1. Adobe Lightroom Vs Apple Photos

Well, I use Lightroom as my 'workflow manager' and so do my Raw processing there. And, the Lightroom Raw processor, shared with the Photoshop Camera Raw processor, has a significantly more advanced toolset for Raw than DPP.

Lightroom vs Canon Digital Photo Professional? And nikon are not software companies such as Adobe. Professional vs lightroom, lightroom vs canon. Was chosen (I believe this is adobe's version of the Canon. With Lightroom. They would be wrong. Vs Canon Digital Photo Professional.

That being said, DPP is quite nice for Raw processing when you don't want the advanced Lightroom capabilities. It's great for quick in-out conversions. Plus, it has tools that replicate the in-camera tools for creating a jpeg - the basics of Picture Styles and White Balance, plus enhancement tools that get added to DPP when new image enhancement functions are added to new Canon cameras - pretty cool when those features can be made available to photos taken with older cameras. For those reasons I'm not dismissive of DPP! In fact, on any given day I'll often have DPP open right alongside Lightroom, sometimes 'messing' with something, sometimes doing a quick conversion for whatever reason. But, DPP and Lightroom don't 'share' Raw processing/metadata, so work done in DPP won't show up with a Raw file in Lightroom and vice-versa.

So, since Lightroom is my Workflow manager as well as my 'serious' Raw processor, in the end shoots that have 'meaning' to me go through my Lightroom Raw processor. As to which Noise Reduction handles detail better, well again LR has more advanced tools, and, when I'm dealing with high ISO images with noticeable noise I'll be in Lightroom automatically, but if I am in DPP sure I'll toss in NR if it's appropriate to get a working image out the door. Tony Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro) Wildlife project pics, Biking Photog shoots, 'Suburbia' project!

Helens, Mount Hood pics. That's pretty much par for the course. Jpegs get two kinds of compression, even Raw files get compression, whereas I don't believe DPP offers tiff compression, but even if you save a tiff out of Photoshop with compression you still get large files. The only 'relief' is if you can save as an 8 bit tiff because you have done an ample amount working with your Raw file! And, if you think that's scary, open a tiff in Photoshop, do some work involving a few layers, then save it with the layers intact, and check the file size! Tony Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro) Wildlife project pics, Biking Photog shoots, 'Suburbia' project! Helens, Mount Hood pics.

Stealthdave wrote in Using a canon 400d with 18-55mm lens I do the following: Open all my raws in DPP and export to tiff Then import to lightroom and work from there I have tried but can never get my raw files to look as good just using lightroom (would be nice if I could as I could skip a step then) I used primarily DPP for four years. For the last three years it has been LR. I firmly believe I can get a much better conversion with LR, but I freely admit that it takes a lot more work - both on the level of overall learning and experience gaining and on the level of the time spent with each image.

Today, with LR4 this is even more true. LR4 can do things with a Raw file that it can't do with a tif and that DPP can't even approach. Read this article for a taste of what LR4 does (and then run to the nearest software store): Elie / אלי. Do not use Luminance NR in DPP and you'll be fine. If you're using a fairly new camera, and expose well, you won't need it anyhow, unless you're shooting ISO 3200 and up. Both DPP and LR4 are good raw converters, it mostly comes down to personal preference.

For some images, I still prefer DPP's sharpening. LR does offer more options though. 'I think the idea of art kills creativity' - Douglas Adams. Color Problems?

PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

Anyone here use Adobe Lightroom yet? How does this compare to DPP? I know Adobe Lightroom is their newest product and looking at it, it looks like DPP but with more tools.

Adobe Lightroom Vs Apple Photos

I was just wondering how many people are using this versus DPP and whether it was worth the cost or not. Since I will be going back to take some part time classes, I can get the academic version which will be of course alot cheaper. Thanks in advance for the comments. I posted this here since DPP is a Canon EOS Tool.

I started using DPP last July and got on with it pretty well. The only big annoyance for me was the absence of a straightening tool. There were other smaller annoyances but as a tool to 'fix' your photos it did the job well. I will be interested to see what's on offer in DPP 3.

I tried CS2, using combinations of Bridge, ACR and Photoshop but really never got on with it. It's just too fiddly to get fast results and I was not motivated to spend hours learning it. Layer this, layer that, mask the other - not my style.

27 different ways to sharpen something - forget it. I've been using Lightroom since the last beta and now have the final product. It is very easy to use and gets me great results. It has pretty much everything I need for photo editing but none of the graphic design features of Photoshop. You can't do selective adjustments or cut and paste bits and pieces or add text etc but that's OK with me.

I'm happy to take photographs and the use Lightroom to correct my failings or compensate for difficult lighting conditions. I have no interest in cocking about with my photos to give humans plastic looking skin or create false blurring of backgrounds etc. I'm happy with Lightroom and now it's all I use.

I am not familiar with DPP but have been using Lightroom for a few weeks. Here are my opinions so far: 1. The Library function is excellent for organizing your images. Drug inspector question papers pdf. It is easy to use and the thumbnail, navigation, keyword tags, etc.

Are much easier than other ways of filing and finding your pictures. The Develop function is very good.

The visual representation of the histogram with on-screen indication of high and low value clipping is very useful. Also, the way in which you can adjust the tonal curve and Hue/Saturation/Luminace is nice. If you have a lot of pictures from a single shoot, then you can apply the same 'adjustments' (like white balance for example) to a group of similarly exposed images, thus saving quite a bit of time on individual images. The other functions are well thought out.

I am primarily a film shooter and it seems to me, at least on the surface, that Lightroom is more geared toward digital images. My current workflow is: 1. Import into Lightroom 3. Do some preliminary viewing / selection / adjustments (Lightroom does not change the original image, just keeps track of the changes that you want to apply) 4.

Right click on the image in Lightroom and select 'Edit in Photoshop'. Select the option to apply all Lightroom changes and create a copy to work in Photoshop (Lightroom will create a.psd copy).

Use Photoshop v7 and my Photoshop plug-ins to burn, dodge, and do other things that I am familiar with. You can then save the image in Photoshop and return to Lightroom. You then have 2 copies of the image - the original Lightroom version and the edited Photoshop version. Like any software it needs practice.

Hope this helps. I use DPP and am trying to learn to use Lightroom. I find I seem to be spending a lot of time in Lightroom trying to get it to make RAW conversions that look like DPP conversions if there are skin tones involved. For other images, the controls of Lightroom do allow results I like, and I'm getting better skin tones as I learn (although sometimes I think I'll just use DPP for people pictures). The Library functions are very good, although I'm having a lot of self doubt about the 'best' organizational system for me to use the program's database potential, especially regarding 'backing up' everything. Anyone have suggestions?

I'm finding slide show and web functions do not matter much to me. I've been using Lightroom for quite some time, including beta versions. I think the application has tremendous potential, but it does have some pitfalls and deficiencies. Firstly, it can often take some work to get certain colors, especially light skin tones, to render as well as DPP will do.

The lack of picture style support might be an issue for some. More importantly to me, the fact that it does not honor Canon camera-set metadata for image parameters tends to slow down post processing. In other words, it doesn't care what your B&W, sharpening, saturation, etc., is set to in-camera- and there's no way through lightroom to find out what you had them set. So, if you're one who likes to do as much 'in-camera' as possible (but still shoot RAW), you'll need to remember how you wanted to shot to look and then try to apply similar develop parameters in Lightroom. Lightroom is also geared toward whole-image adjustments.

The only local modifications you can make are for red-eye adjustment and for cloning out dust spots- anything else is still going to require Photoshop or another full fledged pixel editor. Lightroom also require a discrete import step for every file you want to manage in the application- it's not intended to browse arbitrary directories. Other problems with Lightroom include massive instability, glacial slowness, and lots of bugs that will corrupt your library and make you start it from scratch. Lightroom is also really geared toward RAW files- you lose a lot of functionality if you're using JPGs. On the upside, the Develop module is well thought out and very powerful. The 'vibrance' slider is a step above the typical Saturation option. Adjusting color channels is very intuitive.

I like the way Lightroom handles crops and rotation. Keywording, while in need of some find tuning, works well. Stacking is a great idea, that, although suffering from implementation problems, is still a great organizational asset. Metadata browsing is something you'll wonder how you lived without.

Develop presets will help you create a consistent style when doing things like generating black and white or greyscale images. All in all, I think Lightroom is a good program that will eventually be great, once Adobe squashes the show-stopper bugs and fine-tunes some of the things that were not fully developed in their rush to release it. I wouldn't bet my business on Lightroom solely because of the serious bugs it has in version 1.0, which is a shame, because that's the target audience for the application. It still has a 30 day free trial, and introductory pricing, so if you can stick out the time until Adobe gets things right (with your fingers crossed), it might be worth buying now.

I find that it's faster to get a nice-looking result on some pictures from DPP than it is from Lightroom- but Lightroom provides a great deal more flexibility and the ability to deal with tougher problems or create more artistic results. If anyone is interested I've posted some sample people shots processed by DPP and Lightroom, including indoor and outdoor settings. There are four photos in all, with 5 processing variations on each. The variations are. Lightroom with no edits (one photo has some spot healing but that's it). WB=As Shot (Auto) 2.

DPP with no edits. Picture style = Standard. WB=As Shot (Auto) 3.

Lightoom +0.25 EC because the DPP version seem a little brighter 4. Lightroom on defaults but WB=Flash (some flash was used on all shots) 5. DPP on defaults but WB=Flash, just to normalise colour/tones I have a colour managed monitor and to my eye the Lightroom versions without edits and with Lightroom with WB=Flash have the edge over the DPP versions and the Lightroom +0.25 EC. At the end of the day I'm not sure what the point is of trying to match Lightroom skintones to DPP other than out of arbitrary interest. You can't really assert that the output from DPP is the 'correct' one, since you can vary the appearance using Picture Styles, so which representation is truly 'correct'? Surely the more important pursuit is either the most accurate,compared to the original scene, or the most appealing look.

Of course, if, for you, DPP wins every time then emulating DPP in Lightroom seems a reasonable goal. An equal challenge would be to get DPP to match the output from Lightroom, but again I question whether there is any reason to bother. Test shots here.

I used DPP extensively but what i always felt was that while the process of getting good results is easier in DPP, it doesnt really offer the flexibility of photoshop. On the other hand Photoshop took more time on each image and i always felt that even 16 bit image manipulation in photoshop was losing some quality due to the multiple conversions involved. To me both of the above problems are minimized by both aperture and lightroom. Lets talk about how lightroom helps me. In both DPP and lightroom i prefer lightroom in general.

Let me say why: The library functions and the ability to reorganize my photos into collections even if the whole folder has been imported is a god send. When i go to work on the photos i only want to see those that i had picked when i first import and review the pictures. I cant do this as well with DPP. It has the grouping into 3 groups that i used to use to do the same, but collections i much easier to manage especially if have more groups than 3. I reflag those that i picked and put them into sub collections if i need to. I use it to organize my shoot into its components parts. Please note i do not use the managed repository and only reference files in their regular location.

So i cannot compare the benfits of it vs having files in folders, but with collections i dont have to worry much about that. The Review functionality is much better in Lightroom. I can compare both the fit view and the 100% zoom as easily over the entire screen area (Instead of a loop, like in aperture). Doing this is nearly impossible in DPP.

I had to convert them into jpg and do a comparision outside of DPP to finalize the picks. I havent found the use for print and web yet and so havent tried them out. Coming to the most important module - Develop, I think DPP was easier to get good photos but the type of corrections available were limited. Like others have said, i think getting the look of the potrait setting in DPP is much harder in Lightroom. The other setting are much easier to get. It also helps that in the rare instances i take photos in JPG, Lightroom gives the same functionality albeit the output will be not as good as raw. I also like the live histogram view of Lightroom.

It allows me to use the over exposure and under exposure markers to review my image for tonal range much more easily than i could do in DPP. The Recovery function is lightroom is very nicce feature. If you are good at curves (Which i am not), you have that functionality also available. I love the Crop and rotate tools also a lot in lightroom. I like them better than in photoshop because my crops are not permanent! DPP crop is also good.

I used that extensively. Finally i love the before and after picture views in develop module (Y Y view). Makes the review of my work much easier to see how the change in the saturation and contrast is affecting the skin tones in travel pictures.

I do the over all look in single view and the final tweaks in the before and after view at 100% zoom. Makes life much simple than in DPP. Lightroom shortcuts are a big help to speed up work. I got used to some DPP shortcuts but they are not as extensive as in Lightroom anyway. I am just learning lightroom shortcuts. They vary a bit in library and develop i think but i am not sure. The preview loading in lightroom is much faster than in DPP.

What i miss in lightroom and DPP - Extensive lens corrections like those available in Photoshop. I have been on a recent trip to india and out of the 3000+ images i came back with (Not all taken by me), i had to use photoshop only on two photos and that too for perspective corrections as are available in photoshop lens correction filter. Adobe - If you are hearing here give us the lens corrections available in photoshop in Lightroom. Hope this helps you in trying the right areas of lightroom. If you find more tricks that help you do better in lightroom than in DPP, please let me know.

I have seen upteen review of lightroom vs aperture but not between DPP and lightroom. For a person coming from DPP, it was not easy for me to find out what works similar to DPP. If anybody has replicated the effects of DPP as settings in lightroom, please, please send them over. I used almost 1 year DPP SW, in the past 2 month i am trying Lightroom 3 and i think that this SW is much better now, especially with new Adobe Profile. In the past i always sow differences in color when i adjusted my images in DPP and LR but now i see that color tones almost 99% the same. I still trying to process my images in both DPP and Lightroom 3 in order to compare them and collect some statistics, i already doing it 1 month and hope will decide soon.

Another possibility for me that i will simple will use both of them, i realized that good taken images that require only final tuning is better to process in DPP, images with heavy shadow, underexposed or overexposed is better to process in LR 3. I really want to leave the DPP and move completely to LR 3 but still can't decide to it, i afraid to lose something that DPP provides me. Hope to hear others opinions on this comparison.