DPP or Lightroom for Canon 7D RAW Processing?

[CrashEd]

I'm new to RAW processing, but I've been using DPP for a couple of months now and I'm really starting to see the benefit of using RAW image capture over jpegs. Plus, I quite enjoy the process of image 'processing' as it adds another side to my photography skills (if you can call them that ).

Although DPP has most of what I need for now, I do find that there are a few tools that I could use that are missing.

I recently downloaded the beta version of Lightroom 3, and in terms of workflow I find it a lot more versatile. However, I've not been using it long and have a lot to learn! The other thing is that I may want to buy Photoshop Elements (or even CS3/4) at some point, and figure that Lightroom will integrate with PS nicely?

Anywho, my question is, is there any benefit of using DPP for processing RAW files from the 7D, or would lightroom do just as good a job? I remember reading on a forum somewhere that DPP handled the noise redution a bit better with it being a Canon product? I have no idea if this is true or not.

I guess what I should be doing is a like-for-like test myself, but I though I'd get some opinion from 7D users on here first.

 

[Craikeybaby]

For my 20D I much preferred the workflow of Lightroom to DPP and the difference in image quality wasn't really noticeable to me.

FWIW Lightroom is much more powerful than DPP, the chances are you wouldn't need photoshop, I only really use Elements from graphic stuff these days, all my photography processing is done in Lightroom.

 

[Chappers]

LR3 has a new noise reduction engine, but it's not fully enabled in the Beta version. Not tried LR3 against DPP, as I'm a Lightroom user and really wouldn't want to go back.

DPP has one major advantage over Lightroom. It's about £200 cheaper, in that it's free.

If you have a Mac check out iPhoto it's not bad and I think it may be better than DPP

 

[tdodd]

Sometimes DPP can produce better results, or at least "different" results, but overall the power and features make Lightroom (I'm using 2.6) a more compelling product. Although I sometimes have a dabble with DPP I almost always end up using the output from Lightroom.

FWIW, here is a 6400 ISO image from my 7D processed in DPP and Lightroom. Edits are minor and NR in both cases is at defaults. The most obvious difference is in the white balance. Both were set to "tungsten" within each raw converter, and either could be tweaked to pretty much match the other or to personal preference.

 

[CrashEd]

Thanks for your replys folks.

Chappers> I know what you mean, I'd sooner put £200 towards glass, but i'd be happy to spend a bit of cash on some decent software that has some good features.

Tim> I'm really glad you replied to the thread as I've seen a lot of your images in the 7D threads on here and they are superb! Thanks very much for taking the time to post the two comparison images, particularly at high ISO. Other than the slight difference in white balance, it's hard to tell the two apart.

I think I'll now go and do some side-by-side tests myself. Lightroom definitely looks like the way forward.

Cheers,
Ed

 

[jerry12953]

I'd say go Lightroom, but wait till v3 is released - it probably won't be long.

Elements would be useful occasionally but for "processing" images LR has all you need.

 

[CrashEd]

I'd say go Lightroom, but wait till v3 is released - it probably won't be long.

Elements would be useful occasionally but for "processing" images LR has all you need.

Thanks Jerry, I think it's well worth waiting for LR v3, as you say. The beta that I've been playing around with is really good. Is there a predicited date for its release?

I think I'll just get PS Elements 8 for the odd bit of image 'manipulation'. I do a bit of macro photography, so I could be worth getting for that (chaninging background colours etc). I can't see that it is worth spending all that money on CS4.

Does anyone know if there is a cloning function in Elements 8? (i.e. can you remove unwanted parts of an image with a cloned section from the same image ).

 

[Chaz Photos]

Sometimes DPP can produce better results, or at least "different" results, but overall the power and features make Lightroom (I'm using 2.6) a more compelling product. Although I sometimes have a dabble with DPP I almost always end up using the output from Lightroom.

FWIW, here is a 6400 ISO image from my 7D processed in DPP and Lightroom. Edits are minor and NR in both cases is at defaults. The most obvious difference is in the white balance. Both were set to "tungsten" within each raw converter, and either could be tweaked to pretty much match the other or to personal preference.

Interesting I like the one on the right What was this done in
I myself like ACR with CS4 it has so much you can get photos spot on what with local adjustments Grad filters and a array of tools

 

[tdodd]

Left was DPP. Right was Lightroom. Here are the Lightroom adjustments....