post processing

[jli3]

I don't really like the layout of DPP, so was wondering...
If I shoot raw, use DPP to convert to jpg, and then process the jpg's in lightroom which I am more used to, would I lose the benefits of shooting raw?

[TCampbell]

Yes ... and if you have Lightroom... just bring your RAW files into Lightroom directly.  Lightroom is specifically optimized for RAW.

[Waddizzle]

---

@jli3 wrote:
I don't really like the layout of DPP, so was wondering...
If I shoot raw, use DPP to convert to jpg, and then process the jpg's in lightroom which I am more used to, would I lose the benefits of shooting raw?

---

I use Lightroom, and I really do not need to use DPP for post processing. 

In fact, you really do not need to use the EOS Utility to 'Import" image files from your camera, but I still use the EOSU to take advantage of the automatic file renaming, and selective destination folder options.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jli3 wrote:
I don't really like the layout of DPP, so was wondering...
If I shoot raw, use DPP to convert to jpg, and then process the jpg's in lightroom which I am more used to, would I lose the benefits of shooting raw?

---

No. You lose information going from RAW to JPEG, so editing in JPEG gives you less to work with. There are some useful things (redeye removal, for instance) that DPP doesn't do or does very clumsily and that have to be done after conversion to JPEG. But in general you should do as much of your editing as possible in RAW. I'm only vaguely familiar with Lightroom's capabilities, but doesn't it let you edit a RAW file?

Some people have claimed that DPP does a better job of RAW conversion than Lightroom does, but that should be outweighed by the advantage of doing your editing in RAW.

[jli3]

Yes, I use lightroom and prefer the interface. Just wanted to check out DPP because people talk about it here a lot.

Silly question, when people say they shoot raw, do they save the edited pictures in raw format still to preserve that quality/range? Or do you still save if in jpg or any other compressed format after post-processing?

[Waddizzle]

---

@jli3 wrote:

Yes, I use lightroom and prefer the interface. Just wanted to check out DPP because people talk about it here a lot.

Silly question, when people say they shoot raw, do they save the edited pictures in raw format still to preserve that quality/range? Or do you still save if in jpg or any other compressed format after post-processing?

---

You save it as RAW, which you can think of as being a digital negative.  When you want to share the image with others, you create a JPEG, which is more or less equivalent to a film print, or slide.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@jli3 wrote:

Yes, I use lightroom and prefer the interface. Just wanted to check out DPP because people talk about it here a lot.

Silly question, when people say they shoot raw, do they save the edited pictures in raw format still to preserve that quality/range? Or do you still save if in jpg or any other compressed format after post-processing?

---

You save it as RAW, which you can think of as being a digital negative.  When you want to share the image with others, you create a JPEG, which is more or less equivalent to a film print, or slide.

---

Exactly. You may decide later, for whatever reason, to process the image differently. It's important to have all of the original information available.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@jli3 wrote:
I don't really like the layout of DPP, so was wondering...
If I shoot raw, use DPP to convert to jpg, and then process the jpg's in lightroom which I am more used to, would I lose the benefits of shooting raw?

---

No. You lose information going from RAW to JPEG, so editing in JPEG gives you less to work with. There are some useful things (redeye removal, for instance) that DPP doesn't do or does very clumsily and that have to be done after conversion to JPEG. But in general you should do as much of your editing as possible in RAW. I'm only vaguely familiar with Lightroom's capabilities, but doesn't it let you edit a RAW file?

Some people have claimed that DPP does a better job of RAW conversion than Lightroom does, but that should be outweighed by the advantage of doing your editing in RAW.

---

I agree with Bob, that if intend to edit photos, then you should always perform edits on RAW files when they are available.

As for DPP doing a better job of RAW conversion, I have no opinion.  I haven't bothered to compare the two.  Any differences that might exist are slight, and it would make sense for Canon to know how to process their own files better than a third party like Adobe.  

But, Lightroom affords much more in the way image filtering than DPP.  In addition, while DPP and LR share many similar tools, the controls in LR will many times offer a greater range of adjustment.  Frequently, LR will offer more controls to achieve the same result, resulting in finer control of the adjustments.  

BTW, I just noticed that my latest version of DPP is not performing "Convert and Save" operations.  It's hangning.