DPP4 displays "Cannot Import Image" for some .tif type files

[aajax]

It seems that DPP4 cannot open (i.e., import/input) some .tif type files.  The specific files that are affecting me were created by GIMP 2.10.4 and are uncompressed .tif type (both 8 bit and 16bit) files.  The related scenario involves the case where initial processing of a raw file (type .CR2) was done by DPP4.  Then a 16bit .tif is created by DPP4 which is then used as input to GIMP.  After some additional editing another .tif type file (either 16bit or 8bit) is exported from GIMP.  The later cannot be imported by DPP4.

No other image processor that I'm using has any problem opening these files.  This includes GIMP, Rawtherappee, XnViewMP, Picasa, Windows Photo Viewer, MS Paint and interestingly Canon's My Image Garden.

[Tim]

Hello aajax, 

I understand that this issue with these files persists.  Since it only seems to affect files processed in this way, through GIMP, it's most likely a compatability issue.  There's no plugins available that would alter the way the program works in that regard, unfortunately. 

[aajax]

Based on troubleshooting to date, I would NOT say it ONLY happens with files created by GIMP.  The only .tif files I've been able to open/import, using DPP4, are the ones also created by DPP4.

While it is possible that the compatibility problem is with GIMP, given the rather significant number of other (independent) software products that have no problem opening/importing the files created by GIMP it appears to be far more likely that the culprit is DPP4.

To be sure, this is not much of a problem for me because my work flow involves using DPP4 to do basic initial development of raw files to include lens correction and white balance adjustment and then rely on GIMP and/or Rawrtherapee for things like exposure adjustment, tone curves, and sharpening.  I would think that Canon is the party that ought to be the most troubled by this finding.

[Tim]

Hello aajax, 

Thank you for the clarification into this issue.  It's not immediately clear what the root cause of this issue is.  We will need to consult with additional resources to investigate further.  Thank you for your patience during this time. 

[jrhoffman75]

" I would think that Canon is the party that ought to be the most troubled by this finding."

Actually, I would think that the number of folks importing non-DPP TIFF files into DPP is a very small population.

DPP is primarily intended to process Canon RAW files. If someone has the software to create TIFF files from a Canon RAW file then they have the software to edit that file. What would be any advantage to importing into DPP?

[aajax]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:
...

DPP is primarily intended to process Canon RAW files. If someone has the software to create TIFF files from a Canon RAW file then they have the software to edit that file. What would be any advantage to importing into DPP?

---

I agree.  I'm certainly not feeling a need to process .tif using DPP.  I also can't think of a good/normal reason others would want to.

[amaitra]

I often pre-process the RAW in DPP - then I might do stitching etc in Hugin and then bring it back to DPP to finish up, crop etc.

I think it used to work in earlier versions, The TIFF is standard - large size issue? 

DPP seems to have issues with large resolution monitors as well.

[Waddizzle]

---

@amaitra wrote:

I often pre-process the RAW in DPP - then I might do stitching etc in Hugin and then bring it back to DPP to finish up, crop etc.

I think it used to work in earlier versions, The TIFF is standard - large size issue? 

DPP seems to have issues with large resolution monitors as well.

---

Have you read through the replies in this thread?  I think the issue may have been that DPP does not accept files that contain multiple image layers.  

As far as you hi-res monitor issue goes, what type of problems are you experiencing?  I have never heard that complaint before.  I know Canon recommends and NVIDIA graphics card for use with DPP, but it is [not] absolutely required.

[jrhoffman75]

Hi Waddizzle. I think you meant to say “not absolutely required “.

[Waddizzle]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:
Hi Waddizzle. I think you meant to say “not absolutely required “.

---

Thanks, Good catch.  Eyesight is not one of my strengths.