Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DPP vs Lightroom  (Read 6680 times)
harlemshooter
Guest
« on: April 01, 2009, 04:51:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been using Lightroom to edit raw files from my D3x and MF scans.  It does a nice job for these cameras.  But, as I now have a 5D2 for back-up, I am curious if DPP is better to use with Canon than Lightroom?  Pros and cons would be appreciated.  Some colors, from the 5D2, appear more realistically in DPP.

If there have been previous posts on this topic, please provide link.

Thank you.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2009, 04:52:45 PM by harlemshooter » Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2009, 07:00:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: harlemshooter
I've been using Lightroom to edit raw files from my D3x and MF scans.  It does a nice job for these cameras.  But, as I now have a 5D2 for back-up, I am curious if DPP is better to use with Canon than Lightroom?  Pros and cons would be appreciated.  Some colors, from the 5D2, appear more realistically in DPP.

If there have been previous posts on this topic, please provide link.

Thank you.

The topic of LR v. ACR v. DPP has been covered ad nauseum on most of the forums - but I haven't seen a huge amount of traffic on it on LL forum.

Does DPP produce a better looking image than LR?

'Maybee'... at default settings in LR. And really it should. DPP is a dedicated RAW converter for Canon's CR2 files - its a highly specialised tool, tuned for just Canon files.

LR and ACR have to deal with RAW files from multiple vendors - so, yes - in a default comparison it is arguable that the color in a DPP file is 'better (better, being highly subjective) than the default processed file in LR.

You can easily check this for yourself (which I did) Just process the same RAW CR2 file in DPP and LR at default and compare the two. I can see a minute difference, but in my mind its not even worth mentioning, lat alone quibbling over and once I start tweaking the sliders in LR the difference is totally irrelevant.

LR offers so much more adjustment opportunity than DPP that its far easier to get better looking files in LR than DPP. DPP requires round tripping through Photoshop to get equivalent results, working with layers etc.. and a lot more time.

The curve ball to all of this is that if you need a quick output from LR that matches (or gets extremley close) to DPP you can now select one of the canned picture styles in LR - such as neutral, faithful etc. That will give you the same look for all intent and purposes.

Putting that aside for a minute the user interface experience in DPP is atrocious compared to LR. The significant workflow advantages of LR make the whole argument moot IMO.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2009, 10:06:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: harlemshooter
I've been using Lightroom to edit raw files from my D3x and MF scans.  It does a nice job for these cameras.  But, as I now have a 5D2 for back-up, I am curious if DPP is better to use with Canon than Lightroom?  Pros and cons would be appreciated.  Some colors, from the 5D2, appear more realistically in DPP.

If there have been previous posts on this topic, please provide link.

Thank you.

Just a couple of random thoughts here.

DPP will do auto magic lens corrections for you.  Since the 5D2's sensor pretty much shows all lens flaws this seems like a good thing.

LR's color will be closer if you calibrate it or at least use the dngprofiles.

Otherwise LR is pretty easy to use while using DPP is like trying to parallel park with someone repeatedly hitting you in the groin with a large sturgeon.  You can do it but you've got to want to.
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2009, 10:54:47 PM »
ReplyReply

And then there's DxO. It also automates the lens correction process, and can be called from Lightroom. Once I got DxO working, I never went back to DPP.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2009, 11:11:12 PM »
ReplyReply

In theory you can call ptlens from LR, too.  But I haven't tried it.
Logged
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 836



« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2009, 01:03:39 AM »
ReplyReply

PTLens works as an external editor, stacks a tiff alongside the original raw.
Logged

neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2009, 01:11:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I recently compare DPP, LR, Capture One, and yet to try the demo of Raw Developer.

Before the default was better with a 5D and DPP than LR. Then came the beta camera profiles which worked out well and I slightly preferred LR on Adobe beta 2 over DPP Faithful.
Now with the 5D MKII LR definitely does better on default( no options on the new camera) than DPP. So I use Canon EOS utility to shoot into a folder, then LR for all the rest.

I tried Phase One Capture 4 and it produces better results at default than LR. The interface is good , I think everyone is changing or following LR in UI design. Capture One is limited in B&W though for raw images compared to LR.

Since LR is the base of my RAW plus edited images I am happy with the RAW conversions, and extremely happy with what you can do within the app with any images except CMYK of course.

Good points below, I haven't tried images at high iso yet, nor Raw Developer>
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 03:10:10 AM by neil snape » Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2009, 02:58:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I have found that with the 5D2 at ISO up to about 1600, LR is abut as good as DPP if you leave final sharpening till the last process (which usually you should). But over 1600, LR leaves an ugly worms/maze effect that you can see on really big enlargements (2 metres by 3 or bigger) - something that happens often to my theatre stuff. DPP does the same though slightly less but Raw Developer (sadly Mac only) handles it fine. If you don't use high ISO or huge enlargements, the controls of LR probably make it a winner. If you need high ISO then you should try RD (if you're on a mac).
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2009, 04:37:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
... LR is pretty easy to use while using DPP is like trying to parallel park with someone repeatedly hitting you in the groin with a large sturgeon.  You can do it but you've got to want to.

LOVE that quote.
Logged
harlemshooter
Guest
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2009, 07:42:25 AM »
ReplyReply

so you're making 2x3 meter prints with a 5d2 at 1600+ iso?  how do you deal with the noise?  are these advertising applications?

i'd like to see a sample image or two if you don't mind sharing...

cheers.



Quote from: stewarthemley
I have found that with the 5D2 at ISO up to about 1600, LR is abut as good as DPP if you leave final sharpening till the last process (which usually you should). But over 1600, LR leaves an ugly worms/maze effect that you can see on really big enlargements (2 metres by 3 or bigger) - something that happens often to my theatre stuff. DPP does the same though slightly less but Raw Developer (sadly Mac only) handles it fine. If you don't use high ISO or huge enlargements, the controls of LR probably make it a winner. If you need high ISO then you should try RD (if you're on a mac).
« Last Edit: April 03, 2009, 07:45:57 AM by harlemshooter » Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2009, 09:09:58 AM »
ReplyReply

One from last week. (It's mine so no nicking!) Taken at 6400 ISO, processed in Raw Developer, sharpening set in RD as I don't usually have time to fiddle, zero noise reduction anywhere in the chain (except what the camera does that I don't know about) cropped a little in PS, and that's it. There is noise, of course, but I find it very grainyfilmlike (technical term that only the very clever will comprehend) and quite like the effect. There was almost no light; what there was, was red - nightmare conditions but usual for theatre!

This, or others from the shoot, will end up at least 2x3 metres and may be cropped further to an effective 5x6. I am constantly staggered by how well this sort of shot holds up. I think it's the grainy feel that allows it to blow up so much. I wouldn't like a DSLR landscape, even in the best light possible, to go that big.

(edit to insert samples - hopefully...)
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 10:43:17 AM by stewarthemley » Logged
Tklimek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2009, 09:51:03 AM »
ReplyReply

LOL..... "is like trying to parallel park with someone repeatedly hitting you in the groin with a large sturgeon.".....I've not heard that before and will need to use this in the future!!

Todd in Chicago (I don't believe there are any sturgeon in the Chicago river....)


Quote from: DarkPenguin
Just a couple of random thoughts here.

DPP will do auto magic lens corrections for you.  Since the 5D2's sensor pretty much shows all lens flaws this seems like a good thing.

LR's color will be closer if you calibrate it or at least use the dngprofiles.

Otherwise LR is pretty easy to use while using DPP is like trying to parallel park with someone repeatedly hitting you in the groin with a large sturgeon.  You can do it but you've got to want to.
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2009, 10:21:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tklimek
LOL..... "is like trying to parallel park with someone repeatedly hitting you in the groin with a large sturgeon.".....I've not heard that before and will need to use this in the future!!

Todd in Chicago (I don't believe there are any sturgeon in the Chicago river....)

There were hundreds till the City car park control people fished 'em out...
Logged
HickersonJasonC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2009, 04:10:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Richowens
PTLens works as an external editor, stacks a tiff alongside the original raw.

does PTLens work with adjusted DNG files?
Logged
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 836



« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2009, 06:29:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes
Logged

HickersonJasonC
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2009, 10:48:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Richowens
Yes


OK, another question. Any chance there will be support for Tiger? I don't want to "upgrade" to Leopard for a number of reasons. . .
Logged
alifatemi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 164



WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2009, 02:21:39 PM »
ReplyReply

you are right. pictures in LR are more saturated and darker but try this: in LR Develop Madule, set the "blacks" to 3. the defult is 5. it helps a lot to reduced the contrast and color saturation. plus,  change the "camera calibration" in LR from "standard" to "Neutral".  report back please and let me know what happend.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 02:24:31 PM by alifatemi » Logged

Ali
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2009, 03:10:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Future major versions of LR will not run under Tiger. This is simply the result of LR using the modern development interfaces provided by Apple, which are Leopard-only (or Snow Leopard-only).
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad