I can't even tell the difference in Photoshop without really studying it. This shot (Canon Rebel XTi) of a bride and groom with a train in the background is a tie. On close inspection in Photoshop, I'm going to give a slight nod to DPP, but it's so close it's probably more appropriate to call it a draw. This bridal party shot (Canon Rebel XTi) is so close I almost wouldn't call a winner. Both are very similar, but I have to give the edge to the DPP develop.Īgain, I could've got the same look in Lightroom very quickly, but DPP rendered this beautifully with no tinkering. Here's a shot of a bride from a wedding I shot with a Canon 20D. For a quick and easy develop with no tinkering, I have to say DPP beat Lightroom here.
I actually like the DPP shot better, but I can get the same thing out of Lightroom very easily. In this instance, DPP rendered the contrast and tones a little punchier than Lightroom did. Here's my bulldog Hyla, posing for the camera (Canon 30D) with a pair of sunglasses on. Please don't email with complaints about pure testing methods and such. The images aren't posted for pixel-peeping, only to show the basic differences between the Lightroom and DPP RAW develops. DPP already defaults to the camera setting and does not need to be set in the software.Īll the images have been saved at 800 pixels on the long side. Lightroom 2 develops were set to Camera Standard as that was my default camera setting with my Canon DSLR's. These are all from RAW files, developed as is with no adjustments (except a small exposure correction in a couple of them). Let's look at a couple images to see the results. DPP is much more usable than the Nikon software.
When it comes to workflow, speed, and versatility, Lightroom just blows Canon DPP away, although not as bad as it does Nikon. Lightroom can match or come VERY close to Canon's DPP in quality when it comes to developing RAW CR2 Canon files. Lightroom can take some tinkering to get an equally good result, but it's much better now that we have the camera profiles available. My conclusion here would be that DPP is great for quick and easy RAW to jpg conversions without having to tinker. Lightroom introduced camera profiles, and they do an excellent job of giving you the same or similar results as you would have got with a straight out of camera jpg or with the Canon software.
That's the big thing that's changed since I used DPP a lot. I used the Camera Standard profile in Lightroom, so the results were always pretty close (once I turned off my own presets). You can get the same results, or very close, from Lightroom, but DPP provides a beautiful result right out of the camera as it were.īetween DPP and Lightroom, sometimes I liked the DPP file slightly better, and sometimes I liked the Lightroom file a little better. In general, DPP does a better job right out of the gate with no tinkering. Overall, my thoughts on comparing the RAW develops from each are very similar to the Lightroom vs Nikon comparison I did. So I got to thinking that an actual comparison between Lightroom and DPP was in order. (for those that missed it, here's the link to my previous article on using Canon DPP.) It was very easy to work with (once you got the workflow figured out) and capable of delivering excellent quality RAW develops from Canon CR2 files. I always liked DPP when I worked with it. Since I posted my Lightroom vs Nikon Capture / Nikon View article, I've had quite a few inquiries about my thoughts on Lightroom vs Canon's DPP (Digital Photo Professional) software.
0 kommentar(er)
