DPP has (had?) a great advantage for on-screen viewing of raw images without having to convert them first. Other programs may well have been better for editing and printing but not for full-detail viewing. File conversion is slow and gobbles up disc space.
DPP also let me see the raw luminance histogram, which I found useful more than once.
I have an excellent monitor and I prefer to view most of my photos on it rather than print them. There's not enough wall space to print and show everything.
I'm not a DPP fanatic but if you're going to bag it for its deficiencies then it also deserves credit for doing what most if not all other software has been unable to do, and for doing it free of charge.
Mark Zwiesler wrote:
I'm not personally seeing anything really unique or special about the red in that photo. But then it is pretty small. This shot is right out of DPP with no color adjustment or picture style applied.
I think the thing that I notice the most about the profiles...well 2 things.. One, the reds are truer...less magenta... Two: It helps combat the natural tendency of Canon sensors/processing to blow out the red channel.
Sure these images posted look nice (and that is all that really matters), but it doesn't really show whether the accuracy of the reds are there or not. It just shows a variation of red that may or may not be accurate to the actual scene/subject. Since we are just viewing a picture and not the original scene, there is no way to tell.
I never thought that my reds on any of my Canon bodies over the years was "bad". I just didn't like it's tendency to be less primary than it should and too easily blow out the red channel.
apdieb, are you saying that even if the white balance is not off, the reds might be off? I didn't know that, if true. I have noticed the reds can blow out easily. Is that due to some property of the Canon CMOS sensors?
i have noticed the reds to always come out better on the CCD sensors
then the canon cmos, be it the original 1d or the nikons
canon needs to work that out imo