Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)
  
 
Greg Campbell
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


It makes me glad seeing DPP get some respect.

(The Gear Dweeb crowd take great pleasure in belittling the program, and and anyone who uses it.)



Jul 21, 2013 at 12:01 AM
sirimiri
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


I've used DPP for at least four years and am pretty happy with it. It's not the only part of my processing "cascade" but for sure it's where I always start.

If Canon would increase the "database" ability of DPP from where it sits now (basically zero) that would be even more compelling!



Jul 21, 2013 at 01:05 AM
trumpet_guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


I like DPP and have used it for years.

One thing I noted that looks incorrect is the lens support list, where it claims that the DLO module
supports the EF 135 f/2L. I don't see any such support in DPP 3.13.0

Just a nit pick.



Jul 21, 2013 at 01:37 AM
sirimiri
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


I think they'll get around to it. You can see they added modules for (old) lenses such as the original EF wide/tele L zoom, the 28-70mm.

The fast 200mm primes aren't there either :/



Jul 21, 2013 at 02:24 AM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


Sorry, but DPP is still one of the crappiest, clunkiest applications in digital imaging. It doesn't have nearly all the controls the better apps have and many of the controls it does have are much coarser and less effective than the other apps. But the biggest problem is that the image quality just isn't up to par when compared to something like CaptureOne, and CaptureOne I can get to where I want to be in almost no time at all.

Here are a few screen shots taken from the same image processed through DPP (and optimized as much as possible with the available controls) and again from CaptureOne version 7. Make your own observations but check out the type and smoothness of the detail, the midtone contrast, the license plate with over a quarter of a million miles worth of bugs having hit it, the shadow detail and contrast.





100% Crop comparision







Tire detail at 200%







Extreme corner 100 % detail














Jul 21, 2013 at 03:42 AM
Dawei Ye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


I use Canon DPP exclusively, have never liked ACR/LR (never tried CaptureOne or Aperture)

Peter, your results above are quite surprising as generally my DPP output looks like your results on the left

For example, here are some car lights from DPP latest version - they look similar to what you can get out of Captureone imo:

(please ignore the labels - these photos are repurposed from a previous use sorry )







I wanna try CaptureOne now



Jul 21, 2013 at 06:21 AM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


I went back and revisited DPP on this image and found some interesting things. I used the Neutral picture style when processing the image above and came up with those crappy results. I used Neutral because it gave the best overall "look" with the least amount of whatever sauce Canon adds to the mix. Neutral had the best overall contrast and tonality. I switched to Faithful and the image improved dramatically - still not in the ballpark of the CaptureOne files, but better. So I guess this raises the question of why one Picture Style renders details so much differently than another. That would be a major bug in the software. The bottom line is that I often have many hundreds or even thousands of images to sort through and DPP is just too clunky to be efficient at that. Every once in a while I come across an image where LR is better than C1, but not very often. They're all just tools, but some are decidedly more efficient and more effective.


Jul 21, 2013 at 08:53 PM
trumpet_guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


The only picture style I use on DPP is "Standard," since I find the others either too subdued (like
Neutral) or too over-the-top (like Landscape).

I do like your results with C1, Peter.



Jul 21, 2013 at 09:33 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


Peter Figen wrote:
Sorry, but DPP is still one of the crappiest, clunkiest applications in digital imaging. It doesn't have nearly all the controls the better apps have and many of the controls it does have are much coarser and less effective than the other apps. But the biggest problem is that the image quality just isn't up to par when compared to something like CaptureOne, and CaptureOne I can get to where I want to be in almost no time at all.

Here are a few screen shots taken from the same image processed through DPP (and optimized as much as
...Show more

Peter, comparing the ones on the left and the right, I have a feeling that I could get the DPP examples very close to your C1 examples in a matter of seconds in LR5. I mostly see a difference in contrast, with perhaps a slight difference in sharpening and an even slighter difference in white balance. And I don't consider myself to be terribly good with Lightroom .

But I think that your description of DPP does stand well. I've tried using it next to Lightroom, and the difference I saw was more of a difference in color rendering- the DPP preview looked more natural- but sharpness and contrast remained the same. It just took longer, and the interface is painful to use. And while I did use the trial version of C1, I found it to be less user-friendly than LR as a total photography solution, though I could fairly quickly get decent results with C1.



Jul 21, 2013 at 11:00 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Peter Figen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


We can go a step further. How many of you Canon shooters shoot tethered, either in the studio or on location? How many have tried to do it the "Canon" way? Whoever the hell at Canon (trust me, I love the hardware but hate the software) thought that it was a great idea to have to use two programs in order to have a usable tethering solution should be fired summarily for abject stupidity. Unfreaking believable and a situation I've complained to Canon about on numerous occasions but no one seems to understand. Now, you can tether into Lightroom, but LR is missing too many features that you really need, but it does work and I know professionals here in L.A. that use it. The best solution, once again, comes from Denmark in the form of CaptureOne. Seamless and reliable and all in one program, but the coolest little feature, is the ability to overlay a jpeg of your layout (and vary the opacity, size and position) into the capture window so you can check on the fly if you're shooting to your comp or not. Art directors love love love this and so do I. I keep meaning to spend a day (or whatever it takes) doing a complete critical review of DPP for Canon, but never seem to have the time to really get into it, and frankly, I don't think it would make any difference, as they seem hell bent on maintaining the same basic direction of their current product.


Jul 22, 2013 at 06:09 AM
BluesWest
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


Sorry, but DPP is still one of the crappiest, clunkiest applications in digital imaging.

+1. DPP is a perfect example of software written by programmers who don't know the first thing about creating a usable UI (maybe they didn't know what the "U" stands for?). And the amount of control over raw processing DPP allows pales in comparison to ACR.

In fact, the only thing DPP has going for it is that it's free...

John



Jul 22, 2013 at 04:27 PM
Craig Zendel
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


FYI

DPP Digital Lens Optimiser.

EF85mm f/1.8 USM
EF135mm f/2L USM
EF300mm f/4L IS USM
EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.f IS USM
EF70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

and numerous EF-S lenses.

I am told that support for these lenses will be included in the next release: 3.13.20, probably sometime next week.

CraigZ



Jul 22, 2013 at 10:46 PM
gfiksel
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


BluesWest wrote:
+1. DPP is a perfect example of software written by programmers who don't know the first thing about creating a usable UI (maybe they didn't know what the "U" stands for?). And the amount of control over raw processing DPP allows pales in comparison to ACR.

In fact, the only thing DPP has going for it is that it's free...

John


Agree. DPP should be used as an example of what a UI should NOT be.



Jul 22, 2013 at 11:23 PM
dhphoto
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


Craig Zendel wrote:
FYI

DPP Digital Lens Optimiser.

EF85mm f/1.8 USM
EF135mm f/2L USM
EF300mm f/4L IS USM
EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.f IS USM
EF70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

and numerous EF-S lenses.

I am told that support for these lenses will be included in the next release: 3.13.20, probably sometime next week.

CraigZ


Perhaps you can answer this question:

When you use DLO it asks to overwrite the existing RAW file. The RAW file changes size slightly, so the file does change.

If you then use the amended RAW file in a decent RAW converter, like LR, do you still get the DLO quality improvements?



Jul 23, 2013 at 09:48 AM
jrhoffman75
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


Not as a RAW file. The DLO data is added to the file but is only processed when DPP converts the file.

If you want to process the file further, such as in LR you need to convert to a TIFF. You can choose to convert a base file with no DPP processing other than DLO (i.e. no sharpening, Neutral Picture Style) or do some processing in DPP and then export to LR etc. as a TIFF.



Jul 23, 2013 at 12:34 PM
abqnmusa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


I stopped using DPP due to "insufficient memory" errors processing RAW files
occurs on Windows & Mac and the error is in the DPP manual
Canon suggests putting fewer files in the directory, but it can occur with a small number of files
I think it depends on the sequence of steps you use

root cause is likely 32bit memory limitation of the app -- approx 4 GB RAM max

DXO Optics Pro v8 has replaced DPP for me. DXO produces the same nice colors as DPP quality and does not run out of memory. DXO is 64 bitz



Jul 23, 2013 at 03:00 PM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


DPP noise reduction is pretty savage on raw files even at low settings. Best avoided if possible.

DPP was among the first non-destructive raw file editors in that you tell it what you want done and it does that for you whenever required without producing a newly converted file, unless of course you ask it to produce a new file. This saves drive space and reduces file clutter. However, it does store its raw edit commands in the raw file and even though this does not affect the actual raw data it is a change to the file and so causes the raw file to be backed up by software such such as time machine. This can waste space.

Also, because the DPP edits are stored separately from the raw sensor data, most other software cannot benefit from them unless you produce a new converted file such as a tif or jpg. In most cases I'd rather work in Lightroom.


On the plus side DPP can be a very educational program. The raw edit panel shows a luminance histogram based on raw data that is very hard to find elsewhere. Separate colour channels would be even better but this is still far batter than having nothing. You get to see whether or not the luminance data has already been burnt out or grossly underexposed no matter what you do to the image in the RGB edit panel - and once that raw data is maxed out there is no recovering it without manually "painting" new data in.

Of special interest to learners is that the raw luminance histogram actually has a horizontal scale. With numbers ! Few other histograms do; not even your camera. It shows a "0" at the mid tone level which Canon chose for the particular camera model, and which varies between models. It also shows a maximum level - if not actually numbered then at least it can be interpreted from the numbered values. So for example I now know that my 1D4 is designed to have about 3.8 stops of exposure data above the "0" or mid-tone level. Some cameras have much less. Where else can you get that info ? Nowhere that I have seen. You also get an idea of how much data is available below the mid-tone level. e.g about six or eight stops. That end of the scale is a bit iffy because noise intrudes on the image data at low levels and we each tolerate different amounts of noise in our images, relative to the shadow data levels.


When using DPP it is best to do whatever edits you can in the raw edit panel before moving to the RGB edit panel. It is a real pity that we cannot see the effects of the raw panel edits on the jpg-equivalent RGB histogram without switching to and from the RGB edit panel. Maybe in version 20 or 30 they'll fix that If nothing else, Canon has demonstrated that they won't rush bug fixes and new features into DPP.

It seems that they have increased the star ratings to 5 levels. I think it used to be 3 in the early days. I wonder if it is compatible with Lightroom and so on. I doubt it because most of the DPP edit data goes into proprietry data fields in the raw files that are not read or written to by many programs. It might be usable with the likes of BreezeBrowser Pro but that is only for Windows users.

For editing I pretty much ignore DPP these days in favour of Lr and plug-ins but I do still use DPP to check which AF sensors were active, and to check as much of the Canon proprietry exif data as I can regarding focus mode, exposure mode, custom settings, etc., that are not available in Lr. For that matter they're not available for all Canon cameras either even in DPP. I guess that's why Adobe and others ignore them - Canon keeps changing what they mean or whether they exist.


DPP does have one other advantage over other software - it can output 16-bit data to suitable Canon printers such as the large format iPF6100, etc. Most software outputs 8-bit data to printers (or at least used to).

- Alan



Jul 23, 2013 at 06:18 PM
Craig Zendel
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Tutorial: Inside Digital Photo Professional (DPP)


dhphoto,

No, as jrhoffman75 correctly states, this is not possible.

AFAIK, the DLO information is stored in the RAW file in a similar way to a DPP Recipe. However, it is very much larger, usually creating a RAW of considerably greater size.

The DLO information can be removed, reducing the file, somewhat curiously, to slightly smaller in size than it was originally.

Regards,

CraigZ



Jul 24, 2013 at 11:30 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password