# DPP VS. LR4 VS. Something else, and a story about it.



## scottkinfw (Dec 3, 2012)

I currently use and am happy with LR4. I like the keyword ability to sort, and the image manipulation abilities seem just fine. Work flow is efficient.

This weekend I went to a photo expo in Arlington, TX which was very good. I had a long discussion with the Canon representative who did not suffer from humility from either his own abilities or the Canon line of cameras and software.

He opined that DPP software was superior to all other processing software because it communicated directly with the digital files from Canon cameras in a proprietary. His argument was that importing through DPP (especially in raw) frequently obviated need for pp, and that lens tuning/correction could not be matched by third party software. 

I am wondering what everyone thinks. Is DPP really superior? Is it worth switching? Do people use DPP for post processing and LR for searching? To me it seems like a lot of redundant work.

Thanks.


----------



## pwp (Dec 3, 2012)

scottkinfw said:


> I currently use and am happy with LR4. I like the keyword ability to sort, and the image manipulation abilities seem just fine. Work flow is efficient.
> 
> I had a long discussion with the Canon representative who did not suffer from humility from either his own abilities or the Canon line of cameras and software.
> 
> He opined that DPP software was superior to all other processing software because it communicated directly with the digital files from Canon cameras in a proprietary. His argument was that importing through DPP (especially in raw) frequently obviated need for pp, and that lens tuning/correction could not be matched by third party software.



There is little argument that DPP will deliver beautiful files. On rare occasions I'll go to DPP with a file I'm having a hard time with in LR4/ACR, usually because of tricky skintones. Maybe as often as once a year...

The Canon guy you were talking to is the perfect blue-print salesman, one-eyed as you can get about the product, with persuasive lines yet perhaps somewhat lacking in knowledge of the true needs of photographers and the ways they process RAW files. 

If DPP was a match for LR4 I think most Canon professionals could have caught on by now. As you know yourself, LR is workflow headquarters...there is nothing better if you have got a deadline chewing at your neck and there are a few hundred files to output before morning coffee. 

DPP certainly has its place, but not as a tool for busy photographers working with large folders of image files. DPP certainly looks very pretty in the GUI department, but like so much Canon software, it's easy on the eye but behind the game in the performance stakes. The Canon Suite is a welcome inclusion for those on restricted budgets but it's not professional standard. EOS Utility anybody? Now there's a piece of Canon software just screaming out for a full redesign. It's barely changed since its first incarnation. Zoombrowser? I don't know a working photographer who actually uses it. Powerful programs such as PhotoMechanic or Breezebrowser Pro are the usual browser choices. Bridge has all the options but is a little slow.

DPP? Sorry Mr Canon salesman...I'm not convinced. 

-PW


----------



## stefsan (Dec 3, 2012)

I use DPP for all my RAW pictures. I never used LR but in my experience some of the RAW conversion possibilities (especially the lens correction tools, colour correction) in DPP are better than in ACR or Aperture. But others are very inferior, e.g. the NR. And DPP has a lot of ergonomic deficits. Especially cumbersome is the fact that you can rate your pictures but you cannot give them tags/keywords. There are things DPP does better than other apps but there is a lot of room for improvement there.


----------



## shutterwideshut (Dec 3, 2012)

I will resort in using DPP when dealing with WB issues of Infrared RAW files. Other than that, LR4 is the way to go. Lightroom is very versatile and is even more powerful when installed with Nik plug-in software...


----------



## MarkII (Dec 3, 2012)

I have always slightly preferred the DPP results to Lightroom/PS. However, it is such a PITA to use, it is simply not practical for any more than the occasional image. I also prefer the output of DXO Optics to Lightroom, but again the workflow just makes it a pain to use.

I think that a lot of the differences between the converters are simply down to the default white-balance and saturation. Once you get used to tweaking the settings to quickly get what you want there is rarely a huge difference unless you are pushing the images a lot (eg extreme shadow lifting - which to me seems to work better in DXO than LR, and is simply not possible in DPP).


----------



## TotoEC (Dec 3, 2012)

DPP's workflow has nothing to compare to the likes of LR4, etc.
I am not a novice as far as Windows filing system is concerned, so I do my own workflow/filing system
I did a wedding a week ago with over 800 shots to worked on . .
I always use DPP to download the RAW files and 'fine tune' the colors/WB
I found that my 5D3 + 24-70mm f/2.8 II + 600EX-RT combination offers less post processing 
Then I generate TIFF files for selected frames
I use Photoshop for portrait editing . . . .


----------



## 8TMacro (Dec 3, 2012)

I'm confused why the Canon Rep would be pushing DPP as better than LR in the first place. Casually mentioning it - sure, but it's a free program to us, and a Development/support cost to Canon. What benefit does Canon get when I use it? So why would Canon even care to argue that it's better than LR?

This is beside the point of your question, but it puzzles me.


----------



## sandymandy (Dec 3, 2012)

While i like DPP the layout just doesnt work well for me. LR gives me a better feeling and i think it looks nicer too


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 5, 2012)

Given his overall demeanor, I would infer that it was professional Chauvinism, and a healthy dose of himself. Despite his off-putting personality, I did listen to him and learned a bit. I still prefer LR4

Thanks all for your comments, very helpful.

sek 



8TMacro said:


> I'm confused why the Canon Rep would be pushing DPP as better than LR in the first place. Casually mentioning it - sure, but it's a free program to us, and a Development/support cost to Canon. What benefit does Canon get when I use it? So why would Canon even care to argue that it's better than LR?
> 
> This is beside the point of your question, but it puzzles me.


----------



## Stevo2008 (Dec 5, 2012)

pwp said:


> The Canon guy you were talking to is the perfect blue-print salesman, one-eyed as you can get about the product, with persuasive lines yet perhaps somewhat lacking in knowledge of the true needs of photographers and the ways they process RAW files.


I heard a canon rep saying at a B&H seminar that Adobe "reverse-engineers" camera raw, whereas DPP uses the real raw processing algorithm. His view was while LR is getting better with each new edition, it still lags behind DPP, especially in noise processing.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 5, 2012)

Neuro gave a great analogy of DPP a little while ago I couldnt find it perhaps he'll chime in and remind us


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Neuro gave a great analogy of DPP a little while ago I couldnt find it perhaps he'll chime in and remind us



Someone commented that DPP was 'a joy to use' and my response was, "IMO, DPP is a joy to use in much the same way that a visit to the dentist for a root canal is a pleasant experience." 8)



MarkII said:


> I also prefer the output of DXO Optics...



Agreed. DxO's workflow isn't nearly as bad as DPP, but for me it's still not an all-in-one solution. Where DxO fails (almost as badly as DPP) is image triage and library management - tasks that have gotten even more challenging with the 1D X (spot-on AF and 12 fps mean a lot of very similar shots to choose from). DxO doesn't have a loupe tool (in Optics Pro, anyway - their new distortion correcting app ViewPoint has a loupe, so I have hopes that will make it into Optics Pro in a future release), previews are slow to load even on a fast machine, etc. I do triage in Aperture, and use Aperture to mamage my libraries, too. But I think DxO does a better job at RAW conversions than DPP, ACR, or Aperture. (And yes, I totally get that my workflow would not be feasible for someone with a deadline for processed images - LR seems the way to go, for that.)


----------



## vkiran (Dec 5, 2012)

I use DPP for RAW processing. Have seen that ACR or LR do not handle noise and WB like DPP does for RAW files coming out of the 7D and 1Dx. As a workflow here's what I do :

DPP -> convert to tiff -> LR -> invoke CS6 for processing/corrections -> LR keywording,IPTC -> LR to convert to jpg or post to usual destinations.

Post that, RAW files and selected tiff files get archived separately.


----------

