Canon Digital Photo Professional vs other free alternatives

[Dazz1]

Because of a recent problem I had with colour management, I had cause to look at other software, and to take a second look at Canon DPP. I use linux, so that was the main reason for not using DPP to start with, but I now have a working instal of DPP (3.14) under native linux (using wine), so DPP runs at close to full speed (as opposed to slow in a virtual machine).


I have spent some time (a few days) really giving DPP a good try, and quite liking it. I thought it might be useful to record my thoughts of DPP vs the some other free alternatives I have been using, or I hope it might at least be a bit interesting to some. I will organise my thoughts roughly as per my usual workflow. The free alternatives I was using are DigiKam (a photo manager, and simple editor that handles raw files), and Rawtherapee (an raw file converter and editor).


1. DPP shows thumbnails in the computer's file/folder structure by default (you can select them and assign them to collections if you like as well). DigiKam does much the same, except the root location for your photo file/folder structure is assigned as a collection, so you don't have to deal with anything except the photo files - all you see are the folders with photos in them, not the whole hard drive. Slight edge to DigiKam here.


2. Enlarging thumbnails for closer inspection and rating/tagging/deleting etc is done in DPP via the Quick Check tool. In DigiKam, you have a view with thumbnails across the top, and an enlarged view of the selected photo underneath. You can achieve the same in DPP by selecting them all and changing to the edit window. So, they are different, but probably one method is on a par with the other.


3. Non-destructive editing of RAW files. DPP stores recipes in the RAW file . Rawtherapee stores the 'processing profile' in a separate file, same name as the CR2 file with .pp3 extension. Not sure how the DigiKam editor does it, but as it is the editor I liked least – haven't searched too hard. DPP and Rawtherapee's methods are equivalent. Nothing to choose between really.


4. Raw conversion. DPP gets the colours right on my Canon camera (600D) by default (not surprisingly). DigiKam needs to have it's colour management tweaked (as does Rawtherapee) DPP wins here for Canon users of 600Ds,don't know about other models – they may be fine.


5. DPP cannot handle 3rd party lens correction as far as I can discover. DigiKam uses the Lensfun library and database, and so has 3rd party lenses, but probably not all of them as it depends on the database being updated as new lenses come out. Rawtherapee can load a lens correction profile (.lcp file like Adobe uses) that you can create yourself, or may be downloaded. Greater chance of being able to correct lens distortion and chromatic abberration, so Rawtherapee wins here.


6. Exposure. Rawtherapee has the best range of controls by far (not surprising as it is a dedicated editor) and has compression and recovery options that enable you to salvage a poorly exposed image far better then the others. DPP and DigiKam are both fine for normal images however.


7. Sharpening. DPP has basic sharpening and unsharp mask type sharpening. DigiKam has an extra method, called 'refocus', and Rawtherapee has many options, such as unsharp mask, edge enhancement, microcontrast, contrast by detail levels (this last being one of my favourites) and the best ability to control them all. Rawtherapee wins here.


8. Noise reduction. DPP puzzles me a bit here. The controls seem to have only a minor effect, but it always seems to manage to produce a nice enough picture. Not sure if this is a good thing, as I like being in control :) . DigiKam has greater control but is slow to try different levels. Rawtherapee is the most powerful, and is what I will use for any tricky/noisy photo, but DPP is fastest and easiest for most images.


9. Speed. Mostly a concern when doing raw conversion, and some editing operations. DPP is fastest, DigiKam is slowest, particularly in some of the edit modes.


10. Batch mode is available in both DPP and DigiKam. I think I prefer DigiKam's methods but there are things I like about DPP too. I will use whichever works at the time.




General comments.


1. I will probably always do final touches and fixes in Gimp after basic conversion and editing has been done, by either DPP, DigiKam, or Rawtherapee.
2. DPP will probably get used most of the time because of speed and ease of use on most images.
3. DigiKam is a better photo manager. Various reasons, but you could probably conclude it's mainly a personal preference :).
4. Rawtherapee is a far better processor for difficult situations. Many more options to rescue/correct with. It is also, therefore, more complicated to use. Glad I have it in my bag of tricks though.
5. The combo of DigiKam to manage photos, and Rawtherapee to process them, and Gimp for final editing, is very powerful and all I think I could need. However DPP can replace the first 2 for for 90% of the situations, and is easier and faster.

I would hope and expect, that non-free software, such as that offered by Adobe, would best all of the above. Still, I think I am getting a lot of functionality for free so far.

[ameerat42]

Adobe Photoshop CS2 is free:D Add that and see.

[Dazz1]

Adobe Photoshop CS2 is free:D Add that and see.

I didn't know it had become free. I am installing it now to try it out. However, wouldn't it be fairer to compare it to Gimp, not DPP/DigiKam/Rawtherapee?

[ameerat42]

Yes. It is closer to Gimp in functionality.
My suggestion, without any proof whatsoever, would be to use DPP and Photoshop.
Note: it will ask you every time you run PS to register. Do it once on installation, then
click Do Not Reg for all other times.

A hint: once you get your settings as you want them in PS, look for the file called
Adobe Photoshop CS2 Prefs.psp

In Win 10 its location is:
C:\Users\User\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Photoshop\9.0\Adobe Photoshop CS2 Settings

Copy the file you have finally set to your likings to some location like Docs or Desktop
(and its location details) so that if the file ever corrupts and you revert to the default settings,
then you can copy your prefs back easily. This saves you going thru the myriad screens in
Edit - Preferences.

I (almost) guarantee that once you start using it you will not go back to Gimp.

Am(dressed in flak-jacket and such against likely responses).

[Dazz1]

Am. Yes, photoshop won't even open CR2 files (nor will Gimp without a plugin). On the net, the Gimp vs Photoshop debate rages. :) However, there are, or I see, no compelling reasons to change from the one you already know, and have spent hours/days learning and tweaking (scripts/plugins etc). I did not intend to address the pros and cons of Gimp and Photoshop with what I posted above (which is about photo management and development/conversion). Gimp/Photoshop are the next stage, probably the last, in a typical workflow.

I have discovered that, while photoshop will run under wine/linux, it seems a bit slow and laggy. If I can cure that, I may spend some time seeing what it has to offer anyway.

[ameerat42]

The compelling reason is simply:
You learn the ideas that programs like Gimp and Photoshop allow you to do to manipulate files; you don't
"learn a program". Hours and days are nothing compared to the fact that you never really "learn" it all.

I have Gimp installed (on an external drive) as well as RT and a couple of others. I also have FastStone, though
I use this a lot to look at raw files on the card before transferring them to PC. Call them all a legacy of trying
things out that members use on AP. (So if someone has a problem in Gimp, say, I can go and try it out.) But I do not have
the raw software like DPP and V/CNX as I don't use Canon and Nikon (or most other) raw files.

My raw files > Σ SPP > CS2 Pshop.

[Dazz1]

The compelling reason is simply:
You learn the ideas that programs like Gimp and Photoshop allow you to do to manipulate files; you don't
"learn a program". Hours and days are nothing compared to the fact that you never really "learn" it all.

I have Gimp installed (on an external drive) as well as RT and a couple of others. I also have FastStone, though
I use this a lot to look at raw files on the card before transferring them to PC. Call them all a legacy of trying
things out that members use on AP. (So if someone has a problem in Gimp, say, I can go and try it out.) But I do not have
the raw software like DPP and V/CNX as I don't use Canon and Nikon (or most other) raw files.

My raw files > Σ SPP > CS2 Pshop.


I will definitely take a look, but, as I said, it isn't the comparison I intended, and it won't replace DPP/DigiKam/Rawtherapee.

[ameerat42]

To confirm, CS2 is intended as a Gimp equivalent.

[arthurking83]

Even tho I don't have any Canon hardware, I still like to try other stuff just to see what's happening in the world.
The images I used to check out DPP were freely available Canon raw files from various review sites, so not mine to accurately assess how DPP works
(my primary raw file handling is done via Nikon's software) DPP basically mirrors most of Nikon's collection of software, and it's hard to decide if one is better than the other's free software. Basically much of a muchness here.

I'm curious as to these comments tho


(if I'm reading this one the right way)

......

1. DPP shows thumbnails in the computer's file/folder structure by default (you can select them and assign them to collections if you like as well). DigiKam does much the same, except the root location for your photo file/folder structure is assigned as a collection, so you don't have to deal with anything except the photo files - all you see are the folders with photos in them, not the whole hard drive. Slight edge to DigiKam here......

I'd have thought that knowing which root directory you are working in/from is important. This is why I don't like the collections method of editing(ie. Lightroom) and the way you get to your images to edit them.
If you mirror your images as a backup method, and hence you have multiple versions of what amounts to the same file, how do you know which one you're working on?

eg. I have two to three versions of some images(min 2, sometimes 3, depending on the images)
Reason is that I have two(full version) archives of all the images, and one current working directory for this years images. Once an image is edited, it's simply archived and my intention is to not edit it again(but I sometimes do). The current year's set of images are carefully studied at the end of the year, and ruthlessly deleted early in the next year(after more careful study).
But as I said, sometimes in going back through the archive I may feel the need to try to edit an image just for the hell of it.
so eg. I have an X:\ drive(with just photos in it) and a V:\ drive with another copy of that archive(but other stuff in that drive too).
The X drive is my dynamic backup, basically I back up my current year's images regularly to that one.
But the V: drive is my rescue plan(or it should be, if everything works properly! :rolleyes: .. I'll explain later, and why it's important sometimes to be careful of your backup plan!)
So I don't always do the backup to the V drive, but always to the X drive.
If I'm reading it properly, DigiKam doesn't show you that you are in the V or X drive, which to me is important, as I'd prefer to know that I'm working on the correct image(which would be the X drive version.




..... 3. Non-destructive editing of RAW files. DPP stores recipes in the RAW file . Rawtherapee stores the 'processing profile' in a separate file, same name as the CR2 file with .pp3 extension. Not sure how the DigiKam editor does it, but as it is the editor I liked least – haven't searched too hard. DPP and Rawtherapee's methods are equivalent. Nothing to choose between really.
.....

This depends sometimes on what software you use to find, sort and manage your images.
Now I know you're on Linux, but if Canon had a Linux raw codec available, this allows you to view your images directly in your file manager software.
eg. Nikon(and Canon) have available codecs for installation into Windows. M$ also have a raw codec pack, but I found that the mfg's codec file works better.
So again as an example: I want to find images of my mum, and want to search for them(all or partly). I select a location(drive or specific folder) and search for mum in the Windows Explorer search area(or directly in my PC's search tool .. but this is a bit too general).
Basically, I don't need a fully fledged DAM software(eg. Lr) just to find a single image of Mum, where it takes 5 minutes just to load the DAM software. . whereas in Windows Explorer I've found the image in a a few seconds. The point I'm getting to here is that you don't always need the most super duper image software just to do basic stuff with your images!
Where the relevance comes into the mix here now is that, with the raw codec installed, when you edit a raw file in DPP, as it stores the recipe edit in the raw file, every change you make in that raw file is reflected in any software that uses the embedded preview file in the raw file. This annoying tendency to use separated sidecar files is just going to get out of hand!
None of the software that use this system can cross reference any other's software sidecar file. So if you edit with RT, or Lr, or Capture One, or whatever .. you get a new sidecar file for every software. At some point, the volume of data in the sidecar files will exceed the volume size of the actual raw file!
IF, the software makers all got together to ratify a single openly readable and editable sidecar file format which is also usable by the OS .. then no problem!
But as it is .. it's a major mess, and there is no allowance for using any software YOU LIKE here without having to go back to the start! All software vendors are trying to lock the consumer into their own environment.
So until a communal method is settled upon for these sidecar files by all manufacturers, the best way at the moment(that I can see) is the DPP(and BTW, Nikon's older method) of editing the raw file.
* note that Nikon's new software uses ANOTHER! proprietary :rolleye: sidecar format .. which I why I try to avoid using it. While they're all XML based sidecars, they don't coexist with each other).

I found basically the same conclusion to what you've described with DPP.
Up until Nikon's latest software, you had the much less(than DPP) capable ViewNX2(free) and had to pay for the more capable CaptureNX2 to further those edits. DPP was somewhere in the middle of those two.
Now Nikon have CaptureNX-D(the annoying sidecar file factory! :p) and it has a few advantages over DPP that I remember.

Also I hate Ps, in every flavour that I've tried it. I find it a tedious process to learn.
Anyhow, as an alternative to both GIMP and CS2, and still free, is Paintdotnet(if a search for it is made, type the name like that, even tho it's not named exactly similarly).
The beauty of PDN is that it's as basic as you like(ie. uses barely any resources) but has a plethora of plugins to do stuff you may want to delve into.
I think GIMP is similar .. basic initial install, and you install plugins relevant to your need.
Cs just installs everything including the kitchen sink, the garbage disposal unit, the cutlery drawer, a multitude of cooking implements, a mop bucket and everything else you'll never need to edit an image! :p

anyhow .. sorry for the tedious reply! I enjoyed reading the write up.

[Dazz1]

Even tho I don't have any Canon hardware, I still like to try other stuff just to see what's happening in the world.
The images I used to check out DPP were freely available Canon raw files from various review sites, so not mine to accurately assess how DPP works
(my primary raw file handling is done via Nikon's software) DPP basically mirrors most of Nikon's collection of software, and it's hard to decide if one is better than the other's free software. Basically much of a muchness here.

I expected as much. You'd think the major players in the market would pretty much match each others offerings (if not try to beat them).






I'd have thought that knowing which root directory you are working in/from is important. This is why I don't like the collections method of editing(ie. Lightroom) and the way you get to your images to edit them.
If you mirror your images as a backup method, and hence you have multiple versions of what amounts to the same file, how do you know which one you're working on?

eg. I have two to three versions of some images(min 2, sometimes 3, depending on the images)
Reason is that I have two(full version) archives of all the images, and one current working directory for this years images. Once an image is edited, it's simply archived and my intention is to not edit it again(but I sometimes do). The current year's set of images are carefully studied at the end of the year, and ruthlessly deleted early in the next year(after more careful study).
But as I said, sometimes in going back through the archive I may feel the need to try to edit an image just for the hell of it.
so eg. I have an X:\ drive(with just photos in it) and a V:\ drive with another copy of that archive(but other stuff in that drive too).
The X drive is my dynamic backup, basically I back up my current year's images regularly to that one.
But the V: drive is my rescue plan(or it should be, if everything works properly! :rolleyes: .. I'll explain later, and why it's important sometimes to be careful of your backup plan!)
So I don't always do the backup to the V drive, but always to the X drive.
If I'm reading it properly, DigiKam doesn't show you that you are in the V or X drive, which to me is important, as I'd prefer to know that I'm working on the correct image(which would be the X drive version.



I think part of the difference here is that linux doesn't deal with drive letters at all. Everything is a file in a folder/directory. Even a physically separate drive, for example my drive with Windows on it, is in a folder in the main tree ( /mnt/windows). Yes, I mirror my photo directory trees as a backup. I use a powerful little program called grsync to maintain manual 'backups' in up to 3 places.

It is important when doing this to remember which is the primary source (the one you work on), to avoid accidentally mirroring back the other way, or working on the wrong one. So, the safest solution is to have the software always show the working set. With DigiKam, this is set in the config, and you can confidentally open it and get to work. When you import photos, doing it via DigiKam ensures they go into the working set, and will get mirrored to backup the right way. With DPP, I have to first, actually navigate to the right place in the tree. Of course, sensible names for the directories makes this fairly easy. DigiKam does show you where you are. The default right pane is the 'info' page, which has Exif data, and file properties, which has the full path to the file there, easy to see.





This depends sometimes on what software you use to find, sort and manage your images.
Now I know you're on Linux, but if Canon had a Linux raw codec available, this allows you to view your images directly in your file manager software.
eg. Nikon(and Canon) have available codecs for installation into Windows. M$ also have a raw codec pack, but I found that the mfg's codec file works better.
So again as an example: I want to find images of my mum, and want to search for them(all or partly). I select a location(drive or specific folder) and search for mum in the Windows Explorer search area(or directly in my PC's search tool .. but this is a bit too general).
Basically, I don't need a fully fledged DAM software(eg. Lr) just to find a single image of Mum, where it takes 5 minutes just to load the DAM software. . whereas in Windows Explorer I've found the image in a a few seconds. The point I'm getting to here is that you don't always need the most super duper image software just to do basic stuff with your images!


Searching is one of the main strengths of something like DigiKam. You can search for ANYTHING. Even obscure things like , pictures with an aspect ratio between X and Y, taken in Africa, with a rating above 2, and ISO below 800. DigiKam takes about 7 seconds to load on my system

I haven't looked into a raw codec for Canon files - I must do that.





Where the relevance comes into the mix here now is that, with the raw codec installed, when you edit a raw file in DPP, as it stores the recipe edit in the raw file, every change you make in that raw file is reflected in any software that uses the embedded preview file in the raw file. This annoying tendency to use separated sidecar files is just going to get out of hand!
None of the software that use this system can cross reference any other's software sidecar file. So if you edit with RT, or Lr, or Capture One, or whatever .. you get a new sidecar file for every software. At some point, the volume of data in the sidecar files will exceed the volume size of the actual raw file!
IF, the software makers all got together to ratify a single openly readable and editable sidecar file format which is also usable by the OS .. then no problem!
But as it is .. it's a major mess, and there is no allowance for using any software YOU LIKE here without having to go back to the start! All software vendors are trying to lock the consumer into their own environment.
So until a communal method is settled upon for these sidecar files by all manufacturers, the best way at the moment(that I can see) is the DPP(and BTW, Nikon's older method) of editing the raw file.
* note that Nikon's new software uses ANOTHER! proprietary :rolleye: sidecar format .. which I why I try to avoid using it. While they're all XML based sidecars, they don't coexist with each other).


I don't know if the data set that you can store in a raw file is entendable. It would need to be, because software like rawtherapee will have settings that don't exist in other software, like DPP, that it needs to save. Even if it could save them in the raw file, they would be meaningless to other software, so I don't think cross referencing of setting between software is going to work well any time soon. I am resigned to doing it separately each time.





I found basically the same conclusion to what you've described with DPP.
Up until Nikon's latest software, you had the much less(than DPP) capable ViewNX2(free) and had to pay for the more capable CaptureNX2 to further those edits. DPP was somewhere in the middle of those two.
Now Nikon have CaptureNX-D(the annoying sidecar file factory! :p) and it has a few advantages over DPP that I remember.

Also I hate Ps, in every flavour that I've tried it. I find it a tedious process to learn.
Anyhow, as an alternative to both GIMP and CS2, and still free, is Paintdotnet(if a search for it is made, type the name like that, even tho it's not named exactly similarly).
The beauty of PDN is that it's as basic as you like(ie. uses barely any resources) but has a plethora of plugins to do stuff you may want to delve into.
I think GIMP is similar .. basic initial install, and you install plugins relevant to your need.
Cs just installs everything including the kitchen sink, the garbage disposal unit, the cutlery drawer, a multitude of cooking implements, a mop bucket and everything else you'll never need to edit an image! :p

anyhow .. sorry for the tedious reply! I enjoyed reading the write up.


Thanks for your comments. Yes Gimp is extendible via plugins and scripting. Not sure how the basic install compares to photoshop, but I suspect, as you say, it might be a little leaner. Might account for the speed.

[arthurking83]

@ WP!

I've recently installed digiKam(on Windows 10).

Most of it looks like a handy collection of software from the initial impression I'm seeing.
2 things tho:

1. it's very slow and not very stable on Windows. You do get a warning explaining this, but I pressed ahead anyhow. Curious Windows users take note!!

2. When you hover the mouse cursor over an image, a small pop up image properties window appears. It all works well, except that it's design is just a wee little be below horrendous(in rendering that is!). Yellow box with white text is pretty much useless to view the text within.
(so the question to WP .. is there anywhere .. setting .. property .. to alter this? I've searched and my search terms are useless .. or nothing exists.)

[Dazz1]

@ WP!

I've recently installed digiKam(on Windows 10).

Most of it looks like a handy collection of software from the initial impression I'm seeing.
2 things tho:

1. it's very slow and not very stable on Windows. You do get a warning explaining this, but I pressed ahead anyhow. Curious Windows users take note!!

2. When you hover the mouse cursor over an image, a small pop up image properties window appears. It all works well, except that it's design is just a wee little be below horrendous(in rendering that is!). Yellow box with white text is pretty much useless to view the text within.
(so the question to WP .. is there anywhere .. setting .. property .. to alter this? I've searched and my search terms are useless .. or nothing exists.)


Sorry - been away camping.

There is a section in the settings menu to change themes. The colours used in the popup change with the themes, and yes, with some, it is impossible to read the text. As well as that, at the bottom of the themes, is a configuration option, but under linux, DigKam is a KDE application, and the configuration is a KDE control module, and I think it is tweaking the theme for ALL KDE apps. Now under Windows, I have no idea how they have implemented it. If they have ported across some part/version of KDE, maybe it will be the same?

Interesting that the Windows version is a bit slow and unstable...

[arthurking83]

Sorry - been away camping.

There is a section in the settings menu to change themes. The colours used in the popup change with the themes ......

That's the lil tacker I was looking for.
Some of the themes leave a lot to be desired. I'm on Wonton Soup :confused:(theme) at the moment and at least the now black on yellow is readable!

[phild]

IMO DPP is seriously underrated, in addition to the obvious benefits, I had serious problems with colour balance and consistency printing to my Epson R1800 with Adobe PS, prints from DPP had no such issues.

[tduell]

The free alternatives I was using are DigiKam (a photo manager, and simple editor that handles raw files), and Rawtherapee (an raw file converter and editor).


As you are using Linux I wondered why you didn't include Darktable in your roundup of free alternatives.
I have tried a few packages (Photivo, Digikam, Rawtherapee), and Darktable looks like it provides most of what one needs, but I'm a novice at this business.
I would be interested to hear your expert opinion of how it compares.

Cheers,
Terry

[Dazz1]

As you are using Linux I wondered why you didn't include Darktable in your roundup of free alternatives.
I have tried a few packages (Photivo, Digikam, Rawtherapee), and Darktable looks like it provides most of what one needs, but I'm a novice at this business.
I would be interested to hear your expert opinion of how it compares.

Cheers,
Terry

Darktable does look to have the stuff. However, when I tried it the first time, it kept having memory management issues, throwing up an error, and crashing. I searched around, and I wasn't alone.

However, it's been a little while, and maybe they've fixed some problems. I will give it a go again and report back.

[Dazz1]

I found Darktable developers have a new release (version 2) about to come out. They are on release candidate 2, so I grabbed a copy of that.

Some very nice features here. However, after editing a few photos experimentally - not doing too much, it crashed again (or at least hung doing something). Then again a few things later, it disappeared without warning. Not worth going into particular features that are good or bad when this is happening. Seems a bit unstable for a release candidate. Still, may try again when it is properly released.

[tduell]

I found Darktable developers have a new release (version 2) about to come out. They are on release candidate 2, so I grabbed a copy of that.

Some very nice features here. However, after editing a few photos experimentally - not doing too much, it crashed again (or at least hung doing something). Then again a few things later, it disappeared without warning. Not worth going into particular features that are good or bad when this is happening. Seems a bit unstable for a release candidate. Still, may try again when it is properly released.

I have been doing regular Fedora package builds of the master branch source, which I think was the source branched out as the new release candidate at the time. I haven't had any problems with any Darktable builds.
Your crash may be a result of the options you are using for the build. I build with SQUISH OFF and OPENCL OFF.

Cheers,
Terry

[Dazz1]

I have been doing regular Fedora package builds of the master branch source, which I think was the source branched out as the new release candidate at the time. I haven't had any problems with any Darktable builds.
Your crash may be a result of the options you are using for the build. I build with SQUISH OFF and OPENCL OFF.

Cheers,
Terry

Thanks, but I am not building it myself. It is a package from deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/pmjdebruijn/darktable-unstable/ubuntu trusty main

I guess I could try my own build if I get the time later.

[Dazz1]

A final note about darktable. RC3 just came out, and with it, numerous popup messages saying, basically, that they are giving up on a 32 bit version that works, blaming the limited address space. I don't understand why, if so many other programs, like the ones above, can work in 32 bit, that they can't. Especially as most people, like myself, are running a PAE system which gets around that "problem".

...and sure enough, it crashes out the minute you try to edit an image. :(

[martycon]

Thanks Blokes, very interesting, but at my skill level PS14 with RAW facility works OK for my undicerning eye, but you have prompted me to try Rawtherapie, so I have benefited,
cheers marty.