Lightroom 3 vs. DPP

I'm being frustrated with the level of accuracy of image when doing a direct comparison between DPP and my latest version of Lightroom 3.Are there some settings I can alter to help improve Lightroom's performance. I am using OS 10.6.4. Further more if I choose to print from DPP I get fairly accurate prints, but printing from Lightroom is far inferior. In general the skin tones are too red.
I would be grateful to hear what settings other Canon users have in LR3 to improve this.
Thank you

simax007 wrote:
Hi : and thank you for bringing this issue of representation of red hues in DPP vs Lightroom 3. I use a 5D and totally concur with what you have found. I shoot fine art paintings and interiors for some very fussy clients and so I spend a lot of time shooting theX-rite colour checker 24 square chart (it's a good investment but you need to replace it every two years as the patches are hand painted.) DPP gets is "righter" than Lightroom: the worst areas for me at least are the pink and magenta squares which turn electric in LR! I too have found skin tones come up out too red , as the magenta component seems to be really pumped up. But also oranges look way too red in some scenes. As another contributor has pointed out, DPP is just an interpretation and Lightroom's "matching" of general camera profiles/ picture modes is not bad. Many scenes without extreme hues will be perfectly passable just by choosing Adobe Standard from the camera calibration options. But for when it matters there is no alternative I am afraid but to spend some time with both DPP and Lightroom. There are some good reasources on the web about working with the colour checker , but to summarise:
calibrate your monitor with a device like an Eye One display - essential
shoot the Colour checker in soft daylight a few time at different exposures. in RAW: dupe your exposures.
open the results in DPP and choose the exposed version which shows the white to black patch distinctly: select camera standard mode and adjust white balance for the image by clicking the second lightest grey square. The result should match be a good match.
open the duplicate exposure in Lightroom and apply the Adobe standard setting in the camera calibration panel.
then access the large preview of the DPP image so that you can switch easily between that and the lightroom version: then go to the hue saturation and luminance sliders in LR and start to adjust each : start maybe with red hue and move the slider to the right : this will turn the red hues more orange: look at the red square in the chart image and the pinks as you effectively change the red component of the colour mix. Check against the DPP version from time time and adjust the saturation slider aswell if required: I find the luminance slider doesn't need to be moved much.
As you make adjustments you will be able to remove the aggressive pink and also your eye will start to see how DPP has handled this indusrty standard target and you may wish to then work with just the card : but ensure you are viewing it in a neutral light and bear in mind you are trying to match a transmitted monitor image to a printed/ painted one: the tendency is to reduce colour saturation too much. That's why I find it useful to work with the DPP version to start.
When happy saved these settings as a new preset and apply on import.
If this sounds like a lot of work - and it is ! - try this : just go to the camera calibration controls in Lightroom and in the red primary channel apply a plus 20 setting for the hue and a minus 20 setting for the saturation! I find it works very well to just fix that red issue. But for critical work, you need to develop your own settings (and preferably for each lens and for tungsten also). BTW there is a product call the colour checker passport which claims to do this automatically for you : you shoot the colour patches and the software generates a lightroom profile via a plug-in. My tests with the 5D resulted in an eaully aggressive pink and I wound up doing it the old-fashioned way.
Hope that helps!
Isn't it much easier to use Passport Colorchecker from xRite to automatically build a profile for your camera? Or use DNG Profile Editor from Adobe?
I find a profile made to my own camera is much more acurate then any other option. You can build a profile for each shoot but even one generic are very good.

Similar Messages

Where to start? DPP or LR 3.3 (Canon 5D Mark II) or PM or II

From what I've glommed over the past few months is a preference for doing the initial processing of RAW files in DPP because Canon has some processing specific to it's own lenses and raw files that will give you options unavailable in LR.
ACR does a good job with lens corrections, but Canon manufactured them and has a deeper knowledge of the interrelationships of it's hardware and internal software (in the body of the camera).
It's an additional step -- especially if you're using Photo Mechanic or Image IngesterPro 3 (anyone have a preference between the two?) to populate metadata and copy to primary and secondary locations before adding to LR.
Anyone care to comment?

I've done a fair amount of comparison between Lr and other raw converters, but have only a little experience with DPP.
Still:
- All have strengths and weaknesses.
- None is best at all things.
Partly the results you will prefer from different raw converters depends on you, but also a lot depends on the photo.
i.e. some photos look better in one program, some look better in another. And also, it's possible with enough time, to make almost any photo developed in one look like it was developed in the other, almost.
Personally, I have a Lightroom-centric workflow, but use NX2 sometimes too, (and very rarely some others as well), and may use DPP sometimes in the future (my raw shooting Canon is new for me).
Anyway, I really think you need to compare the results you get with Lightroom and DPP yourself, since different people prefer different things. The "Canon knows their hardware best, so should be able to process Canon photos best" argument is more of a theory than anything objectively confirmable from the outside.
I mean, there are two things:
1. Which program you prefer using (not talking about image results now).
2. Which program gives preferred image results.
Lightroom wins number 1 hands down for me, and on the average number 2 as well, although best quality can be obtained on a photo by photo basis by running through both and comparing (and maybe incorporating discoveries made while using one program, into the other...)
PS - I would not recommend having a Lightroom-centric workflow with an exclusively DPP-preprocessed frontend. This was a winning combination for some people before Lr3, since previous versions of Lr did not have top-quality detailing, nor lens corrections. But those days are over...
Lightroom's raw conversion detail quality is now top-notch, and color noise reduction is second to none, and luminance noise reduction is also excellent, and simple to use. Sharpener is also excellent. Lens corrections are not as good as DxO (dont know about DPP), but are generally good enough. Colors and tone are generally good too - probably preferrable in some cases and not in others.
Global editing tool-wise - Lightroom has targeted HSL adjustment, but DPP has RGB channel curves. Local editing tool-wise, DPP has distraction removal that goes beyond dust spots, but Lightroom has basic exposure and color enhancement locals.
Bottom-line: In my opinion, overall Lightroom is better than DPP for raw image development, but I'd certainly keep DPP handy for corner cases and comparison.
R

Colors of RAW vs JPG in Lightroom and CS3

I am confused by this.
When shooting RAW +JPG on my Canon 350D, the RAW and JPG have different color qualities. The RAW is more yellow, or maybe warmer. The JPG more blue or cooler.
I think this is odd. And it is consistent in Lightroom AND CS3 and yet in Irfanview and Canon Digital Photo Professional they they are identical. Totally.
Why would this be? And which is "right" in Lightroom? The RAW? It looks the better of the two, but hard to compare across programs. But why the difference and why not in all programs, just ADOBE?
Thanks.
~Bob

DPP uses the in camera settings as its starting point to view RAW files, so these files will appear identical to any jpegs produced at the same time. The in camera settings are attached to the RAW file and DPP reads this information when opening or loading a RAW file for the first time.
Lightroom does not have access to this information and so it has its own starting point that it uses when you open a RAW file, thus the RAW file will look different than the JPEG and different to the RAW file opened in DPP (while the JPEG and RAW file in DPP will look the same). Most other RAW programs do not have access to this information (Capture 1, Bibble etc) and they also will have a starting point that is different to DPP. One of the significant advantages of Lightroom over DPP is that you can create your own profiles so you can tailor your "starting point" to suit your preferences and style whereas with DPP you always start where the Canon guy says you should be.
There are a few programs that use the Canon SDK or Canon RAW viewer utility in windows to display images (Breeze Browser comes to mind). Irfranview may be one of these which is why RAW files viewed here may look te same as DPP or the JPEG.
As to which is right. Neither, none or all of them. Right or wrong is purely subjective and based on which you prefer. If you never make any changes to the RAW file you may as well just shoot jpegs and that will be right for you. But then you loose thae ability to influence the look of your files proior to the file creation which is why we shoot RAW in the first place.
Hope this helps
Gordon

Installing L* icc

Can someone tell me how to install the L* icc profile as a working space in Lightroom.
I've downloaded it to my computer,but can't get it set in Lightroom ,or DPP??
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Mike

mikek244 wrote:
Can someone tell me how to install the L* icc profile as a working space in Lightroom.
I've downloaded it to my computer,but can't get it set in Lightroom ,or DPP??
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Mike
Mike, I'm not sure exactly what you are after but Lightroom has it's own internal MelissaRGB working space and you cannot change that.

Better highlight rendering

Even with the new rendering engine in Lightroom 3, DPP does a better job rendering highlights.
See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=38357729
or
http://lagemaat.blogspot.com/2010/08/lightroom-bad-highlight-rendering.html
for comparisons.
I would love to have an improved rendering engine in future versions of Lightroom.

I've never been sure how much of this rendering is due to engine and how much is due to camera profile (improved D300 camera profiles have improved highlight rendering), but I agree: highlight rendering is very important, and Lightroom does not always lead the pack in this regard, at least not for all cameras.
Another thread you may want to go to and cast your vote (on the new FR/Idea site)
Also, I'd love to see a general purpose gradient smoothening tool that one could lay down to get smoother gradients, for things like sunsets and concert lights... So one could have better transitions between completely blown out to partially blown, to not blown out but still sparse color info... (and not just transitions, but also being able to have the completely blown out regions assume a color other than white/grey). And not just for highlights, but could be used in shadows too, after uping exposure of a high-ISO shot, as example, to smooth shadow colors. Or even in midtones I guess.
In other words, part of the problem is in Lightroom (how highlights are handled), and part of the problem is in the camera (sparse info at the endpoints of dynamic range), yet the solution will need to be all in Lightroom (assuming no control of camera manufacturers - things like built-in HDR will help...).

Lightroom Noise reduction versus DPP

I have been playing with DPP for al little while because the EOS 50d wasn't supported until a few days ago. DPP has some kind of intelligent support of NR depending on the ISO of the photo. If I analyzed it whell it is supporting the NR level of the camera itself.
Is it possible to do this kind of NR in Lightroom also?
I know I can make defaults for an ISO level, but it would be very nice if Lightroom is able to get this kind of information from te RAW file. The same accounts for the sharpening, but this might be tricky.
Regards,
Olaf.

>I read on the internet that Canon and Nikon don't want to share that kind of information. Stupid! They don't sell software, so it shouldn't matter to open the information of their RAW files.
Well Nikon sells their Capture NX software. They don't give it away with their cameras (except for some short running promotions) like Canon does.I do believe Canon charges for updates. You would think that it would be in the camera maker's best interest to make their files as readible by anybody as possible as it makes their cameras more attractive to buyers, but they have a very strange worldview in which the RAW files are their files instead of the photographer's and that their software is by definition better in processing their files than any third party because they know all the secrets. They actually say stuff like that! Quite astonishing. The only thing we can do is to tell them what we think of that bull.
>Lightroom doesn't apply any luminance nr by default. This also accounts for the higher ISO levels?
Even at zero there is some luminance NR I think. There is also noise reduction and sharpening inherent to the tuning of the demosaicing algorithm. I think the tuning between more sharpness and less noise is dependent on ISO.
>Are there any more options which are depending on the ISO of the photo by default?
Where do you get this kind of information? I can't find any about this in the online help of Lightroom.
I think some intricacies in the color rendering also respond to this but that's probably the extent of it. Thomas Knoll (check the credits in Lightroom to see who that is) and others on the Lightroom/ACR teams have posted on this forum about these things as well as some people in the know. So I 'm giving you second-hand info here but you should be able to look back on this by searching for posts by Thomas and others. Doing this is very instructive anyway regardless of the subject.

Lightroom 2 versus DPP 3.5

I found a comparison out there on IQ between these two programs and was pleasantly surprised!
http://www.parkcamper.com/lightroom-2-canon-dpp-review.htm
Basically, Lightroom 2 has all the amazing features like organization, localized editing, web gallery etc and yet still matches Canon's own RAW converter in IQ. Everytime I open up LR2 I feel good about using it. Thanks Adobe!

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

Will Lightroom ever be able to match the color/contrast of DPP?

Disclaimer, I'm a current 3.4 user and I've been using LR since version 2, it's my goto program for 98% of my work. What i've noticed is that it never quite renders the raw files as well as DPP and in certain high contrast scenes, DPP does a better job overall. I know or assume, Adobe reverse engineers the Canon raw file format and they do a great job at it, but I wonder if there's a reason Adobe doesn't attempt to license Canon's raw file specs for a perfect match with Canon's raw conversion software. I spend quite a bit of time making LR conversions look as good as my Canon jpgs opened and simply exported from DPP. Make no mistake, I have no intention of giving up the flexibility I have using LR, just wondering if they will ever nail it perfectly or is there some technique I might have overlooked that get's me much closer to DPP's output.

I used to feel the same way when I compared the results from LR to those from CaptureNX for Nikon raw files. I used to shoot raw+JPEG which meant I could effectively compre the default output of CaptureNX (which was exacty the same as the JPEG image out of the camera) to what ACR was doing in LR. Note that I'm not saying the CaptureNX/JPEG images were "correct" but just that they were different from what LR propduced. There was quite a lot of difference and I found the CaptureNX/JPEG images more pleasing.
Then along came Camera Profiles in LR. Once I used the Camera Profile which matched the settings I had in the camera (Neutral), I could not tell the difference between CaptureNX and LR in almost all cases. The few where I could tell ther difference, it was so subtle that I couldn't even say which I prefered.
I don't know how good the Camera Profiles are for Canon gear, but they work a treat for Nikon.

Problem with Lightroom and Infrared Photography

This problem is specifically related to using LR & PS to process Infrared images. I apologize if this forum may not be the correct place to ask this question. I am having problems processing Infrared Images when using LR & PS. I take my IR images with a 530 IR conversion to a Canon G12 camera. I learned early on Adobe products don't play well with IR images (they come in magenta when importing ) so I bring IR images shot withmy G12 into my computer with Canon Digital Photo Professional and then work in LR & PS from there.
If I then directly open this imported image from my hard drive into Photoshop and try and do adjustments such as blue sky adjustments with a red/blue channel swap, it works fine, just as I would expect.
(If you are not familiar with IR processing, I understand this introduction and question will not make sense)
But when using Lightroom, I sometimes have issues. I always import all my images into LR. Even with IR images, after using DPP to bring them to my computer, I import them into LR for cataloging purposes and to make other potential adjustments. Then my usual workflow is to move photos from LR to Photoshop via the "edit in" command. This opens a dialog box giving a choice of "edit a copy with LR adjustments" which is the default option and the one I always use, or "edit original".
Here's the interesting thing I finally discovered.
If I send the photo from LR to PS using the "edit a copy with Lightroom adjustments" option, I get a bad blue sky effect, where the sky is green and the foliage is pink instead of the sky being blue and the foliage yellow. But if I send it to PS using the "edit original" option, the blue sky effect works fine.
So there appears to be an issue when tring to send IR images from Lightroom to Photoshop. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Matthew Kraus

Thanks so much for working on this.
I fear the behavior you noticed was just due to the fact I cheanged the
file from 16 bit to 8 bit so the size was smaller and I could easily email
it. When I open any of my regular 16 bit files, whether I send them to PS
as "edit original" or "edit copy with lightroom adjustments", they both end
up as 16 bit and as far as I can see, seem the same, though obviously they
are not.
I don't really have a preset, but I'll walk you through the process.
1. Choose Channel Mixer from the Adjustment Pannel
2. Make sure the output channel is red, change the red channel slider from
100% to 0% and increase the blue channel slider from 0% to 100%. You can
type in the values.
3. Change the output channel to blue. Increase the red channel from 0% to
100% and the blue channel from 100% to 0%.
This is supposed to change the sky from brown to blue and the foliage from
blue to yellow and is what happens when you use the "edit original"
option. When you use the "edit copy with lightroom adjustments", the sky
turns green and the foliage pink. So you get 2 different behaviors,
depending on which option you use to bring the image from LR to PS.
That's my question, why do you get 2 different behaviors?
Thanks,
Matthew Kraus

NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1

Sure, LR now launches faster and the interface looks a bit nicer. And the more capable sharpening controls and the clarity slider which mimics contrast enhancement with USM are nice additions, but has anyone else notice what happened to the image quality?
First, while formerly LR and ACR struck a great balance between detail and noise suppressionerring on the side of maintaining detail even at the expense of slightly higher noise levelsit appears the goal for the redesign has been to minimize the appearance of noise at all costs. It just so happens that yesterday afternoon, I'd shot some available light candids (up to ISO 800) of the staff at a local health care facility and was intent on using them as a trial run on Lightroom 1.1. Well, the difference in image quality jumped right out at me: there was no granular noise at all remaining, even in the ISO 800 shots, but neither was there any fine detail. I use a Canon 5D, and while I'm accustomed to slightly higher levels of chroma noise, images up to ISO 1600 in even the worse lighting are always full of fine detail. Fine structures like strands of hair and eye lashes have now lost their delicacy, and have instead become coarse, unnaturally painterly analogs. Looking into shadow areas, I can see the results of what seems to be luminance noise smearing at work, obliterating noise and detail along with it. I never used Raw Shooter because I'm a Mac user (2x2GHz G5 w/2GB RAM and 250GB HD), but if this is the result of incorporating Pixmantic's technology, the result is not a positive one from my standpoint. The images I shot yesterday are to be cropped to 4:5 proportions, then printed 20" x 25", at which size the processing artifacts and lack of fine detail in these LR1.1 conversions becomes even more apparent. I've even tried turning off all image processing options: Clarity, Sharpening and NR (neither of which I ever use in RAW conversion, anyway)... It simply seems this noise smearing is part of the baseline RAW processing, and it really, really bites. Am I missing something? Is there some way to actually turn off this processing that looks uncomfortably like the "watercolor" noise reduction that Kodak and Panasonic use for their compact digicams. Yuck!
Secondly, is there a way to get back the suppression of hot and stuck pixels that LR used to perform? Now, my high ISO files are riddled with them, the same as they would be when converted with Aperture or Canon's DPP. Default suppression of hot and stuck pixels was a major advantage of LR/ACR, and contributed in no small bit to my adoption of LR as my standard tool for RAW conversion due to the amount of high ISO, low light photography I do. What's even worse, is that the random-color speckles are now smudged into the image along with all the other noise data that's being smoothed out, resulting in images that looks more like impressionist paintings than photographs.
I thought about reinstalling LR1.0 and just continuing to use that, but if LR1.1 is an indication of the direction Adobe is going to take in the development of the software, I really don't see the point of continuing to use the softwareparticularly when I had a few existing problems with LR1.0 that were never resolved, such as crashing during the import of photos from a memory card and progressively slower preview rendering as the size of my library increased. So, I'm probably going to go back to using Aperture, which is itself not free of IQ foibles, but certainly looks much more attractive now in comparison to LR1.1.
Anybody notice the same things with IQ? Anybody got any suggestions of how to get more natural-looking conversions before I remove LR and go back to Aperture?

Jeff,
I mean no disrespect. But I would like to see samples of 1.1 compared to 1.0 of the same image (ISO 400, and/or 800), because I do not want to convert my library to a catalog until I know whether or not I like the image quality. Why is it so hard to get one good sample. That is all I am asking. I would just rather not jump through hoops to go back to 1.0 if I do not like 1.1....That is all
And yes, after well over 400 printed articles I can tell what an image will look like in print when I view it 1:1.... I can tell if the eyelashes or pores on someones face, the detail in a rug, or wood grain will be detailed on the off set printed page if I look at the image at 1:1 and see smudging...this means to me that the most detail possible is NOT going to translate to the page. If however I CAN see detail in those types of areas, clearly (ie no smudging), than I know that I will see those fine details on the page. If these fine details were not important than we would all still be shooting with 3 and 4 mp cameras. Those fine details that are only visible to our eyes at a 1:1 preview on screen, are important on the printed page.
Oh, and I am not chest thumping. You can check my history here, I do not have a history of that type of activity. I am simply asking to see samples before I update....
I am very discriminating Pro, not some over testing, too much time on my hands, complaining , over paid amateur who only has time to complain that their test chart is out of focus. Or that they can measure toooo much noise at ISO what ever, instead of actually making photos. I actually make my living taking photos. And my clients have come to expect a certain level of quality from me. They comment all the time how much higher quality my images are than some of the other photogs they use. And I am still shooting a D60, where as these others are shooting 5d's and D2X's.
Jeff, I am not against you or Adobe. Matter of fact, I LOVE LR. It has changed my work flow in a very positive direction. I think it is wonderful. I just want one sample.... I am asking nicely: Please with sugar on top :)
If you can't give me a sample, than please at least reassure me that it will be easy to go back to 1.0 for the time being. Is it as easy as uninstalling 1.1, reinstalling 1.0 and recovering my DB from a current backup? If so, than fine, I will go this route........... If not, than I am hoping for a sample.
Thank you very kindly Jeff for engaging in this lively conversation. I do appreciate your comments and participation on this forum. And please note that none of this is said with attitude or malice. I know that some times a writers intent or emotional state is easy to misinterpret in a forum like this. So please know that I am calm and not angry, just curious about image quality.
Ok. I will shut up now. Thanks again

JPGs exported from Lightroom 5.6 will not open in other applications

Recently I have noticed that jpgs exported from Lightroom 5.6 can not be opened in Canon DPP 3.14 and can not be resized using Image Resizer plugin. Both of these I use frequently.
I have seen mention of this issue re other applications also. Does anyone know if there is a solution?
I am using Windows 8.1 64bit. 5D Mark ii

This was an issue with 5.5 (the placement of some of the internal headers of the jpgs was changed and some other applications, including DPP, could not open them), but was corrected in 5.6. I just checked on it by exporting a jpg and opening it with no problem in DPP 3.14.15, Windows 7 x64. Are your jpgs old ones from LR 5.5?

DPP digital photo professional will not open images in folder

I have a number of subject folders of vintage photographs from my father and his father, pro's and published. The images were scanned (Canon, of course!) and subsequently adjusted and manipulated for levels, cropping, and gray scale to eliminate yellow paper color, etc.
I have several folders that DPP will NOT open, just placeholders with a big X on it with the full file name. I cannot see any reason some folders would load without issue, others don't . There is no probablem with any other graphics program. Oh, Windows 7.
I really need to be able to have this work right for my business. DPP is the only program I've found that will make excelletn contact sheets/index sheets that allows full control of the printer so I can custome set and do duplex printing. Easy Photo Print also makes nice index sheets, but with absolutely no printer control or options. Bzzzzzt.
Thanks, Paul

I didn't post it in Printer discussions, I believe I put it in Software.
"Get something else." Wow! Want insight! You mean like Nikon, Sony, or Panasonic?
In fact, I DID already say that I "got something else," Xnview.
It is indeed under the General Printer Discussion on my side of the site! Check the top of the page.
Get something else meant software not brand. How did you draw that conclusion?
Unless you have me totally confused, it sounds like you want a file management program not a photo editing/ printing program.
DPP is photo editing/printing software designed to be used with Canon cameras and printers. It will open those file types. Mybe it will open others I don't use it that way since it is not it's purview.
EOS 1Ds Mk III, EOS 1D Mk IV EF 50mm f1.2 L, EF 24-70mm f2.8 L,
EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO
Photoshop CS6, ACR 9, Lightroom 6

DPP won't open in Windows 8

Hi...
We can't get Digital Photo Professional (v3.13.0.1) to open on our Windows 8, 64-bit machine. We get the following message:
We've uninstalled and reinstalled a couple of times, made sure the screen resolution is above 1024 x 768, and have tried using the compatibility troubleshooter to change DPP settings to run in 16-bit color, but nothing works. Help!

Thumbs up on Light Room. It is leaps and bounds better than DPP.
But DPP works fine on Win 8 machines so I still suspect you have something set incorrectly. On your Nvidia Control panel you should have a Change Resolution. It is below the 3D Settings.
Mine is set at 1920x1080, which is the native format, 60hz and 32 bit which is the highest.
EOS 1Ds Mk III, EOS 1D Mk IV, EF 50mm f1.2 L, EF 24-70mm f2.8 L,
EF 85mm f1.2 L II USM, EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II,
Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO, Photoshop CS6, ACR 9, Lightroom 6

Lightroom 5.5 and Digital Photo Professional 4

My workflow includes processing my Canon 6D RAW files in LR exporting them in reduced size JPG format to a folder on my external drive and then opening up the images in Digital Photo Professional (versions 3 and 4) to review and tweak before submission.
I updated to LR5.5 and DPP4 simultaneously (stupid). Now when I follow the above work flow, the JPG files created in LR5.5 can not be read in DPP4 (or DPP3). I have called Canon, they are not aware of the issue and had no really good feedback. DPP4 can read all other previous LR JPGs created prior to the update to LR5.5.
I have uninstalled DPP3 and 4 and reinstalled DPP 4 with same results.
Anybody on the Lightroom end know of any possible explanation?
Thanks,
Don

The short answer is that Adobe changes something in LR and PS-ACR that puts the JPG header sections in a different order, and while this may be within the JPG standard, some programs including DPP don’t know how to handle this change, and won’t open the LR 5.5 JPGs.
The release notes for ACR 8.6 RC say Adobe has changed things to make JPGs readable by more applications. Presumably this will reverse whatever was changed, but there is no LR 5.6 RC so you’ll have to wait for LR 5.6 final, or put LR 5.4 back if you don’t have a camera that needs LR 5.5+.
Older versions of LR are available at the Adobe Updates page:
http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates

Lightroom and Canon RAW Files. THIS NEEDS TO GET RESOLVED!!!

I am EXTREMELY frustrated and unhappy with Lightroom's performance when it comes to processing my Canon 1D Mark II N's .cr2 files. I know others are having this issue with most other Canon models, and I KNOW there are other threads about this. However, I'm about to the point where I cannot stand to process images in Lightroom anymore, due to this frustrating situation.
I know this has to do with the fact that Canon doesn't release their proprietary RAW data, so LR has to "guess" what the image should look like when it is initially imported. HOWEVER, come on Adobe, can't you do a better job at GUESSING? My colors look like CRAP!
Now, before all of you jump on me about develop presets and all that, let me make a couple of things clear.
- I'm a professional wedding and portrait photographer. Not to sound like an ***, but I know what I'm talking about on this issue. Please don't start making a bunch of suggestions on how to change color space etc... It's all been tried before.
- I calibrate my monitor. This issue has nothing to do with that anyway.
- I DO NOT have any automatic presets set to run in lightroom on import OR export.
- I will not shoot JPEG. Don't say "just shot jpeg" and expect this to be solved.
Here's a screen shot of Lightroom running side by side with Canon's DPP software. For the record, I HATE DPP, but it provides SUPERIOR RESULTS.
DPP is on the left. LR is on the right. No develop settings or presets were applied - the images shown are SOOC after import.
http://meeksdigital.com/images/frustration/dpp-lr.jpg

Peter, You may have selected "Auto reset" in the "File numbering" item of the camera's set-up menu, in which case it will start numbering the images from 1 again after re-inserting the CF card. When importing the next time into LR it will see the same file names and tell you that it does not find any new photos to import. This process is determined by file name only in LR and it will import the same file name of different formats having the same prefix, like when you shoot RAW + JPG and have _MG_0123.CR2 and _MG_0123.JPG.

Lightroom 3 vs. DPP

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for