Does Canon sabotage image quality for Lightroom users?

[helloandyhihi]

In Adobe's Lightroom forum, I noted that when I bring an image into Digital Photo Professional 4, I get better grain, detail, sharpness, and contrast than in Lightroom.

An Adobe employee replied, "Most camera companies like to reserve their in-camera processing (their “secret sauce”) for their own software, like Canon does with DPP, and will not share it with other applications like Lightroom."

But DPP isn't a practical everyday application for me. As a freelance journalist, I usually come back with hundreds of images and I bring them into Lightroom by default. I quickly rank and select images, caption, perform minimal edits and export 3-20 at a time.

Unlike Lightroom, DPP is more about editing one-off images. It's not realistic for managing so many photos so quickly. 

• Is it true that Canon isn't helpful to Adobe when it tries to support Canon cameras?
• If so, why wouldn't Canon acknowledge that Lightroom is vital to many of its users and help us achieve the best quality possible? 

Is there a way to achieve the wonderful grain, detail, sharpness, and contrast that comes through upon import to DPP in Lightroom? 

[In the Adobe forum, people recommended that I create presets to mimic DPP. But, also because I'm a journalist, I only make the most minimal adjustments to images, I'm not skilled at fine-tuning things in Lightroom. I have tried, but I definitely have not been able to create such a preset.] [I shoot with a 5D Mark IV]

[Waddizzle]

No.  Why should Canon share their intellectual property with third parties?  Does KFC share their secret recipe with other fast food chains?  Of course, not.  This post is utterly ridiculous.  Expect a Moderator to delete your link.

[helloandyhihi]

I don't understand this point of view. Shouldn't Canon's attitude be that they want to help their customers get the most out of their equipment?

[Waddizzle]

---

@helloandyhihi wrote:

I don't understand this point of view. Shouldn't Canon's attitude be that they want to help their customers get the most out of their equipment?

---

First and foremost, I do not represent Canon, nor do I speak for Canon.  I am Canon user expressing my opinions.

Canon does help their customers get the most out of their equipment.  They offer free software, DPP.  

Does Adobe share their intellectual properties with their rivals?  Of course, not. Good-bye and good luck.

[helloandyhihi]

Well, I know more than a few pro photographers. Nearly all use Lightroom. None use DPP. Like I said, for the way I shoot, it's just not practical.

Companies should meet their clients where they are, not push them to use software that doesn't work they way they need it to.

[wq9nsc]

I have the full Adobe creative suite BUT I use DPP most of the time because it is fast and simple when dealing with 100s of images.  I will often shoot two high school soccer games in a row using a pair of 1 series bodies and will come back with several hundred images and I can easily crunch through these in DPP in a short time.

Typical workflow for me is to dump the images to the solid state drive in my workstation reserved for current images, I use the ethernet port on my 1 series for fast transfer without having to fool with card removal.  I then use the select all option and apply a basic recipe based upon the sport to the entire folder for that game, I have recipes saved in DPP for different sports and it takes about 20 seconds for my workstation to apply that recipe to all of the files.  After the recipe is applied I use quick check to quickly review the photos and mark the possibles using the checkmark command in DPP.   I then select checkmarked photos only for the edit window and go through them sequentially generally applying a quick crop and sometimes a fine adjustment to shadow or highlight but all the basics are in the recipe I apply.  For me this workflow is much faster than dealing with Adobe which I use only when I rarely need to make severe edits, otherwise DPP takes care of what I need and it does have a far better RAW converter than Adobe.  You will find the same is true with Nikon, Sony, etc. because as noted previously companies don't share proprietary information.  If they allowed Adobe or other software makers access then they might as well just send the same information to their competitors in the imaging field.

Rodger

[RobertTheFat]

---

@helloandyhihi wrote:

Well, I know more than a few pro photographers. Nearly all use Lightroom. None use DPP. Like I said, for the way I shoot, it's just not practical.

Companies should meet their clients where they are, not push them to use software that doesn't work they way they need it to.

---

Lightroom's principal advantage over DPP is in cataloguing, not in editing. Making global changes to multiple shots, especially to the degree allowed to journalists, is perfectly feasible in DPP. And if you did edit your shots in DPP, I see no obvious reason why you couldn't still catalogue them in LR, if that's your strong preference.

Pro photographers tend to use what everybody else uses (a tendency not unique to photographers), even if it isn't necessarily the best solution for a given individual. But ultimately there's no ideal substitute for looking at options and deciding, on the evidence, what works best for you.

[John_SD]

Sabotage? Nah, that's just your tinfoil hat that's tilting a little too far off to the side. 

[Peter]

---

@helloandyhihi wrote:

In Adobe's Lightroom forum, I noted that when I bring an image into Digital Photo Professional 4, I get better grain, detail, sharpness, and contrast than in Lightroom.

An Adobe employee replied, "Most camera companies like to reserve their in-camera processing (their “secret sauce”) for their own software, like Canon does with DPP, and will not share it with other applications like Lightroom."

But DPP isn't a practical everyday application for me. As a freelance journalist, I usually come back with hundreds of images and I bring them into Lightroom by default. I quickly rank and select images, caption, perform minimal edits and export 3-20 at a time.

Unlike Lightroom, DPP is more about editing one-off images. It's not realistic for managing so many photos so quickly. 

• Is it true that Canon isn't helpful to Adobe when it tries to support Canon cameras?
• If so, why wouldn't Canon acknowledge that Lightroom is vital to many of its users and help us achieve the best quality possible? 

Is there a way to achieve the wonderful grain, detail, sharpness, and contrast that comes through upon import to DPP in Lightroom? 

[In the Adobe forum, people recommended that I create presets to mimic DPP. But, also because I'm a journalist, I only make the most minimal adjustments to images, I'm not skilled at fine-tuning things in Lightroom. I have tried, but I definitely have not been able to create such a preset.] [I shoot with a 5D Mark IV]

---

It is likely that Canon shares something with Adobe, for example how to read a CR3 file. Canon didn't share this information with the developers from for example darktable, Exiftool, Exiv2 or RawTherapee. The CR3 format was introduced in February 2018 and reversed engineered last year by LibRaw, but it took Adobe a coulpe of days to a month to get CR3 support. Strange...

Why doesn't Canon share how to read a CR3 file (not even with Microsoft because Microsoft uses LibRaw)? Doesn't Canon want people to shoot raw? Or Canon just want people to use DPP and Lightroom? Or Canon can't due to restrictions in a patent or licence?

Is DPP4 the best software for your raw files? Not always.

• For example DPP4 can't (and neither can't Lightroom) correct the maze pattern that may occur in highlights from EOS R or 5D IV at f/1 or f/1.4. The solution (VNG4 as demosacing method) is free for everyone, even for Canon and Adobe, to use, but they don't.
• You own a 5D IV so you may have seen the lines sometime, https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS/Canon-EOS-R-Banding/td-p/298454
  With Octave and a script it is possible to remove the lines as much as possible if you average all the rows from the left optical black area in the raw file. You don't even have a chance with DPP4 or Lightroom.
• Ever had 10-50 visible hot pixels? You can't remove them in DPP4 with a single click. Strange, because it is a really simple task to do and the code is free for Canon to use.
• With your 5D IV it is possible to shoot Dual Pixel Raw. Is DPP4 able to extract and edit the second and 1 stop darker raw file? No. You will need DPRSplit for that.
• Some new features in DPP4 are not available for older camera models (clarity and auto lighting optimizer).

With that said, DPP4 is free, the files look often good without any major editing and the lens correction is wonderful.

---

@helloandyhihi wrote:

 As a freelance journalist, I usually come back with hundreds of images and I bring them into Lightroom by default. I quickly rank and select images, caption, perform minimal edits and export 3-20 at a time.

---

It seems like DPP4 is the right thing then, actually. You can quickly rank and select images, caption, perform minimal edits and export 3-20 at a time in DPP4.

If you have some raw files to upload it would be easier to understand what you want from your raw converters.

[ebiggs1]

"Is there a way to achieve the wonderful grain, detail, sharpness, and contrast that comes through upon import to DPP in Lightroom?"

You know I have blown this horn since I was on this forum. Pro shops do not use DPP4. They use LR/PS. Period!  Most if not all these "permanent" responders are not professional photographers meaning they don't put groceries on the table with their cameras. Yeah a lot, even most of them are top level knowledge and experienced but there is still a difference.

But to your point there is nothing DPP4 can do that LR/PS can't.  In fact if any is crippled in that way it is DPP4 not the other way around. You simply do not know how to fully use LR/PS if you can't.

However, there is no way Canon is going to document how their gear works for a third party. Nobody in their right mind would think that so.