Canon's Digital Professional ?

[Jacal]

The above software came free with the camera and to be honest, it doesn't seem to do a lot but there again it may just be me, wouldn't be the first time

What's your thoughts on this freebie, is it worth the struggle or am I better of ditching it for maybe Element 10, which can be bought for £30 ish? or some other package.

 

[u8myufo]

Give it a bit more of a try Jack and see how you get on, if you dont like it then move on. I use it for editing all my RAW files and then finnish them of in CS, I have had no issues with DPP.

 

[Jacal]

Cheers Rich will keep trying, I'm sure it will be me at fault. A bit slow taking it in :bonk:

 

[andyred]

And don't forget to go to canon Europe site and update all to the latest version

 

[Goody13]

Having just got a new computer, I have loaded DPP from my disk and searched the Canon site for the most up-to-date update, only to find that it is version 3.9.3, yet from this site http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/Default.aspx?Cat=Canon-Digital-Photo-Professional I have been able to download 3.11.1 and I also see there are other newer versions than 3.9.3 on there.

Does anyone know why you cannot find the most up-to-date version by going through the software search on the Canon site?

 

[andyred]

No I was looking this morning to see if there were any updates available and couldn't see the version I was running, which I had downloaded from the canon Europe site a month or so ago ??

 

[whiteflyer]

There is very little changes between versions, and the latests version is not always shown with your particular camera model, but DPP is DPP so just download from any camera in the range.

The Digital Picture is nearly always the first place to announce when there is an update.

 

[Goody13]

Thanks for the replies. It does seem strange though that 3.0.3 is the latest on the Canon site and The Digital Picture is showing four newer versions! I must say that it doesn't give me great confidence in the Canon site. I did check the updates for newer cameras as well (the 600D and 5D as it said that 3.11.1 fixed some issue with the 5D) but it still only showed 3.9.3 as the latest on the site.

Very odd.:shrug:

 

[Jacal]

And don't forget to go to canon Europe site and update all to the latest version

Having just got a new computer, I have loaded DPP from my disk and searched the Canon site for the most up-to-date update, only to find that it is version 3.9.3, yet from this site http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/Default.aspx?Cat=Canon-Digital-Photo-Professional I have been able to download 3.11.1 and I also see there are other newer versions than 3.9.3 on there.

Does anyone know why you cannot find the most up-to-date version by going through the software search on the Canon site?

Thanks Andy and Peter, just updated the software but had to use the Europe site as Canon UK seemed to have an 'internal server error' :bonk:

Cheers for the heads up lads and will persevere with the software, be rude not to now I've downloaded the latest version

 

[Goody13]

In answer to your original question, I have just used DPP for processing my RAW shots for about 18 months now, ever since I started shooting in RAW. It does what I want it to, although I will be trying out Photoshop and Lightroom to see if they offer any significant advantage.

DPP ha been fine for me until now though as I use it for sharpening, but not needed so much since I upgraded to a Sigma 17-70 OS, saturation, white balance, cropping and straightening. Not sure what else I may want to do.

 

[Jon Chalk]

Personally I find DPP easier/better to tune noise, then us Adobe Camera Raw (PSE9) for hue/saturation/colours etc., but they'll both do pretty much the same thing, I think.

 

[woof woof]

Personally I hate DPP and have nothing good to say about it, I find it to be a clunky piece of junk... but all that is probably cancelled out by the fact that it's free

If free software is the priority (and why not?) anyone interested could take a look at Rawtherapee.

 

[mark1616]

I use DPP all the time for colour correction, exposure, rotation and crop (batch processing where possible). After that if I need to edit further I use photoshop.

 

[Goody13]

I use DPP all the time for colour correction, exposure, rotation and crop (batch processing where possible). After that if I need to edit further I use photoshop.

As a matter of interest, at what stage do you transfer into Photoshop? Do you edit the JPEG you have converted from RAW in Photoshop, or do you do some RAW editing in DPP and then transfer into Photoshop for final editing and conversion?

 

[whiteflyer]

If you want to use the best RAW converter for Canon .CR2 files then DPP is the one to go for.

If you want to fiddle about and add 50 layers to your photo the DPP is not the one to use.

 

[mark1616]

As a matter of interest, at what stage do you transfer into Photoshop? Do you edit the JPEG you have converted from RAW in Photoshop, or do you do some RAW editing in DPP and then transfer into Photoshop for final editing and conversion?

The RAW editing I do is as above, then I convert to jpg and do other editing if needed. For most photos that go to customers this is all that is done, for those that need a bit more work, especially those that will be printed by me in a large format for a customer then they will be played around with in PS.

 

[Goody13]

Thanks Mark. So, just to clarify (sorry for sounding a bit thick on this, but I am quite new to this editing malarky), DPP to convert from RAW to JPEG after your basic edits, and Photoshop for anything more techy that needs doing such as cloning things out etc?

Don't you then lose image quality doing that way, and why would you not do all your RAW editing in Photoshop and convert to JPEG when all the editing has been done, as Photoshop is supposed to be a better programme?

 

[mark1616]

That's about it.

2 main reasons for not editing all in PS, 1 I can't batch prices that way so with 400 shots from a wedding would take an age, 2 I only have CS3 so doesn't support my cameras. As for quality loss, I have no issue with 2 or 3 jpg saves after conversion, just don't use compression.

 

[whiteflyer]

You can of course crop and clone in DPP, if it's only the odd little thing your cloning then DPP Stamp tool will do fine.

There is also the auto dust spot removal in DPP (if you can be bothered to set it up in the first place ( which I have not))


If your really worried about losing images quality then you can export from DPP as a tiff

 

[Goody13]

Thanks for the replies chaps. Makes it a bit clearer now, and I'm not really convinced I need anything other than DPP, other than maybe for the odd shot, as I'm not a great believer in manipulating photos to remove something that was there, or to put something in, like a fake sky.

 

[arad85]

If you want to use the best RAW converter for Canon .CR2 files then DPP is the one to go for.

I have seen this claimed by a few on here. Do you have any hard evidence on this, and are you able to sum up the differences?

 

[whiteflyer]

I have seen this claimed by a few on here. Do you have any hard evidence on this, and are you able to sum up the differences?

Most people that have tested believe that DPP is the best for colour rendition of .CR2 as only Canon know EXACTLY how to process their file system (all the rest just reverse engineer) I did see a website that showed the subtle differences (no idea where that page is now) and it was in the red and oranges were you could see the real changes between various converters. Some believe that DPP is better with high ISO images.

I think one of the main issues with DPP is there is no good manual or tutorial, and we just give up trying to learn it.

Also of course only Canon software will read things like picture styles which can make a huge difference.

I don't know the in's and out's of jpeg, but the jpeg files from DPP are always a LOT bigger than from anything else

At the end of the day it's a personal choice on what you or your clients prefer in how images look, and some self testing would have to be done.

I'm pretty sure the above would also be the same for every other camera make, as only each manufacturer know fully their own RAW system

As a generalization I think far, far too many people dismiss the free software that came with their camera, and believe Adobe are the be all and end all of image conversion/manipulation, which they are not.

 

[arad85]

Most people that have tested believe that DPP is the best for colour rendition of .CR2 as only Canon know EXACTLY how to process their file system (all the rest just reverse engineer) I did see a website that showed the subtle differences (no idea where that page is now) and it was in the red and oranges were you could see the real changes between various converters.

This makes sense. I have recently been investigating using camera profiles for Lightroom (using an Xrite ColorChecker passport), and they do make a marked improvement to colour rendition - although primarily in the blue end of the spectrum. What has taken some time to get my head around (and I'm a confirmed geek) is how the raw files are developed into something we see. I'm also beginning to see why I am needing to make particular changes when I develop the raw files in Lightroom (typically, I'm having to push up blue saturation - this is now entirely logical to me looking at how the few colour profiles I have done alter the image).

and some self testing would have to be done.

I've just installed DPP and will do some experiments - in particular against ACR and ACR+custom colour profiles. I'll do some experiments and report back.

 

[Jacal]

I think one of the main issues with DPP is there is no good manual or tutorial, and we just give up trying to learn it.

Yep!....think you've hit the nail on the head Mark, maybe someone knows of a tutorial that we could link to

Thanks guys for all the helpful replies

 

[andyred]

Yep!....think you've hit the nail on the head Mark, maybe someone knows of a tutorial that we could link to

Thanks guys for all the helpful replies

I've a manual for DPP. Ill see if I can find link

 

[whiteflyer]

I have the manual for DPP 3.8 Mac Version available here as a pdf.

Not much has changed to the latest version (if I remember right), and it's more or less the same for mac or win

 

[arad85]

Most people that have tested believe that DPP is the best for colour rendition

Hmm... Several hours of testing later, I'm not sure I'd agree...

Some believe that DPP is better with high ISO images.

Well they'd be wrong

See: http://photo.andysheen.co.uk/technical/lightroom-raw-vs-dpp-raw-processing/

I even set the website up so I could publish the results - how's that for dedication!

 

[Willid1]

Here is a link (hopefully) to some DPP tutorials on the Canon Digital Learning website.

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/tutorials/dpp_tutorials.shtml

HTH

David

 

[Jacal]

Mark, David, Andy....thanks for all the help, links and hard work, will definitely help with the learning curve

 

[coldpenguin]

I have seen this claimed by a few on here. Do you have any hard evidence on this, and are you able to sum up the differences?

From my tests, I find that DPP does /basic/ colour edits and sharpen better than ACR. However, ACR is better than DPP if you have messed up the shot to the point of needing to hit auto-recover, and shadow recovery.

As a matter of interest, at what stage do you transfer into Photoshop? Do you edit the JPEG you have converted from RAW in Photoshop, or do you do some RAW editing in DPP and then transfer into Photoshop for final editing and conversion?

Make the basic changes such as white point compensation, lens abberation/vignette corrections in DPP, then use the transfer to photoshop function, not save as jpg. If you save as jpg, you will be downconverting the raw to 8bit. Transfer to photoshop should keep the extra 4 bits of data. Personnaly, I try to keep the data at 16bit for as long as I can (there are some edits in photoshop which are 8 bit only)

 

[arad85]

From my tests, I find that DPP does /basic/ colour edits and sharpen better than ACR. However, ACR is better than DPP if you have messed up the shot to the point of needing to hit auto-recover, and shadow recovery.

Did you read my link? Not my findings....

 

[coldpenguin]

Did you read my link? Not my findings....

Nope, I had not, and I don't think you understood what I wrote either.

The Canon DPP is better at reproducing the real settings that you have applied in the camera. The image that it produces is based on the settings which the camera stores alongside the RAW, which it would use to produce the jpg. If your shot is /almost on/ as far as the jpg produced goes, then the DPP has the best closest start.
My experience with ACR is that it often ignores the settings which are stored in the RAW, and they apply their own settings. In my mind, the only reason why you would want this is if you either

a) didn't bother to set the camera up right
b) completely screwed the shot.

Looking at your site, it appears that you do seem to conclude that the sharpening is more accurate in DPP. (the sharpen amount can be set within the camera)

Out of the box, DPP produces sharper and cleaner images.

Colour-wise, you note that the images look better in ACR/xrite profiles, I only have the Xrite colour-munki, so can only measure radiated light, however it should be noted that the colour profile again can be modified in the camera, and that I have had on occasion ACR completely disregard the settings.

hat Adobe standard is a pretty good match for the calibrated workflow – at least in daylight – whilst DPP falls behind a little, especially in the blues and greens. It looks like Lightroom and the X-rite is a winner here.

With the noise reduction, this is a difficult subject, as it involves both noise rejection, and selective sharpening really (which is on a different page of DPP, and gives the extra sliders you picture for lightroom). Again the camera has default settings for NRa, but not for USM (that I have found anyway). DPP does a preview function for NR, which has a movable 100% zoom box, and overview picture of the whole image. It is only 1 click away (should you wish to change the defaults that were set in the camera).
But for me, I wouldn't say that NR was a basic function. As you state, most of the time (you claimed the default for your camera) you would want to be at 100 ISO, so NR is usually very weak.

 

[arad85]

The Canon DPP is better at reproducing the real settings that you have applied in the camera.

Well, you'd expect that, but then if I'm shooting RAW I don't bother with any of the develop settings in camera. I can see a different way of working (which is what I think you are suggesting) which is to "tag" raw images with a default develop setting.

The image that it produces is based on the settings which the camera stores alongside the RAW, which it would use to produce the jpg. If your shot is /almost on/ as far as the jpg produced goes, then the DPP has the best closest start.

Yup, I'd agree with that.

My experience with ACR is that it often ignores the settings which are stored in the RAW, and they apply their own settings. In my mind, the only reason why you would want this is if you either

a) didn't bother to set the camera up right
b) completely screwed the shot.

That's an interesting way of thinking. I never use picture styles as I always shoot raw. I'm not sure what I expect to be applied as a default transform - perhaps something that provides the most realistic (i.e. true to what was captured) image.

Looking at your site, it appears that you do seem to conclude that the sharpening is more accurate in DPP. (the sharpen amount can be set within the camera)

No, merely that with everything set as shipped the sharpening is stronger in DPP. I've often wondered why my images look slightly soft in LR and now I know - the default sharpening is too low. Fortunately, you can change the default on import to be any value you want so you can get equivalent sharpening in LR by default. It just isn't there out of the box. I don't think the sharpening to be more accurate in either - I think they are pretty much equivalent when set equivalently.

However, I now know I should be defaulting the sharpening to a higher value (landscape is at 40% by the way) on import - there was always that niggle that perhaps my lens wasn't the sharpest copy, but now I know it's because the sharpness setting wasn't high enough in LR.

Colour-wise, you note that the images look better in ACR/xrite profiles, I only have the Xrite colour-munki, so can only measure radiated light, however it should be noted that the colour profile again can be modified in the camera, and that I have had on occasion ACR completely disregard the settings.

I have to say the more I understand how it works, the more I view ACR as an open toolbox that enables me to calibrate my workflow. I'm in the process of creating a set of presets which will be used to apply default processing choices to the images I'm importing. Much like the Canon Presets, but built to work with my camera in LR.

With the noise reduction, this is a difficult subject, as it involves both noise rejection, and selective sharpening really

My aim was to only use the noise reduction sliders without adding any further sharpening. What was interesting to note was the blotchy chroma in DPP that wasn't there in LR. This is especially visible on the chin.

I did find this thread: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/676926 on the Adobe forums which goes into more details on colour differences. More reading around that to be done for me - as I said the ACR rendition of the Xrite with the profile looks correct on screen, but it does appear warmer than the Canon Standard processing.