jack30000

I have an old version of Photoshop CS3. I got my new Canon EOS 80D and downloaded their free DPP software. Do I need to get the LR/PS cloud package for $9.99 per month? Hate that idea, as do many others here. What will that let me do that I can't do with what I have? Enthusiast, not pro, and have a long way to go to master both the new camera and the software I have. DPP let's me do batch processing of RAW files, levels, curves (have a lot to learn) color adjustment, etc. PS CS3 doesn't handle my RAW files, but can handle the JPGs that I get from DPP. What will LR/PS do that I can't do with what I have?

Thanks!

Bill_de Loc: US

You shouldn't have to upgrade, but many will suggest that you do. If you shoot raw, download Adobe's free DNG converter. Convert a file to DNG format and see if it opens in the CS3 software you have. If so, you can do everything you could before. In time, if you want to try new features you can rent from Adobe or buy something else.

If you only use JPG you are good to go.


I never tried it as I use Nikon, but the software provided by Canon may do all you need.

---

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

If you have talent and want to develop your photography to the highest potential possible, then you need the capabilities of Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop. Others will disagree, but there is no other software combination for Photographers that will allow you to reach the fullest extent of your abilities like the Creative Cloud.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Do is not LR but it allows you to do a lot.
If I do an event, I process everything in DPP, because as you say I can divide into groups, add a recipe and batch process very quickly. It's good enough to send to a customer for them to pick individual shoots. Of a thousand shots probably 5 go to LR and for a more thorough process but that's about all.
If you are going to shoot in raw with presets/picture styles, only DPP will recognize them and convert them.
DPP was the only PP I used from when I started digi in 08 to about 2012 when I got into school. There I had to learn LR because only Adobe products were in their computers.
LR is a bit more powerful but DPP is all that's needed if you do a decent job of exposing, composing and framing. If you want to change cats to dogs you need PS with layering, neither of the first two can do that.
Use the DPP till you feel limited.
$10 per month is cheap for LR and PS. Stand-alone PS was $600!!! With NO upgrades!
SS

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Looking at Adobe support, I'm unsure if CS3 can open a 16-bit TIF. Or, possibly CS3 can handle a 16-bit TIF just fine up to a 4GB file size limit. I'd suggest an experiment of using DPP to save your 80D RAW edits to 16-bit TIFF file and then see what CS3 can / cannot do with the file. This process will keep your current software without new investment and will maintain the maximum edit capabilities from your 80D RAW files. You can always output from DPP to JPEG and work with CS3.

Another option is to purchase a standalone copy of LR 6. I think this is still an option from Adobe. Investigate and confirm as Adobe is dropping this method of buying LR. Buying LR6 will 'buy' you a few years or longer of LR use along with CS3 as a plug-in editor from LR6 when you should have an image with edit needs that requiring CS3 layers.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

PS lets you do whatever comes to your mind, let your phantasy run wild, PS will be there to realize it, the power of layers in combination with all the computing power, layer masks, adjustment layers, 16 bit files, actions, levels , curves and the list goes on and on and.......

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

If you are an old film shooter how much did you spend on film and development cost when you were shooting film? $10 a month is nothing compared to what I use to spend on film.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I use CC LR/PS and like it. LR is pretty much a basic editor with a few bells and whistles, but the primary reason I use it is for the image management. When I got up to 10K images on my computer I started to have real problems finding things. LR saved me. I can add keywords and place the images in collections. It got me organized. (At least it got me more organized than I was before). Instead of spending half an hour hunting for an image I can now find what I want in seconds.

If you don't take many photos you may not need that level of organization, although my memory has gotten worse with age, as the number of images in my pile has gotten larger. If DPP does what you need in the editing, you don't need to go further.

One other level of organization is giving all your image files meaningful names. LR is my primary search tool, but having meaningful names on my image files is my secondary search tool, and will probably be the primary search tool for whoever comes after me when they try to find family photos.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=1595

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I don't think that Adobe Lightroom can do anything that DPP can't do, (I'm talking about the realm of developing pictures) but there are things that DPP can do that LR can't. (again, to a raw file) That's not to say that DPP is better, just that it is designed for Canons proprietary raw files and can do a few things to them that Lightroom can't. They aren't jaw dropping or anything like that. Simply put DPP can allow you to see the focus points, apply the same picture styles as the camera would have applied to your jpg images, apply or remove the in camera crop, and a few other in camera settings that you can set and apply.

But, and this is a big But, Lightroom is easier, faster, has a powerful cataloging system, and a bunch of other things it does that DPP doesn't do. If you look at the LR interface it's plain to see that it can do a lot of things like Map, Book, Slideshow, Print various ways, and you can even do minor things to video in Lightroom.

One thing I wish Canon would do is make DPP into a plugin for Lightroom and Photoshop. This would be a big improvement. DPP has just about the best noise reduction feature made. It would be nice to zip over to DPP, apply the noise reduction, and zip back into LR.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

DPP 4.x will allow you to export directly into CC PS without saving to an intermediate TIFF file which is both a saving in file space and steps in the workflow. What I don't know is whether it will export directly into CS3 - that would be interesting to know (the export to PS is in the DPP tools menu).

I like DPP for two specific reasons: it's raw converter shows less noise than ACR, and it applies the camera's presets (sharpness, saturation, etc.) to the raw image as well as JPEGs. For me, that means that once I've "tuned" the in-camera presets to my liking, the raw image often requires very little, if any, basic correction, and I can export directly into PS for further refinement/pixel-level editing.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Look at Affinity Photo. It will do everything PS will, inexpensive and easy learning curve. Don't know about your EOS80 but it seems to handle all the modern RAW images okay.

If you use DPP to create Jpegs and then PP with anything else, you might as well have shot jpegs to begin with, because the RAW data is not available for PS or LR or Affinity to work with.

jack30000

My CS3 will not handle RAW, but DPP exports JPG and CR2 files to CS3 as TIFF files.

Bill_de Loc: US

Have you converted the raw files to Adobe's DNG?

I used older versions of Photoshop with NEF from a D1x. I believe the DNG format is backwards comparable but not 100% sure.

---

Bob Boner

Photoshop used to cost big bucks (at one time about $600), and upgrades came about every 18 months and sold for about $200. If you didn't upgrade, you missed out on all the new features, many of which are real labor savers and some of which allow you to do things you couldn't do with earlier versions. And that didn't include lightroom. So the $9.99 per month is cheaper than I used to have to pay just for Photoshop. If you add in lightroom, the cost is considerably cheaper, and you always have the latest features.

I was opposed to renting when they first brought it out at $50/month, but at $9.99 I consider it a bargain.