# Any value in using DPP along side Lightroom?



## Scarpz13 (Jan 27, 2013)

Hello,

I have been using Lightroom since long before I had an EOS camera, so I have to admit when I got my 60d two years ago I never bothered at all with the Canon software and have always used lightroom and elements for my workflow. 

Having recently gotten a 5D iii, I thougt I would install the software (mostly for the EOS utility). DPP seems pretty neat; but is there anything it does that lightroom cant? Is anyone using both in conjunction, or any of the other canon supplied software?

Wondering if DPP handles noise reduction better... Or maybe makes workflow faster for processing simple RAW changes, using picture styles perhaps. 

Thanks!


----------



## digital paradise (Jan 27, 2013)

The only thing DPP does differently than LR is the features like highlight tone priority. LR won't recognize them. I never use them anyway. 

DPP is very good software but for mass edits you can't beat LR. DPP does well with mass edits but LR has the edge. Recipes on DPP are great but it changes all previous settings on other images so you need to do it first. If you forget that it is not a good thing. In LR you can pick all adjustments or just one when you sync. 

DPP is simple. Actually a great learning tool for people new to RAW. Canon colours are excellent. Better than Adobe I think. I used to hate Adobe but they have come a long way and now that you can choose camera profiles. Adobe yellows are still a little more dominant but I started to tolerate this and have a few skin colour presets for that.

When it comes to highlight recovery and the other adjustments in the basic module? DPP is so far behind I'm not sure they will ever catch up. Also as you know there are so many other options available in LR. I was doing some real estate photography and the shadow/highlight controls saved me so many times. 

NR. DPP is good but I think LR is better on this one as well.

I like DPP and used it for years. I like the colours and the RAW converter engine. I just recently switched to LR about a year ago. Today for my hobby shots I use either DPP, convert to TIFF and work on it in PS or just open the RAW in PS.
I use LR for mass edits. I have better control over final sharpening via actions in PS than what LR offers me. I like having that control. 

If DPP came out with a software package like LR and offered the same shadow/highlight control I would pay for it. I could even live with the NR controls. Only thing is the bug that shuts DPP down with the not enough memory thing and it takes takes forever any NR adjustments to show.


----------



## dafrank (Jan 27, 2013)

Scarpz13 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have been using Lightroom since long before I had an EOS camera, so I have to admit when I got my 60d two years ago I never bothered at all with the Canon software and have always used lightroom and elements for my workflow.
> 
> ...



There are reasons to use either program over the other, depending on your needs. The latest iteration of DPP is now a fairly mature program that will convert your average files very, very well, but still doesn't have the extremely "fine-grained" control that Lightroom or ACR has at the moment. Many people, however, don't need that much control over the image, if either your capture is very good and fairly near ideal to begin with, or, if you don't care to work so hard to wring the last 5% out of the raw file; then, DPP is a great and, not unimportantly, a free application that will probably meet all your needs. 

DPP usually yields excellent color out of the box, and has several tools that are either somewhat limited but easier to use, or just better than those available in Lightroom. The compositing and HDR tools are eamples of the former and the quick check tool is an example of the latter. Again, Lighroom (and/or Photoshop) certainly has tools to accomplish the same tasks, but they are a little more complex and require a little more knowledge and practiced judgment to use well. In my book, however, nothing beats the quick check tool in DPP for quickly eliminating non-keepers in your first edit go-around. I will always use DPP for that alone, even if I later open the raws in another program. DPP is also pretty "small," pretty speedy on a good computer, and is not a resource hog.

The only things that aren't up to the level of many other raw converter programs are more complete and fine control over individual color channels, very complete sharpening and noise reduction options, the most extreme levels of highlight and shadow recovery, and, of course, no cataloging of your images, unlike with Lighroom's module. Frankly, I have been cataloging finished 16-bit tiffs, and then raws, for the past 16 years with a couple of good digital stand-alone programs, so I don't feel so attached to Lightroom for that reason alone.

As far as overall speed with very large shoots involving many hundreds to thousands of images, very experienced users of Lighroom can get through their work faster than someone with DPP alone, but if your dealing with a couple hundred files or less, the difference is very small and you don't need to learn as many tricks and shortcuts to use DPP in that way.

Don't rely on DPP for noise reduction. You may want to do none or simply sharpen it up a little with the "sharpen" command at levels 1 to 3, but don't bother with the unsharp mask control; it's much better to save that function to Photoshop or whatever program your Tiffs or Jpegs go to later. Noise reduction in DPP is good, but use it very judiciously, if you find you need a lot of it, skip it and do this in another program following DPP's conversion. Lastly, as far as picture style is concerned, that is not really the domain of DPP, but is really the process by which you control the camera's internal development of Jpegs directly from the camera. If I'm wrong about this, my apologies, but that is what I've always assumed. In DPP, you can cook up different "recipes," or even multiple "recipes," to apply to multiple files with only a click or two, and that operates in the same way with raw files, as do picture styles with Jpegs.

Regards,
David


----------



## Nelu (Jan 27, 2013)

"is there anything it does that lightroom cant?"

Yes there is:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Display the focus points
[*]It is free
[*]Picture styles are much more realistic than in Lightroom
[*]Lens correction for the available lenses is better than in Lightroom
[*]The HDR tool can provide really good results if you learn how to use it properly
[*]It will provide better results out-of-box than Lightroom but if you spend a little bit more time in Lightroom the final result will look better.
[/list]

The noise reduction is not any better than the one in Lightroom 4 but it is better than Lightroom 3.
Cheers 

Nelu


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 27, 2013)

digital paradise said:


> The only thing DPP does differently than LR is the features like highlight tone priority. LR won't recognize them. I never use them anyway.



That's probably why you didn't realize lr recognizes htp just fine (at least by now), the only raw converters I know of that ignore the htp flag are some oss command line versions.



Nelu said:


> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Picture styles are much more realistic than in Lightroom
> [/list]



Are you sure? I'm using the neutral style and the lr import looks just like the sooc jpeg or the preview on the camera.



Nelu said:


> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Lens correction for the available lenses is better than in Lightroom
> [/list]



For complex distortions I'd use dxo, I don't know about dpp, but for your average ca/vignetting/distortion correction at least with my lenses lr works great, Adobe now has better profiles than in lr3 and the ca correction has been also improved. I haven't tried dpp and compared though.


----------



## Stichus III (Jan 27, 2013)

Scarpz13 said:


> DPP seems pretty neat; but is there anything it does that lightroom cant?



Anyone who's shot with a deep red filter without setting a custom WB in camera and anyone who has shot underwater images without a strobe during a deep dive also without setting a custom WB in camera (resulting in deep blue images), knows that Lightroom and ACR often cannot correct the WB, but DPP almost always can. DPP simply gives the user more latitude to adjust white balance. This feature is only useful under extreme circumstances, but nonetheless very useful when you need it. That is the only reason I keep DPP installed.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 27, 2013)

The biggest advantage of DPP by far is the price. It does have other things it does well, but there is not enough to cause me to use it instead of Lightroom.


----------



## drjlo (Jan 27, 2013)

Nelu said:


> "is there anything it does that lightroom cant?"
> 
> Yes there is:
> [list type=decimal]
> ...



One thing I love about the latest version of DPP is Canon's proprietary DLO (Digital Lens Optimizer). It's different from the usual lens correction software, and I have not been able to duplicate its effect with other software. For example, DLO makes images clearer and sharper without the usual sharpening artifacts. Some samples at link below:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1097029/0

Latest DPP NR is pretty nice, as good as others, but for critical work and difficult NR jobs, I far prefer Imagenomics NoiseWare, which I use in Photoshop after importing from DPP.


----------



## digital paradise (Jan 27, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> I used DPP for years and then bought LR3.6 Like others have said, there are advantages and disadvantages.
> 
> DPP advantages
> I think DPP is faster to review photos (Quick check tool) when I'm on the road. Load 'em with the utility, find the rejects with the Quick Check tool, and delete 'em. Using a separate catalog in LR is a pain, I don't usually carry my HD with me.
> ...



For mass edits I always load my images on to my desktop, view in DPP - quick check - full screen and delete non keepers. Then I import into LR.


----------



## Scarpz13 (Jan 28, 2013)

First off, thank you all for taking the time for writing such long & thorough replies, appreciate it! This site has helped me learn more than the couple of part time camera courses I took at a local college for fun 

I already own lightroom 4.... but after reading all of your advice, I think I will leave DDP installed. At the very least to help decide my keepers vs. deletes faster, and perhaps if I want to "edit" RAW a little faster using picture styles so my wife doesn't keep bugging me to finish editing her niece's 2nd bday pics  I did notice the noise adjustment to be VERY slow...

And I can't seem to show the autofocus points... I can in ImageBrowser... don't seem to find that option in DPP. That is one thing I find useful... that way I can see if the camera/lens missed focus, or if I aimed in the wrong spot 

cheers!


----------



## digital paradise (Jan 28, 2013)

Two ways. 

First. I'm on a MAC but it should be the same. Open an image, right click mouse and a dialogue box appears. It is in the middle - AF Point. 

Second. In the upper bar click on view - same thing.

Also you should get the latest version if you have not done so yet. 3.12.52. Pick a camera and navigate from there.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras


----------



## steliosk (Jan 28, 2013)

DPP has better color profiles than LR
better contrast
no yellow casts
not better detail at pixel peeping though

try to edit a blue hour (something like this http://500px.com/photo/15870747 )
in DPP and try to edit it the same way in LR

just put everything to 0 and push the saturation a bit +3 +4 in DPP
then compare the 2 results as layers in photoshop..
you'll see much more richer colour in the dpp image while those orange/reds will become flat yellow in lightroom


That catalogue / database thing is useless (as a matter of fact is the only thing i reject lightroom and use camera raw)


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 28, 2013)

steliosk said:


> DPP has better color profiles than LR
> better contrast
> no yellow casts



The yellow cast in ACR raw processing disappears if the "camera neutral" profile is applied, then the colors should look like dpp or in-camera...


----------



## Harv (Jan 28, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Nelu said:
> 
> 
> > "is there anything it does that lightroom cant?"
> ...



The DLO function in DPP does a terrific job in correcting CA which really does enhance the sharpening. I just wish they had more of the earlier lenses on the list.


----------



## digital paradise (Jan 28, 2013)

I may have mentioned but I could not stand Adobe colours at one time but they have come a long way. I still find the yellow annoying. I like to use faithful but I suppose neutral would work quite well. Just bring back some of the image life using the basic adjustments. I will try it out.

I have an LR preset I use for skin tones. Clarity -10, Vibrance +10, saturation -10 and blacks - 25. Using camera faithful takes takes most of the yellow out and smoothens skin imperfections but it can suffer a bit on colour. I then tune the backs, whites, shadows/highlights as required.


----------



## steliosk (Jan 30, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> steliosk said:
> 
> 
> > DPP has better color profiles than LR
> ...



thanks for the tip
i never liked the neutral profile, all the colors look poor and i never used it.

Personally i use 3 profiles

Faithful for portraits
Standard + Landscape for traveling (where i take the sky from landscape, and everything else from standard)


----------



## eninja (Jan 20, 2015)

I will try lightroom and see if workflow is faster.
For me time is more precious than the small advantage of dpp (if there is).

I find dpp very slow for editing hundred images at a time.
Also, if dpp does not allow me to copy only specific setting to other images.

example, I only want to copy noise reduction parameter to other images.
but theres no way to do that in dpp, all settings (brightness and sharpness are also copied).
main reason why need to try lightroom.

Any comment?


----------

