Digital Photo Professional 2.1

[jeffreyluce]

This may be old news to some.... but I just found that Canon released version Digital Photo Professional 2.1

Also they published some vidoes of the new features / workflows here http://photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp2/index.html

[OutsideShooter]

This may be old news to some.... but I just found that Canon released version Digital Photo Professional 2.1

Also they published some vidoes of the new features / workflows here http://photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp2/index.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes thank you Jeffrey, I've had this for awhile now.  

I'm sure more of us could add to this but overall I like the quick learn techniques, though I don't know what Plugin Printing>Print with Easy-Photo Print means. I am not bothered by the fact that I am forced to convert RAW to TIFF but an option to ready an image for web use would be a nice feature, specifically as far as resizing goes. Even a quick resize action for typed-in ppi requirements that many web pages need.

[4gu.ru]

Thats good !

tosellbuy.com?qet=insurance
tosellbuy.net?qet=insurance
tosellbuy.biz?qet=insurance
tosellbuy.us?qet=insurance

[hgtan]

Hi,
I used DPP 2.1 to convert RAW to JEG, but only very basic EXIF data is retained. Many important data like "Len", "Owner's name", "Camera body no.", . . . . .etc are missing.

I have down loaded and tried the "Breeze Browser Pro" trial copy, it retained all EXIF from the RAW files but unfortunately the JPEG photo quality is very software with compared to DPP2.1 which is excellent.

Is there a solition? Please help.

Thanks in advance

[englishm]

Is there a solition? (sic) Please help.

Yes... it's called Adobe Camera Raw

[Andrzej Poniatowski]

There´s DPP 2.2 available, which I´ve been using for the last few months. Excellent converter! I shoot with 5D.
Andrzej Poniatowski

[hgtan]

Hi All,

Thanks for your reply.

Let me give a little more detials and update.

I'm using EOS 5D. I took some photo using the Sigma 12-24 in RAW format.

I used the DPP 2.2 to convert the RAW photo to JPEG photo. The photo quality is excellent, I can't tell the different between the RAW and JPEG photos. However I discovered that only the very basic EXIF data is retained in the converted JPEG files. Many other important data like "Lens", "Owner's name", "Camera body no.", . . . . .etc are missing.

I have down loaded and tried the "Breeze Browser Pro" trial copy, it retained all EXIF data from the RAW files to JPEG file but unfortunately the JPEG photo quality is very soft and not acceptable for me.

I have down loaded and tried the PSCS2. Just like DPP2.2, PSCS2 also omitted those EXIF data and the converted JPEG photo quality is as soft as "Breeze Browser Pro" .

It seems that only DPP know how to convert Canon's own RAW format into JPEG format without losing the sharpness and clarity.

I'm finding the way to report this problem to DPP. I do hope that the EXIF problem will be fixed by the future release of DPP.

[Jonathan Wienke]

It seems that only DPP know how to convert Canon's own RAW format into JPEG format without losing the sharpness and clarity.

Not true. DPP is simply applying some sharpening to the image the other converters are not. You can do a better job sharpening than DPP with tools like Focus Magic or Photokit Sharpener; all you need to do is learn to use the tools properly.

[hgtan]

Not true. DPP is simply applying some sharpening to the image the other converters are not. You can do a better job sharpening than DPP with tools like Focus Magic or Photokit Sharpener; all you need to do is learn to use the tools properly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92236\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for your response.
I have done a close comparison between the original RAW image and converted JPEG image and I can not find any differences. Of course the JPEG file (14M) is actually bigger than the RAW file (12M) as I have done a simple direct conversion.

I should have done some compression and compare again.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I have done a close comparison between the original RAW image and converted JPEG image and I can not find any differences. Of course the JPEG file (14M) is actually bigger than the RAW file (12M) as I have done a simple direct conversion.

The Canon converter is designed to duplicate the Canon in-camera JPEG processing, so you're not going to find much in the way of difference there. It's a design choice. If you use a third-party RAW converter like ACR, theimage straight from the converter will be softer than the Canon converter initially, but once you apply some sharpening tools in Photoshop, you can get a result that is superior to any Canon converter. ACR, when properly calibrated, will also give you more accurate color than the Canon stuff, and you have CA correction and tonality curve adjustments available as well.

[hgtan]

The Canon converter is designed to duplicate the Canon in-camera JPEG processing, so you're not going to find much in the way of difference there. It's a design choice. If you use a third-party RAW converter like ACR, theimage straight from the converter will be softer than the Canon converter initially, but once you apply some sharpening tools in Photoshop, you can get a result that is superior to any Canon converter. ACR, when properly calibrated, will also give you more accurate color than the Canon stuff, and you have CA correction and tonality curve adjustments available as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92636\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks.
I will try all possibility.