# Digital Photo Professional 3.10.1 Updater



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 20, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/digital-photo-professional-3-10-1-updater/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/digital-photo-professional-3-10-1-updater/"></a></div>
<p>A new Digital Photo Professional is available from Canon. Below are some of the changes.</p>
<ol>
<li>Support added for images taken with the EOS Kiss X50 / EOS REBEL T3 / EOS 1100D, EOS Kiss X5 / EOS REBEL T3i / EOS 600D.Ã‚Â If using an earlier version, images take with the EOS Kiss X50 / EOS REBEL T3 / EOS 1100D, EOS Kiss X5 / EOS REBEL T3i / EOS 600D will not be supported. Please update to version 3.10 or later.</li>
<li>Additional lenses now covered by correction of lens aberration. Including overseas models, images taken with the following six lenses are now covered by lens aberration correction.Ã‚Â EF 8-15mm F4L USM Fisheye, EF 15mm F2.8 Fisheye, EF 300mm F2.8 II IS USM, EF 400mm F2.8 II IS USM,Ã‚Â EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 III (an overseas model), EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS II.Ã‚Â Distortion aberration correction for images taken with fisheye lenses (EF 8-15mm F4L USM Fisheye, EF 15mm F2.8 Fisheye) enables the user to select four types of effects that are not covered by ordinary distortion correction.Ã‚Â Note that depending on the camera used, there are cases where images taken with applicable lenses may not be covered by aberration correction.</li>
<li>Added a function for circular masking. The new Circle option can be selected from the Ratio pull-down menu for the Trimming/angle adjustment tool. The behavior differs from when rectangles like 1:1 are selected in that selecting Circle will masking everything outside of the selected area.</li>
<li>When performing Noise Reduction processing, there were cases where the screen would momentarily turn magenta.</li>
<li>Fixed a malfunction involving PCs on which multiple versions of Photoshop are installed; there were cases where the Transfer to Photoshop command would be dimmed.</li>
<li>Fixed a malfunction in which attempting to display NR Preview while the highlight warning was displayed would cause the Preview screen to turn deep blue.</li>
<li>Fixed a malfunction that occurred if an image was overwritten by a newer version after a rating had been set; there were cases where the editing results were destroyed and the image reverted back to the settings when it was first taken.</li>
<li>Fixed a malfunction wherein white lines would appear in the displayed results if an image was displayed at 100% in the Edit Window or the Edit Image Window and the window was then scrolled.</li>
<li>Windows XP SP2 is no longer supported</li>
</ol>
<p>If using this software in a Windows XP environment, please update Windows to Service Pack 3 before installing the software.</p>
<p>Available for Download from Canon Europe <strong><a href="http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/Consumer_Products/products/cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_7D.aspx?DLtcmuri=tcm:13-835652&page=1&type=download">here</a></strong> (mac) &Ã‚Â <strong><a href="http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/Consumer_Products/products/cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_7D.aspx?DLtcmuri=tcm:13-835654&page=1&type=download">here</a></strong> (win)</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 20, 2011)

Figures, I finally updated all my pc's last week to the current version, and now its obsolete. I'm curious to see what the distortion correction will do for my 15mm FE images, so I'll update again. I only use DPP occasionally, but sometimes it comes in handy, like allowing me to check the focus point.


----------



## hutjeflut (Apr 20, 2011)

i dont get why they say XP sp2 isnt supported it works just fine.


----------



## foobar (Apr 20, 2011)

hutjeflut said:


> i dont get why they say XP sp2 isnt supported it works just fine.


Not supported often just means "untested and the support hotline won't help you" and not necessarily that something is broken.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 20, 2011)

hutjeflut said:


> i dont get why they say XP sp2 isnt supported it works just fine.



It may work fine, or some seldom used function might hang your computer or just not work right. They spend hundreds of hours testing every function, and only do it with the latest version of windows XP, so they do not provide support for older versions. If it works for you, then there is no worry.


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 20, 2011)

I'm hoping this means the lenses announced last year, specifically the EF 8-15mm f/4, are about ready to start shipping!


----------



## Redreflex (Apr 21, 2011)

Question - do most people put their RAW images through DPP?

I've just switched from shooting in jpg to RAW 1 week ago (!), and have stayed with my trusty Aperture. Thus far, seems OK, although I've never used DPP. Am only scratching the surface of what I can do with RAW.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 21, 2011)

Redreflex said:


> Question - do most people put their RAW images through DPP?
> 
> I've just switched from shooting in jpg to RAW 1 week ago (!), and have stayed with my trusty Aperture. Thus far, seems OK, although I've never used DPP. Am only scratching the surface of what I can do with RAW.



There are lots of very good RAW editors, Aperture is one of them. DPP is free, and for free software, it is very good. However, most photographers have their own preferred software. I use lightroom, and occasionally export a image to Photoshop for extensive editing. DPP is handy occasionallly as well. I don't update it very often, because they are always issuing updates to add new camera models but not new functionality.


----------



## te4o (Apr 21, 2011)

I was going to ask the same question (thanks RedReflex) but a bit more broadly: Are you guys aware of differences in IQ in particular between the different RAW Decoders (DPP, LR; Ap, whoever) set at similar presets?

RedReflex, Aperture which I have been using solely, is applying Camera Specific Presets to EACH RAW file you import, found under RAW FineTuning. These are called all very naturally: Boost, Hue, Sharpening, De-Noise etc etc... Your screen impression can be very different between different import settings! Be careful to what extend they are applied (like with my 40D the preset of max boost increases contrast unnaturally).

Of course, the MAC to PC variety among us makes answering this question difficult, but I was intrigued.


----------



## Redreflex (Apr 21, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> Redreflex said:
> 
> 
> > Question - do most people put their RAW images through DPP?
> ...



Thanks.

My understanding is that one of the benefits of using DPP, is that all the presets you have on the camera are available (WB, Pictures Styles - Canon website has additional ones that can be downloaded into DPP). This may make for easier adjustments (especially those new to RAW like me) that would be somewhat reproducible by manipulating camera settings.

Is that correct?

With Aperture, I'm not using most of the adjustments available. There are over 20 potential variables, many of which I'm still figuring out if it really has a practical role.



te4o said:


> RedReflex, Aperture which I have been using solely, is applying Camera Specific Presets to EACH RAW file you import, found under RAW FineTuning. These are called all very naturally: Boost, Hue, Sharpening, De-Noise etc etc... Your screen impression can be very different between different import settings! Be careful to what extend they are applied (like with my 40D the preset of max boost increases contrast unnaturally).



Thanks. I'm not sure I can see a significant difference on screen with changes to some of these "Fine Tuning' variables! The untrained eye?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 21, 2011)

Redreflex said:


> Question - do most people put their RAW images through DPP?



There are generally three main things you want/need to do with your RAW images:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Convert from RAW
[*]Edit/retouch images
[*]Organize your library
[/list]

Some programs perform the first three (e.g. Aperture), some perform some of them in combination with other software (e.g. Adobe Camera RAW plugin converts RAW images for Lightroom to organize or for Photoshop to edit), and some do only one (e.g. DxO is only a RAW converter). That's one reason I think DxO is better - it doesn't try to do it all, it does one thing, and does it very well. Personally, I use DxO to convert my RAW images to JPGs, then I use iPhoto to organize the JPGs.

There's also a fourth thing you should do with your RAW images that none of the above-mentioned programs directly handle - backup! Backup! Let me say that again. *Backup!* Whatever you do to the processed images, your RAW files should always be backed up - preferebly in more than one place (e.g. two different external HDDs stored in separate locations, or one external HDD and an online backup service, etc.). Depending on your RAW conversion software, you may also want to backup the settings used for the conversion for each file. The way you do that will depend on the software. DPP (alone of the RAW converters) writes the changes directly into the RAW metadata, so all you need to backup is the RAW files themselves. Most other programs store the settings in a 'sidecar' file linked to the RAW file; you may need to export those sidecar files, or backup the whole database, etc.



te4o said:


> Are you guys aware of differences in IQ in particular between the different RAW Decoders (DPP, LR; Ap, whoever) set at similar presets?



Yes, there are differences. I used to use DPP, then I switched to DxO Optics Pro. I find that DxO does a much better job than DPP at reducing noise, and DxO also offers lens-specific corrections for distortion and vignetting (like DPP, but from my testing the DxO corrections are better than Canon's own). Other RAW conversion software has lens corrections (e.g. Adobe Camera RAW) but DxO's are based on actual empirical tests of specific camera+lens combinations, whereas ACR's are based on 'what looks good' and in some cases are actually derived from user-submitted profiles.


----------



## skitron (Apr 26, 2011)

I'm giving the PhaseONE Capture One Pro 6 product a whirl. Just bought a copy after seeing some very good reports on it, will post findings in a couple of weeks... 

http://www.phaseone.com/en/Software/Capture-One-Pro-6/About/Pro-Overview.aspx


----------



## skitron (Apr 27, 2011)

skitron said:


> I'm giving the PhaseONE Capture One Pro 6 product a whirl. Just bought a copy after seeing some very good reports on it, will post findings in a couple of weeks...
> 
> http://www.phaseone.com/en/Software/Capture-One-Pro-6/About/Pro-Overview.aspx



I went ahead and d/l'd the demo while I'm waiting for my boxed copy since it can be activated without reinstallation.

WOW. 

The difference between what I get out of Capture One Pro 6.1.1 and DPP is more than a new L over a kit lens.

No kidding. 

Color, sharpening, NR is all in a completely different league. I had no idea 50d files could render like this.


----------



## motorhead (Aug 14, 2011)

I see version 3.10.2 is available for download.


----------



## ze (Aug 14, 2011)

Redreflex said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > Redreflex said:
> ...





There is no software that knows the Canon color profile as DPP does. Aperture, LR, Phase One etc. might have some nice features but the color tone would never be as good and clean as DPP.


----------



## IWLP (Aug 14, 2011)

Redreflex said:


> Question - do most people put their RAW images through DPP?
> 
> I've just switched from shooting in jpg to RAW 1 week ago (!), and have stayed with my trusty Aperture. Thus far, seems OK, although I've never used DPP. Am only scratching the surface of what I can do with RAW.



I have found that with my 60D, certain files come into ACR vastly underexposed - more than a stop. I'm not sure if it's the fact ALO is turned on or what. Anyway, DPP reads them fine, so I'll sometimes save a TIFF file out of DPP, then take that into ACR to further process. An extra step in my workflow, but it's one place where DPP is an important first step.


----------



## dr croubie (Aug 14, 2011)

ze said:


> There is no software that knows the Canon color profile as DPP does. Aperture, LR, Phase One etc. might have some nice features but the color tone would never be as good and clean as DPP.



True, but does that mean you can't steal the DPP colour profile for other programs?
This and this probably only apply to us penguin worshippers, but it still means you can use the exact colour profile without DPP.



foobar said:


> hutjeflut said:
> 
> 
> > i dont get why they say XP sp2 isnt supported it works just fine.
> ...



Hey, DPP isn't meant to be supported on linux, but it works (wine 1.2.3, DPP 3.8.0.0 at least)


----------



## gferdinandsen (Aug 14, 2011)

Redreflex said:


> Question - do most people put their RAW images through DPP?
> 
> I've just switched from shooting in jpg to RAW 1 week ago (!), and have stayed with my trusty Aperture. Thus far, seems OK, although I've never used DPP. Am only scratching the surface of what I can do with RAW.



I do all post processing with ACR. I have never even installed the Canon software.


----------



## macfly (Aug 15, 2011)

I've tested DPP against PS/Camera Raw & Phase One/Capture One, and for my uses I find the differences are extremely subtle, so much so that I now just use PS/Camera Raw for everything.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2011)

ze said:


> There is no software that knows the Canon color profile as DPP does. Aperture, LR, Phase One etc. might have some nice features but the color tone would never be as good and clean as DPP.



Well, it's true that DPP recognizes and applies the Canon Picture Style chosen in-camera, and also ALO. But I don't think that means the color is especially 'good and clean,' it just means that Canon's programmers have accurately guessed what you find pleasing in an image (which for some is oversaturated color, at least with the Standard picture style). When I compare picture styles with a color target (X-rite ColorChecker Passport), you can see clear differences. It's possible to set up a preset to mimic Canon Picture Styles in another RAW processor, if you like. Other processors handle image noise much better than DPP.


----------



## motorhead (Aug 15, 2011)

While I like using DPP I do admit that I use a third-party plug-in for my noise reduction and sharpening routines. Its the one area where it falls down.

The trouble is where do we stop? DPP is good because its free and its simple. Making it ever more complex rather defeats the object for me. I'm a simple soul who has a passionate hatred of anything complicated.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 15, 2011)

I would agree with the general tone of the thread ( I don't hold myself out as expert, rather advanced novice, and learning). I like Lightroom for most work, but I love Nik for noise reduction. Don't use the Canon product.


----------



## ze (Aug 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> ze said:
> 
> 
> > There is no software that knows the Canon color profile as DPP does. Aperture, LR, Phase One etc. might have some nice features but the color tone would never be as good and clean as DPP.
> ...



I like to get my colors and exposure accurate on the camera as I'm photographing so I do use the picture style, kelvin, ALO and HTP to fine tune as much as I can on the spot. When I bring my files to other softwares, non of the settings gets recognized and I get to stare at underexposed photographs with awful colors on my monitor. Even with HTP and ALO off the colors and exposure still shifts. From my testings DPP works best but I'm aware that it still needs improvements. I'm curious about your raw workflow and would love to see some images.


----------



## docchevalier (Aug 16, 2011)

opinion only - Canon DPP is a decent product and if it's what you've got, then use it. There are alternatives and many of the vendors provide trial downloads so you can see if they make a difference to you.

Fwiw, this is the workflow I use today.

1. Pull the cards from the cameras and load them into a Lexar FW800 card reader. Copy all the raw files directly from the card into a folder on a disk attached to the computer.

2. Immediately make a copy of the folder onto another disk attached to the computer, disk meaning a powered disk never a DVD.

3. Force a start of an immediate Crashplan cloud backup even though I know that one will run that night at 1am. Yes this is an unabashed plug (and uncompensated) for Crashplan.

4. Launch Lightroom and import the files using the Copy as DNG option and applying a metadata preset to load copyright information (personal choice). I choose to copy as DNG because the format is open, i don't lose anything, and I can then use the files with Colour Checker Passport amongst other utilities.

5. Wait until it's time to do post-processing and then go at it, starting with vicious editing. (The pro I apprenticed to nearly 30 years ago beat it into me that if I wasn't rejecting over 80% I was lying to myself). Do basic edits in Lightroom popping out to the Nik suite as necessary, Photoshop increasingly rarely.

6. Decide what I want to do with the images, print, web, whatever.

Not suggesting my workflow is better than someone else's. It works for me. Until I change it. You'll note the emphasis on backing up and redundant copies. Storage is cheap, reshoots are not.

Doc


----------

