# Develop Module/ACR vs. Canon Digital Photo Pro



## Diane Miller (Mar 21, 2015)

I've been reading claims that Canon's DPP is superior to the ACR engine in both lower noise and better color rendition.  The claim was made that DPP is superior because it does a linear raw conversion, demosaicing without a tone curve, and that it was the only program that could do that.  I think the astrophotography programs such as Nebulosity do that, and am just wondering if there is some reason DPP does it and not ACR. (Of course, at some point a tone curve needs to be applied as a linear conversion is very dark.)

I've been very pleased with my conversion results with LR and am just curious to hear any rebuttal to claims for DPP's superiority.  It does seem to give somewhat lower noise, but at the expense of fine detail.


----------



## clee01l (Mar 21, 2015)

One would think the DPP editor should do a better job on CR2 files than ACR. After all it can take advantage of the ALO and HTP tuning that Canon does in camera. Tuning that you need to turn off if you process CR2s in ACR/LR.  However, you can't manage the RAW image in LR and process the same image in DPP. If you do, you need to save the result as a TIFF and import that into LR for image management. 
Also you can't process NEFs, DNGs or any other proprietary RAW files in DPP.   If you are pleased with the work that can be done in LR and are happy not to have to manage several versions of the same Canon image, you need to think hard about any benefits from DPP.  Like Photoshop, DPP is an image editor and everything gets baked in to a derivative image file  Also if you push all of your workflow through LR, you can still use DPP as a pre-editor.


----------

