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)
Quote Originally Posted by wetpixels View Post
......

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! .. 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! ) 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!

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