![]() They mostly are different! The Adobe profiles for Oly raw files have improved with every version of LR (I started using LR with LR 3), but they're still not perfect. It lets me directly compare what the Oly jpeg looks like and what LR suggests the shot should look like based on the ORF. I import raw + jpeg into LR, since I shoot both. I would use Olympus Viewer but it is painfully slow. If I am not wrong under the hood of LR or DNG is the same engine.įor those who like to do "plumbing" work - tweak the conversion to their taste you can experiment with Adobe Camera Profile Editor. What isn't clear to me is whether Lightroom uses the same algorithm for reading and loading the RAW image content for editing as it does for DNG conversion. If you don't convert to DNG, then the editing information for the RAW file is stored in the Lightroom catalog. I believe Lightroom puts out frequent updates to incorporate the ability to handle new file formats, so if you can't open a particular type, it might just be an update issue.ĭNG is a separate file format that includes a lot of metadata about how the image content was edited. I used Lightroom 4.4 with my E-5M and it handles ORF files fine. The comments at the bottom are quite telling. Here is an interesting article comparing Lightroom 5 to Viewer 3. Haslo: I would be very interested to see if Lightroom 5 offers any improvements to ORF files when importing directly. My understanding is that RAW files imported into Lightroom are converted to DNG for further processing, though I could be wrong on this. Rick Bolin: What specific version of Lightroom 4 do you use (and perhaps which Olympus)? I always thought 4.x could not open ORF files (at least for a EM-1) - I know Lightroom 5 can do this. Otherwise, I might just be the one who tries it out :P If anybody thus wants to do this comparison between Lightroom and Olympus Viewer conversion, I'd be very interested. Like Rick Bolin, so far, I almost exclusively used Lightroom to convert ORF files directly to the output formats, or to TIF when doing further processing with Photoshop or Photomatix. I'll look into whether I see enough of a difference between Lightroom 5 and Olympus Viewer to go through the additional hassle of using a separate RAW converter. I only recently got a camera again (my E-M5 was stolen, then I didn't have a camera for half a year, and now I got an E-M1) - so it' time to re-evaluate my workflow anyway. Rick Bolin edited this topic 91 months ago. Unfortunately, I deleted Olympus Viewer from my system, but would certainly re-installed it again if I thought it was worth it. tiff without making any edits, that would be a valid comparison. I guess if you were to open an ORF file in both Lightroom and Olympus Viewer and save it as a. I understand the advantages of converting to DNG, but I don't really see the need, given the software I use. I typically leave my RAW files in native ORF format and use Lightroom 4 to edit because Olympus Viewer is so damn slow. I'd be interested in knowing how Lightroom compares to Olympus Viewer 3. In Window I prefer DxO - can use on files from most camera faster and with Lens correction done auto. ![]() These 2 open source software may not be as good as Viewer 3 but good enough for me with my limited requirements. I convert RAW files either from Digikam or Rawtherapee. May be there are ways to tweak the DNG but I am not technical savvy to know. I never get good result from DNG converter whether the Adobe windows version or DNG in lunix platform. I am curious if anyone else shared these experiences! I did some experiments with Olympus Viewer 3 compared to Adobe DNG Converter as applied to RAW files from my EM-1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |