Do you prefer DPP or Lightroom

[John_SD]

I haven't tried Lightroom, so I cannot comment on its benefits or shotcomings. I am just starting to dip my toes into DPP, and while I am far from conversant about it's intracacies, benefits and quirks, I feel that for now it will be sufficient for my needs. 

A real benefit of DPP, in my view is that it's free -- and it seems robust in its abilities, of which I haven't yet scratched the surface. But so far I like what i see.

Do you guys feel stongly about one product or the other? If so, why? 

[shadowsports]

I'm going to buy DxO PhotoLab as well.  My body and several of my lenses are not even supported in LR Perpetual 6.8.x.

LR 6.8.x has a RAW import utility which turns something simple into a multi step process.  Investing in it would be foolish.  DxO is being actively developed..  not that LR isn't, but only the cloud version.  I like to own my software thanks. 

I've already joined their forums and talked to other users as well as folks on their development team.  If you want a complete photo editing solution with 3rd party lens correction support in a perpetual license, PhotoLab is the way to go.  They acquired Nix in December of 2017.  They have included this in the current product as a add-on.  Next month they are releasing an update with 100% integration and a fully updated suite of Nix software in PhotoLab.  This is the direction I'm going in.      

[John_SD]

---

@shadowsports wrote:

If you want a complete photo editing solution with 3rd party lens correction support in a perpetual license, PhotoLab is the way to go.      

---

Perhaps so, but their GUI is humongous and would require a substantial amount of time to become fluent with it. 

I've looked at it (they have a 30-day trial), and I've tried other products including Gimp, which I do like, but it is slower than I would prefer. I also looked at Luminar, which I like, but which I also found slow. However, I understand the recent updates to the product makes it more efficient.

Here is my plan now. I'm sticking with DPP for the forseeable future. I am hopeful that Adobe takes enough of a beating on their ill-considerd and confusing subscription model to once again offer Lightroom as a "one-time" purchase. From everything I'm reading, a lot of photographers are abandoning ship and searching for a Lightroom replacement that is free of the monthly money-grab. I'd go with Lightroom, but I'm not interested in entering into a lifelong rental situation. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@John_SD wrote:

---

@shadowsports wrote:

If you want a complete photo editing solution with 3rd party lens correction support in a perpetual license, PhotoLab is the way to go.      

---

Perhaps so, but their GUI is humongous and would require a substantial amount of time to become fluent with it. 

I've looked at it (they have a 30-day trial), and I've tried other products including Gimp, which I do like, but it is slower than I would prefer. I also looked at Luminar, which I like, but which I also found slow. However, I understand the recent updates to the product makes it more efficient.

Here is my plan now. I'm sticking with DPP for the forseeable future. I am hopeful that Adobe takes enough of a beating on their ill-considerd and confusing subscription model to once again offer Lightroom as a "one-time" purchase. From everything I'm reading, a lot of photographers are abandoning ship and searching for a Lightroom replacement that is free of the monthly money-grab. I'd go with Lightroom, but I'm not interested in entering into a lifelong rental situation.  

---

I'm not in any way defending Adobe's "monthly money-grab", but I think you are embarking on a hopeless quest. Note that even before Adobe instituted their subscription model, they made you buy a new version almost every time Canon changed their .CR2 format, which they do for virtually every new camera they release.

[Waddizzle]

---

@John_SD wrote:

---

@shadowsports wrote:

If you want a complete photo editing solution with 3rd party lens correction support in a perpetual license, PhotoLab is the way to go.      

---

Perhaps so, but their GUI is humongous and would require a substantial amount of time to become fluent with it. 

I've looked at it (they have a 30-day trial), and I've tried other products including Gimp, which I do like, but it is slower than I would prefer. I also looked at Luminar, which I like, but which I also found slow. However, I understand the recent updates to the product makes it more efficient.

Here is my plan now. I'm sticking with DPP for the forseeable future. I am hopeful that Adobe takes enough of a beating on their ill-considerd and confusing subscription model to once again offer Lightroom as a "one-time" purchase. From everything I'm reading, a lot of photographers are abandoning ship and searching for a Lightroom replacement that is free of the monthly money-grab. I'd go with Lightroom, but I'm not interested in entering into a lifelong rental situation. 

---

Please do not hold your breath.  I do not think Adobe cares if people leave, because they know that they have a superior product in Lightroom and Photoshop.  

The Lightroom GUI is pretty intuitive, provided that you know what you are trying to achieve.  The Photoshop GUI is similar to most image editors, and fairly intuitive, provided that you know what you are trying to achieve.  Some of the Photoshop tools can be used in very creative ways to reduce noise, and can be more effective than Lightroom.

[John_SD]

"Note that even before Adobe instituted their subscription model, they made you buy a new version almost every time Canon changed their .CR2 format, which they do for virtually every new camera they release."

I didn't realize that, Robert. That is an awful situation and I would want no parts of it. Thank you for the heads-up.

[jrhoffman75]

I'm not really sure Bob is correct. A camera Raw update is required for new cameras (not just Canon), but there were/are dot updates of LR that were issued periodically and free that addded new cameras.

But, if a camera came out after a new version was released (i.e. LR4, LR5, LR6) then they did not go backwards.

But its a moot point. They stopped updating LR perpetul with 6.14, and updates to the subscription program are "free".

[John_SD]

"Please do not hold your breath.  I do not think Adobe cares if people leave, because they know that they have a superior product in Lightroom and Photoshop."

I hope you are wrong, but I fear that you are not. Still, despite their superior product, it seems that many photographers are rejecting Adobe's subscription model, but I would imagine many a photographer with years on Adobe will just "grin and bear it," as it were, as migrating to a totally different platform brings its own headaches.

Maybe it will take years before Adobe feels it in their bottom line, but I for one am "subscriptioned out" and am sick of it. Thus, I reject the subscription model that is increasingly part of modern life as much as reasonably possible. 

[TTMartin]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:

I'm not really sure Bob is correct. A camera Raw update is required for new cameras (not just Canon), but there were/are dot updates of LR that were issued periodically and free that addded new cameras.

But, if a camera came out after a new version was released (i.e. LR4, LR5, LR6) then they did not go backwards.

But its a moot point. They stopped updating LR perpetul with 6.14, and updates to the subscription program are "free".

---

Canon 6D required LR 4

Canon 7D Mk II required LR 5

Canon 5DS required LR 6

For me every time I bought a new camera I had to upgrade my version of Lightroom.

Prior to LR 4, I felt the image quality produced by DPP was so much superior that I didn't use LR.

[jrhoffman75]

"For me every time I bought a new camera I had to upgrade my version of Lightroom."

That can happen with most perpetual license products: once version N+1 is issued Version N stops being updated.

My clarification was related to the statement that a new paid version of LR was required every time Canon changed their CR2 format. Many cameras were added during the life cycle of each LR version.

[shadowsports]

LR - The current perpetual release doesn't support my equpment. Hence the reason I am going with PhotoLab.  I havent used LR or Photoshop for years.  I do not dispute their being an industry leader.  I liked them both when I used it previously, but I'm not going to rent their software.  I don't care what they deciide to do (remain subscription based or bring the perpetual license back).  This could change, maybe it will.  

If I ever dump my Sigma gear and go "all Canon", I'd stick with stick with DPP. For the time being, I like my Sigma Lenses and the photos I can take with them.  PhotoLab is a cost effective alternative for me regardless of the learning curve.  I'm an IT professional and have to become a "power user" on different types / versions of software all the time.  Its going to solve a problem for me (3rd party lens correction) which I'm lacking in DPP.  Cost to value ratio is there.  So I'm ok with it.  I am also ok with people choosing to stick with LR if it meets their needs.