Canon DPP = JPG in Camera?

I used to shoot only RAW with my m50. Now, I find that sometimes I don't have the time for editing and that it would be nice to have the JPG.

My question: If I convert the cr3 files to jpg via batch export in DPP after shooting, without any editing, would the result be the same as if I had shot JPG? I feel like Canon should process them equally no matter if they are processed in-camera or post?

Thank you

Sorry no idea, why not try it and see ?

Doing it in dpp will still take time (lots of it if you have many images)

why not shoot with raw+jpg you’ll have both

And although i primarily shoot jpg I still have to edit those but I find that quicker than editing raw

jim mij wrote:

Sorry no idea, why not try it and see ?

Doing it in dpp will still take time (lots of it if you have many images)

why not shoot with raw+jpg you’ll have both

+1 on this. Shoot both, keep the jpgs you like without having to do any post-processing, and for those shots where you need the raw, you still have it.

And although i primarily shoot jpg I still have to edit those but I find that quicker than editing raw

Is there really a speed difference in editing raw vs jpg? I find that if you need to edit, raw will usually give you much more flexibility, and the only cost I've seen is space.

(However I use Lightroom, not DPP)

What I often do with DPP is to do a "bulk" correction (eg. lens correction or DLO) of RAW files by selecting all of the thumbnails and clicking on the Tool Palette to apply it to all images, then save as TIFF, and import the TIFF files into LR if I want to edit further. You could obviously also save as JPEG if desired.

I think that DPP does a better job of the corrections and RAW conversion than Adobe, and this gets the job done with just a few minutes of effort.

Ali wrote:

jim mij wrote:

Sorry no idea, why not try it and see ?

Doing it in dpp will still take time (lots of it if you have many images)

why not shoot with raw+jpg you’ll have both

+1 on this. Shoot both, keep the jpgs you like without having to do any post-processing, and for those shots where you need the raw, you still have it.

And although i primarily shoot jpg I still have to edit those but I find that quicker than editing raw

Is there really a speed difference in editing raw vs jpg? I find that if you need to edit, raw will usually give you much more flexibility, and the only cost I've seen is space.

(However I use Lightroom, not DPP)

for me yes, but I’ve only recent started using raw again after giving it up when jpg became as good, several years ago.

it was 1 image with blown highlights in a bird that made me try raw again. In the dozens I’ve tried since I prefer my jpg edit to my raw edit , I tried luminar 4 and dpp 🙁

why not shoot with raw+jpg you’ll have both

I'm saving space on my sd card and probably gaining a little bit of buffer speed?

IIRC DPP uses the same processing algorithms as in camera jpeg processing, so in theory you should get exactly the same result from raw if left at default settings. DPP reads and applies settings that would have been applied if it were processed in camera, such as picture style and white balance etc.

DPP was my first foray into raw processing a few years ago. Whilst it produced great output, I found it very slow to work with, especially batch processing.

Slightly different.  White balance and picture style are the same, but the initial image is flatter than the jpeg until you make gamma adjustments.  I usually start by hitting the auto gamma adjustment button and fine tune highlights, shadows, and contrast from there.

Lens corrections, noise reduction, sharpening, etc - DPP4 shows all that in the preview.

J Peters wrote:

I don't edit every shot, so you could argue I could use RAW+jpeg mode. But in practice I shoot RAW only, edit the few I want to, and then batch-process the lot. Yes it takes ages, but I don't sit and watch it. I go and do something else for an hour.

Yes, that's my plan, too.

Thank you all for your answers!

Andy01 wrote:

What I often do with DPP is to do a "bulk" correction (eg. lens correction or DLO) of RAW files by selecting all of the thumbnails and clicking on the Tool Palette to apply it to all images, then save as TIFF, and import the TIFF files into LR if I want to edit further. You could obviously also save as JPEG if desired.

I think that DPP does a better job of the corrections and RAW conversion than Adobe, and this gets the job done with just a few minutes of effort.

Thanks Andy, thats a learning point for today, i didn't realise i could manipulate a batch at a time, i'll give it a try

J Peters wrote:
I suppose theoretically a newer version of DPP might do a subjectively better job than the firmware in the camera, which is less likely to have an update, so then there might be slight differences.

It’s worth mentioning that a newer version of DPP can bring features that the camera may not have. For example, when I used to use DPP, it let me use the “Fine Details” picture style that my M3 camera didn’t support.

Rufty wrote:

I used to shoot only RAW with my m50. Now, I find that sometimes I don't have the time for editing and that it would be nice to have the JPG.

My question: If I convert the cr3 files to jpg via batch export in DPP after shooting, without any editing, would the result be the same as if I had shot JPG? I feel like Canon should process them equally no matter if they are processed in-camera or post?

Thank you

Not quite. But 99.9%, and I gather that’s the point.

If you change zero settings, in my experience, DPP4 gives a touch more color depth. I will say DPP4 appears to be a computer emulator for DIGIC though, however the RAW conversion is better. This may just be due to my color depth settings, this can be adjusted in preferences.

Visually it be hard to tell the difference but there are differences. You can just look at the file size and see they are not the same.

DPP is going to have more options. Over time the differences become even bigger as it improves while the camera stays stagnate with no more firmware updates.

trungtran wrote:

Visually it be hard to tell the difference but there are differences. You can just look at the file size and see they are not the same.

DPP is going to have more options. Over time the differences become even bigger as it improves while the camera stays stagnate with no more firmware updates.

I’ve been using DPP4 since the G1X II came out, i used DPP3, before it. I can say with confidence, yes DPP4 honors SOOC rendering. In fact it does so too well, G1X mark II and all. That’s one I wish DPP4 did t copy so well. Prove me wrong. I’ll be waiting…

Color space and matching JPEG compression impacts file size, btw. There is no “8” jpeg compression on an M, for example. There is on my R3 though. It’s compressed, and more compressed. Large, medium, small in camera. File size isn’t alone a good metric here is the point I’m driving.

RLight wrote:

trungtran wrote:

Visually it be hard to tell the difference but there are differences. You can just look at the file size and see they are not the same.

DPP is going to have more options. Over time the differences become even bigger as it improves while the camera stays stagnate with no more firmware updates.

I’ve been using DPP4 since the G1X II came out, i used DPP3, before it. I can say with confidence, yes DPP4 honors SOOC rendering

In fact it does so too well, G1X mark II and all. That’s one I wish DPP4 did t copy so well. Prove me wrong. I’ll be waiting…

Color space and matching JPEG compression impacts file size, btw. There is no “8” jpeg compression on an M, for example. There is on my R3 though. It’s compressed, and more compressed. Large, medium, small in camera. File size isn’t alone a good metric here is the point I’m driving.

You can look at the EXIF and the SOOC doesn't even have a program name.

1DSii above - SOOC is different to DPP3 and DPP4

M6 below - Camera compression is more aggressive than DPP

Using FastStone Viewer you can count the number of colors - The smaller the file the less colors are in the image.

Not all processors are equal. You might not be able to see it, but the difference is there.

https://hk.canon/en/support/8201532900

My point is that SOOC is not the same as processed DPP JPG.  You are fine if you shoot RAW since you capture all the data.

But if you shoot JPG, thinking it is the same as a DPP export, you are mistaken.

trungtran wrote:

RLight wrote:

trungtran wrote:

Visually it be hard to tell the difference but there are differences. You can just look at the file size and see they are not the same.

DPP is going to have more options. Over time the differences become even bigger as it improves while the camera stays stagnate with no more firmware updates.

I’ve been using DPP4 since the G1X II came out, i used DPP3, before it. I can say with confidence, yes DPP4 honors SOOC rendering

In fact it does so too well, G1X mark II and all. That’s one I wish DPP4 did t copy so well. Prove me wrong. I’ll be waiting…

Color space and matching JPEG compression impacts file size, btw. There is no “8” jpeg compression on an M, for example. There is on my R3 though. It’s compressed, and more compressed. Large, medium, small in camera. File size isn’t alone a good metric here is the point I’m driving.

You can look at the EXIF and the SOOC doesn't even have a program name.

1DSii above - SOOC is different to DPP3 and DPP4

M6 below - Camera compression is more aggressive than DPP

Using FastStone Viewer you can count the number of colors - The smaller the file the less colors are in the image.

Not all processors are equal. You might not be able to see it, but the difference is there.

https://hk.canon/en/support/8201532900

My point is that SOOC is not the same as processed DPP JPG. You are fine if you shoot RAW since you capture all the data.

But if you shoot JPG, thinking it is the same as a DPP export, you are mistaken.

Yes, 3 and 4 are different but you need to explain further, unless that was the point. I agree DPP4 is better than DPP3, with DPP4 being virtually identical to SOOC so long as you match the recipe, as described.