# DPP Guides



## AlanF (Feb 1, 2018)

Art Morris and Ari Hazeghi are going to continue with updating and selling their DPP guides despite migrating to Nikon, which got me thinking. I have never read a DPP guide but, like with all my software, I have experimented with it and used it in the early months with newly released bodies. With my very limited experience, I found it is not in the same league as DxO Optics Pro (now Photolab) for removing noise and squeezing out detail without losing resolution - I see that Art Morris uses 3rd party noise reduction software. 

I do find DPP useful for checking where my focal points on images are and for triaging. But, am I missing much by not using DPP along with the commercial guides? It's a genuine question.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 1, 2018)

I never found DPP to be a standout developing program. I think each software tool has its strong points and weak points, for instance I hate LR sharpening and rarely use it, but like most other aspects of it so continue using it.

I haven't seen a single RAW developer that is so much better than another I have to use it.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 1, 2018)

The only thing I really like about DPP is the Digital Lens Optimiser - I find it adds a level of sharpness without creating haloes.
Other than that, I agree with PBD - I have tried DPP a few of times and cannot really say I see any other advantage that would warrant me not using LR for which I like the simplicity of everything in one place and a streamlines workflow.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2018)

I don't find DPP particularly useful – I prefer DxO, except with recently-launched cameras that aren't yet supported.


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 1, 2018)

Hi Alan. 
Like you I use DxO PhotoLab and like you I also use DPP to find the focus point, early on I did try to get by with DPP but found it quite unintuitive which was only reinforced by using the free giveaway version of DxO Optics Pro 8, I haven’t looked back since with the exception of giving DPP4 a brief try when it was launched. 
If DxO incorporate focus point information I don’t think I will have a reason to open DPP! 
I have tried a couple of other programs, 
Lightroom, seemed even more unintuitive than DPP, I don’t get the database thing, though I’m sure that is my loss!
ACDSEE Photo Studio, gave me layers and local adjustments, not too hard to muddle through, more intuitive to use and loads of in house online tutorials but still not having enough success to say it is a great buy, I should probably give it more screen time before blaming the software. A big down side is the continual nagging messages that pop up on opening and seem to be compulsary as in I can’t find a way to stop them! 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 1, 2018)

The amazing thing about DPP is that it is a excellent piece of software and its free. It is clunky to use, and poorly documented, but for the cost, its a very usable processor. 

Like many others here, I seldom use it, but then the same goes for DXO and phase one, which are very good. It took me years to be proficient with lightroom, so I doubt if I'll change. I am prepaid for the next 2-1/2 years.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 9, 2018)

Foreword: I try to reduce the images I expose to reduce (1) number of files to handle, (2) time for screening and postprocessing and (3) to educate myself to look and visualize the photo before triggering the exposure!

I use DPP on a regular base because it is
(1) fast compared to DxO
(2) simple concerning layout and controls
(3) well suited for global corrections (no local corrections)
(4) very good IQ wise (while I agree that noise reduction of DxO is excellent in terms of retaining detail)
(5) free so no hassle with payments, licenses etc.
(6) the feature set is tiny compared to other software so I am confident that I know the most important features and how they work for themselves and in combination.

The feature I am really missing is editing keywords inside raw files and some simple search.

I tried digikam with linux which is veeeery slooooow on my linux notebook but the quality is very good especially local contrast enhancement and noise reduction vs. detail retention. Maybe DPP for the rest and digikam for those photos I really like to display in larger prints.


----------



## Talys (Feb 9, 2018)

I use DPP all the time to sort through RAWs without having to import them. My first step in culling is to import everything from my camera card to my PC.

Then, I open DPP, and select the ones I want to consider and put them into a folder that I will use with Lighroom. I open lightroom and sync that folder, and then, do the actual work in Lightroom.

What's really sad is that I could do all my culling in the operating system, if only 6D2 RAW codec was available in the OS, like 80D is. I love how fast I can open an 80D RAW just by double clicking it, or even delete a bunch of them just from extra-large thumbnail previews in File Explorer.




mb66energy said:


> I use DPP on a regular base because it is
> (1) fast compared to DxO



This comes down to DxO being slow, not DPP being fast, though  

I would really, really, really like to know why LR/DPP cannot open a preview (no changes applied) at the same speed that Windows can open a supported RAW for me just to look at - which is to say, instantly.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 9, 2018)

DxO PL is very fast if you crop before exporting - I usually have to crop severely.


----------

