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? 

[diverhank]

I don't use either DPP or Lightroom but have tried a bit of both. In my view, Lightroom is light years ahead of DPP in versatility and function.  You get what you pay for.  

[RobertTheFat]

---

@diverhank wrote:

I don't use either DPP or Lightroom but have tried a bit of both. In my view, Lightroom is light years ahead of DPP in versatility and function.  You get what you pay for.  

---

That position is not uncommon in this forum, but IMO it's erroneous. I haven't used Lightroom, so I really can't comment on its capabilities. But what I do know is that Version 4 of DPP is very rich in functionality; those who say it isn't probably haven't delved into it deeply enough to know. My read is that if you need more editing capability than DPP 4 provides, you probably need Photoshop.

The ground shifts, though, if what you're really looking for is a good cataloguing system. DPP doesn't provide a cataloguing system, and LR does. If that's important to you, you should definitely read up on LR to see if it meets your needs  OTOH, LR itself makes it harder to get along without a cataloguing system by saving the reversible changes you make to a baseline image in a separate "sidecar" file, rather than in the image file itself. DPP lets you create the sidecar file (they call it a "recipe") and then lets you apply it to other images, but it doesn't force the issue.

But where DPP 4 really drops the ball is in efficiency. It can be infuriatingly slow, especially if you're running it on a PC and the image files you're editing are on a server. And when I say "slow", I mean that its inexplicable delays are measured in minutes, not in seconds. During those delays my Ethernet switch indicates very high rates of activity, from which I infer that a lot of the problem may be traceable to inefficiency in the way the program manages caching of data between the client and the server. I plan to replace my 100MB switch with a gigabit switch and hope that helps.

One thing on which I'm not clear is how much of DPP's efficiency problem is due to my equipment and the way I use it and how much would affect all or most users. A few people have complained in this forum, but not as many as I might have expected, given the magnitude of the problems I've had. In any event, Canon has elected to pretty much ignore the issue, so you're probably on your own if you do experience efficiency problems.

[John_SD]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

 But where DPP 4 really drops the ball is in efficiency. It can be infuriatingly slow, especially if you're running it on a PC and the image files you're editing are on a server. And when I say "slow", I mean that its inexplicable delays are measured in minutes, not in seconds.

---

If that becomes the issue for me as well, I would have to abanbdon the product before I become too heavily invested in it and look elsewhere. On the other hand, I don't relish having to pay monthly or yearly rental fees for Lightroom for the remainder of my life. In fact, I would refuse and would have to look elsewhere for a product. 

I mention this because I have been hearing that Lightroom will only be rental-based in the future, if it isn't already. I have also heard that future versions of the product will be removed from sales channels and be available only for rent. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@John_SD wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

 But where DPP 4 really drops the ball is in efficiency. It can be infuriatingly slow, especially if you're running it on a PC and the image files you're editing are on a server. And when I say "slow", I mean that its inexplicable delays are measured in minutes, not in seconds.

---

If that becomes the issue for me as well, I would have to abanbdon the product before I become too heavily invested in it and look elsewhere. On the other hand, I don't relish having to pay monthly or yearly rental fees for Lightroom for the remainder of my life. In fact, I would refuse and would have to look elsewhere for a product. 

I mention this because I have been hearing that Lightroom will only be rental-based in the future, if it isn't already. I have also heard that future versions of the product will be removed from sales channels and be available only for rent. 

---

I use both DPP4 and LR6.  

DPP4 will run inefficiently and slowly on a budget laptop running Windows 10.  If you give it 16GB or RAM, and i7 8-core precoessor, and a video card with separate video, instead of sharing system RAM and CPU time, then DPP4 can really fly.  I can load a file in 2-3 seconds.  I can run DPP batch files, it can crunch out 10 files per minute, and my files are stored on a network drive.

On the other hand, LR can process files almost that quickly on a budget laptop.  Other advantage of LR are wider range of adjustments, as well as, more nuanced control over those adjustments.  For example, instead of one color saturation slider, LR will give you three.  Another advantage of LR over DPP is the ability to perform lens correction on third party lenses.  With DPP, the only lens profiles you can use come from Canon, and only include Canon lenses.

[Peter]

In my opinion DPP is a good start because the images look like the ones in your camera. With a few adjustments your images are ready to be exported as jpg. What I really miss with DPP is a good shadow/highlight tool. 

About Lightroom I can´t answer that question. I use open source like RawTherapee and Darktable. RawTherapee is in my opinion the most advanced tool out there. Perhaps too advanced and time consuming. Search for "Old Oak - A Tutorial".

Darktable is my favorite and I get good results quicker than with RawTherapee. Only for Linux and OS X. Partha (just search darktable temp site:http://partha.com) has compiled Darktable 2.0 for Windows so if you have an older camera than EOS M5 you can try Darktable for Windows. I don´t know if the Windows version is stable. The latest for linux is Darktable 2.2.3.

---

@diverhank wrote:

I don't use either DPP or Lightroom but have tried a bit of both. In my view, Lightroom is light years ahead of DPP in versatility and function.  You get what you pay for.  

---

 Not really.

[TTMartin]

---

@Peter wrote:

In my opinion DPP is a good start because the images look like the ones in your camera. With a few adjustments your images are ready to be exported as jpg. What I really miss with DPP is a good shadow/highlight tool. 

---

In DPP 4 use the vertical bars with the white triangles in the histogram to control shadows and highlights.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Peter wrote:

In my opinion DPP is a good start because the images look like the ones in your camera. With a few adjustments your images are ready to be exported as jpg. What I really miss with DPP is a good shadow/highlight tool. 

---

In DPP 4 use the vertical bars with the white triangles in the histogram to control shadows and highlights.

---

That's only the beginning. There are also sliders for brightness, contrast, highlights, shadows, and saturation. And you can adjust the color values either globally or with three separate adjustments for each of six colors.

[cicopo]

There are a lot of reasons to learn how to process RAW images including the idea that RAW converters keep improving so an old photo can be improved easier now than when first processed. Because I dive RAW becomes even more important due to the bad lighting and the fact that when working against a strong current you may only get 1 shot off & if it's over or underexposed you have some additional latitude to save it from a RAW file vs a jpg. I prefer Adobe Camera Raw which is a plug in for CS 6 but I'm pretty sure it is also available (free of charge) for Photoshop Elements. DPP didn't even handle files from my G9 when I started using it. You had to use a limited set of controls in Zoombrowser to re work the files. No idea whether the files can be processed in DPP now because I have my work flow worked out in CS 6.

I recently used this sample to show someone having trouble with underwater photography They weren't aware just how different things are underwater nor how to work while floating or fighting the current. You don't get to plant your feet in a stable stance & in general you & your subject are moving as you frame the shot. Going from memory there is no colour below about 80 feet & this was shot at about 90 feet down. I have 2 small strobes that fire at full power only using fiber optic cables mounted directly in front of the built in flash but the built in flash is blocked off by the housing & has no effect on the photo. RAW brings out colours very easily compared what you might have to do with the jpg.

It took less than 1 minute to process that file. The white balance correction is the most important one & usually is done with 1 or 2 mouse clicks.

[jrhoffman75]

The European site has DPP tutorials.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/canon_software/dpp_video_tutorials.do?

One of them covers shadows and highlights, and they provide the .CR2 files to compare what DPP does with LR.