeful that others will weigh in with more tips!
Thanks!
I guess everyone has their own version of authentic. I didn't do any Generative AI to remove distractions. The Adobe Adaptive Color profile just gets me to a starting point faster than doing it myself. One repeated statement from DXO users for many years. "I get to my final results faster than LrC". Adaptive Color profile helps me with that. I at one time used Adobe Neutral and Auto at one time. Saved time going through al the clipping steps. Then I cropped, added Denoise AI and did some sharpening.
Is B&W authentic? I don't see the world in B&W. Despite all of Ansel steps from the negative, developing and printing he was a master dodger/burner. I read all of his books, used the Zone System, had a darkroom and spent many hours in there. I apply his teachings to my digital B&W conversions. I don't use any presets, etc. Every B&W conversion is from scratch and I could not repeat it for that same file the next day.
Thank you. I know these are popular options and I'm sure they're wonderful. We'll see if I ever find DPP4 too frustrating to use or insufficient for my purposes.
That is the way I started. And DPP has really improved.No doubt. To be clear, I'm relatively new to all of this and I've been using DPP4 as my RAW editing processor because I did not have to pay anything extra for it and it seems to work well enough for my purposes.but I like magical Hollywood processing so I'm not always looking at dull journalistic shots with too much noise or too soft
if that bird flapped its wings, 1/5000 would come in handy
I use to use DPP a lot. And it has improved. But one can widen their horizon and useability range by working with better software, and I appreciate what Zeee showed us.or where a 500mm focal length would not be long enough, so I clearly demand less of my editing processor than others
Someday if you decide on more LRC or DXO PL Elite are great options.
I agree, although I'm still hopeful that others will weigh in with more tips!
Thanks!
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum