Lr3 V. DPP

DucDuc

DucDuc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
283
Name
Thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
I've read so many articles that debate the performance of RAW conversion, sharpening and noise reduction of these two programs but still have no conclusion I can draw. Most say no difference and a few give the edge to DPP. I'd do well to here from people with experience of both please. I have no problem with DPP and find it intuitive and straight forward. Easy to get on with I guess is what I’m saying but I have no real structure to my workflow and thus not a consistent workflow either, I believe this is costing me time and enjoyment.

Being a PSE owner I just, today, got an offer to buy Lr3 for £79. I guess Lr4 is getting closer to release as I had a similar offer about 2 month ago for 50% off MSRP and is now offered at 60% off MSRP. More than ever I think I may do it finally as the price is pretty good, too good to pass up. I think it will lend it's self to improving my workflow, but I don't want to do this at the expense of IQ I currently get from DPP(sharpening, colors, luminance and clarity etc…….)

After getting my 7D I loaded the latest DPP and searched for updates so I believe I'm using the later and greater version. I'm not at my editing PC right now to check.

Thanks in advance,

T
 
Download the trial from Adobes website. 30 days to play with it and see what the image quality is like and whether you can use the features.
 
I don't know about image quality etc but it's a LOT faster than PSE for browsing/preview & conversion (possibly to do with the fact that it's 64 bit)
 
One of the criticism of LR some time ago was that it didn't recognise the camera styles that Canon cameras applied to the image data for DPP to use. Adobe overcame this by making it's own versions for Lightroom. DPP is a good program, considering it's effectively free to Canon users. However Lightroom has far more image controls than DPP, plus it is an excellent DAM program ( which you may not need). I would also suggest that the sharpening is possible better than DPP.

It does of course have a printing module which is very good ( Roll on soft proofing). Plus you have other modules for slideshow production and web export

As suggested download a copy and see what you think. May be worthwhile popping off to the Adobe web site for some tutorials first so you get the hang of it before your 30 day trial starts.
 
All good advice, thank you. can anyone comment from experience of both related to IQ of RAW conversions? I know a 30 day trial is the best thing to experience it but I find the Adobe products sometimes take some getting used to and the offer is only available for a week. Hardly enough time to get properly acquainted with a trial version.
 
I started with my free copy of DPP when I bought my 7D at Christmas.

I think I liked it, and yet after a couple of months, I was tempted by LR3's free 30 day trial.

For me, LR3 is quicker, more intuitive and now I've forgotten (in a sense) I ever used DPP.

I love the noise reduction and the sharpening masks tool, and perhaps like others, I more or less systematically work my way down the right hand column of sliders in the Develop module (Scott Kelby mentions this too in his LR book)

So for me, it would be LR3.

Download the trial.
 
If I remember correctly the sharpening algorithms are based on those by Pixel Genius. The noise reduction controls I find to be very good. Reducing noise without significantly affecting sharpness.

It is said that Capture One gives a better quality image, but I've not tried it. You need to try Lightroom yourself , but I suspect within a few images you'll know if it's for you.

Don't be too afraid to add capture sharpening . Some cameras with strone AA filters need it. My 1Dslll does ( But don't go OTT you shouldn't need more than about 50% in most cases )
 
Thomas

I used to use DPP and found it very good at its job but it didn't flow if that makes sense?

I've recently taken to LR3 and whilst I still think DPP is a good piece of software (especially as it's free) I like LR3 for the workflow opportunities (I am so much quicker at processing my shots now), its ability to catalogue all my shots so I can find the one(s) I want quickly and I think the standard IQ is too close to call, the NR in LR3 is better and overall editing options within the programme are at least as good as DPP if not better.

Personally, I would go for the deal - you won't look back
 
I have capture one, lightroom 3 and dpp.

I use dpp mainly because i prefer it's colours and it's sharpness (seems to be slightly better for feather detail to my eyes).

I use lightroom for photos with highlights that are just bordering on being blown (dpp doesn't do too well on this). I also use it for photos where there was an unusual colour cast/white balance either in the scene or the camera has gotten confused (dpp pretty much sucks for sorting that out easily).

I've recently tried the trial of capture one and i'm so dissapointed with it's output compared to both lightroom and dpp that i'm going to uninstall it. It manages to be both noisier and softer than dpp at the same time, with the noise having an ugly pattern to it.
It's highlight recovery isn't as good as lightroom either.

That's with the 7D though so not sure if it'd be the same with other cameras.
 
I took the 30 day trial of LR3 and tried to assess it against DPP, which I use all of the time. I did find LR3 had some good uses as mentioned above, although if I could only use one, it would be DPP.
If I was offered it at the reduced price I would buy it, but for me, I don't think I could justify the full price for the amount I would use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top