IPhoto 08 versus Canon DPP

I own a Canon XSi DSLR and I shoot all my pics in RAW. I usually photograph birds and other wild life and often need to sharpen, adjust exposure, or modify the white balance. Does anyone have an opinion about which program, iPhoto 08 or Canon's DPP, is best for doing these tasks? I will use iPhoto to do all my organizing of the photos, so I am just looking at post processing needs.
Before anyone suggestions Aperture or PhotoShop, I am looking at no cost choices for now.

After testing out both options, DPP is not as easy to use as iPhoto. iPhoto is not as powerful, but is more fun and does what I need in fewer steps. If I need a more powerful program, I will use photoshop or Corel.

Similar Messages

  • How do I get canon dpp to see files which are sitting in iPhoto?

    I have imported files from Canon 5dmkii into iphoto and there are 150 of them in two folders, raw files, loaded Canon DPP raw editor and it does not see the files in iphoto.  Is there something I am neglecting to do, I just bought this rMBP two days ago and it's my first mac so I am real noob, any help would be real appreciated.

    _Jock wrote:
    Thanks Bill.
    I can call DPP from iPhoto, but I was hoping to access the iPhoto library from DPP so I can batch process some images. 
    I've only recently begun to use DPP and have been using iPhoto for years, so it's a process of familiarisation with DPP I guess.
    It's easy to locate the actual folder where any iPhoto image is stored, select the image in iPhoto, then select File/Reveal in Finder. You can then point DPP to that folder.
    However, using other programs to modify with files tracked by iPhoto can really screw up iPhoto, so it might be better to follow LowLuster's advice and dump iPhoto, move the Canon raw photos somewhere else, and use a professional raw editor instead. In your case you can let DPP work with everything, then when you are happy with edits export JPEG copies and let iPhoto manage those if you want to use iPhoto for prints, albums, online sharing, etc.
    The other reason to use something other than iPhoto is iPhoto is not a powerful raw editor. If you want to take full advantage of the quality of the raw files from your Canon, use DPP, Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One...

  • PSE7, PS CS4, Organizer, Bridge, Camera Raw, Canon DPP

    I'm trying to develop a process for using the various tools available to easily browser through a shoot's photos, zoom as needed, choose favorites, make any changes, etc.
    I have PSE7/Organizer, Bridge/PS CS4, Camera Raw for both PSE7 and PS CS4, and Canon DPP. I owned PSE7 first, and I like it's backup features as well as the keyword/album and browsing interface, but I'm finding it may not be good for fast processing of a shoot's photos when they are RAW.
    I'm shooting in RAW and I'm finding that zooming RAW images in Organizer is not possible beyond whatever preview image is present. Instead, I must open the image, which causes Camera Raw to open. Once in Camera Raw, I can zoom with greater control.
    But what I notice is that using Bridge may be better to use for browsing RAW images, especially if I desire to open them in Camera Raw for greater zoom control, touch ups or whatever. The reason is that it seems to take longer for PSE7's Organizer to open a photo in PSE7 and Camera Raw than it takes for Bridge to open the same in PS CS4 and Camera Raw.
    Here are my findings:
    First time open of RAW or DNG:
    Organizer opening to PSE7/Camera Raw: 15 seconds.
    Bridge opening to PS CS4/Camera Raw: 10 seconds.
    Second time open of RAW or DNG:
    Organizer opening to PSE7/Camera Raw: less than 10 seconds.
    Bridge opening to PS CS4/Camera Raw: less than 5 seconds
    "Second time open" means that I keep the relevant application open when I return to the organizer. For example, after PSE7 opens, I do not close it when returning to Organizer, and likewise, when returning to Bridge, I do not close PS CS4 when returning to Bridge. The above figures show Bridge can open a RAW or DNG photo into PS CS4 and Camera Raw faster in both the case of PS CS4 not already open, and when an instance of PS CS4 is already open.
    In exploring all of this, I tried using DPP as my "Organizer" and it, of course, was the fastest at opening photos to its editor which has a few preset zoom positions. It does have a "Transfer to Photoshop" option but that takes 30 seconds and converts to a TIFF in a temp directory. So DPP seems like something to avoid unless there are RAW editing features which do not exist elsewhere.
    Given the above, it seems the best process for me is to use PSE7's Organizer for the features I like (i.e., backup, keywords, albums), but use Bridge/PS CS4 when processing a shoot's photos for keepers. Then use Canon DPP only if it has something which I must use, or just like better.
    Do my choices here make sense, where I'm not missing something? If there's a good link that discusses high-level process for dealing with a shoot's photos to find keepers, that would be great to know about.
    I realize what's best for anyone really depends on each person's preferences/needs, so the questions I ask are seeking general answers given the limited information I've explained about what's important for me (i.e., going through photos quickly, having good zoom control for review, and being able to go to either PSE7 or PS relatively fast... my findings say that Bridge/PS CS4 seems best for this unless DPP has something I must utilize).
    Thanks,
    Tom

    Barbara and George M, You both had answers, but only one can be selected as "Correct" ... I wish the forum allowed splitting that. I gave Barbara's answer the "correct" mark since it was first. George M, I clicked "Helpful Answer" on your response, but your info was much more than just "Helpful"... great tips on the import/download file/dir naming. I'll look into that.
    I played around with Bridge/PS quite a bit more, and I'm sold on its way of doing things. I get it now. It stores all keywords with the files, so this removes the need for any organizer-proprietary/custom format databases for retaining such information. This is actually the way I prefer to work, with as much control and as close to the files as possible, or at least with enough info about the files so I can do the right backups, ensure I'm saving the information I add, and so forth. PSE7 has the benefit of allowing keywords without affecting the files, but that's not a big deal for me so long as the metadata-writing software in the products I use isn't buggy, destroying the file (I know, I know, have a backup!).
    I really liked PSE7 because I was thinking in terms of an organizer maintaining non-photo data (i.e., keywords) as does PSE7, but since Bridge embeds the info as metadata in the photo file itself, it removes the need for that type of organizer. With that known, the issue of backups no longer needs to be organizer-centric. With Bridge, I know the files and folders themselves is effectively The database. That means I can use whatever I use for my normal backups, and things are actually much more manageable and understandable down that route. So the Bridge/PS route is not only more powerful and faster (in my experience on my laptop), but the Bridge-way of embedding the keywords in the file keeps me loosely coupled, actually completely decoupled from being reliant on an organizer-specific database and all that jazz.
    Thanks for helping/clarifying with your feedback on this.
    Tom

  • Export a folder from iPhoto to canon my image garden

    trying to export a folder from iPhoto to canon's my image garden

    Is there a question there?
    This User Tip
    https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-4921
    has details of the options in the Export dialogue.
    Once exported to the Finder see the help on the Canon app or service you refer to.

  • IPhoto vs Canon's Digital Photo Professional for RAW

    Greetings,
    Quick question after not finding much while searching the forums:
    I’m currently using a MBP C2D, 2.33/2G ram, all updated software. Just got a Canon Rebel XTi, finally putting aside my Canon 35mm (for now anyway).
    Can someone offer feedback on iPhoto vs Canon's Digital Photo Professional for RAW editing for someone with limited experience with RAW editing?
    I understand there are also other options out there but I'm trying to compare what is basically free/already provided, perhaps upgrading once I become more experienced with Digital/RAW editing.
    Thanks in advance...
    MBP C2D Mac OS X (10.4.8)

    wdunn:
    Welcome to the Apple Discussions. Nearly all, if not all, professionals use RAW in their shooting. There are a lot of advantages to that if you know what you're doing and need the extreme control over the image that pros usually do. I hang out in the iView MediaPro forum. Over there it's nearly all RAW users and I've learned a little of what they can do with fine tuning a photo. It is considerable. But for amateurs like us, jpgs are more than enough.
    I've edited and saved a jpg file many times to see if I could detect the "degradation" and couldn't. If one was going to make a very, very large sized print then you might see something after a number of saves. Personally I use Photoshop for my editing and on "special" photos I create a psd file, duplicate the base layer and do my edits on the duplicate layer. That way I can easily compare to the original, and keep the resolution quality the same throughout. But, only on special projects.
    Do you Twango?
    TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
    I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB file backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

  • Tone curve - please bring back sliders, Canon DPP software just as clumsy!

    Please bring back sliders for the tone curve beta 4 in this respect is now just as awkward and clumsy to operate in this respect as Canon DPP!

    You can change from parametric to point curve mode yourself with the lower-right icon in the tone curve.

  • Canon DPP Can't Read CR2 Files

    I'm considering getting CS3 but before that, wanted to try out using Canon DPP for my raw files taken with G9. I downloaded the latest DPP but it just won't display the CR2 files. Jpeg & Tif show up fine though.
    Is DPP only for EOS only? I thought it should be able to read any CR2 file.
    Any advice most appreciated.
    Thanks.
    Avivion

    What Jim said. The Canon PowerShot G9 is supported by ACR 4.4.1, but I have no idea about ACR 3.7, which is the last version that can run in CS2, and no clue about Canon software.

  • When will iphoto accept Canon 40D raw files?

    When will iphoto accept Canon 40D raw files? I have a new camera and would love to use the raw files in iphoto. No luck so far. Aperature seems to lack the abilty to open them also. Anyone here as to when iphoto will be updated?

    Hi again.
    No, I don't use aperture, I tried the demo and liked it, but I'd previously bought the commercial version of Pixmantec RawShooter converter for my 10D - Pixmantec were 'bought out' by Adobe, and Adobe generously offered all RawShooter purchasers a free licence for Lightroom, which I also like a lot (though haven't fully got to grips with), so can't currently justify Aperture too.
    The one thing I'd say about Aperture is that the colour management for some reason just nailed the colours when printing using canned profiles, in a way other apps hadn't on Windows (including QImage). I was particularly impressed by this using an old Epson 1290S A3+ printer which always tended to produce prints with a colour cast.
    iPhoto seems to handle RAW conversions very well and simply, although it's not as refined as the high end apps. This together with organising features are probably what make you find it so easy. Remember though that when you display/tweak RAW files, iPhoto will be creating a file to store these changes as the RAWs do not get directly manipulated. As all this is done behind the scenes again this probably makes it seem easy.
    If you don't have Aperture or Lightroom, both were available for 30 day demo last time I checked.
    AC

  • Canon DPP incompatiblity

    Has anybody had any success with Canon DPP (3.6.2) in Snow Leopard?
    It will open, but when you go into preferences to set it up it gives the following message "An error occurred. Digital Photo Professional will be closed." Any help appreciated...

    "hot off the presses" from Canon this afternoon:
    "Thank you for your reply. Canon is currently posting updates for Mac OS
    X 10.6 Snow Leopard. They should be posted within a week or so. When
    they are posted, you can download them from the Canon USA website at
    this address:
    http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&tabact=DownloadDet ailTabAct&fcategoryid=324&modelid=18301
    Please be assured that this is a priority for Canon and we are confident
    that the new drivers will be available as soon as possible. We
    sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
    Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with your
    Canon SX1 IS.
    Sincerely,
    David
    Technical Support Representative"
    His reference to my reply relates to my reply to their initial response to my inquiry:
    "hanks for your polite response; however, it doesn't even contain a
    reference to my question:
    I need to know when/if DPP is/will be fully compatible with Mac OS 10.6.
    As a further slap in the face, the link you provided boldly proclaims
    that you are "ready for Windows 7". When will you be ready for Mac? As a
    minimum, you should be providing a link to a "Snow Leopard
    compatibility" web page to reassure Mac users you are actively testing
    compatibility/working on an update."
    Sounds as though we should be able to download an update within a week or so, thank goodness.

  • Big differences between LR 2.2 and Canon DPP 3.5

    LightRoom 2.2 with ACR 5.2 and Camera Profile Standard (that of Canon )
    DPP 3.5.1 with same Picture Style (standard)
    Opening of the same raw (shot with 5D II) without touching nothing
    http://www.rizzetto.com/temp/lightroom1.jpg
    why those huge differences ? it seems LR set 1000 kelvin less (both WB
    setting "as shot")
    btw. DPP is more close to the reality... temperature was very "orangish"
    thanks
    Sandro

    <René[email protected]> wrote in message <br />news:[email protected]..<br />> LR will start off by displaying the camera generated built in jpg of the <br />> Raw. This should closely resemble DPP. Then the LR defaults get applied to <br />> the actual raw data.<br />><br />> What are your LR default settings?<br /><br />what do you mean ? I guess I have the standard settings (all 0); how can I <br />control ?<br /><br /><br />>Are you sure you haven't set some other parameters (which will not be read <br />>by LR, but will be used as starting point by DPP) different in camera? Say <br />>a >color tone correction?<br /><br />no.. camera use Picture Style Standard (+3 Sharpness and 0 <br />contrast/saturation/color tone)<br /><br /><br />> Also, in order for DPP to display correctly, you have to set the right <br />> display profile in preferences. (In OSX, in windows there's a setting "Use <br />> OS default" or some such)<br />><br />> AFAIK the default setting for DPP is "sRGB" for display profile, which is <br />> obviously wrong.<br /><br />I did some test (OS default, or I browse to choose the Dell2407 icm file) <br />but also restarting the program, the colors remain the same...

  • More Usable Image Detail - Adobe Camera Raw Beats Canon DPP

    Let me start with a question:
    When you do your raw conversions, do you convert to an image that's got the same number of pixels as your camera's imager has photosites?
    If so, why?  I ask because I'm convinced that - with modern software - to get the most usable detail out of a raw image one should convert directly to an upsampled size.  You might think that in trying to get "more megapixels from the same camera" I'm just fooling myself, but again and again when I look at the problem of maximizing the output from existing equipment (which, face it, is everyone's goal, no matter how good the equipment) I keep seeing that there is an advantage to selecting from the upsampled resolutions in Camera Raw.  Of course, the computer must be up to handling the additional data.
    In actual terms, my Canon 40D has 3888 x 2592 photosites (plus some guard pixels around the edges) making 10 megapixels, yet I find converting to 6144 x 4096 (25 megapixels) to be advantageous - ESPECIALLY when I use my sharpest lenses.
    I happened to be doing a head to head comparison between Canon 50mm f/1.8 and Canon 50mm f/1.4 lenses, and the difference between the two appeared pretty subtle - UNTIL I converted to the aforementioned upsampled resolution, and then the more expensive f/1.4 lens clearly stepped ahead.  There was simply extra detail I hadn't been seeing clearly at the native pixel size of the camera's imager, but which stood out clearly at the larger size.
    This reaffirmed my previous observations that conversion directly to upsampled resolutions in Camera Raw brings out additional detail.
    This screen grab shows part of the converted image, as produced by DPP and Camera Raw, both at 6144 x 4096 pixels as produced by the converters and displayed at 100% zoom.  Note that the detail (e.g., in the terrain) is finer and more real looking in the Camera Raw conversion, while the DPP image seems to have more sharpening artifacts.
    If you're interested in experimenting to see how much detail you can lift out of this same image, the raw file is here:
    http://Noel.ProDigitalSoftware.com/temp/IMG_5400.zip
    I don't have a copy of any other converters, for example Capture 1, to see how they'd do.
    -Noel

    Noel Carboni wrote:
    Hudechrome wrote:
    I hope that Noel will offer results that compare the Canon RAW in ACR with both resolutions as well.
    Not sure I follow you completely...  Just to be clear, can you lay out what "both resolutions" means?  I'll be more than happy to go through different processes and present comparison images - I just want to be sure I understand just what you're asking for.
    Oh, and you're right - some subjectivity necessarily will appear here.  I might just like the "look" of one process while you prefer the "look" of another.
    Lastly, one of my workflows involves sharpening images with my own fractal sharpening actions, and I am testing to see which converter process output produces the best result from that as well.
    -Noel
    I had to read that twice to make sure I knew what it meant!
    What I am trying to say is to show the results of both converters in the native resolution and the 25M upsampled.resolution.
    On another note, I have been playing around with the details of noise and sharpening in DXO and ACR, looking at 300%. It's both good and bad. If you are willing to mess with the ACR settings at 300%, then ACR has the edge, even comparing to manual tweaks in DXO. They do correctly optimize, however, except that point isn't as good as ACR. The depressing point is all the tweaking to do on an individual basis. Can you imagine tweaking 100 or more images that way? Then you get to move over to other corrections.
    We are splitting tiny hairs here, and the bottom line is if you are going to make 30x40 prints from a given file, you may want to use ACR all the way and bite the bullet. If the Auto corrections for the lens employed in ACR is well done, as it seems for my Nikon 18 to 105, the workload is relaxed.
    Finally, the ACR corrected image will need final sharpening at higher values than the DXO, and at that point, they come together a bit more...sharpening anomalys and all that.
    The final fuss levels takes me back to my 8x10 days, where these kinds of determinations (max quality level) takes place under the focusing cloth, and deliberate selection of POV is carefully considered. Today, it's in front of the monitor. But instead of a few sheets of film to process, we have 100's to do.
    I thoroughly enjoy working with the files on the computer, but not so much having to deal with less than optimum technical details right out of the camera. Barrel distortion? Hasselblad was not satisfied with the "normal" corrections in it's general optics, which were damn good, so came out with the 100mm Planar that was awesome! All they gave up was max aperture, and picked the FL at a value that provided for the best corrections. So I recall anyway.
    Why should we be required to do these kinds of post corrections? Digital editing involves throwing away information, and ther appears to be enough so that correcting these deficiencies still gives a wonderful image. Just imagine what it would be like if all you need to do is to open the file and adjust values to taste, with all that information density available exclusively for that part. You don't even need to use a focusing magnifier!
    Gotta run!
    Lawrence

  • Photo problems between iphoto and Canon Digital Photo Professional

    Hey people,
    So I've copied all my photos from my SD card and iphoto asked if I wanted to import them so I said yes. I've put them in folders, albums etc and have since installed my Canon software for its editing programme but cannot seem to open my photos in it.
    The folder 'iphoto' in the finder or 'all images' aren't available when browsing in the Canon programme, and I cannot drag and drop them into it from the all images folder. The only way I've found to open them in the Canon programme is to copy them and put them into a new folder and having 2 copies of the same photo.
    Is there a way of being able to access the photos in both programmes, such as creating a single shared folder with the photos in and then setting them both to have access to it?
    Any help would be great!
    Will

    Applologies, I have since discovered the 'export' function in the file menu, so I've solved my problem.

  • Photo quality and compression in iphoto vs canon's image browser, et. al.

    hello. brand new here and very new to macs. the question I have is this:
    when you import photos to iphoto, do the photos get compressed? do you lose any quality that you wouldn't lose by importing them to image browser or another program?
    a friend who is a semi-professional photographer said that some quality is lost in iphoto through compression, but #1) she's probably on an older version than '09 and #2) I know she almost always shoots in raw, so I don't know how much importing of jpegs she does anyway. I am not talking about raw photos, but jpegs shot in the highest resolution (I have a canon g9, which is 12.1 megapixels). she always imports to image browser.
    thanks very much,
    sean

    What format is the external disk? If it's a FAT format this will account for the discrepancy as the FAT format cannot make sense of the Resource fork in the Mac files. Also, the blunt fact is that the Finder can be an unreliable reporter of file sizes.
    One reliable way to check if the pics are duplicates is to use Graphic Coverter.
    As to the file size in iPhoto - reported in the iPhoto Window. Your camera has an Auto-Rotate feature. However, the camera does not actually rotate any pixels in the file, but instead flags it with an instruction: "Display me this way". No photo app with editing can respect this flag, so iPhoto, seeing the flag, reads the intention and creates a modified version. If you then try to Revert to Original, iPhoto will remove the edited version. However, when it then looks at the Original file again, it sees the flag, and creates a new rotated version. This loop will run as long as you Revert to the Original. The solution is to either a: turn off the Auto-Rotate feature on your camera or b: rotate the photos prior to importing them to iPhoto.
    Obviously as it involves compression there is data loss. That's the 2.4 Version.
    BTW: are you aware of the Non-Destructive Editing feature in iPhoto?
    As to your workflow:
    iPhoto is good for 250,000 images, so there is little need to be overly concerned about it becoming "overcrowded". And, you can have multiple libraries, of course.
    I mention this because, in your current workflow, only your original files are backed up. Any work you do in iPhoto or via iPhoto - editing, keywording, albums, print objects etc - are not being backed up.
    My suggestion would be to simply back up the iPhoto Library Folder and get it all - Original files and everything else.
    Regards
    TD

  • Iphoto importing canon jpeg issues

    I am unable to import any photos to my new imac leopard os. I have tried using flash jumpdrives, CD's, DVD's, different brands of CF cards/readers. I have tried using images from all 3 of my canon cameras (rebel xt, 20D, 40D). The photos appear as if they are uploading, then when the system states finishing upload at end, the iphoto system closes down. I have taken the machine to my local apple store & the techs are unable to figure out the problem (they have updated all software & reinstalled it. They state it is not a hard drive problem) They were also unable to upload any of my jpegs to their leopard systems. I do not have this problem with my macbook pro laptop tiger os or my dell pc. Anyone know how to fix this!

    I am unable to import any photos to my new imac leopard os
    do I understand this correctly - you have done the following and have not been able to get a single photo onto your new iMac
    1 - connected each of three different cameras and tried to import the photos to iPhoto - Have you tried image capture? will your camera's mount to the desk top so you can drag the photos to your iMac?
    2 - using a flash jump drive - I assume that the photos on it were imported to another computer and places on the flash drive - in this case have you tried dragging them to the desktop, using image capture and using iPhoto?
    3 - same questions for CDs, DVDs and the card readers
    I'm missing a big piece of the problem somehow
    LN

  • *Shocked* by the performance of Canon DPP, and DDP workflow with Aperture

    I love Aperture. My brother mercilessly hounded me for two years, and when Aperture 2 came out, I gave it a shot. Aperture 3, despite my nightmare conversion story, has been a dream come true . . . until I discovered sharpening.
    In my quest to get sharper photos, I've toyed with image stabilization, tripods, higher shutter speeds, steadying the camera, and depth of field, and even bought several professional lenses. My photos STILL did not look as sharp as those I saw in galleries and online. But wait . . . my JPEG files from my sporting events did . . .
    I read that RAW files are not sharp, and sharpening is applied to JPEGs on the camera. But why is Aperture and my MBP not able to sharpen photos well using any one of the three sharpening sliders or the sharpening tool? I was then led to DPP, kicking and screaming. What I discovered was truly amazing.
    Forget about the personal opinions with warmth and contrast between Aperture, ACR, and DPP. DPP is the unquestioned leader in producing sharp photos from RAW images. You drag the slider . . . it's sharp. It's even sharper than the photos I've spent 20 minutes sharpening in CS5 with sharpening masks, sharpening tool, etc. The DPP tool JUST WORKS. Even noise with high ISO is MUCH improved. High noise still can use an expensive tool to correct, but still MUCH better than Aperture.
    Until Canon reveals their secrets to Apple and Adobe for RAW processing, I need to figure out a way to use DPP for RAW processing.
    For those that use DPP for RAW processing, how to you work it into your workflow? I want Aperture to be a one-stop shop, but I don't want to store the original RAW, the DPP-edited RAW, and potentially a TIFF for additional editing and noise reduction?
    Do you sort in Aperture first? Do you convert in DPP first? How do you maintain file integrity, and at the same time, minimize disk space usage?
    If you no longer use DDP, please tell me why, and how you've worked around it?

    All I can say is, either I've been in the weeds all this time, or your skills with sharpening are better than most.
    A couple of questions:
    1-What do you use under Sharpening for and Edges under "RAW fine tuning" you thankfully shared your settings for Edge Sharpen (^s)
    2-What camera and RAW format are you using (this may help me fine-tune my preferences). I've got a 7D and primarily shoot MRAW. (Not the best for a couple reasons, but I don't need or want the large file sizes.)
    To be sure, default sharpening in Aperture is pretty bad. And I have played with sharpening going on 40 hours now over several months. I could not get a good result.
    Your documenting the exact settings and sharpening tool is what helped me get past whatever I was doing before. Maybe I was thrown by the higher default contrast in DPP. I'm now able to produce a better result in Aperture than DPP, or even my laboriously-sharpened photos on Photoshop. There are some tradeoffs in each, but I didn't want to use DDP as part of my workflow. Now that I've used it more, I'm convinced I don't!
    And the definition setting is very useful. It's the only mainstream adjustment I've never really used.

Maybe you are looking for