Been reading some reviews in the equipment forum about the 50D and found several references to DPP. I'm embarassed to admit I did not know what that stood for, I searched around the office and finally found the "Digital Photo Professional" disk still wrapped in the 40D box. Walla! "DPP". I've never downloaded the software 'cause the guys at the photo store long ago said it wasn't useful. And, since I have Downloader Pro, BB, and ACR/CS3, it never occurred to me that DPP might be useful. On the contrary, comments by Doug Brown, John Chardin and others indicate that DPP might be a better processing choice for removing noise, etc. than ACR.
I would appreciate a brief explanation of how DPP fits into the workflow.
Rodger,
I can't comment on the new DPP software as far as quality goes. In the past it was less than impressive.
Resulting in a booming business for Breeze Browser.
IMO you should give it a try.
My Nikon Workflow when using Nikon's DPP counter part Capture NX is simple.
I download and sort with Nikon Transfer / View NX and convert the RAW files with Capture NX before going to Adobe for final tweaks.
My best quality comes from using the Nikon dedicated software (Lightroom 2 is a close 2nd). That is why I suggest you try Canon's dedicated converter. A manufacturer's OE software should be the best choice for converting RAW files with the highest quality.
Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and Breezebrowser (BB) are all capable of converting raw files to TIFF or PSD (or JPG) files, and can also undertake of range of cropping and other adjustments and produce JPGs.
Many advocate using ACR, DPP and BB as relatively simple converters using minimal adjustments to convert raw files to TIFF or PSD files for full editing in Photoshop. While others undertake quite detailed adjustments in ACR especially, before final processing in Photoshop. In the end, it all depends on what you are comfortable with.
As I understand it, an advantage of DPP and BB (which is based on the Canon software developers kit) is that they are more Canon aware than ACR, e.g.they use the camera settings as defaults during conversion and also better interpret settings like highlight tone priority found on certain Canon bodies, and maybe noise reduction.
DPP itself can be used for simple cropping, tonal adustment, sharpening, producing JPGs etc, but it is not nearly as full featured as say Photoshop.
Last edited by Simon Bennett; 11-12-2008 at 01:50 PM.
Breeze Browser Pro to view and eliminate files > DPP for raw conversion > Photoshop for final editing. Not sure how this compares to others work flow. After trying numerous combinations over the years this is the one that I am most comfortable with.
Thanks for the comments. I'll download the Canon software and try it. I've been relying on Artie's recommendation - he believes he achieves the best conversion quality with BB. However, I've seen a number of comments (including those above) about the manufacturer's software being best mated to the camera. Makes sense to me.
I have a 5d and a MK2n. I use DPP for viewing then deleting all images. I will make some minor adjustments then convert them to tiff files using DPP. Then I use PS 6.0 to make final edits etc. I agree with James on the issues he makes references to. In the past DPP was not the best. But it is pretty darn good now. Go up to Canon and download the latest version in order to make the best of it. Dedicated almost always is the best choice. Just my two cents worth.
Cheryl, i do not use DPP for noise reduction. I do that in PS, if need be. If the noise introduced by curves etc is too much and a slight adjustment does not work, then I just take another image. For birds I get as close as I can and use the best of lens converters for the intended results. I do not crop heavily and introduce noise as a result. Just my way.
Dpp
Reply With Quote
