Lightroom vs Canon DPP
Does lightroom have many more features compared to DPP. For those of you that have "upgraded" to Lightroom from DPP, have these features resulted in benefits to you? Could you explain?.

Thanx much..

Comments (5)

I have been a Lightroom user (including the beta test versions) for about 18 months. I haven't used DPP for about 3 years and it may have changed in that time, so bear that in mind when reading my answer..

Canon DPP, when I was using it, was basically just a Raw processor although quite a good one..

Lightroom is far more than just a Raw processor. It is aimed at photographers who need to handle a large number of images and covers the whole image workflow including:- downloading from a camera or memory card.

- reviewing and sorting images to decide which ones to keep, which ones to print, e-mail, etc. (These facilities are very good.)- tagging images with keywords for later retrieval.

- carrying out exposure, colour, contrast (curves), sharpening, noise reduction, B&W conversion, etc adjustments to Raw, JPEG and TIFF files. As a Raw converter it has all the same adjustments as the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop CS3..

- carrying out some other basic image manipulation including cropping and straightening, removing dust spots and removing red eye. There is a fairly good interface with an external editor (e.g. Photoshop) if more advanced adjustments are required.- handling different versions of images with different adjustments- printing (much better than Photoshop)- basic slideshow and web page preparation.

- converting files to any format required by an external program, e.g. for e-mailing- general image file management.

One of the big differences between Lightroom and most image editing programs is that it is a non-destructive editor - it never changes the original images and keeps track of any changes made in a separate database. It doesn't produce an "edited" image file of any format until one is required by an external program..

I hope that this is of some help. For me Lightroom is the most useful photo program that I have ever come across.Chris R..

Comment #1

What Chris said about lightroom is all good stuff. I just want to add that I use both programs; Lightroom for it's asset management and for any images that have highlights close to blown or that have no skin tones: DPP is still what I use if there is lots of skin tone to preserve - I just like it's results on skin better..

Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough...

Comment #2

I still think Lightroom has a long way to go. The file-management is nice, but that's where it ends:.

You have to import everything. There is no file browser. I really dislike this. You now have to deal with an database files, and can't move files around in explorer or any other program without "missing file" warnings. And have fun moving the database or photos in groups. It's a frequently asked question.

Not everybody is a pro or needs a database..

The memory card reader is a bit useless too, and it doesn't even have a "delete files on memory card after moved" option. I know Adobe doesn't want to take chances, but we're humans - intelligent beings with brains. I know my files are going away. And it would eliminate an extra step. If you had a browser, you could cut files into new locations too..

No soft proofing, plus you're locked into Melissa RGB on the RAW file as your color space. You have no choice until you export. And oh yeah, if you want to send a file to Photoshop, you have to general a full resolution JPEG/TIFF/PSD. You don't have that neat feature of bridge where you can send files directly to Photoshop and save time..

Speaking of export, it's kind of ugly looking. Bridge has a much better way of exporting. In Lightroom you can't see what tasks you have left running either, but Bridge can. It's either cancel this task and everything after it or wait until the thing you don't want to do comes up and then cancel it (although you can't see where it's in queue)..

Batch renaming in Lightroom uses is kind of backward. It's all about preset rules, rather than on-the-fly renaming feature of Bridge which is way superior..

The library has this silly grid-like way of showing the photos. There's a grey background around pictures with lines separating them. I don't like it. It looks kinda stupid. I would rather see the images with no grids or gray around them to separate them, like Bridge has. It doesn't seem necessary..

ACR still has funky colors. It has a hard time with yellows, oranges, and reds and there has been lots of topics about this. The reds are important because they represent skin tones too. Want green-tinged skin? Doing a camera calibration does not truly fix this either since you only have large controls like RGB hue/saturation, rather than each hue. The other individual color editing tools are meant for when the program is rendering it correctly in first place. Plus pushing one color one way will push another one, like a domino effect.

You'd really need to do a calibration for every type of light source you're working in..

Neither ACR or Lightroom has levels either and this is one of my largest complaints. Using exposure/blacks/brightness is NOT a substitute either since the histogram chances in real time. At least in ACR you can have custom curves. Lightroom only has parametric curves..

HORRIBLE time management. Apparently it changes the time you took the photo depending on what time zone you're in. Remember those pictures you took in Berlin at 10pm? Well now Lightroom says you took them at 4pm, since you're in a different location. And there's a big difference between dark and mid-day. This even applies to the metadata browser too. Have fun finding photos when they magically change by themselves...

Comment #3

So would I be safe to say you like Bridge better than Lightroom? You need to be clear about stuff like that..

Was that part of the original question?.

Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough...

Comment #4

Aletheia wrote:.

So would I be safe to say you like Bridge better than Lightroom? Youneed to be clear about stuff like that..

At the moment, I do think it's better. I still have Lightroom set up for if they upgrade it. hopefully it will be much better by then..

Was that part of the original question?.

No, but I still think it's relevant. There are a lot of Lightroom vs Bridge topics, and I really don't feel that Lightroom deserves the praise it currently has. If I just randomly trashed it, that would look stupid, so I had to provide examples of why it isn't up to par yet...

Comment #5

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.

This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.


Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |


(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.