ORF and working with them

[Mr. Pickles]

Okay all you 4/3 lovers. Read some "buzz" about the latest Bibble beta tha tis out. Supposedly a marked improvement with ORF files (except the E-500, which they are still receiving sample files for to re-fix).

Also know some of you use SillyPix. Some just use Viewer or Studio. Some still swear by RSP with or without the OlyColy (?) profile. I use Lightroom.

What do you use and why?

I don't do much tweaking at all, but do you do much tweaking to your ORF's using whatever?

[Max@Home]

ORF sounds like a sea lion, Orf! Orf! ...Canon may stink, but this smells fishy too

Max@Home

[Mr. Pickles]

Ha ha. Pretty funny. Has a nice DPR flair to it.

[Paul Shields]

As you probably know, I love Silkypix (version 3 has just come out and is even better) and have stopped looking around at other RAW editors. What I like about it is that it seems very true to preserving the Oly 'feel' (difficult to describe) a la Olympus Studio. I also really like it's noise processing, highlight control and sharpening algorithms. I'd give it a whirl if I were you. From memory I didn't like Bibble, but that was a while ago and maybe they've improved their ORF handling. Same with RSP. I have to say that ACR is very good with E-1 ORFs too - and the CS3 beta is probably the best yet. Choosing a RAW editor is such a personal thing though. If Olympus Studio didn't have the delay loop built into every action I'd probably just settle for that. Shame that we can't get everything in one package...

[Paul Shields]

One thing I've noticed with the various RAW editors is that they all handle blown highlights slightly differently. I've always liked the fine control in Silkypix which seems to work on the highlights without affecting other areas. ACR is also nice and simple in this area, using the recovery slider seems to do the trick. The images below were all processed with the standard ORF profiles. I selected the 'show highlights' option, which flashes any areas that exceed the gamut. It's then a simple matter of using the recovery option to reduce the highlights to a point where they aren't flashing.

There doesn't appear to be a dedicated control in Aperture for this (unless it's well hidden), but adjusting the exposure control seemed to do the trick - with the side affect of reducing the brightness of the whole image. You can also see subtle differences in colour between the various editors (though Lightroom and ACR are basically using the same engine). I'd even go as far to say that ACR seems to hold a bit more detail at this point, but none of these images have had any processing applied apart from highlight control so it's not in any way a definitive result. I'll post them anyway just for information .



Silkypix


ACR


Lightroom


Aperture

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by PaulS

...(though Lightroom and ACR are basically using the same engine)...

please note: this applies to Lightroom and ACR4.0 (found in the CS3beta) only! Both engines incorporate the (taken over) RSE/RSP software. Lightroom and ACR3.6 have very different engines!

...€0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

PS: nice image and fine examples, Mr. PaulS!

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

please note: this applies to Lightroom and ACR4.0 (found in the CS3beta) only! Both engines incorporate the (taken over) RSE/RSP software. Lightroom and ACR3.6 have very different engines!

...€0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

PS: nice image and fine examples, Mr. PaulS!

Ah, interesting points Max . These were processed with Lightroom beta 4 and ACR within CS3 (both using default profile 'ACR 2.4'). The 2.4 thing confuses me. Not sure if that indicates that it's using an old profile?

[Mr. Pickles]

Nice examples Paul.

Side by side (top and bottom in this case) I can see a teeny tiny difference in Sillypix to ACR. I think for this image ACR is a tack better. The ACR one is also a tiny bit darker overall. Can't tell a difference in the ACR and LR one, so both could be the same as you mentioned. The Aperture one is a "lot" darker than the others.

Of course, saying a "lot" darker isn't really what it sounds. All look good by themselves. And each is probably very capable. The beauty in each program is the ease at which it gets the results that match the real world. Of course, the results maybe different given a different photo too.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Nice examples Paul.

Side by side (top and bottom in this case) I can see a teeny tiny difference in Sillypix to ACR. I think for this image ACR is a tack better. The ACR one is also a tiny bit darker overall. Can't tell a difference in the ACR and LR one, so both could be the same as you mentioned. The Aperture one is a "lot" darker than the others.

Of course, saying a "lot" darker isn't really what it sounds. All look good by themselves. And each is probably very capable. The beauty in each program is the ease at which it gets the results that match the real world. Of course, the results maybe different given a different photo too.

Yes, I'm a bit disappointed that Aperture didn't seem to have any dedicated highlight recovery control and so affected the whole image - but I'll hold my hands up and say I've not really played with it so it could have that option and I've just overlooked it. In the end though I've never really had any problems with *any* RAW processors - at least as far as image quality goes. The differences are often down to performance (an important factor - CS3/ACR now really flies on a Mac ) and things like file management (something I've never really needed as I like to do that myself using good old fashioned file systems...).

[Mr. Pickles]

I find it a bit funny or disappointing that not many people seem to use Oly Viewer or Oly Studio...

[Max@Home]

Mr. Pickles,

...just for my uninformed brain, do these 2 software packages come with the Oly's or do you (like Nikon) have to buy them separately ?

If the first (they come with the Oly's) then indeed that is a bit funny, if they have to be bought separately, then maybe most people see more in buying a 'more GP editing application' like PS Elements or CS2 ?

And although funny: many Canon users have also totally forgotten they have received a copy of DPP with their cameras... the software that comes with the camera might be among the least opened and installed CD's ever

...just *my* €0.02 worth...

Max@Home

[Paul Shields]

Olympus Viewer comes with the camera. From memory, I think Studio was also shipped (at least with the E-1) but was time limited. It was certainly a purchasable option. Olympus Master is usually shipped these days, and does a reasonable job. I always found them too slow though, and when you could pick up PS Elements for half the cost of Studio it never seemed that good a deal. I see that Silkypix is shipped with the Panasonic L1 (their equivalent of the Olympus E-330), which is a good sign. I guess Olympus would prefer you to buy their own RAW converter though, so can't see them following suit.

[Mr. Pickles]

PaulS is right. Oly Viewer comes with it. Studio is extra, and more than $100 worth. Biggest gripe I have heard was it is slow. next is it lacks some "editing" features. Don't know why Olympus doesn't just stick a copy of Bibble or Sillypix in the box instead. Easy and cheap outsourcing solution. Give them $1 a copy or something. Good for both companies. I'm not in charge though.

I don't know why Canon users do not use DPP 2 however. I found it to be very accurate in colors, a nice interface and the speed was pretty good. I pretty good piece of software all around to me. Heaps (that means lots) better than Oly Viewer for sure.