Software Question

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Crotonmark Contributing Member • Posts: 647
Software Question

In case you're not sick of me yet..

I currently have on my Mac:

Lightroom and Photoshop

Luminar 4

DPP 4.12

Apple Photos app

I know LR a little, photoshop a bit,  and the other two not at all

Is there an advantage to any of these? I export to Photos so I can have access to my photos.

Luminar and DPP came with the 90D

Opinions welcome

thanks

tymevest
tymevest Senior Member • Posts: 1,559
Re: Software Question

Sounds like me, I have all of those but mainly just use Photoshop I may experiment the the Luminar 4 that came with the camera (from BH/Photo). I did find a program that I really like called Topaz Sharpen AI. It sharpens without leaving halos in most cases, much better than anything else I've tried and I've used various versions of Photoshop since 1995. DPP is good to look through a lot of pictures and be able to see the EXIF data quickly. I haven't used it for any editing. Even if you only shoot in .JPG, you can use the RAW editor in Photoshop to work on the pictures and it can show you areas that are over or under exposed.

-- hide signature --

Tymevest

 tymevest's gear list:tymevest's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Canon EOS 90D Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Tamron SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD +4 more
OP Crotonmark Contributing Member • Posts: 647
Re: Software Question

tymevest wrote:

Sounds like me, I have all of those but mainly just use Photoshop I may experiment the the Luminar 4 that came with the camera (from BH/Photo). I did find a program that I really like called Topaz Sharpen AI. It sharpens without leaving halos in most cases, much better than anything else I've tried and I've used various versions of Photoshop since 1995. DPP is good to look through a lot of pictures and be able to see the EXIF data quickly. I haven't used it for any editing. Even if you only shoot in .JPG, you can use the RAW editor in Photoshop to work on the pictures and it can show you areas that are over or under exposed.

Thanks

DPP 4 is very confusing  as is Luminar 4.

Ray UK Contributing Member • Posts: 723
Re: Software Question
1

DPP is the best raw converter to use because it is designed to work with Canon cameras, it will allow you to take full advantage of all in camera settings and provide a very comprehensive range of lens corrections for Canon lenses. Third party software producers do not have access to the full details of Canon's raw format or their lens correction requirements.

DPP does not have some of the more advanced editing facilities of other software but that is not what it is designed for. It easy to do the necessary corrections in RAW then convert to TIFF or JPG to do any advanced editing with photoshop or similar software.

OP Crotonmark Contributing Member • Posts: 647
Re: Software Question

Ray UK wrote:

DPP is the best raw converter to use because it is designed to work with Canon cameras, it will allow you to take full advantage of all in camera settings and provide a very comprehensive range of lens corrections for Canon lenses. Third party software producers do not have access to the full details of Canon's raw format or their lens correction requirements.

DPP does not have some of the more advanced editing facilities of other software but that is not what it is designed for. It easy to do the necessary corrections in RAW then convert to TIFF or JPG to do any advanced editing with photoshop or similar software.

Thanks. Having a lot of trouble figuring out the workflow. Can’t see any videos about version 4.12 online either

Ray UK Contributing Member • Posts: 723
Re: Software Question

Crotonmark wrote:

Thanks. Having a lot of trouble figuring out the workflow. Can’t see any videos about version 4.12 online either

Try this:

https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/canon_software/dpp_video_tutorials.do

or search youtube for "DPP 4" (not 4.12)

DPP 4 user manual is available from the Canon website.

OP Crotonmark Contributing Member • Posts: 647
Re: Software Question

Ray UK wrote:

Crotonmark wrote:

Thanks. Having a lot of trouble figuring out the workflow. Can’t see any videos about version 4.12 online either

Try this:

https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/canon_software/dpp_video_tutorials.do

or search youtube for "DPP 4" (not 4.12)

DPP 4 user manual is available from the Canon website.

Thanks

jrkliny
jrkliny Veteran Member • Posts: 4,251
Re: Software Question
1

Ray UK wrote:

DPP is the best raw converter to use because it is designed to work with Canon cameras, it will allow you to take full advantage of all in camera settings and provide a very comprehensive range of lens corrections for Canon lenses. Third party software producers do not have access to the full details of Canon's raw format or their lens correction requirements.

DPP does not have some of the more advanced editing facilities of other software but that is not what it is designed for. It easy to do the necessary corrections in RAW then convert to TIFF or JPG to do any advanced editing with photoshop or similar software.

I have tried to make this point numerous times on this forum, but no one wants to hear this.   They often have paid big money for Photoshop and want to believe it does a great job.  DPP4 is slow and few of us have the patience to wait a minute to process a single raw file on a slow older computer.  Personally I have decided the wait is worth it.  The default noise reduction works great and in addition I often shoot macro at f/20 and really appreciate DPP4's diffraction correction.  I combine DPP4 with Elements.

Choice of software depends on what you want to do with it.  Years ago I was fascinated with what you could do with Photoshop.  Shock and awe photography with pumped up saturation and contrast was just the starting point.  Software allows all sorts of "creative" editing and image manipulation.  If that is your thing then as a minimum you need to start with the full Lr and Photoshop versions, plus all the major plugins such as Topaz and Nik.  Personally I moved away from the digital manipulation and the digital "arts".  I do straight photography, not digital arts.

-- hide signature --
 jrkliny's gear list:jrkliny's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Canon EOS Rebel T6s Canon EOS 90D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM +7 more
Distinctly Average Contributing Member • Posts: 902
Re: Software Question

jrkliny wrote:

Ray UK wrote:

DPP is the best raw converter to use because it is designed to work with Canon cameras, it will allow you to take full advantage of all in camera settings and provide a very comprehensive range of lens corrections for Canon lenses. Third party software producers do not have access to the full details of Canon's raw format or their lens correction requirements.

DPP does not have some of the more advanced editing facilities of other software but that is not what it is designed for. It easy to do the necessary corrections in RAW then convert to TIFF or JPG to do any advanced editing with photoshop or similar software.

I have tried to make this point numerous times on this forum, but no one wants to hear this. They often have paid big money for Photoshop and want to believe it does a great job. DPP4 is slow and few of us have the patience to wait a minute to process a single raw file on a slow older computer. Personally I have decided the wait is worth it. The default noise reduction works great and in addition I often shoot macro at f/20 and really appreciate DPP4's diffraction correction. I combine DPP4 with Elements.

Choice of software depends on what you want to do with it. Years ago I was fascinated with what you could do with Photoshop. Shock and awe photography with pumped up saturation and contrast was just the starting point. Software allows all sorts of "creative" editing and image manipulation. If that is your thing then as a minimum you need to start with the full Lr and Photoshop versions, plus all the major plugins such as Topaz and Nik. Personally I moved away from the digital manipulation and the digital "arts". I do straight photography, not digital arts.

It is your opinion that DPP4 is best. It really isn’t for the vast majority of pros that want and need a fast workflow and anyone who needs to do more than basic editing. It is easy for those with lots of time and are doing this as a hobby to use DPP to work on one or two images a week, but for me I want to be out taking images, not sat in front of a computer wasting away my evenings for DPP to do anything. I will PP 40-50 images a week and spend no more than two hours doing so. If I was using DPP, and I have tried, that would almost certainly increase to 7-10hrs a week depending on what I was doing.

I also use Topaz Denoise AI and very occasionally Sharpen AI, which can be called from within PS and LR, That luxury is not afforded by DPP so it adds a whole load more to the workflow. Then we have additional things inPS that are so easy, such as selections, background blurring, content aware fill and cropping, luminosity masking all of which take seconds.

People moan about the cost, which for me is under a tenner a month. Bearing in mind my hourly rate and the extra hours I would need to put in using DPP that to me is a no brainier. And finally, I would challenge anyone to look at two images side by side, assuming I do not need to clone out stuff etc, and tell me which package I used, PS/LR vs DPP. And if you haven’t used the latest iterations of PS and LR, a lot changed. I don’t do digital arts as you call it, I lack the imagination to do anything more than get the best out of my meagre photographic skills that I can. PS/LR allow me to do that very quickly

-- hide signature --
jrkliny
jrkliny Veteran Member • Posts: 4,251
Re: Software Question

Distinctly Average wrote:

It is your opinion that DPP4 is best. It really isn’t for the vast majority of pros that want and need a fast workflow and anyone who needs to do more than basic editing. ......

Yup, best and fast are different.  If you are a pro shooting weddings or processing large numbers of images, then DPP4 is not going to work.  Topaz software is not likely to work either.   The Topaz plugins I use for special purposes are equally slow, if not worse.

Nor do I always use DPP4.  I really want it if I have shot at high ISO or if I shot a tight aperture and need diffraction correction.

-- hide signature --
 jrkliny's gear list:jrkliny's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Canon EOS Rebel T6s Canon EOS 90D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM +7 more
tymevest
tymevest Senior Member • Posts: 1,559
Re: Software Question

For the most part I like straight photography. But the image produced by the camera isn't always what I see with my eyes so a little adjustment is necessary. A bit of adjusting in the Photoshop RAW editor usually does it.

Many other photos don't have to be as good so I may just take them in P-mode and quickly adjust the exposure with the shadow/highlight tool if necessary.

-- hide signature --

Tymevest

 tymevest's gear list:tymevest's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Canon EOS 90D Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Tamron SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD +4 more
Taxon New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Software Question

I feel we have to start complaining to Canon about the slowliness of DPP. And ask them to hire a bunch of good programmers in order to get a new and fast version of DPP.

If DPP is running as a sick turtle when handling 90d's RAWs, I'm asking myself how it will be managing R5 files.

jrkliny
jrkliny Veteran Member • Posts: 4,251
Re: Software Question

Taxon wrote:

I feel we have to start complaining to Canon about the slowliness of DPP. And ask them to hire a bunch of good programmers in order to get a new and fast version of DPP.

If DPP is running as a sick turtle when handling 90d's RAWs, I'm asking myself how it will be managing R5 files.

Look at Topaz products.  They are even slower and do less work.  Instead maybe the question should be what short cuts and compromises are being made for Photoshop to get rapid results.

-- hide signature --
 jrkliny's gear list:jrkliny's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Canon EOS Rebel T6s Canon EOS 90D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM +7 more
Distinctly Average Contributing Member • Posts: 902
Re: Software Question

jrkliny wrote:

Taxon wrote:

I feel we have to start complaining to Canon about the slowliness of DPP. And ask them to hire a bunch of good programmers in order to get a new and fast version of DPP.

If DPP is running as a sick turtle when handling 90d's RAWs, I'm asking myself how it will be managing R5 files.

Look at Topaz products. They are even slower and do less work. Instead maybe the question should be what short cuts and compromises are being made for Photoshop to get rapid results.

I work in IT, have done for my whole career. There are many ways to optimise code to make it faster without compromising results. Instead what people should be asking is, why is Photoshop the de facto package for almost every pro photographer and design house on the planet? If it is as poor as you seem to feel, why do we not see millions of poor results?

-- hide signature --
jrkliny
jrkliny Veteran Member • Posts: 4,251
Re: Software Question

Distinctly Average wrote:

jrkliny wrote:

Taxon wrote:

I feel we have to start complaining to Canon about the slowliness of DPP. And ask them to hire a bunch of good programmers in order to get a new and fast version of DPP.

If DPP is running as a sick turtle when handling 90d's RAWs, I'm asking myself how it will be managing R5 files.

Look at Topaz products. They are even slower and do less work. Instead maybe the question should be what short cuts and compromises are being made for Photoshop to get rapid results.

I work in IT, have done for my whole career. There are many ways to optimise code to make it faster without compromising results. Instead what people should be asking is, why is Photoshop the de facto package for almost every pro photographer and design house on the planet? If it is as poor as you seem to feel, why do we not see millions of poor results?

You will have to decide for yourself what is good and what is poor and what is in between.  DPP4 has great noise reduction, clearly much better than Adobe.  It also handles the noise reduction by default settings with little or no additional tinkering needed.   DPP4 will give results that are astounding for retrieving details normally lost to diffraction.  If you are not interested, then don't bother.  If those sound valuable to the way you shoot or for at least some special applications, then you might want to do the comparison for yourself.  Don't take my word for it, do the studies yourself.

-- hide signature --
 jrkliny's gear list:jrkliny's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Canon EOS Rebel T6s Canon EOS 90D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM +7 more
Distinctly Average Contributing Member • Posts: 902
Re: Software Question

jrkliny wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

jrkliny wrote:

Taxon wrote:

I feel we have to start complaining to Canon about the slowliness of DPP. And ask them to hire a bunch of good programmers in order to get a new and fast version of DPP.

If DPP is running as a sick turtle when handling 90d's RAWs, I'm asking myself how it will be managing R5 files.

Look at Topaz products. They are even slower and do less work. Instead maybe the question should be what short cuts and compromises are being made for Photoshop to get rapid results.

I work in IT, have done for my whole career. There are many ways to optimise code to make it faster without compromising results. Instead what people should be asking is, why is Photoshop the de facto package for almost every pro photographer and design house on the planet? If it is as poor as you seem to feel, why do we not see millions of poor results?

You will have to decide for yourself what is good and what is poor and what is in between. DPP4 has great noise reduction, clearly much better than Adobe. It also handles the noise reduction by default settings with little or no additional tinkering needed. DPP4 will give results that are astounding for retrieving details normally lost to diffraction. If you are not interested, then don't bother. If those sound valuable to the way you shoot or for at least some special applications, then you might want to do the comparison for yourself. Don't take my word for it, do the studies yourself.

Thing is, I have tested and quite recently. Whenever software that I might find useful is updated I test it and see if it will speed up my workflow. The difference in NR and lens and camera profiles really are minimal as far as I can see.

Which is the latest version of PS/LR you have tested?

While Canon make DPP, they are not a software development company. They produce wonderful cameras and lenses. To that end I can see why DPP doesn’t get the high cost ongoing development it could have. I am also certain that Canon work with third party developers such as a adobe, Affinity etc, They want their products to be seen in the best light possible so it is in their best interests to do just that and work with the likes of Adobe. We know they work with them as u released cameras such as the upcoming R5 and R6 already have support in some Adobe products. All the brands do the same, because they need all the most popular tools to flatter their wares,

-- hide signature --
RMichaux New Member • Posts: 2
Re: Software Question

I have used DPP exclusively for Canon raw conversion for nearly a decade for the reasons that Ray UK mentioned earlier, and primarily for the lens corrections provided by the DLO module. My first Canon was a T2i with 18-55mm kit lens and I was rather disappointed by the lens performance. When I first tried DPP3, DLO data was not yet available for my lens but I was impressed by the improvement that the basic lens corrections for chromatic aberrations, vignetting and geometry made. A few months later when DLO data for my lens was added, CA was eliminated, detail & sharpness improved and my disappointment faded away. DPP4 made many improvements and all adjustments became less coarse, but performance was slow and curiously, the more I used it, the slower it became even though I had upgraded to an i7 laptop with 16gb ram and 1tb HDD. The worst delays seemed associated with file operations so recently I converted to a 2tb SSD but even though DPP started and loaded files much faster, it still paused for long periods whenever files or file structure were changed. When researching this problem on-line, I found comments suggesting that the delay was due to rereading the entire photo directory whenever changes occurred (700gb+ in my case), so I created a new working directory in the root of my C: drive, made it the default directory in DPP and voila, the delay vanished. This is admittedly a bit of a kludge workaround for a problem that need not exist, but to preserve the advantages of DPP4, it's tolerable. Two years ago, I was about to buy Lightroom6 in order to have lens correction for a non Canon lens until I discovered that Lightroom did not support the .CR3 files of my most recent Canon purchase and the Adobe site indicated that support would not be added. So DPP is not perfect, but for Canon users, I think it's the best game in town.

Taxon New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Software Question

Well, this is a valuable finding, thank you for sharing.

Definitely I will give it a try.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads