DPP vs LR question

[stevewhis]

when I look at the same image (RAW with no processing changes) in the latest versions of both Lightroom and DPP, there is noticeably less noise in the image when viewed on DPP.  Is that to be expected?  I'm wondering if DPP applies some noise reduction as a default setting?

[Mitsubishiman]

You are correct there is not an actual export to: function.

I open the RAW File, apply the Lens Optimizer and any other changes (Usually Minimal) then click "Save As" then you are automatically prompted to save the same file in RAW Format, usually I alter the name of the file slightly because i always keep the original RAW File "AS IS" for a backup.

Then I import that file into LR, the lens correction has been saved in the "Save AS" File

I will probably continue this method on anything I really want to process until LR adds the Lens Correction Profile for my 16-35 f2.8L III

Remember I am not a professional photographer, I just understand file formats, the one thing that always amazed me about DPP is after processing the file size (Jpeg) is considerably larger than in LR, I am in the process of switching computers to an extremely high end machine with a 5K monitor, I will post process the same photo in DPP and in LR and compare the resolution by zooming way in, I shoot with a 5DsR and although the human eye (Especially Mine Lol) is not acute, aggressive cropping or zooming reveals the limitations of any shot.

So the real question will be, does DPP retain more data in the conversion than LR, the final file size in a DPP converted Jpeg is considerably larger than LR, however is it really different, it's like comparing a dual RAW/JPEG shot, the processed RAW will contain much more detail.

Whether or not the equation of file size equals an increase in detail will always be a topic discussion, my eyes are just not what they used to be...

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Mitsubishiman wrote:

You are correct there is not an actual export to: function.

I open the RAW File, apply the Lens Optimizer and any other changes (Usually Minimal) then click "Save As" then you are automatically prompted to save the same file in RAW Format, usually I alter the name of the file slightly because i always keep the original RAW File "AS IS" for a backup.

Then I import that file into LR, the lens correction has been saved in the "Save AS" File

I will probably continue this method on anything I really want to process until LR adds the Lens Correction Profile for my 16-35 f2.8L III

Remember I am not a professional photographer, I just understand file formats, the one thing that always amazed me about DPP is after processing the file size (Jpeg) is considerably larger than in LR, I am in the process of switching computers to an extremely high end machine with a 5K monitor, I will post process the same photo in DPP and in LR and compare the resolution by zooming way in, I shoot with a 5DsR and although the human eye (Especially Mine Lol) is not acute, aggressive cropping or zooming reveals the limitations of any shot.

So the real question will be, does DPP retain more data in the conversion than LR, the final file size in a DPP converted Jpeg is considerably larger than LR, however is it really different, it's like comparing a dual RAW/JPEG shot, the processed RAW will contain much more detail.

Whether or not the equation of file size equals an increase in detail will always be a topic discussion, my eyes are just not what they used to be...

---

That is very interesting. I was altogether unaware that DPP treated lens correction information differently from the way it treats user-originated changes. If that's documented anywhere, I surely missed it. I applaud your detective work and look forward to hearing about whatever additional nuggets of information you're able to unearth.

[digital]

I kinds summarized my my thoughts about those two here. Last page, last post.

if you are comparing DLO to LR's detail tab which both are responsible for capture sharpening you need to turn DPP's sharpening off. If you don't you are not comparing apples to apples. LR export sharpening has no yet been appplied so DLO will look better. Actually Canon instructs to turn sharpening off before applying DLO.   

If you turn DPP sharpening off then they look much closer and with carefull detial tab adjustments you can get real close. DLO does offer true deconvoltion whle LR/ACR applies USM so one needs to careful with the sharpening slider, the detail and masking siders that also effects your NR adjustments and that looks at the end.                          

http://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Software/Do-you-prefer-DPP-or-Lightroom/td-p/203300

[Mitsubishiman]

The real key is to comapre the file size in a "Save AS" file. after the Lens correction has been applied the file size will be different, the part that amazes me most is the ability to edit and save in RAW, not completly sure what the original motive is, I suppose like all software they each have there strong points, I wish I had more free time to experiment.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Mitsubishiman wrote:

The real key is to comapre the file size in a "Save AS" file. after the Lens correction has been applied the file size will be different, the part that amazes me most is the ability to edit and save in RAW, not completly sure what the original motive is, I suppose like all software they each have there strong points, I wish I had more free time to experiment.

---

The motive is that as long as you're doing your editing in RAW, you don't lose any information. A conversion to JPEG inevitably costs you information. It also makes editing more difficult and less accurate. (I believe that conversion to TIFF doesn't cost you information, but TIFF files are enormous.)

[Mitsubishiman]

That they are, although I have lots of storage capacity and a good thing, the average RAW file from full resolution on the 5DsR is 65mb - 74mb
Even after processing they average 25mb so there are very few sites I can upload full size to, 500px is about the only one that will accept.
I am well versed in tiff format, all of the aerial photography I utilize at work start out as a . ECW or. SID format (highly compressed) and then after choosing the area I need they are exported to a GeoTIFF, the only difference from a TIFF is a coordinate file that is created for geographic insertion into Autocad, an aerial of one square mile at 6inch pixel resolution converted to full tiff resolution is 1.2gb

[kvbarkley]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

The motive is that as long as you're doing your editing in RAW, you don't lose any information. A conversion to JPEG inevitably costs you information. It also makes editing more difficult and less accurate. (I believe that conversion to TIFF doesn't cost you information, but TIFF files are enormous.)

---

I wouldn't bet on that. Anything that rewrites the RAW data has a potential for loss of information. Especially pixel mungers like DLO. Admittedly, you would have the same loss if you do it in-camera, but still...

[RobertTheFat]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

The motive is that as long as you're doing your editing in RAW, you don't lose any information. A conversion to JPEG inevitably costs you information. It also makes editing more difficult and less accurate. (I believe that conversion to TIFF doesn't cost you information, but TIFF files are enormous.)

---

I wouldn't bet on that. Anything that rewrites the RAW data has a potential for loss of information. Especially pixel mungers like DLO. Admittedly, you would have the same loss if you do it in-camera, but still...

---

Yes, the current context of this discussion is that changes introduced by DLO, unlike all other changes made to a RAW file in DPP, are apparently irreversible.

[visualpauses]

I'm also vexed with the lack of any option to export Raw data from DPP. The closest we get is a TIFF bitmap. 

That is a consolation only if you are exporting 16-bit TIFFs. But those are monsters (size-wise).

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2011/09/26/are-tiffs-and-raws-really-the-same-thing/

There are many small differences that I see between DPP and LR. For e.g. the Shadows and highlights sliders in DPP have a much wider range of operation.

On the other hand, LR tools are easiur to use and the HDR tool is excellent.

Even the "Export to Photoshop" converts to TIFFwhen handing off to PS.

The last option is to export to TIFF, then import to LR, then convert to DNG to save some space. 

Wonder when Canon will support either RAW or DNG Export??

[Waddizzle]

No one supports DNG, except Adobe. Once converted to that format, there is no going back.