rleonetti Loc: Portland, Oregon

Looking to find anyone who uses, knows about or has an opinion on this image editing software.
Any good? Can you relate to Lightroom? Any info on "how to learn".
Any thoughts you can share about this program.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I primarily use DPP. I like it.
v4 will not run on my desktop but it will on my laptop, v3 runs on both...
I cannot relate to Lightroom as I also have two other editors, but not Lightroom.
I use the sliders in DPP and the leveling function when needed.
No major stuff.

Try it and see if you like it and it meets your needs.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It's Canon's raw converter (free) for their own cameras. As such it has a couple unique features that you can't get from any other software. 1. It will re-create the camera JPEG applying all the settings that were used by the camera. 2. It contains a function called DLO (Digital Lens Optimizer) which Canon has created for their own lenses and obviously who better to know those Canon lenses.

It's a basic raw converter with limited functionality. It's old school as compared with Lightroom which is new school. DPP recently added a very limited capability to do some local adjustments to an image. The function is crude and that's being kind. But it's a start. Bottom line old school means that if your image is going to require anything beyond the basic conversion you'll need two apps to do the job. DPP for the raw conversion and then a second raster editor to work with the output file from DPP. New school means hopefully Lightroom gets the the job done without the need for the second app. We're not really there with Lightroom but moving in that direction and way ahead of what DPP offers.

The other big difference is that Lightroom is a database that will organize and catalog your collection of photos. DPP has no such function.

Joe

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Joe's comment about 'old school' is spot-on. I used DPP for years exclusively to edit my EOS RAW files. I then began to edit initially in DPP and export 16-bit TIFFs to LR and "finish" in LR. Now, I edit only in LR. The various software products are not static where in the long ago days, DPP did a demonstrably better job in processing Canon's RAW files vs Adobe's LR and PS products. Since at least LR6 / CS6, I don't find a difference in the results compared image to image using DPPv4 vs LR6 on the same images.

You can find some limited documentation on DPP. There's a PDF manual someplace on the internet, but it's more a screen by screen manual documenting each available button, kind of like a camera manual. There's also u-tube videos demonstrating various aspects and usage. I wouldn't say it's harder to learn to use vs Lightroom, DPP is just different and with a lot less "help" in the form of demonstration videos. But, DPP is less complex, mostly because it has a lot less functionality / options available for image editing.

DPPv4 is a great way to start, especially being free and specific to Canon's RAW files. Depending on what you want to accomplish in your photography, you may never outgrow it. LR is much more efficient and much more powerful as well as LR is a DAM (digital asset manager). That is, LR is also a database of all the attributes of your images so when you get to a portfolio of say 79,263 images, like I have in LR today, I can quickly find images by date, by topic, by camera, by filename, by filetype, by disk location, by ISO, by Lens, etc, etc.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

It is absolutely indispensable first step for me (working with Canon raw files.) I found it to be intuitive and easy to learn. For cloning, working with masks and layers, and resizing and generating JPEGs I use a different program (the old Jasc Paintshop Pro.)

Ask any questions you have here and several users will be happy to help you, myself included.

On edit - I see that CHG_CANON has moved away from DPP. His observations and recommendations are always reliable. I am usually a couple of steps behind.

Mike

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

That’s where I am also. A couple of years ago, I tested some high ISO raw images with both DPP and Adobe Camera Raw’s converter and found DPP to be about half a stop better with regards to noise (but that’s probably because DPP applies the in-camera noise reduction settings to raw files). I also like that my raws look almost exactly like the JPEGs because it, as mentioned, applies the other in-camera settings to raw as well as JPEGs, so I can often use the raws as is if I choose. I also always do my lens correction in DPP rather than in-camera, but you can do that in LR as well.

Having said that, it is extremely limited as an editor, and I usually use the export function into Photoshop to finish editing the image. Also, like you, I’m a few steps behind Paul. After reading that he had moved off DPP to LR some time ago, I’ve been meaning to give it a try and create some presets to roughly duplicate my in-camera settings as a starting point - just haven’t made the move yet.

You can certainly start with DPP and see what you think - it’s free and it’s good for sorting as well.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Could you describe the tasks that fit into the one category and the ones that fit into the other? What functions are missing from each - LR and DPP?

Mike

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Everywhere the tools overlap, LR is more discrete and easier to use vs DPP. At a basic level, the scale of Adobe runs -100 to +100 where DPP has the same "slider" that runs in measurements of only -5 to +5. Therefore, in LR you have much finer control of every edit control. You can 'copy' recipes between images in DPP, but still nothing like the power and ease of syncing in LR. Presets (DPP 'saved' recipes) are rather limited in DPP and again, nowhere near as flexible and easy as LR. Sharpening and NR are again more robust and discrete. You have controls of Whites & Blacks that don't exist at all in DPP. LR has the concept of Color Vibrance and Clarity that do not exist in DPP.

There's no concept of virtual copies in DPP. No concept to stacking. Nothing about keywords or anything like a library management, although DPPv4 has added a basic suborganization of collections that let you group images from multiple physical folders.

Managing the output formats via the Export Dialog and automation via export presets is missing from DPP. No watermarking in DPP.

LR is your tool for all image formats, including RAW from other camera types.

LR has a haze tool, face recognition, Gradient and Radial filters, and a local adjustments brush. You can use LR's default presets for color and B&W effects. You can use free or purchase additional presets to radically change your image like film-type emulation, etc. DPP can only do the same changes you could do in the camera for picture styles or B&W w/ color filter conversions.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Thanks, Paul. I don't do sharpening nor noise reduction in DPP. I have a lot of control over sharpening in PSP, but then we are back in the "old school" using two apps, of course. A lot of color control can be done in DPP. What are "vibrance" and "clarity" in terms of how the pixels are manipulated?

I am not sure what you mean about the sliders. I can't find any sliders in DPP that run in measurements of only -5 to +5 (I could be misunderstanding that.)

Whites and blacks can be controlled with histogram and curve adjustments in DPP, no? (I could be misunderstanding that, too.)

I organize things with Windows Explorer. I can see where a database and keywords might be useful, though.

By the way, I am not arguing here. I am genuinely ignorant about LR.

Mike

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I talked about the ones I primarily use. LR also has split-toning and a tool for adding a Vignette, probably several more I don't know anything about. There are sliders specifically for controlling Blacks & Whites. This is similar to adjusting the Gamma in DPP, but you can see I'm starting to forget how to use the more sophisticated tools in DPP. The -5 to +5 concept applies primarily to the Contrast, Shadow, Highlights and similar sliders. In DPP, you can go 0.1, 0.5, 1.3 and so forth. But, you'd need 0.01, 0.05 ... to have the same precision of updates as provided in LR. I believe the 'range' is wider in the -100 to +100 implementation vs -5.0 to +5.0.

I still use DPP frequently to access and analyze the EOS data, typically the AF points, but also all the various EOS camera configuration settings. This data is either ignored by LR or striped by both Adobe products when exporting the resulting image file.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Yep, you are right about the Contrast, Shadow, and Highlights sliders. Thanks again. I will dig in and learn about Lightroom this winter.

Mike

ggab Loc: ?

One thing I like about DPP is it's ability to show where the focus points are.
When shooting handheld, in a rush and in burst mode, I like seeing the focus point/points. It aids in choosing an image out of 10 or 15 images.

miked46 Loc: Winter Springs, Florida

I use it sometimes, right now I am using Luminar 3 and also Aurora HDR

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

The brand-new latest version of Digital Photo Professional is 4.10.50. Update your older version to see everything it offers.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

By category I assume you mean my old school/new school comment.

Apart from image editing there is of course the database (DAM) function of LR which is on major concern to anyone who is working as a camera for hire. But just in terms of editing the image there are also fundamental differences.

DPP recently added an option which on the tool palette is labeled Adjust specific areas. Prior to that addition DPP was strictly a global raw converter in that anything you did in the form of an adjustment applied globally to the entire image. As I noted it's a step in the right direction but at this point the function is severely limited.

If we're going to take photos outside of the studio we can't exercise complete control of lighting and subject and we're going to frequently encounter photos were a local adjustment will improve the image. DPP isn't going to provide much of that and so "old school" we'll need to do that after the raw conversion in another software app. Let's look at an example.

Our anemones are starting to bloom. Here's a photo of them from last year taken with my go everywhere compact a Canon G7xmkii. The first image below is processed only using DPP and I've done as much as DPP will permit. I did use DPP's Adjust specific area tool to select the flower centers and darken, raise contrast and raise saturation but with much less precision than I was able to apply in the second image processed in C1. Now I still have the option to continue editing the DPP generated image but that comes with a whole lot of additional concerns.

Remember when you were a kid waiting in the dentist office and they had those kid's magazines with the pictures where you were supposed to find the differences. Try that with these two images. There are seven cloning jobs in the C1 image. None of them are major changes but taken together they go a long way to smoothing out the impact of the photo -- minor distractions removed. All of that is accomplished in the raw converter C1. In fact to a degree that LR can't compete with.

In addition to the cloning work I was able in the C1 version to darken, lighten, alter contrast, alter color hue and saturation surgically for any local part of the image. LR can do much the same just not as sophisticated with the cloning. As a result I was able to complete the edit of this image to my satisfaction using only C1.

To get the image to the same point starting with DPP requires that I then load an output TIFF file into my favorite raster editor (PS, Affinity, GIMP, whatever) and continue editing. I'll be able then to do the cloning work and the more locally targeted tone and color work and arrive at a comparable image. So the question; what's the difference? Two things:

1. Disk storage. My raw file is 24.8 mb. With all of the editing completed in C1 or LR my total disk storage commitment would be 24.8 mb. The disk storage required to add the parametric instructions is a few kb and not enough to even push .8 to .9. Using the DPP/raster editor option I'll need to output a 16 bit TIFF. That's 86.6 mb and as I edit the file it's size will increase. Let's just round it then to 100 mb. That would make my total disk storage commitment 124.8 mb and I now have multiple files to keep after.

2. This is the big issue for me. Using only 1 parametric editor (C1) my raw workflow is 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable. In the bottom image from C1 I applied a little simulated film grain which is an option in C1 (LR also) that I'm recently enjoying in my images. Let's assume DPP also provided that and I used it. In both cases editing is finished. Three years from now and I re-visit the image because someone asked me if I have a photo of anemones and they'd be interested in buying it. I show them the photo and they love it and are ready to write that check but please remove the simulated grain. In C1 I go back and uncheck a box. If I did the edit using DPP/raster editor I go back to DPP and uncheck a box and regenerate the 16 bit TIFF and redo all the raster editing over -- screw that.

Joe

DPP -- as much as possible

(Download)

C1 -- finished edit

(Download)