gdanmitchell Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Lan11 wrote:
Unfortunately, for a person who stated: “Back in the day, I recall trying the DPP software a few times…” the only thing left is to “occasionally marvel at photographers for whom hundreds or even thousands of dollars…. etc.”
FYI only :-) - those photographers often experiment without getting addicted to hyped products or following a trend.
Instead of marveling, how about giving the DPP, or any other application, a chance? Like 6 months of solid learning and using it? Then comparing results.
Or better yet, posting your best files made with your current converter, whatever it is, along the original RAW files, so people proficient with other converters can show you their results?
And, please don’t take this reply as offensive. It is so common to read falsehood. There are “experts” who publish reviews about equipment which they “used” in the camera store and write reviews based on the user manual.
I’m posting in hope that someone from Canon will read my posts and make an excellent converter even better.
...Show more →
Well, I have tried it more than once. (I've given quite a few applications "a chance." I was a late stage beta tester for Aperture, which I used for several versions, really wanting to like it. I was also in on the late stage betas of Lightroom, and before that I used Photoshop for some time. I used DPP enough to understand how it operates and what its weaknesses are relative to the other programs I've used. (I actually used my first digital camera all the way back in the mid-1990s.)
I don't doubt that DPP can convert raw images quite well, since most raw converters can do much the same things once you master their interfaces. I also concede that it comes free with your camera. And, knowing that taste is a subjective thing, I can't quarrel with individuals who have used a range of program and come to settle on DPP. That is their/your prerogative.
Aside from my issues with the interface and compatibility with more standard software, t just plain would not work for my workflow. DPP converts files to tiff, which then come into (for me) Photoshop as tiff files. My workflow is almost entirely non-destructive, meaning that my Photoshop files maintain a "live" connection back into ACR so that I can return there at any point in the post-processing workflow to fine tune my conversion later on while retaining all other edits I have done. For example, I prefer to clone out dust in ACR. If I miss a spot and discover it while in Photoshop it is an easy matter to reopen in ACR, clone out the spot, and go on from where I was.
In addition, because of the tight integration of ACR and Photoshop (which is conceptually similar to what Lightroom does internally) I bring converted files from ACR into Photoshop not as static tiff files but as so-called smart layers. This allows me to do do essentially anything (with a very small number of exceptions) in a editable/reversible manner. For example, I can apply more than one type of sharpening and even constrain it to selected areas of the image. I can apply the sharpening early in the post process, assured that it will be trivial to come back later and change the settings if necessary.
These other programs (the Bridge component of ACR and Lightroom itself) also offer very powerful tools for organizing and searching your files in a wide range of ways.
Despite what you may think, I am no particular fan of Adobe the company. I spoke out against their software rental model, and it still makes me very uneasy — though the terms have changed radically since they were originally announced. What was going to be Photoshop for $30/month is now Photoshop and Lightroom for $10/month. In terms of price that is not a bad deal at all, especially if you are the sort who prefers to use up-to-date software.
The issue of "“occasionally marvel[ing] at photographers for whom hundreds or even thousands of dollars" on lenses is no biggie while a few hundred on software is, is sort of a separate issue. There are a few reasons that folks cite to explain their preference for DPP.
1. Some think that it improves their raw conversions. I'm sure I can't convince them otherwise, but there is scant evidence that this is the case — and if it was the case, a whole bunch of serious photographers would certainly choose to use the free and better tool rather than pay for an inferior one, right? But they don't.
2. Some just like DPP. This is that subjective thing I mentioned above — some folks just feel differently from others about such things. Where you find a DPP interface that is powerful and flexible, I find one that is awkward and difficult. And it is hard to move from a familiar application to one that is unfamiliar, even if the new one is objectively better. I know. I've made such moves and felt awkward at first.
3. Some choose to use DPP because it is free, just like some choose to use The Gimp for the same reason. This is a different group from those who might feel that either program is actually better than the commercial alternatives. This is the subset I was thinking of when I made the "marveling" remark — those among them who think it is reasonable, as I do, to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on photography hardware, but who feel that $10/month is an outlandish expenditure for the thing that replaces (except for the actual printer) an entire darkroom. (A number of people I've know rethought their objections to the cost of software once they looked at it that way.)
Take care,
Dan
Regarding "my best files," my photographs are pretty easy to find online. Almost all were converted using ACR and then post processed in Photoshop. Some, including some of my photographs of musicians, came through Lightroom, sometime with further post-processing in Photoshop.
|