Ok, so I know what it does, RAW adjustment, display images etc etc.,
My question is what can it do that you wouldn't do in EOS Viewer or in PS? When I run DPP it runs very slowly (or atleast it takes an age to load images in the main view panel).
What do you use DPP for??
(I did read a few weeks ago that DPP is better for sharpening, but to be honest I can't recall from the post how to use DPP for this additional benefit)
Looking forwrad to hearing how I can use this application better.
Basicaly I use DPP to open RAW format from my 350D and then transfer to CS (thereīs not Adobe Camera Raw plug in for CS and i donīt want to pay more for CS2) Sometimes I change a little contrast or luminosity but i usualy do this in CS.
When you say this, how long for example does it take to load a view page of 30 thumbnails? On my laptop (needs replacing by the way) it may take 1-2 minutes.
Or maybe there is a setting I can change to lower the res?? Don't know, assume it is processing power.
Until this week, I had no use for DPP at all. It's slow, it's clunky, it has no documentation at all. There was simply nothing it did better than ACR.
But I have recenctly been playing with raw converters to see if there is anything I have been missing. I sent RSP the $60 because I appreciate their business model. I'm not very impressed with the color or detail so far, but the "vibrance" tool is very interesting.
I downloaded the DPP upgrade to see what was up with the "picture styles". Wow! The first couple you click on the list ("standard" and "landscape") are awful - harsh contrast and garrish color. "Portrait" apparently represents Canon's opinion that caucasions are flourescent pink. But "neutral" looked like it created a file that you could take in any direction you wanted in post, and "faithful" was just flat out beautiful. Finally, exactly the color I was trying for in a single click. Click white also now seems dead on if you have a white/grey card in the scene. The complete lack of documentation is a pain, and I will probably do little other than exposure and color at the conversion stage, but it is definately worth using on individual shots.
Just so you know, I only played with it on 1D Mark II files taken in outdoor natural light. One set was senior portraits and the other was fall foliage shots featuring the reds and yellows that were so hard to get right in ACR. It also did not seem particularly slow compared to Bridge, but I was working with smaller folders than usual (100-150 files). I was on a reasonably fast PC with 2 GB Ram.
foto-z wrote:
It means that the camera uploads the image straight to a PC instead of storing ot locally. There are several advantages to doing this.
When you say directly, you mean no card readers etc., but what advantages can there be if you shoot RAW then you can play with it in DPP or EOS viewer and store it where ever?
for example, you can quickly preview each image on a PC screen instead of the tiny camera LCD screen. Also your capacity is only limited by your hard disk, not a 1GB CF card, etc.
DPP is a RAW converter. If you're happy with your current converter then there's no real reason to use it. Personally, I think it's the best converter out there in terms of image quality, but that's just me. It definitely has some workflow issues and the new version is buggy, but I'm willing to make those sacrifices since I'm a high ISO shooter and there's really no other option for me.
I've actually gone back to DPP after not liking PSCS's ACR that much. The colors are a lot more true than what I got out of ACR (not calibrated) and I can process much faster. I load the raw file, make any exposure or WB adjustments if needed, and then tweak the contrast and saturation then export. My thumbnails of my raw files load almost instantly.
I'm sure my problem with ACR is one of knowledge, but until I have time to sit down and learn it, I'm very happy with DPP.
Also, what version are you using? There was an update released awhile back that had some additional options.
I have used various other raw converters. After the new version of DPP came out I gave myself 2 weeeks of using it exclusively, I would either like it or hate it. Well times up and I think it works great. Very accurate colors. Yes there are some problems, mainly very poor documentation. The best thing to do is just start using it, experiment. Even the built in sharpening isn't to bad, not that I use it to often but on some photos it does a very good job.
the built in sharpening is in the raw adjustment and the rgb adjustment tabs. why in both? and what does the histogram slider do? every picture i try historgram adjustments on fails to show any improvement.
i use dpp for taking up hard disc space and thats about it,m i never use it, its slow as molassus, i aint got the time to wait for things to load,if canon ever wants more people to use its software they need to do alot of work on speeding it up among other things, i hate there software but love there cameras/lenses
Huh, well I've had very good luck with a few basic DPP functions. First, it loads RAW files far faster than anyother program I have, which are ACDSee, BreezeBrowser Pro, and PS CS2. When batching from a game shoot, soccer let's say, I shoot about 500-600 RAW files. My first go is with BB Pro to delete all the obviously bad ones. Then open the folder in DPP for adjustments to WB and use it to convert, in batch, to 16 bit tiff. Sometimes, I'll so a smidge of curve work in DPP before conversion. This really goes very fast and I've tried all sorts of combinations. But I use a PC so maybe Macs are different. Best, Shane
I use it first for batch processing, then the files go to CS2. Have never had a complaint with it other then past versions were a little slow. Newest version is actually quite usable once you get the hang of it.
DPP also gives me the best color straight without much tweaking. I found the hue slide most useful in portrait work, just a smidgen to the left or right will take care of the slight hue bias plauguing the picture.
I've tried C1 and ACR - C1's colors (even with Nielsen's profile) aren't that pleasing nor accurate. For ACR, I have to spend a lot of effort and time in order to duplicate what I see right from the start with DPP.
The only downside is that DPP doesn't have noise reduction, but it's a good thing actually. I have been forced to become more accurate in my exposure control now
another one here for DPP.
Till now i used the ver.1.0 and was happy with it,much faster then ACR,RSE.
Although for selected shots i use ACR,tabs like "detail"&lens" work so well. I just have installed the latest DPP and i see great improvement in speed and color, as well in tools .It takes about 15 sec to load 150 thumbs of raw!!! faster then anything i've seen before! Noise tool would be welcome,but not a big deal, for those cases i got ACR.
EVU used only for vewing the focus point :-) i dont know any other advantages of it.
