Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

So I’m getting into more paid work and only shooting raw now. I have been importing straight into Lightroom CC and working from there on my IPad Pro. I’m always reading stuff on the internet and saw a few articles detailing why you should never do that and they include samples showing the raw file side beside in LR and in CDPP and of course the CDPP looks much better right off. The articles pretty much says to use the software that came with your camera which is CDPP for us Canon guys. It goes on to say you can export to PS or LR from there but to always start with the Canon software. What are y’all thoughts on this? Am I doing things wrong or making it harder on myself by not using the included software? Thanks as always.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I have never used the software that came with any of my Canon cameras and always import directly into Lightroom. It's been good enough for newspaper and magazine publications, selling prints from school photography and wedding and portrait work, posting on my website, and all the other stuff I do.

fotoman150

Same here. Never used Canon software. Wouldn’t even think of it.

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

Answers I was hoping to hear. I like importing straight into my iPad but when you read something I’d rather ask you guys about it. Thanks!

williejoha

Straight into LR 6.14.
WJH

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I have a Canon and use DPP for editing the RAW.
I don't have LR. But even if my other three editors would work with the CR2 file, but I prefer to use DPP as Canon made it explicitly for [[i]their[/i] RAW files.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I used Canon DPP for years, applying lens corrections, noise processing and a good deal of editing. Then, exporting the results as 16-bit TIFF for "finishing" in LR. The results were always better after LR than just stopping at DPP.

I gave up on that approach about three years ago and now work exclusively in the older standalone LRv6. I can't speak for the "old days", but I believe the comments to start in DPP were more accurate the longer into the past you trace that advice. I took several images and tested my own ability to edit from DPP to LR compared to just starting in LR and convinced myself I was more time-efficient working only in LR and the differences, where I thought I could still find any, were not justified when compared to the vast amount of time saved using only the LR develop module. Whether you want to / need to work in PS as well, is your own decision.

The only truly unique thing DPP can do is handle RAW from new cameras at the time the camera is sold. Adobe will catch up, soon, but at no promised turnaround time. Adobe has lens profiles, for all brands of lenses, where DPP is only Canon-branded lenses. The Canon software may be more effective on noise reduction "one to one" to Adobe, but neither are as effective as third-party dedicated noise software.

My comments apply to LR classic. The LR mobile software is not as powerful. You might go back and re-read the comments about DPP and consider what specifically and why the author is recommending starting in DPP and what actions the author(s) are performing in DPP prior to taking the image to Adobe. The only 'real' difference I've noted is Canon's profiles where Canon Standard is superior to Adobe Standard. As an EOS shooter, be sure to begin your RAW edits by setting the "Camera Calibration" to "Camera Standard".

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

First I convert all my Canon RAW files to Adobe DNG. Then I open those directly with Photoshop, Lightroom, Elements, Photo-Paint, Paintshop Pro, onOne, Watercolor Studio, Topaz Stuido, Photomatix Pro, SmartPhoto Editor, Exposure, DxO Optics Pro, Snap Art, ArtRate, and probably some others that I'm forgetting about this early in the morning.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

DPP WILL give you all the secrets of Canon's color science. When I used Canons, I used DPP for my most critical color conversions. However, as a workflow tool, it is cumbersome. I found that by changing the Lightroom Preset to give me a very close approximation of the "look" I got in DPP, I could drop DPP for most work and use only Lightroom.

There is a lot of power in Lightroom Presets that people tend to overlook. With a ColorChecker Chart and some time, you can make a series of exposures and develop them in DPP and Lightroom, make adjustments in LR to match DPP, and then save a preset when you find a close match. It's better than simply accepting the 'Adobe Color' default (which you can change to your own preset).

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

Thanks for all the great info guys, so much to learn about all of this stuff.

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

When I first started shooting raw I tried a number of different programs. Being a Nikon guy I naturally tried the Nikon software among all the rest. For about a year I used several different programs because they all had different strengths and weaknesses.

Eventually I got over 10,000 images in my photopile and was starting to have trouble finding things. So I settled on Adobe Lightroom, which at that time was the only program I was using that had a good Digital Asset Management system included. One thing about Lightroom is that it allows you to send the image from Lightroom to Photoshop or some other program for processing. When you're done processing it outside Lightroom, saving the result sends it back to Lightroom so the new version is included in your management (the LR catalog).

Once I started developing proficiency in PS, I pretty much dropped all the other programs so now I use LR and PS pretty much exclusively. There are a couple other programs I use for convenience sometimes (e.g. IrfanView, a freeware image viewer [Windows only] that allows me to look at images without waiting for a large program to load).

Nikon software has the advantage that it will read and use proprietary elements of the EXIF data, which allows you to compensate for some things like D-Lighting. Adobe software doesn't recognize those EXIF elements so Nikon software is the only way to do that. But I don't consider that important because I don't use those features. I can compensate for that with other strategies in my shooting, such as bracketing. I don't do Canon so I don't know if there are similar things in their software, but for my purposes Adobe software is sufficiently complete for me to do everything I need.

Naturally, every software is different so there will be differences in the way things will look. And the software writers will emphasize those items that make their software look like it does better than others.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I have been using DPP for years. I also used LR for a number of years and switched to PhotoLab Elite around the beginning of 2018. DPP has a lot to like because its proprietary Canon software which works well with .cr2 images. The problem with it, though, is the very limited functionality and limited adjustment range of the controls. There are a couple of controls in DPP which affects contrast, as an example. PhotoLab Elite has around eight different types of contrast related controls with much finer gradations of effects. PhotoLab, (and LR) are also much, much better at extracting deep shadow details then DPP. The list goes on.

If you only occasional work in post, or don't wish to spend the time or money mastering more complex software than by all means use DPP. Since it's proprietary it displays all the in-camera settings as an adjustment starting point which is why the images may look "much better right off". I personally would never use DPP as a starting point to using other software because of its limitations. Your end results will not benefit from going into DPP first. But to satisfy your curiosity, you can give it a try. You should do whatever gives you the results you are after.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I'd think by today it is more or a legend or folk-tale than anything else. I shoot Pentax and have the choice of shooting Raw natively in either PEF or DNG format. I start processing them with ACR (9.1.1)(set to 16-bit) and then working with them with Ps CS6. I see no difference between the starting Raw formats other than a slight difference in file size and having to use an up to date version of Pentax's processing software (that I essentially don't use) to open newer PEF files if I wanted to that way.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

Right on.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

In my opinion, DPP has two advantages and one disadvantage, the advantages are that with low light/high ISO images, raw conversion with DPP yields images with approximately 1/2 stop less noise than ACR (I tested this). The reason may be attributable to advantage number 2. DPP applies the internal camera presets such as noise reduction, contrast, sharpness, etc. to the raw image as well as JPEGs. I find this convenient because once I have “tuned” those in-camera presets, I don’t need to do the usual batch processing (such as sharpening a raw image) in PS/LR. On the other hand, once you have determined those corrections you can apply them to raw images in LR/PS as a preset. The disadvantage is that while DPP will export directly into PS via a menu selection, it creates an intermediate large TIFF file which is then imported into PS plus you have to take that extra step. DPP’s editing tools are very limited compared to LR/PS, so you’ll typically need to do your final processing in PS anyway, so the added advantages of DPP may not compensate for the extra step(s) in the workflow of having to use multiple applications. Typically, I convert in DPP when I’m using high ISOs and need every last bit of noise reduction I can get.