Group Since Dec 13, 2006
Drag to set position!
Share
Sticky
DPP Vs. Photoshop CS3?
Foo_foo
8:57am, 8 August 2008
I briefly went throught the DPP tutorials at the Canon website linked in another thread, but didn't really see anything in DPP that I couldn't accomplish in Photoshop. I have to point out that I briefly reviewed the tutorials, and might have missed something.
Thanks
Thanks
Moward
15 years ago
Image quality is slightly higher when converting from RAW in DPP.
Chromatic aberration, lens distortion and vingetting can be corrected automatically in DPP, as DPP will detect what lens was used for the shot and apply the required adjustments for that lens.
CS3 has the ability to adjust these defects although it is a much more manual process.
Also the noise reduction in the latest version of DPP is pretty good, IMO probably better than what's on offer in CS3.
Typically I use DPP to make base adjustments to images, then convert and transfer to PS for finer tweaking.
Chromatic aberration, lens distortion and vingetting can be corrected automatically in DPP, as DPP will detect what lens was used for the shot and apply the required adjustments for that lens.
CS3 has the ability to adjust these defects although it is a much more manual process.
Also the noise reduction in the latest version of DPP is pretty good, IMO probably better than what's on offer in CS3.
Typically I use DPP to make base adjustments to images, then convert and transfer to PS for finer tweaking.
Foo_foo
15 years ago
Thanks, Moward. I re-read my post, and didn't realize when I was writing it how vague it sounded. You answer was exactly what I was looking for. I suppose I should devote some time to learning DPP, then decide. Thanks again.
The most significant advantage of DPP is the resulting image quality. No other RAW converter does as well.
As with most third party RAW converters, CS3 is backward engineered. They don't have the algorithm used by Canon to do the conversions. Up front, it looks like CS3 is a better program. Nice interface and easy to use.
For quality try these two tests:.
1) take Thai same pictures that needs some adjustments (contrast, white balance, saturations, etc.) and adjust it in both programs. Make sure they look the same as possible on your monitor when converting to JPG. Now print and compare the color. This is really noticeable when using a Canon printer. CS3 strips out important color information and the final print is rarely accurate for me.
2) Shoot in low light at very high ISO. Check out the noise in the RAW files. Convert to JPG. Now compare the noise again. DPP has less noise in the JPG, CS3 actually added more.
For work flow try these tests:
Shoot about a 1000 shots and process them. Compare how long it takes in both programs. If you use DPP you will find you can batch process files much faster.
Now carefully set up you camera for some shoots. Go into Picture Style and adjust saturation, contrast or sharpness. Doing it right the first time can save you a lot of time unless...... you process in CS3. Then it's assumed since you took the time to be so careful making changes that you apparently like that sort of stuff and get to do it all over again in post processing on every single pictures.
I love CS3 with a passion. But when it comes to RAW processing then my love for image quality and my time schedule give me no choice but to use DPP for all RAW precessing and global changes.
I went from using CS3 100% of the time to using DPP 95% of the time. I'm sure you going to get more testimonies here from others that have been converted from CS3 to DPP as well.
For quality try these two tests:.
1) take Thai same pictures that needs some adjustments (contrast, white balance, saturations, etc.) and adjust it in both programs. Make sure they look the same as possible on your monitor when converting to JPG. Now print and compare the color. This is really noticeable when using a Canon printer. CS3 strips out important color information and the final print is rarely accurate for me.
2) Shoot in low light at very high ISO. Check out the noise in the RAW files. Convert to JPG. Now compare the noise again. DPP has less noise in the JPG, CS3 actually added more.
For work flow try these tests:
Shoot about a 1000 shots and process them. Compare how long it takes in both programs. If you use DPP you will find you can batch process files much faster.
Now carefully set up you camera for some shoots. Go into Picture Style and adjust saturation, contrast or sharpness. Doing it right the first time can save you a lot of time unless...... you process in CS3. Then it's assumed since you took the time to be so careful making changes that you apparently like that sort of stuff and get to do it all over again in post processing on every single pictures.
I love CS3 with a passion. But when it comes to RAW processing then my love for image quality and my time schedule give me no choice but to use DPP for all RAW precessing and global changes.
I went from using CS3 100% of the time to using DPP 95% of the time. I'm sure you going to get more testimonies here from others that have been converted from CS3 to DPP as well.
In my case I went from CS2 to DPP. Not being familiar with DPP at the time, I did so because I didn't want to pay to upgrade to CS3 just to be able to process my 40D RAW images. To my pleasant surprise, I found everything occecid said above to be true.
scubapup
15 years ago
for me i didnt like the initial exposure and color inaccuracies that acr would do to my images when i would start editing them, plus i didnt like all those sliders that acr has
to each their own, some people like acr, some people like dpp
to each their own, some people like acr, some people like dpp
I agreed with all of the above comments bigging up DPP. I also went from CS3 to DPP and wished I'd done it sooner!. I went back and re-edited some of the raw files I had previously converted in CS3 this time using DPP. WOW! Colors, Sharpness this software rocks! CS3 is excellent if you've taken a bad shot. DPP is all you need, if you know your stuff.
gary718
15 years ago
Here is my workflow - with DPP and PSE 6, totally bypass LR2 or CS4:
1. Raw conversion in PPD (lens correction, picture style, and other adjustment), save to 16 tiff.
2. Open tiff ACR in PSE 6 adjusting clarity and vibrance.
3. Move to 8 bit jpg in PSE 6 for local adjustment.
Question - How can I open 16 bit jpg in PSE 6 (Step 3)? When I clik open file in ACR after Step 2, it goes to 8 bit jpg in PSE 6 automatically.
Thansk,
Gary
1. Raw conversion in PPD (lens correction, picture style, and other adjustment), save to 16 tiff.
2. Open tiff ACR in PSE 6 adjusting clarity and vibrance.
3. Move to 8 bit jpg in PSE 6 for local adjustment.
Question - How can I open 16 bit jpg in PSE 6 (Step 3)? When I clik open file in ACR after Step 2, it goes to 8 bit jpg in PSE 6 automatically.
Thansk,
Gary
nigeldalton
Posted 15 years ago. Edited by nigeldalton (member) 15 years ago
Does PSE 6 fully support 16 bit files? I had a feeling that only some 16 bit features were there - I'm not entirely certain but someone in the group will be.
King'76
15 years ago
Advantage DPP: it's free and does 95% of what I need to do and better and easier than PS.
rchiav
15 years ago
There's things I like about both ACR and DPP and I wish I could get the features I like from each in one product.
DPP does better with colors and noise. I also like the picture styles.
ACR makes it much more intuitive to adjust white balance and other settings.
My biggest pet peve with DPP is the white balance adjustment. Why don't they tell you the color temp of "auto" and why when you select color temp, does it change the color temp? I'd like to be able to make a small adjustment and that's just not possible.
DPP does better with colors and noise. I also like the picture styles.
ACR makes it much more intuitive to adjust white balance and other settings.
My biggest pet peve with DPP is the white balance adjustment. Why don't they tell you the color temp of "auto" and why when you select color temp, does it change the color temp? I'd like to be able to make a small adjustment and that's just not possible.
rchiav,
The suggestion for the auto white balance information is excellent. I have passed on this suggestion for consideration in a future version. Thanks.
The suggestion for the auto white balance information is excellent. I have passed on this suggestion for consideration in a future version. Thanks.
rchiav
15 years ago
The way ACR does it is that you can select any of the standard color temps and it will move the color temp slider and make the tint adjustments. You can then move the color temp slider and it will change the selection to "custom".
It helps greatly for those of us who don't have every color temp memorized. If I know the lighting was close to tungsten, I can select tungsten and then fine tune.
Thanks!
In Memoriam: HJSP82
15 years ago
DPP is made by Canon engineers for Canon camera produced images, it works very well and is fast for batch processing, plus it comes FREE!
I go first with DPP, then finish off in CS2.
I go first with DPP, then finish off in CS2.
This Is The Sea
14 years ago

HI, I'm new to DPP having used ACR and CS3 for some time. The above shot made me switch (ACR on the left DPP on the right). It was taken in very poor mixed light. Trying very hard in ACR to get richer colours I just got yellow or magenta casts which I couldn't get out without causing other problems. In the end I got a slightly better result by turning my oranges into reds with the selective sliders but nowhere near as good as the colours straight from DPP. Colour is important, so now it's DPP as a RAW converter and CS3 for the rest. I'll be reading your discussions keenly to come up to speed with DPP, cheers S.
leon_all_shots
14 years ago
Shoot a macbeth colour chart, and build a profile.
The DNG profile editor, provided by adobe, allows you to tweak colours and what not. I am currently trying to build a 'standard' profile for ACR (5.3 / CS4), that accurately simulates DPP stanard for both 30D and 350D.
I am also in the process of trying to build a 'calibrated' profile for DPP, whereby the colour chart is accurately rendered from RAW. To be honest, DPP isn't all that far off.
The DNG profile editor, provided by adobe, allows you to tweak colours and what not. I am currently trying to build a 'standard' profile for ACR (5.3 / CS4), that accurately simulates DPP stanard for both 30D and 350D.
I am also in the process of trying to build a 'calibrated' profile for DPP, whereby the colour chart is accurately rendered from RAW. To be honest, DPP isn't all that far off.
Donna@lifeinfocus
14 years ago
i also have recently found DPP to have better colors and noise control
wbyoungphotos
13 years ago
It is highly likely that Canon's in-house DPP knows Canon camera characteristics best...
leon_all_shots
13 years ago
I think ACR 5.6 was not quite as good at resolving fine detail as DPP 3.8. But for my work flow, and many others, it seemed easier, and allowed for more tweaking.
Absolute pixel peeping sharpness isn't the most important issue in the world - getting the image how you want it to look is - and that's why we use different things (oh and the amount of paper in the wallet).
Now what could be interesting is a comparison between ACR 6.1 and DPP 3.8. Adobe really have upped their RAW engine in the new ACR. Maybe colour's will be a bit funky, but, they can be got somewhere near the right ballpark.
Absolute pixel peeping sharpness isn't the most important issue in the world - getting the image how you want it to look is - and that's why we use different things (oh and the amount of paper in the wallet).
Now what could be interesting is a comparison between ACR 6.1 and DPP 3.8. Adobe really have upped their RAW engine in the new ACR. Maybe colour's will be a bit funky, but, they can be got somewhere near the right ballpark.
earsplitting shake [deleted]
13 years ago
I'm sure any of the current popular choices work fine. It's just that it's a lot easier to get instant, good results out of DPP than it is with 3rd party converters. There's less fiddling around with noise reduction, sharpening, etc.
For my less straight photography, I like to use Ufraw, because it does nothing at all to the image except what I specifically make it do. I find this useful for alternative type photography.
For my less straight photography, I like to use Ufraw, because it does nothing at all to the image except what I specifically make it do. I find this useful for alternative type photography.