# Lightroom vs. DPP



## CTJohn (Jul 5, 2013)

I've used Lightroom (currently version 4.4) exclusively to process my images. A couple weeks ago, I returned from Yellowstone/Grand Tetons with quite a few shots and processed as normal. The images were mostly taken with my new 6D and was curious to check the AF points vs. image focus, so played around a little in DPP. What I thought I noticed was the images looked better in DPP. I've exported the original imported RAW image from both programs, and DPP's JPEG is definitely brighter, shows more clarity, and is sharper than the JPEG export from Lightroom. Has anyone else had this happen? Makes me wonder if I should go back to Canon's program, although I like many features in Lightroom better.


----------



## StepBack (Jul 5, 2013)

As much as the 6D, 5D3, D600 and D800 offer sharp, contrasty, high color tone under normal conditions without regard to the subject matter making family portraits and landscape pictures easier to master they aren't necessarily generating better pictures for average shooters. So when it comes to software it doesn't matter which program u use. U have to expect different manufacturers to get different results. The issue is which do u prefer. yes I have noticed variances.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jul 5, 2013)

I've been using DPP for years. Decided to try out LR. Didn't like it. Even opening the RAW file showed me huge differences immediately (shot in "faithful" with sharpening at 0 from the camera). Add to that the complexity of using LR and I quickly went back to DPP.

I think many people have bought into the hype around using LR. IMO, yes, it's a great tool. But for the vast majority of shots, DPP can do what LR can do (possibly better in some instances - like what you and I are both describing) and it's far simpler to use. And, it's free.

To me, the very best features of DPP are: quick check, recipes, lens aberration correction including DLO, and simplicity! Everyone raves about LR's library or categorization feature (or whatever it's called) but I'm happy with what DPP and the EOS utility do and I'm honestly not sure how it's different from LR but EOS utility automatically imports by date into a predetermined folder and with DPP I can batch process and save to any folder I want/create - does it get easier and more efficient than that?


----------



## GammyKnee (Jul 5, 2013)

I love LR4 (still waiting for first bug fix release of LR5 before updating) and use it for probably 95% of my shots, but I do prefer DPP's treatment for a select few. However, in those few cases I usually do the RAW conversion in DPP then export as 16-bit TIFF for finishing in LR; I can't remember the last time I used DPP exclusively for a shot. But yeah, DPP's not to be sniffed at and the DLO stuff is rather good.


----------



## nubu (Jul 5, 2013)

I do all my preprocessing in DPP and only a few individual extra steps in CS6. Its a smooth and fast workflow and the DLO makes wonders!


----------



## Pi (Jul 5, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> I've exported the original imported RAW image from both programs, and DPP's JPEG is definitely brighter, shows more clarity, and is sharper than the JPEG export from Lightroom. Has anyone else had this happen?



No. I find DPP to be far behind LR. In very rare cases, I can get a bit better results with DPP but those are really exceptions.


----------



## Danielle (Jul 5, 2013)

Adobe products are an industry standard for good reason. 

Thought I'd point that out. If you take the time to learn, you'll never use DPP. I haven't even used DPP at all ever. With my work I know what I'm missing... Nothing.

Download a trial and invest a little time. It's seriously not as anywhere near as complex as photoshop. But used with photoshop, it's wonderful. Capture one is also wonderful.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jul 5, 2013)

is it possible that it's an industry-standard because Nikon, Sony, etcetera have very poor raw converters? And so across the entire industry a better solution is needed. Especially for someone who may end up switching brands so that they don't have to learn another proprietary software every time they switch. Additionally, I find it odd that you know for sure that DPP won't work for you but that you've never ever used it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 5, 2013)

Different processors apply different amounts of saturation, sharpening, etc. when processing raw images. Most of them let you adjust the defaults to match your taste. Canon reads in settings for picture style from your camera and adjusts accordingly, while Lightroom does not. You have to manually select your camera setting in the Camera Calibration position of the Develop module. It is set to Adobe Standard by default, but you can change it to whatever suits you to be the default import profile, or just for select images.

Use the one you like, or set the defaults differently if you want different processing.


----------



## jthomson (Jul 5, 2013)

jebrady03 said:


> I've been using DPP for years. Decided to try out LR. Didn't like it. Even opening the RAW file showed me huge differences immediately (shot in "faithful" with sharpening at 0 from the camera). Add to that the complexity of using LR and I quickly went back to DPP.



That's because DPP applies "faithful" when you import. By default LR applies Adobe Standard. You need to set up an import preset in Lightroom to apply the camera calibration "faithful" on import. 
I expect that this is also what the OP was seeing when he talks about the original RAW's .


----------



## optikus (Jul 5, 2013)

Tested both ...

an decided pro Capture One ...

Kind regards

Joerg


----------



## Swphoto (Jul 5, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Different processors apply different amounts of saturation, sharpening, etc. when processing raw images. Most of them let you adjust the defaults to match your taste. Canon reads in settings for picture style from your camera and adjusts accordingly, while Lightroom does not. You have to manually select your camera setting in the Camera Calibration position of the Develop module. It is set to Adobe Standard by default, but you can change it to whatever suits you to be the default import profile, or just for select images.
> 
> Use the one you like, or set the defaults differently if you want different processing.





jthomson said:


> That's because DPP applies "faithful" when you import. By default LR applies Adobe Standard. You need to set up an import preset in Lightroom to apply the camera calibration "faithful" on import.
> I expect that this is also what the OP was seeing when he talks about the original RAW's .



Exactly. This seems like a very common mistake for those who are new to Lightroom and working with RAWs.


----------



## TonyMM (Jul 5, 2013)

I. too, would like to apply a Camera Calibration>Profile>Canon Faithful (or another such as Landscape), but as far as I can see, there is no way to "set this as a Preset" for import. I have to import all the files, then select them under Develop and then apply the Camera Calibration Profile I want for the selected set of images - two steps I could eliminate if I could just set a default Import Preset.

Am I missing something and I can set up a Preset under Import>Basic Development ?

Thanks for any help here.

Tony M


----------



## TonyMM (Jul 5, 2013)

I'm using LR5, sorry for not specifying.

Tony M


----------



## ifp (Jul 5, 2013)

TonyMM said:


> I. too, would like to apply a Camera Calibration>Profile>Canon Faithful (or another such as Landscape), but as far as I can see, there is no way to "set this as a Preset" for import. I have to import all the files, then select them under Develop and then apply the Camera Calibration Profile I want for the selected set of images - two steps I could eliminate if I could just set a default Import Preset.
> 
> Am I missing something and I can set up a Preset under Import>Basic Development ?
> 
> ...



You'll have to make your own preset to use calibration profiles during import.

Go into the development module, and the preset section on the left panel has a + button. Change a photo to use whatever camera calibration profile you want to utilize, (bottom section on the right panel) then click that plus button. Select the Calibration checkbox, name your preset and hit the Create button. Now you can use that preset to apply a calibration profile when you're importing.


----------



## dppaskewitz (Jul 5, 2013)

Does it matter in this discussion that LR does not affect your original Raw file? It's always there. If I understand the process, no Raw conversion occurs. There are simply instructions that are contained in a separate file that tell LR how to display your photo after adjustment (developing or, for example, applying a Canon picture style on import).

For those who use both DPP and LR, have you compared images after Raw conversion in DPP vs. applying only a Canon picture style (obviously, whatever you have your camera set to) in LR? Seems as if they should be nearly the same.


----------



## petrosv (Jul 5, 2013)

Capture one pro my first choice ,second DPP and LR third.
In tethering mode always DPP.
Photos editing in LR are a little "dale" for printing
I chek this with my 1dsIII, 5DIII, and 7D in full calibrating work flow ,monitor etc....


----------



## Lurker (Jul 5, 2013)

The following is from Arthur Morris and copied from the birdsasart.com store page.

_I had long resisted doing conversions in Digital Photo Professional (DPP), the software that comes on a CD in the box with your new Canon camera. I tried it a few times, found that the interface was not as user-friendly as with Adobe Camera RAW (ACR), and did not see any great advantages to using it. ACR was fast and the results were excellent.

When I began working with images from my new EOS-1D X, I noticed right off the bat that the colors were off and that the image quality was poor at best. Skilled photographer Arash Hazeghi had been using DPP for quite some time, often touting its benefits in the Avian Forum at BirdPhotographer's.Net.

With phone help from Arash, I began converting my 1D X images in DPP explicitly following his instructions. The images looked so good and so clean with accurate color that before long I was converting all my 5D Mark III, 1D Mark IV, and 1D X images in DPP and loving the results._

I tried DPP and the images were better, but I like the LR workflow, interface, and features. According to Arash there is no way to combine the 2 and maintain the benefits of DPP. I would like to be able to bring the RAW image into DPP and save it as tiff or png and then do all the other processing in LR but I guess it doesn't work like that.

The basic premis is that Adobe uses a generic RAW converter process that works well with many RAW file formats. DPP is tuned to work with Canon RAW files and therefore does it better.


----------



## GammyKnee (Jul 5, 2013)

Lurker said:


> According to Arash there is no way to combine the 2 and maintain the benefits of DPP. I would like to be able to bring the RAW image into DPP and save it as tiff or png and then do all the other processing in LR but I guess it doesn't work like that.



Maybe I'm missing something but I don't feel that doing say RAW conversion, white balance & DLO in DPP, then exporting as TIFF and finishing off in LR loses me anything (except a bit extra time / storage space). Of course you have to be clear about where the division of responsibility lies, e.g.
- if do white balance in DPP, reset to "As shot" on import to LR so that it doesn't change
- if you do sharpening in DPP, then reduce/eliminate sharpening in LR accordingly
- ditto for NR, lens correction and so on.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 5, 2013)

Hi All,

I'm new to digital and have been using DPP. It seems to me to be rather limited and in particular I don't see any option allowing sharpening as one here has suggested. Are there different versions?? Mine came with my 6D CD. 

I came from one year using Nikon NX2 and it seemed more useful to me, including a means for a slide show and the ability to adjust color saturation, sharpness etc. Seems I'm missing something about DPP - any thoughts.

Also some months back I bought Corel Paint Shop, for peanuts (maybe $30 on sale) and it seems to have a lot of features and works good with Jpgs - is this software OK - anyone know??

Jack


----------



## D. (Jul 5, 2013)

Lurker, thank you for the post. I'm planning on checking out Arthur's DPP Raw Conversion Guide


----------



## D. (Jul 5, 2013)

Jack,

In DPP you can adjust sharpening by selecting view / tool palette - raw tab or use the digial lens optimizer in the view / tool palette - lens tab. You can use the help function in DPP to explain how to use these tools. Canon also posted video tutorials for DPP at the following link - http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/tutorials/dpp_tutorials.shtml. You can also update DPP at the canon usa website to make sure you have the latest version


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 5, 2013)

Thanks D. ! I was just playing around and there is a lot more there than I realized. That's great.

Is it standard practice to apply some sharpening to photos. I'm pretty happy with my 6D/300F2.8II results so should they be left as is? What is considered a typical treatment?

Jack


----------



## Pi (Jul 5, 2013)

dppaskewitz said:


> Does it matter in this discussion that LR does not affect your original Raw file? It's always there. If I understand the process, no Raw conversion occurs.



It does. LR stores lower resolution "previews" somewhere and this is what you see. On the top of that, LR is a very lousy viewer. If you are not converting your RAWs, and not viewing them with a decent viewer, you still have not seen your pictures, literally.


----------



## Mr Bean (Jul 5, 2013)

jthomson said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been using DPP for years. Decided to try out LR. Didn't like it. Even opening the RAW file showed me huge differences immediately (shot in "faithful" with sharpening at 0 from the camera). Add to that the complexity of using LR and I quickly went back to DPP.
> ...


Yep. When I first went from DPP to LR4, I was disappointed in the noise of the images, until I understood why. On occasion, I might use DPP (mainly to see where focus points were active), but the workflow in LR is far better for me (in particular the cataloging / tagging of images). Both apps have their pros and cons. It's just a matter of knowing which bits suit what you're trying to achieve.


----------



## Pi (Jul 5, 2013)

Try saving highlights with DPP.


----------



## TonyMM (Jul 6, 2013)

Pi: I gather you are saying that the LR slideshow or full screen view of a finished Developed image is not as good as what you would see on another viewer (software app?) ? I use the final calibrated monitor screen as my objective for final printing (I use soft proofing to visualize printing with a specific paper and paper profile). I realize that there are other destinations for viewing and would take the lighting in a specific destination into consideration as well as paper choice and brightness, etc. For other screen viewings, I know there are other adjustments necessary, but likely not as good IQ as what I'm seeing on my monitor.

With all these choices, what "viewers" do you use/consider best and why are they better/when should I use them vs. my monitor on LR ?

Tony M


----------



## Pi (Jul 6, 2013)

The LR color management is fine, no problem with that. But the resampling is vey soft, and it is not user friendly. 

Better viewer: no need to look past Canon. ZB is the best viewer I have tried, and I have tried them all (well, almost). Click twice: full screen. Left/right arrows act as they should, etc. The second best is the Fastpictureviewer. DPP is among the best, as well, but not designed to be a viewer (no easy way for full screen, left/right arrow support, etc.). Nikon's software renders quality images but not user friendly.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 6, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks D. ! I was just playing around and there is a lot more there than I realized. That's great.
> 
> Is it standard practice to apply some sharpening to photos. I'm pretty happy with my 6D/300F2.8II results so should they be left as is? What is considered a typical treatment?
> 
> Jack



As far as I know the anti aliasing filters of typical cameras (6d included) "smear" ultrafine detail to avoid interferences with the subject and the pixel pattern. A slight softness in the images is the result.

I have observed that I get the best results in DPP with
Luminance and Chrominance Noise Reduction set to ZERO
Sharpness set to THREE and using the standard sharpening method (never unsharp mask)
I speak about non-spectacluar lenses like the shorty 40 or the f/2.0 100 which deliver high percepted sharpness comparable with your lens. Camera is the 40D with comparable pixel density like your 6D.

The problem with higher sharpness settings or especially "unsharp mask" is that the results look very unnaturally: e.g. bright halos around black lines or grainy areas ... noise gets also sharper. With the above mentioned setting I get (IMO) photographic results which are similar to the percepted sharpness of Kodachrome 25 or Velvia 50 film.

So slight sharpening is helpful for laaaarge prints or 100% views without destroying the "texture" of the image/the subjects.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 6, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> [...]
> 
> Makes me wonder if I should go back to Canon's program, although I like many features in Lightroom better.



Thanks for starting this thread - it is really helpful for me because I am in the process of decision between LR (or DxO or ...). A very good starting point to evaluate the different software solutions!


Best - Michael


----------



## m (Jul 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> It does. LR stores lower resolution "previews" somewhere and this is what you see.



render 1:1 previews


----------

