Canon DPP vs Adobe LR4 or Camera RAw

Hi guys,

did anybody notice that ACR and LR4 "renders" colors of a CR2 file slightly differently from DPP??? They seem to be a bit less saturated.....

am I right in this???

Also is there any noticeable difference in sharpness when using ACR / LR4 as opposed to DPP???

just asking because I am thinking of shifting workflow from DPP tp ACR / LR4 but am concerned with the colors and image sharpness that i will get when converting my CR2 files into JPEGs....

thanks for any input



james

Hi, DPP and ACR have their own ways of rendering an image from the raw file. In both of these you can basically apply any amount of sharpness and saturation you prefer (and of course lots of other stuff). So a short answer to your question would be no, images rendered by LR will not be less saturated or less sharp (unless you want them to be).

I used DPP only for a couple of years, but after hearing all the good words about Lightroom 3 (at the time) I tried it. In the beginning I was doubtful - I had difficulties achieving exactly the same result as I did with basically no effort in DPP. But after some practice I got results that were better than what I could achieve with DPP, and since then I’m stuck with Lightroom.

A short summary of my main experiences of DPP vs. LR (ACR):

- Overall, Lightroom can do a lot more than DPP. (I’m only referring to the raw conversion - not all the other bonus features of LR.)

- By default LR/ACR applies a really flat/boring development recipe to all images - unlike DPP it can’t read the settings you used in camera. But you can easily create your own set of basic development recipes, or presets that they are called in LR, and apply whatever you like by default.

- Then, of course, there are a bunch of bonus features in Lightroom. The library module for organization of your entire photo collection is wonderful, but I rarely use the other modules.

- Even though I strongly prefer ACR/LR over DPP, there are still some things that I find DPP does better. For example I find it easier to do lens corrections in DPP. (I suppose Canon has better input to the software regarding distortion, vignetting, CA etc. than Adobe has been able to reverse engineer.) But even if DPP has the edge, I still believe the lens corrections in Ligtroom works well most of the time.

- Another advantage of DPP could be the rapidness - my computer isn’t brand new, but no older than a couple of years. All software installed on it runs really smoothly…except Lightroom 4. It’s really demanding. It’s still fine to work with, but it sometimes gets close to the patience limit. This is partially why I still use EOS Utility and DPP for downloading from camera and “rubbish removal” before I import photos into LR.

I suggest you try the free evaluation version of Lightroom. Give it some time and get it if you like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cls

Hi, DPP and ACR have their own ways of rendering an image from the raw file. In both of these you can basically apply any amount of sharpness and saturation you prefer (and of course lots of other stuff). So a short answer to your question would be no, images rendered by LR will not be less saturated or less sharp (unless you want them to be).

I used DPP only for a couple of years, but after hearing all the good words about Lightroom 3 (at the time) I tried it. In the beginning I was doubtful - I had difficulties achieving exactly the same result as I did with basically no effort in DPP. But after some practice I got results that were better than what I could achieve with DPP, and since then I’m stuck with Lightroom.

A short summary of my main experiences of DPP vs. LR (ACR):

- Overall, Lightroom can do a lot more than DPP. (I’m only referring to the raw conversion - not all the other bonus features of LR.)

- By default LR/ACR applies a really flat/boring development recipe to all images - unlike DPP it can’t read the settings you used in camera. But you can easily create your own set of basic development recipes, or presets that they are called in LR, and apply whatever you like by default.

- Then, of course, there are a bunch of bonus features in Lightroom. The library module for organization of your entire photo collection is wonderful, but I rarely use the other modules.

- Even though I strongly prefer ACR/LR over DPP, there are still some things that I find DPP does better. For example I find it easier to do lens corrections in DPP. (I suppose Canon has better input to the software regarding distortion, vignetting, CA etc. than Adobe has been able to reverse engineer.) But even if DPP has the edge, I still believe the lens corrections in Ligtroom works well most of the time.

- Another advantage of DPP could be the rapidness - my computer isn’t brand new, but no older than a couple of years. All software installed on it runs really smoothly…except Lightroom 4. It’s really demanding. It’s still fine to work with, but it sometimes gets close to the patience limit. This is partially why I still use EOS Utility and DPP for downloading from camera and “rubbish removal” before I import photos into LR.

I suggest you try the free evaluation version of Lightroom. Give it some time and get it if you like it.

---

I use CS5 but the ACR is the same for CS and LR. ACR is also much better at noise reduction than DPP. :cool:

Yup. I used DPP for about two years and was fine with it... then someone posted a noise comparison between bodies, and I realized I was missing out on ACRs high ISO noise reduction. I had Elements, but wasn't using it. Now I always use Elements.

hi guys.... thanks for all your input..... judging from what you guys posted LR/ACR would be better but to get better results I will need to familiarize myself with it.... hmmm sounds reasonable..... yup will try LR/ACR for a while

thanks again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

I use CS5 but the ACR is the same for CS and LR. ACR is also much better at noise reduction than DPP. :cool:

---

+1 LR is much better than DPP for NR.

Adjusting highlights in LR seems a bit better.

Colors might be a bit more complicated if you are used to using canons picture settings. But with a bit of practice LR does fine.

@jrw..... I use only the 'faithful' picture style and i shoot raw.....
I did try to use LR4/acr to convert the CR2 file without any adjustments whatsoever, did the same with DPP. Image processed by LR4/ACR looked a lot less saturated in terms of color as opposed to the one processed using DPP.... as for sharpness I have a hard time telling the diffrence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jks_photo

@jrw..... I use only the 'faithful' picture style and i shoot raw.....
I did try to use LR4/acr to convert the CR2 file without any adjustments whatsoever, did the same with DPP. Image processed by LR4/ACR looked a lot less saturated in terms of color as opposed to the one processed using DPP.... as for sharpness I have a hard time telling the diffrence

---

That's true, but it really doesn't matter what your picture looks like with no adjustments applied. What matters is the finished product you can produce once adjusted.