Does anyone use DPP for processing RAW images? If so, how does it differ from using CS3's RAW utility? Should I use them together, or just one of them. If so, which one?
I use and prefer DPP to ACR in CS3. I think it gives significantly better color and--call me quirky--I prefer the workflow in DPP to that of ACR. The only area IMO that ACR has the edge is with overexposure. ACR can retrieve detail if one channel still retains any.
RDKirk wrote:
I use and prefer DPP to ACR in CS3. I think it gives significantly better color and--call me quirky--I prefer the workflow in DPP to that of ACR. The only area IMO that ACR has the edge is with overexposure. ACR can retrieve detail if one channel still retains any.
I use Lightroom almost exclusively. BUT, having said that, when I want a killer print, I use DPP 95% of the time. It's just that good an engine, the interface is oh so woefull, though.
Another DPP user here. To answer part of your question, there is no reason to use the together, use one or the other. I'm not saying there aren't times to use the other one for a specific reason, but for general workflow you only need to do the RAW work once.
My feeling is this. Just pick one and use it, a lot. Get used to it and get good at it. You will get better results from being really good with any RAW converter than knowing a bit about several. Use the one that just feels the best, don't worry about why or what you should be doing.
The latest ACR can do things that DPP cannot and that can make it worth using. However, one advantage of DPP that I really appreciate is that I can see the "converted" images without doing an actual conversion. It is heaps faster for browsing full size raw files (vs thumbnails) and there is no requirement to produce unwanted jpg or tif converted files just to see what the image will look like. I can tweak the settings and see the effects immediatey again without doing a conversion that wastes time and disc space.
Another advantage of DPP is that upgrades are free and you don't have to buy a new version of Photoshop just because your new camera came out after your copy of PS was superceded.
The sharpening in DPP is no longer very good as it introduces a lot of unwanted specular noise. Better to do that in PS or whatever on the converted files, but for browsing the DPP sharpening is usually tolerable.
Another good feature of DPP is that it gives you the 12- or 14-bit luminance histogram as well as the 8-bit RGB histograms. You can learn a lot from that and you can see what data is there to be salvaged through different conversion settings in cases where the original image capture involved high contrast or just a plain old exposure error.
