Using DPP in workflow with other photo software

[DanSF]

I learned from a Canon Live Learning instructor that it is a good idea to first open a RAW file using DPP, and then saving it in a lossless format (for example TIFF) and then continuiing in the editing workflow with the file that was saved.  This is because DPP understands data specific to Canon equipment that third party software may not fully understand.  Thus they recommend not opening the RAW file directly in a third party program.

My work is not too detailed, so I may not fully appreciate all the differences, but certainly there are some items like the focus points that DPP shows, that other software is unable to show, so that is useful for me. 

[jrhoffman75]

That discussion by Canon is correct - many camera features are not recognized directly by third party software.. And you can find many discussions on the Internet that evaluate the differences between RAW conversion in DPP and conversion in other products, like Lightroom, Photoshop, On1, etc.

I have never found a definitive study that makes a solid conclusion either way (just many examples where Person A demontrates with his examples where DPP is better and Person B who demonstrates with his examples the Brand X is better), and many professionals produce excellent work that sells for many dollars without using DPP.

But, DPP does a very good job on RAW conversion, it is free,  and if you don't want/need local adjustment tools like exist in LR/PS it is an excellent product for learning RAW processing. As your skills progress you will be able to decide if you need to invest in more advanced software.

[DanSF]

Thank you. I searched the web and there seems to be endless speculation on how one method is better than another, but as you state, i can't find anything definitive.  But I'll trust Canon to do a reasonable job. (I happen to use Luminar for other processing, but I find DPP sufficient in many cases)  And I can't beat the free price for DPP.  

I'm focused on other aspects to make better photos and will find investing the time in those areas to benefit me more.

[jrhoffman75 · Accepted solution]

Since you have Luminar consider this workflow:

1. Configure Preferences to apply “0” sharpening and noise reduction. 

2. Open your RAW file in Edit Image. 

3. Apply Neutral Picture Style. 

4. Apply DLO and other lens correction options. 

5. Go to Batch Process option (a batch can be one image). 

6. The last option under batch will allow you to export a TIFF into Luminar and have Luminar start up. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jrhoffman75wrote:

Since you have Luminar consider this workflow:

1. Configure Preferences to apply “0” sharpening and noise reduction. 

2. Open your RAW file in Edit Image. 

3. Apply Neutral Picture Style. 

4. Apply DLO and other lens correction options. 

5. Go to Batch Process option (a batch can be one image). 

6. The last option under batch will allow you to export a TIFF into Luminar and have Luminar start up. 

---

Maybe this is just a personal bias, but I don't think there's a photo editor in existence today that's good enough to justify the inclusion of TIFF files.into my standard workflow.

[jrhoffman75]

That's the only way to use DPP in conjunction with another editor, and from what i have read on many posts (but haven't verified personally) the RAW conversion in Luminar is not very good relative to sharpening and noise reduction.

Same in Lightroom - all external editing is via TIFF.

[DanSF]

Thanks for the steps. Now I had to try it! 

I started with a RAW file of a photo taken with a recently acquired EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM lens and shot at f/16 & 1/250 sec. I made sure the lens correction data was downloaded.  The photo was taken using a tripod and during a sunny day (but I forgot to bring my hood!) so I think the the picture was a good one to experiment with.

I compared the results in DPP with and without DLO, as well as other settings and there is a visible difference!  It was sharper looking, in many parts of the photo (middle & periphery)

I am not certain what made the most difference: the aberration, diffraction or something else.

I may not have noticed the differences without a side-by-side comparison, but certainly in the future, where it would matter, I will use this step.  I think it will help especially if I crop the image strongly. I was wrong to think this was only for professionals. If I crop a photo of a bird far away, it will make a diffrence, even for me.

I haven't experimented with photos taken with higher f-stops (or lower) but I will experiment further in the future. 

I found a set of samples in the Canon web site which explained this capability and now I understand it better.  So it seems that one of the good benefits of DPP is understanding the lens, including DLO. 

I was ignoring this for a long time, but fortunately I can go back if I want to rework some old photos.  This hint that I learned from a Canon class alone made the time worth it.  This info is in the manuals and tutorials, but it was easy to overlook for me.  

[jrhoffman75]

The European Canon Professional Network website has a very good DPP tutorial.

[DanSF]

John,

Thank you for the reference to the Canon European Professional Network, which I was not aware of.  I found the  DPP tutorials and they are quite good.

I am a newcomer to the Canon Community and I am impressed with the helpful and positive experience with participation from people like you. There is a spirit of helping each other and I hope I can help others in return.

[DanSF]

John,

Thank you for the reference. Those are good DPP tutorials and helps me out.

I am new to the Canon community, but I find that positive, helpful nature of members like you makes this a pleasure and a good resource for me.

(Note: I replied to your post earlier with a link to the DPP tutorial on the European Canon Pro Network site as a help to other readers but it did not seem to get posted, maybe due to limits on including links). My apologies if this is a duplicate.  It's quite easy to find on their site)