12-20-2014 09:56 AM
"And when, in the previous release, they included the 7D2 but not the 7D, I was livid."
And, yet, another reason to use Light Room.
I'll add it to my list. Which still, however, contains more reasons not to.
Actually, now that they've made V4 work with RAW files from the 7D, that reason comes back off of the list.
12-20-2014 11:20 AM
Bob from Boston,I try DPP every so often just to see if there is any reason to use it or switch. Even a good or bad reason, just any reason. I keep trying and I will likey keep trying with this version. I see a big problem for me right off, however, it only supports one of my cameras. The 1D Mk IV. I have all the 1 series here exceptign the 1Dx. I use the 1d4 and the 1ds3 99.5% of the time.Still my firm conclusion is, DPP is awful. ACR and PS and LR are so much better and, yes, they work with all my cameras!Why would anybody buy a program when there is one offered for free, if that program offered any good features? That alone speakes volumes. Yet that is what the way vast majority of the photography world does.
I don't think the perfect photo editor has been written. DPP (in either of its current menifestations) certainly isn't it, but I doubt that Lightroom is either.
DPP is buggy and has one of the least intuititive user interfaces this side of NetBackup. But it provides a fair amount of editing capability, and Canon does a good job of keeping it consistent with their latest equipment. Since it's free, I can install it on all of the computers (of which there are several) that I routinely use. And all changes are maintained as metadata in the original image file, without recourse to databases or "sidecar" files. That's an important feature that I don't believe is provided in PS or LR.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that you haven't used DPP enough to get past its quirks and seriously assess its capabilities. But that's fine; I have no interest in criticizing your workflow or trying to get you to change editors. Your "firm conclusion" that DPP is awful doesn't bother me in the least. But if that firm conclusion is based on less than a thorough understanding of how to get the most out of it, I think you do new users a disservice by urging them to eschew DPP without giving it a fair trial.
I do sympathize with - and share - your complaint that DPP V4 doesn't support all your cameras. While the latest release does now support the cameras (5D3, 7D) that I use 99.5% of the time, it still doesn't support my wife's T2i, and that's a significant inconvenience. But not - at least so far - enough to induce me to consider changing editors. (My problem would go away if my wife were willing to carry a heavier camera, but she isn't.)
12-20-2014 02:21 PM
Still my firm conclusion is, DPP is awful. ACR and PS and LR are so much better and, yes, they work with all my cameras!Why would anybody buy a program when there is one offered for free, if that program offered any good features? That alone speakes volumes. Yet that is what the way vast majority of the photography world does.
I seldom use DPP myself, but I do know those who particularly like it's RAW demosaicing algorithm more than the others. They claim that if they use DPP to convert a RAW that the resulting JPEG looks better than a JPEG converted by Adobe... that the JPEG is more accurate. This somewhat makes sense given that Canon wrote the converter that lives inside your camera so they have the ability to use the same algorithm for the one in DPP.
My reason for liking programs like Lightroom (I'm still on Aperture but will likely convert to Lr in the near future) is more about the "workflow" and also the asset management. I like having my whole image library accessible to me (not having to load images one at a time) and since I shoot in RAW, I like the notion that I can white balance one image and then sync that change (or any other global change) across all the other images shot in the same circumstances.
I still know a few Photographers that grew up learning Photoshop and it's their go-to tool for everything. I would say that DPP is vastly easier to learn to use than Photoshop... but people still use Photoshop. I know one photographer who confessed to me that she spends about 40+ minutes on average editing each image in Photoshop. I told her she REALLY needed to go download the free trial of Lightroom. It's not that Photoshop isn't useful ... but I only use Photoshop for things that Aperture or Lightroom cannot do. If it can be done in Aperture or Lightroom... the workflow will be much faster.
12-21-2014 08:59 AM
" They claim that if they use DPP to convert a RAW that the resulting JPEG looks better than a JPEG converted by Adobe..."
I have heard this, too. One of my retired buddies from Hallmark uses DPP exclusively. And I continue try it. But we have differing opinions here, I guess.
"This somewhat makes sense given that Canon wrote the converter that lives inside your camera so they have the ability to use the same algorithm for the one in DPP."
This is true but they aren't software engineers. I think that is the rub. Adobe is. Add the fact, the resulting product from either is a subjective opinion as to which produces the best jpg, and there you are. I probably hear 10 to 1 in favor of Adobe's output to DPP.
The one fact of either's workflow is reason enough to use LR. And, yes, you can spend enormous amounts of time doing editing in PS as it is a single photo based concept. But LR can do 5 or 5000 photos as easily as a few clicks. I suspose there is always going to be folks that prefer DPP and that is fine, it is just not for me.
BTW, it seems Canon has a bad habit of making their older cameras osolete by not including them in there so-called updates.
LR 5.7 and PS6 and ACR 8, so far, work with every camera I still own. From the original granddaddy 1D to my 1D Mk IV. Not only DPP but EOS Utility drops support for older cameras.
Whatever floats your boat.