Canon Photo Professional etc or Photoshop

G

GEH007

Messages
279
Edit My Images
No
Im new to the world of DSLRs having acquired a 40d.

I havent really got into the world of post photo processing as such previously.

The 40d comes with a host of canon utilities such as Photo Professional, RAW conversion, Photostitch etc, which im lead to believe are very good?.

I have never used any of the Photoshop family so looking for a little guidance please.

Am I likely to be able to do all I need to within these Canon programmes or am I going to need to get into Photoshop. If its the latter, which version is the way to go for a processing beginner to work with and learn.

Thanks for any help.
 
You could also look at Gimp or Picasa which are free.
 
canon's DPP does the best job of RAW conversion but is limited beyond simple retouching although the latest version seems to sharpen well and has decent noise reduction. I have been trying to use lightroom but keep going back to DPP for raw files...it just seems to get the white balance spot on more of the time.

So in my opinion I would use DPP then use the option to transfer to photoshop for more local adjustments. Try photoshop elements first then once you feel you've outgrown it, move on to the full version.
 
For RAW file tweaking, DPP is OK. A bit clunky but produces good results. Its free. Try it. If you like it, you could consider Aperture or Lightroom.

For editing images, you don't really get anything with the camera. Try GIMP (free) or Photoshop Elements. Most people don't need full photoshop.
 
I use Canon DPP fore RAW tweaking and conversion. Photoshop for any other work.
 
Thanks for the guidance.

Quick update. A friend of mine who is an IT dealer has come across a copy of Photoshop CS2 in a consignment of software. He says I can have it.

Will CS2 do all I really need or is it getting a bit old now? Would I find it too complicated as a novice? I have no idea.

Thanks.
 
Like subseasniper, I use DPP to adjust the white balance, save as a TIFF file and do the rest in photoshop.
 
It all depends on how much proessing you want to do, if it is just basic changes (processing RAW fiels etc) DPP/Lightroom/Aperture will be fine, if you want to do more involved editing (layers etc) you will need something along the lines of GIMP/Elements/Photoshop (free -> expensive).

I use a combination of Lightroom and GIMP, but have only needed to open GIMP a handful of times.

If you are new to Photoshop/editing an earlier version of Photoshop would be fine, we were still using Photoshop 7 at college.
 
Thanks all.

Yes its free, original and shrink wrapped, it turned up unexpectedly in a consignment.

I'll nab it then and give it a go!

Perhaps a book would be a good investment.
 
CS2 Free!!!:eek: You jammy bugger!!

Seriously, Does Photoshop not do a good job of editing .RAW files and would DPP be the best option for RAW?

I was going to get PS Elements but if DPP is good for RAW then i may not bother.
 
I used Canon DPP software for a while when I first got my 40D, but then got Elements 6.

Camera RAW converter in Elements is easier to use than Canon DPP, and is what I use for 99% of my RAW converting now (not usually more than 30 to 50 files at a time). If I had to do lots of similar RAW conversions then I would use DPP as it offers a copy/paste option for the RAW conversion settings that is much faster.
 
I used Canon DPP software for a while when I first got my 40D, but then got Elements 6.

Camera RAW converter in Elements is easier to use than Canon DPP, and is what I use for 99% of my RAW converting now (not usually more than 30 to 50 files at a time). If I had to do lots of similar RAW conversions then I would use DPP as it offers a copy/paste option for the RAW conversion settings that is much faster.
 
I have a Canon 30D. All my raw photos look GREAT in DPP, but in lightroom the colors are WAY off. Faces come out green cast and reds come out orange.
 
walls said:
canon's DPP does the best job of RAW conversion but is limited beyond simple retouching although the latest version seems to sharpen well and has decent noise reduction. I have been trying to use lightroom but keep going back to DPP for raw files...it just seems to get the white balance spot on more of the time.

So in my opinion I would use DPP then use the option to transfer to photoshop for more local adjustments. Try photoshop elements first then once you feel you've outgrown it, move on to the full version.
Click to expand...

Exactly my workflow :)

I like the idea of Lightroom but it is a bit slow and a bit cluttered..and on my 17" screen there just doesn't seem to be enough room for the actual image. Maybe it's time I upgraded :p
 
I've been using DPP since all support ended for Raw Shooter Premium. The range of adjustments isn't as good as some other packages, but then again, I'm finding I rarely need to adjust anyway, so I'll probably be sticking with it.
 
DPP for processing
Photoshop for artwork
 
pspphotos said:
I have a Canon 30D. All my raw photos look GREAT in DPP, but in lightroom the colors are WAY off. Faces come out green cast and reds come out orange.
Click to expand...

Have you tried the new camera specific picture styles that are avaiable in Lightroom 2.1?
 
pspphotos said:
I have a Canon 30D. All my raw photos look GREAT in DPP, but in lightroom the colors are WAY off. Faces come out green cast and reds come out orange.
Click to expand...

Probably a colour management thing, it's probably turned off in DPP but LR has it on by default. If the colours are off in LR then it's probably because you need to get calibrated or the right profile for your monitor. Then you should find things much better and could turn on colour management in DPP also (y)
 
Sorry for the dumb question, but it said earlier in the thread that if you sharpen in DPP, it's not saved when you export to jpeg (for printing I assume) - am I just being thick or does that kinda defeat the object of using DPP?

Thanks.
 
Gray21 said:
Sorry for the dumb question, but it said earlier in the thread that if you sharpen in DPP, it's not saved when you export to jpeg (for printing I assume) - am I just being thick or does that kinda defeat the object of using DPP?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes it is sharpened when you convert and save to jpeg. The new jpeg image will have all the DPP adjustment applied to it.


Just try it out go to DPP and make a right mess of the adjustments then convert and save to jpeg and see what you get, don't worry the original RAW file will be safe .


Covert and Saved in DPP with no image adjustments just resize and dpi change

IMG_1990.jpg


Fiddled with and sharpened, again done solely in DPP

IMG_1990DPP.jpg
 
whiteflyer said:
Yes it is sharpened when you convert and save to jpeg. The new jpeg image will have all the DPP adjustment applied to it.


Just try it out go to DPP and make a right mess of the adjustments then convert and save to jpeg and see what you get, don't worry the original RAW file will be safe .
Click to expand...

Thanks Whiteflyer - off to have a play.(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top