Should I use Canon DPP before Aperture 3 for RAW processing?
Asked 2/14/2013
3 views
2 answers
0
I shoot RAW on a Canon 7D and normally import my files directly into Aperture 3 on an iMac. On a photography course, I was advised to use Canon's free Digital Photo Professional (DPP) to process the RAW files before editing them in Aperture. The explanation I was given was that RAW files contain separate color information, but once opened in Aperture those colors are somehow compressed together, so later edits would be less precise.
I’m confused about whether Aperture 3 is already doing RAW processing, and whether using DPP first would improve image quality or preserve more information. If I skip DPP and continue importing RAW files straight into Aperture, am I losing anything important compared with a DPP-first workflow?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
1
You simply got misguided advice. It sounds like the person you were talking to didn't realize that Aperture is RAW conversion software. The issue of color demosaicing (with your camera, as with most, it's not really layers, but rather side-by-side in a Bayer pattern) would hold if you were going to a traditional raster editor like Photoshop or Gimp, but if you open the file in Aperture, you're not.
In fact, if you would go from Canon DPP to Aperture as suggested, by converting to JPEG in the first program and importing that, you'd actually be doing the "bad" thing, since Aperture wouldn't be working from the unconverted data. So, you don't want to follow the advice you were given.
That said, Canon's software does have different algorithms and different presets from Apple Aperture. You may find it easier to get results you like in Canon Digital Photo Professional. (See a similar question on Canon DPP vs. Lightroom.)
As a general rule, the RAW conversion software camera makers ship is tuned to produce results more similar to that same camera's JPEG engine, which many people struggle to reproduce in their third-party RAW software. In that case, you might decide you don't need Aperture at all. But it doesn't sound like that's true for you.
Originally by user1943. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1943
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Aperture is already a RAW converter, so importing RAW files directly into Aperture is a normal workflow. The advice you received was likely confused: RAW files from cameras like the 7D don’t contain editable “separate color layers” in the way described, and Aperture does not turn them into a flattened file just by opening them.
The real difference is that DPP and Aperture use different RAW conversion algorithms, defaults, and color/rendering choices. DPP may render Canon files differently, and some users prefer its look for Canon RAWs. But using DPP first is not inherently better.
In fact, if you convert in DPP to JPEG and then edit in Aperture, you would lose the main advantage of RAW editing, because Aperture would no longer be working from the original RAW data.
So if Aperture’s results satisfy you, there’s no harm in continuing to import RAW files directly into Aperture. Only consider DPP if you specifically prefer its rendering or need Canon-specific interpretation of the RAW files.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
What is Canon EOS Lens Registration used for, and does it help if I edit RAW files outside DPP?
Free Windows software for quickly culling Canon RAW files
How can I streamline a Windows RAW workflow for large numbers of Canon photos?
Why do RAW photos look different in Aperture than the camera preview, and how can I match white balance?
Can uncompressed Fujifilm RAF files be converted to the newer compressed RAF format?