DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

[sensia25]

Ever since I purchased 80D, I have to move on to DPP4 which is becoming more of hassel to use. I had DPP3 working perfectly with 60D files. It was fast and snappy. Then came DPP4. On a highend i5-4690k/16GB RAM system, this freaking software works like a dog. A file deletion locks up the screen for seconds. RAW processing is slow as hell. Please, Canon, bring back the snappy DPP3.

I have read adding a Nvidia based GPU may improve the speed of DPP4 but I don't want to spend 100 dollars on anew GPU. Canon, how about enable support for OpenCL from ATI?

End of rant.

[Waddizzle]

Windows has changed.  It won't be long before DPP3 no longer works.  

With that said, DPP4 does not run well on budget priced laptops.  Having a separate graphics card, with its' separate video memory, seems to make all of the difference.  I'm running a core i7 with 16GB, and a graphics card with 4GB.  I'm accessing files across a LAN.  RAW files load in 2-3 seconds.  I can run a batch process, and it crunches 6 files per minute.

[sensia25]

I am quite surprised by your result since Dpp does not use gpu beyond previewing images. My workstation is not low end by any means. I5 4690k turbo up to 4.3GHz and 16GB ram is more than enough. Canon is definitely at fault here. The most horrid part is looking at the spinning wheel after deleting a picture, because dpp is scanning all my drives again. A gpu won't solve that.

[Waddizzle]

---

@sensia25 wrote:
I am quite surprised by your result since Dpp does not use gpu beyond previewing images. My workstation is not low end by any means. I5 4690k turbo up to 4.3GHz and 16GB ram is more than enough. Canon is definitely at fault here. The most horrid part is looking at the spinning wheel after deleting a picture, because dpp is scanning all my drives again. A gpu won't solve that.

---

People complain about DPP scanning their drives.  I have not observed that.  I have no idea what people are seeing.  I never noticed the behavior under Windows 7, either.

I'm running Windows Pro.  I don't let the OS automatically scan thumb drives for media files.  I have disabled WMP from automatically scanning, too.  I do not store photos in the "Photos" folder setup by Windows, either.  I store them in a folder on the root C: drive, and at network locations.

[sensia25]

None of that effected DPP3. The culprit is DPP4. WMP has nothing to do with DPP4 as was evidenced from procmon log.

[ebiggs1]

Easy solution, get Adobe Lightroom 6.    Canon is not a software company, they are a camera company.

[TCampbell]

I use Lightroom.  Prior to that I used Aperture.  

My main reason for liking those tools (Aperture & Lightroom) is that in addition to providing all the tools for image adjustments (and they have far more than what you'd find in DPP) they also manage all of the images.   

They maintain a file heirarchy of all your shots (organized by date shot) but as you pull in photo you can also add them to "collections".  So images that should be associated with each other -- even if not shot at the same time -- would be grouped together.  They also let you rapidly do all the keywording, tagging, etc. so now everything is searchable and very quickly.  You can even search for shots taken with specific pieces of gear (e.g. if I want to find images shot with a certain lens for example... or at certain exposure settings, etc. that's easy to do.)

But the other nice thing is the ability to rapidly synchronize global adjustments across a group of images.  E.g. I can adjust the white balance of a shot and then 'sync' that across the entire shoot (you can sync almost any adjustment... when you open the sync panel it shows a whole list of adjustments that can be synced and you just tick the boxes that you want to sync.)

The one annoyance I have with all these programs is that the color temperature adjustments are backwards.  Hotter tempertures are BLUER in real world physics... but DPP and Lightroom get that backward.  Blue stars are hotter than orange stars.  Even your light bulbs get it right... the lower the color temp on the box (in Kelvins) the more yellow/orange the light.

[ebiggs1]

"...but DPP and Lightroom get that backward."

Tim that may be the way of stars but it isn't the way of colors.  Most of us who are not astronomers see this as perfectly correct.

[TCampbell]

I get that people will refer to an image as "warmer" as having more amber/orange/red tones and a "cooler" has more blue tones.  My problem is that they state that in Kelvins... and they get it backwards.  If the kelvin value is higher then the image will change to the BLUE side... not the red side.  

Under no cicumstances is it acceptable to use the label "kelvins" on that scale and then use it backward.  

That's sort of like saying that photographers are ok with the idea that 5+2 = 3 ... because we use the plus symbol where every mathmatician would have used a minus symbol -- but it's ok because we're photographers.  No no no... wrong is wrong.  

Weight Watchers would love these people.... "I used to weigh 200 lbs...but I managed to get up to 220 lbs and I look so much thinner!"  O.o

It's the sort of thing I'd expect in a Monte Python skit... but not in the real world.

[ebiggs1]

"Under no cicumstances is it acceptable to use the label "kelvins" on that scale and then use it backward.  "

Hmmm, must be one of those dpi or ppi things!    Photo editors and people often use incorrect terms to say what we all understand?

"It's the sort of thing I'd expect in a Monte Python skit... but not in the real world."

How old are you Tim?  You certainly don't think that?