Comparing performance of DPP, Aperture, Capture One, Lightroom and DxO

[tgara]

I guess I'll have to disagree with you about your conclusions concerning speed and performance of at least Aperture and DPP. I'm running a 27-inch mid-2010 iMac with Yosemite 10.10.2. Hardware is a 2.8 GHz i5, 12 GB RAM (1333 MHz DDR3) and an ATI Radeon HD 5750 graphics processor with 1024 MB. I process 30MB Raw files from my Canon 5D3.

My machine works WAAAAAYYYYY faster than yours when working in Aperture or DPP4. The performance I see on my Mac running DPP4 is about what you see on your machine running Aperture (i.e., what appeared to be the fastest performing software in your video). And my Aperture performance is faster than any of the programs you showed in your video. So there is likely something going on with your hardware, probably the 4K display, that is slowing it down a lot. You do have a fairly complex system with two 4K displays, etc., so that might be it as well. No disrespect, but I had to chuckle a little bit that my 5 year old computer with inferior hardware was out-performing the newest Mac Pro with top-end displays!

FYI, DPP has a history of not using multi-core architecture very well. There are a number of reports about this on the web with respect to DPP3. This article is older, but illustrates the problem:

http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizing-DPP.html

I don't know if DPP4 is any better by comparison, but it's working reasonably swiftly on my machine.

With Aperture going away, I'm likely going to use DPP4 as my main editor since it processes RAW images so well and the pix come out looking great. Sharing images will be done by exporting a folder of good JPGs from DPP4 and importing them into the new Photos app with iCloud set up.

 

[tgara]

Has anyone tried DPP 4? My understanding is this is quite an upgrade over DPP 3. I am currently using Aperture also and since upgrading to Yosemite it no longer displays my raw files. They are either distorted or black. If I look at a JPEG first then all the raw files display that jpeg. Very frustrating and Apple has been no help. They just push you from one oblivious tech to another that has no clue what's going on. I'd like to see how DPP 4 stacks up.




MacPro 4.1, 28gb ram, 24" ACD, 24" Dell, Ati 5770
Canon 7d, 24-70L, 70-300L, Sigma 17-50 2.8, 85 1.4

Dave, DPP4 was only recently upgraded to handle RAW files from the Canon 7D. You might want to check the Canon website to download the latest version (4.1.50) and give that a go.

I've had no problems viewing RAW files on my Mac since upgrading to Yosemite. Viewing RAWs in both Preview and Aperture is fine. Have you checked for a software upgrade?

 

[VirtualRain]

I guess I'll have to disagree with you about your conclusions concerning speed and performance of at least Aperture and DPP. I'm running a 27-inch mid-2010 iMac with Yosemite 10.10.2. Hardware is a 2.8 GHz i5, 12 GB RAM (1333 MHz DDR3) and an ATI Radeon HD 5750 graphics processor with 1024 MB. I process 30MB Raw files from my Canon 5D3.

My machine works WAAAAAYYYYY faster than yours when working in Aperture or DPP4. The performance I see on my Mac running DPP4 is about what you see on your machine running Aperture (i.e., what appeared to be the fastest performing software in your video). And my Aperture performance is faster than any of the programs you showed in your video. So there is likely something going on with your hardware, probably the 4K display, that is slowing it down a lot. You do have a fairly complex system with two 4K displays, etc., so that might be it as well. No disrespect, but I had to chuckle a little bit that my 5 year old computer with inferior hardware was out-performing the newest Mac Pro with top-end displays!

FYI, DPP has a history of not using multi-core architecture very well. There are a number of reports about this on the web with respect to DPP3. This article is older, but illustrates the problem:

http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizing-DPP.html

I don't know if DPP4 is any better by comparison, but it's working reasonably swiftly on my machine.

With Aperture going away, I'm likely going to use DPP4 as my main editor since it processes RAW images so well and the pix come out looking great. Sharing images will be done by exporting a folder of good JPGs from DPP4 and importing them into the new Photos app with iCloud set up.

Yeah, as has been stated multiple times now, it seems to be the 4K screens that cause the poor performance. The move to 4K has revealed a lot of issues... it's still not ready for the masses. I can only hope that the new 5K iMacs will put some attention on these issues.

 

[tgara]

Yeah, as has been stated multiple times now, it seems to be the 4K screens that cause the poor performance. The move to 4K has revealed a lot of issues... it's still not ready for the masses. I can only hope that the new 5K iMacs will put some attention on these issues.

Just curious, but why do you need 4K screens? What happens if you switch back to regular screens? Hook up a cheap screen and see what happens. Any performance improvement? I mean, it might NOT be the 4K display on your setup... it might be a bad core, background process, or user/configuration error. Just saying....

 

[VirtualRain]

Just curious, but why do you need 4K screens? What happens if you switch back to regular screens? Hook up a cheap screen and see what happens. Any performance improvement? I mean, it might NOT be the 4K display on your setup... it might be a bad core, background process, or user/configuration error. Just saying....

I don't need to switch my monitors to test if it improves... simply resizing the window to something small makes it work a lot better. It seems most photo editing apps are designed for 1080p-1440p displays... when you double or quadruple the number of pixels, they bog down. However, as Aperture works very fluidly on a 4K display, there's obviously room for improvement from these other vendors.

 

[Daveg6]

Dave, DPP4 was only recently upgraded to handle RAW files from the Canon 7D. You might want to check the Canon website to download the latest version (4.1.50) and give that a go.

I've had no problems viewing RAW files on my Mac since upgrading to Yosemite. Viewing RAWs in both Preview and Aperture is fine. Have you checked for a software upgrade?

I worked with a senior Apple tech yesterday and we got the Aperture problem solved. The ATI Radeon HD 5770 card is not intended for the 2009 MacPro. We removed that card and Aperture is as good as new. See this article from Apple. http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201805 The 5770 is for the 2010 or 2012 but not the 2009. I'm in the market for a 5870 now.

In regards to DPP4, Virtual Rain was showing DPP3 in his video demo. I'm using DPP4 and find it to be a vast improvement over DPP3. In fact I feel it is only slightly behind Aperture in features, no brushes, but on a par in speed. For Canon users it may be just what we need as Aperture will not be updated forever. Probably not at all once Photos comes out.

 

[FredT2]

Just curious, but why do you need 4K screens? What happens if you switch back to regular screens? Hook up a cheap screen and see what happens. Any performance improvement? I mean, it might NOT be the 4K display on your setup... it might be a bad core, background process, or user/configuration error. Just saying....

There's no mystery here. As VirtualRain already stated, it's all about the number of pixels being worked on. If VirtualRain were to replace one of his 4K monitors with a TBD, for example, and put the develop window on it, performance would improve, at least in the case of Lightroom. We see the same thing on riMacs. The problem is not with the hardware, we just need better utilization of the hardware from the software.

 

[tgara]

In regards to DPP4, Virtual Rain was showing DPP3 in his video demo. I'm using DPP4 and find it to be a vast improvement over DPP3. In fact I feel it is only slightly behind Aperture in features, no brushes, but on a par in speed. For Canon users it may be just what we need as Aperture will not be updated forever. Probably not at all once Photos comes out.

Glad you got your issue sorted, and thanks for your impressions re: DPP4 vs. DPP3. Ever since Apple announced the demise of Aperture, I've been using DPP4 going forward. What I found initially was that it worked a lot better for me (in terms of image quality), probably due to the proprietary RAW converter. And it can interpret my custom Picture Style settings applied to my RAW files (Aperture can't do that!). Turns out that saves me a ton of PP work. True, DPP4 has no plugin capability, but that was never a big deal for me.

I've set up an entire Canon-based workflow (Canon 5D3, DPP4, and Pixma Pro-10 printer), and the whole shebang is working swimmingly! I'm getting better image output (screen and prints) than I ever got with Aperture. I will be sticking with this workflow for a while. The only thing I'll miss is the system integration with OSX. So, when I want to share photos, I'll have to manually export a few JPGs and add them to the iCloud Photo library in the new Photos app.

----------

There's no mystery here. As VirtualRain already stated, it's all about the number of pixels being worked on. If VirtualRain were to replace one of his 4K monitors with a TBD, for example, and put the develop window on it, performance would improve, at least in the case of Lightroom. We see the same thing on riMacs. The problem is not with the hardware, we just need better utilization of the hardware from the software.

Yep, agreed, the softwares have to be compatible with these new hi-rez screens. I'll likely get a retina iMac, but I'm going to wait until v.2 comes out. Apple does v.2 much better than v.1 IMHO. By then, I hope the softwares will have been brought up to date to handle it as well.

 

[VirtualRain]

In regards to DPP4, Virtual Rain was showing DPP3 in his video demo.

Glad you got your issue sorted, and thanks for your impressions re: DPP4 vs. DPP3.

FYI... I was using DPP4 in my video. (4.1.50).. not sure why you think it's v3... you can clearly see it's v4 in the menu bar.

 

[tgara]

FYI... I was using DPP4 in my video. (4.1.50).. not sure why you think it's v3... you can clearly see it's v4 in the menu bar.

Yes, I know. I saw that in your vid. Not sure why you think I thought it was v3.....

Oh, did I mentioned that DPP4 runs on my old machine much much faster than your new Mac Pro?

 

[VirtualRain]

Yes, I know. I saw that in your vid. Not sure why you think I thought it was v3.....



Oh, did I mentioned that DPP4 runs on my old machine much much faster than your new Mac Pro?

Haha... Yeah, just don't get a 4K display and expect to run it at full res without a performance impact.

 

[tgara]

Haha... Yeah, just don't get a 4K display and expect to run it at full res without a performance impact.

Seriously, thanks for the comparisons and other info you've provided in other threads here. It's all very helpful as we transition from Aperture to something else.

 

[VirtualRain]

Seriously, thanks for the comparisons and other info you've provided in other threads here. It's all very helpful as we transition from Aperture to something else.

Thanks... No worries. I'm doing a lot of research, might as well share it.

 

[VirtualRain]

I have to say, I tired the Photos beta last night and the it's performance is astoundingly good. I could zip the exposure slider back and forth as fast as I could and I couldn't see any lag in refreshing the preview on a 4K display. I was slapping the histogram from side to side so fast it looked comical. It makes Aperture look slow, which makes the other RAW converters look horrible.

I wish the folks at Phase One and Adobe would learn what Apple is doing and apply it to their own apps. Their performance is garbage in comparison.

 

[FredT2]

I wish the folks at Phase One and Adobe would learn what Apple is doing and apply it to their own apps. Their performance is garbage in comparison.

Well, I'm hoping that rumors prove to be correct and Adobe has found a way to boost performance in Lightroom 6, but I fear that it will be one of those "a little bit better" improvements.

 

[skaeight]

I have to say, I tired the Photos beta last night and the it's performance is astoundingly good. I could zip the exposure slider back and forth as fast as I could and I couldn't see any lag in refreshing the preview on a 4K display. I was slapping the histogram from side to side so fast it looked comical. It makes Aperture look slow, which makes the other RAW converters look horrible.

I wish the folks at Phase One and Adobe would learn what Apple is doing and apply it to their own apps. Their performance is garbage in comparison.

I agree with that.

For some reason I spent time installing the beta on my mac tonight, I guess hoping maybe I could after all this analysis somehow shoehorn Photos in as my DAM.

Unfortunately nope. The editing controls are just so basic. They appear to be good at what they do, but as we know it really is iPad Photos+. (Enabling the histogram isn't as bad as I had feared based on that DPreview post - you just go into the Adjust panel. It's there as long as you set it as part of your default set).

You just can't do anything beyond essentially basic exposure adjustments. One of the last photo sets I had done in aperture I came up with a custom washed out split tone look (subtle, not overdone) and I happened to pull those photos up in Photos and realized there is absolutely no way for me to do that in Photos.

A minor thing I just noticed is that it's not possible to see what the Aperture / Shutter Speed / ISO of a photo are while editing it (you have to click the info button, but this isn't available while you're editing). That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I don't necessarily mind that edits are modal, as I've gotten used to Lightroom, but it seems like information like that should be available while editing.

Noise reduction actually seems to be worse than the newer RAW block NR available in Aperture.

One positive I do see is that shadow adjustment does seem to be better than with Lightroom (it's able to pull more out) - this was also true with Aperture, that's something I've noticed that's lacking with Lightroom (I'm likely not quite doing something correctly though as I'm still learning).

So I think I have complete closure on this now. I'm still disappointed even though I'm fully transitioned to Lightroom. I guess part of me was still secretly holding out hope that this might work somehow. The bones of a decent application are here, so I'm going to completely dismiss the idea that this could become usable for me at some point, but it's a ways off.

 

[VirtualRain]

One positive I do see is that shadow adjustment does seem to be better than with Lightroom (it's able to pull more out) - this was also true with Aperture, that's something I've noticed that's lacking with Lightroom (I'm likely not quite doing something correctly though as I'm still learning).

Hmm... in the Capture One thread, I spent time exploring how the shadow recovery worked on this image in different apps including Aperture... and Photos appears to suffer the same flaw as Aperture in that pulling the shadows also pushes the highlights... See how the top of the church is way too bright now. It seems like exactly the same control... e.g. it still sucks.

The Definition slider is improved, but the sharpening is the same as the "Edge Sharpening" in Aperture which tends to introduce white artifacts on edges too early. Overall, I'd rate Photos very similar to Aperture which means by modern standards, it's just not able to measure up to Capture One.

 

[skaeight]

Hmm... in the Capture One thread, I spent time exploring how the shadow recovery worked on this image in different apps including Aperture... and Photos appears to suffer the same flaw as Aperture in that pulling the shadows also pushes the highlights... See how the top of the church is way too bright now. It still sucks.

I hadn't noticed that effect, I guess I was just looking at how powerful the adjustment was. From what your seeing Apple appears to be too aggressive with their shadow recovery, almost to the point where they're possibly blowing out highlights. So maybe Adobes doing it correctly then. :-/

I can't remember where I read this, but someone said Photos felt like it was designed without getting feedback from actual photographers. It really seems like this is the case. I just can't get over not being able to edit and see info about aperture, etc at the same time.

 

[VirtualRain]

I hadn't noticed that effect, I guess I was just looking at how powerful the adjustment was. From what your seeing Apple appears to be too aggressive with their shadow recovery, almost to the point where they're possibly blowing out highlights. So maybe Adobes doing it correctly then. :-/

I can't remember where I read this, but someone said Photos felt like it was designed without getting feedback from actual photographers. It really seems like this is the case. I just can't get over not being able to edit and see info about aperture, etc at the same time.

I've not spent much time with LR yet, but I will when LR6 drops.

You can assess what a shadow recovery slider is doing just by watching the histogram as you drag the slider. In Aperture (and Photos) the whole histogram moves... It's insane! I'm adjusting the SHADOWS FFS! LOL. In Capture One, only the very left half of the histogram moves... the way it should.

I think the art to a good shadow slider is leaving the darkest blacks dark while moving the mid-shadows lighter without affecting the upper midtones or highlights at all.

 

[v3rlon]

I can't remember where I read this, but someone said Photos felt like it was designed without getting feedback from actual photographers. It really seems like this is the case. I just can't get over not being able to edit and see info about aperture, etc at the same time.

I read that a lot of places, including this forum, but not by people who actually had their hands on it.

If the controls are that basic, even with drill down, that is disappointing. Apple advertised extensibility, so hopefully that delivers - and soon.

How is it as a DAM? Is a workflow like Photos to manage and something else to edit reasonable? I like what VirtualRain is saying about blazing speed, and easy integration with everything is convenient.

I have managed with Aperture so far, so "like Aperture" isn't the end of the world for me, but those C1Pro shots are really tempting.

 

[skaeight]

I read that a lot of places, including this forum, but not by people who actually had their hands on it.

If the controls are that basic, even with drill down, that is disappointing. Apple advertised extensibility, so hopefully that delivers - and soon.

How is it as a DAM? Is a workflow like Photos to manage and something else to edit reasonable? I like what VirtualRain is saying about blazing speed, and easy integration with everything is convenient.

I have managed with Aperture so far, so "like Aperture" isn't the end of the world for me, but those C1Pro shots are really tempting.

It's fine as DAM - that would actually be one of the reasons I'd consider it. It's considerably simpler than LR, which I don't see as a bad thing.

They do also have a few other things like vignetting and grain, but there just aren't a ton of other options for editing. More options than iPad Photos, but a lot less than Aperture (not sure how it compares to iPhoto - I haven't used this in a long time).

 

[VirtualRain]

How is it as a DAM? Is a workflow like Photos to manage and something else to edit reasonable? I like what VirtualRain is saying about blazing speed, and easy integration with everything is convenient.

Dude, it's freaking horrible.

It's the worst simpleton interface you can imagine. It feels like it's made for babies.

Sorry to be such a downer, but I had such high expectations for this and it's underwhelming by a mile.

I dragged that Church RAW above into Photos... it goes into the timeline to when it was taken so to find it, I had to figure out when that was taken and scroll way up to find it.

I then tried to create a couple of albums. You have to do that from the File menu... File > New Album there's no right-click interface. Then you choose what photos go in it. And then it's under your "Albums" tab along with all the system defined albums which include All Photos, Faces, Last Import, Favourites, Panoramas, Videos, Slo-mo, and Bursts (all from my iPhone). Photos had automatically created albums for "Eye-Fi" (presumably images I've imported from my DSLR via the Eye-fi card and "Instagram" which are images I've shared through Instragram when I used it.

Since I use my iPhone for taking photos of receipts on business trips, you can imagine how sexy my photo timeline looks

It reminds me of what iTunes was like back in 2005.

 

[skaeight]

Dude, it's freaking horrible.

It's the worst simpleton interface you can imagine. It feels like it's made for babies.

Sorry to be such a downer, but I had such high expectations for this and it's underwhelming by a mile.

I dragged that Church RAW above into Photos... it goes into the timeline to when it was taken so to find it, I had to figure out when that was taken and scroll way up to find it.

I then tried to create a couple of albums. You have to do that from the File menu... File > New Album there's no right-click interface. Then you choose what photos go in it. And then it's under your "Albums" tab along with all the system defined albums which include All Photos, Faces, Last Import, Favourites, Panoramas, Videos, Slo-mo, and Bursts (all from my iPhone). Photos had automatically created albums for "Eye-Fi" (presumably images I've imported from my DSLR via the Eye-fi card and "Instagram" which are images I've shared through Instragram when I used it.

Since I use my iPhone for taking photos of receipts on business trips, you can imagine how sexy my photo timeline looks

It reminds me of what iTunes was like back in 2005.

Ok, I hadn't actually tried to do any organization, just looked around a little bit at what was already there. That sounds awful. Never good when the more you look at something the worse it gets.

 

[v3rlon]

well that is depressing. So much for dodging the C1Pro expense at this rate.

Maybe Corel Aftershot will save me...

 

[VirtualRain]

Ok, I hadn't actually tried to do any organization, just looked around a little bit at what was already there. That sounds awful. Never good when the more you look at something the worse it gets.

well that is depressing. So much for dodging the C1Pro expense at this rate.

Maybe Corel Aftershot will save me...

Attached are a couple of screen shots showing the "Photos" tab and the "Albums" tab.

While you can't right-click anything in the "Photos" tab, you can right click and create a new album in the "Albums" tab.

But as you can see, this is literally my camera roll from my iPhone on my Mac. You can see where the RAW image of the church ended up... buried amongst a bunch of receipts from my travels. And another version of the Church which I screen captured today and dragged in, is the most recent photo.

Albums are pretty much as you'd expect, and you can have folders within folders, but there is no tree structure... the folders are implemented like iOS folders with thumbnails of the contents on the cover.

Oh, and "Faces" is fooled by halloween costumes... Not sure if that's a feature or a bug... LOL.