Reading mode: Light Dark

RAW Software Makes a Big Difference

Go to last post
L

Landscapephoto99

Veteran Member
Messages
3,176
Solutions
1
Reaction score
870
Location
US
The RAW processing software makes a big difference in the quality of the JPEG or TIFF output. I downloaded the E-30 files ISO 1600 and 3200 ones of the black door, then processed them in different software. Raw Therapee and Silkypix did a great job. ISO 1600 looked fine with maybe a touch of NR to make it even better. Even 3200 looked very usable.

This seems different from what I have read about experiences of people here converting these files with ACR. Is this a general problem of converting ORF files or is just because E-30 is new?

I guess it shouldn't matter to me, but since so many people use Lightroom or some other form of Adobe it seems like it would be a concern for Olympus users.
 
Noise reduction is one of the weakest areas of ACR/Lightroom, and quite frankly a disgrace. For high-ISO images that aren't downsized substantially (for the web, for instance), I turn off all noise reduction in LR 2.1 and then run the files it outputs through Noiseware -- it does a much better job.
 
--

I had noise reduction turned off, at least I think I did, for Silkypix and Raw Therapee and they gave me great RAW conversion of the E-30 files.

Maybe it is because Adobe needs more time to develop the conversion algorithms. But then why does the software of a small company like Raw Therapee and Silkypix do a great job before the E-30 has even come out? Maybe all ORF flies work?

I wonder, is Adobe the same with CaNikon cameras or do they just neglect to spend as much time on the smaller market share cameras?
 
Adobe doesn't allocate the same resources to the "lesser" camera manufacturers, as evidenced by the fact that support for non-Canon, non-Nikon cameras is slim or non-existant in the Adobe Standard profiles. The Olympus cameras are lucky to have one profile, whereas the Canon and Nikon cameras usually have a full compliment that match their various scene modes.
 
But with every other 4/3rds camera I've used I can get better results out of ACR/CS3 (or Lightroom) than anything else I've tried. I got Silkypix with the G1 and thus far I think it's a pile of junk.

So yes, the software matters! If the software is so bad that it just gets in your way then it really matters quite a lot.

Regards,
Oly

--



http://www.pbase.com/olyinaz
 
--

Silkypix is definitely slower (not a bulk processor) but the results are great and I certainly wouldn't call it a pile of junk. Imaging Resource found it pulled a full extra 1 stop of DR from RAW files over ACR conversion for the Panasonic G1.

That's what led me to start making comparisons myself. Raw Therapee is nice too though it doesn't have all the features of Adobe, Silkypix or Lightzone.
 
I believe the SilkyPix software you get with your camera is the free version and does not have all the advanced options. Have a look here to see all the options that are available with the full version of the software.

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/products/ds3/function/
Olyinaz said:
But with every other 4/3rds camera I've used I can get better results
out of ACR/CS3 (or Lightroom) than anything else I've tried. I got
Silkypix with the G1 and thus far I think it's a pile of junk.

So yes, the software matters! If the software is so bad that it just
gets in your way then it really matters quite a lot.

Regards,
Oly

--



http://www.pbase.com/olyinaz
Click to expand...
--
Denis de Gannes
 
I'm using the 3.0SE version of Silkypix which was a free upgrade from the version that came with my Panasonic. It is a full version, with no limitations that I am aware of. I also use Lightroom and the newest beta version of Raw Therapee. For what it's worth, my real world evaluation of the programs, which consisted of making identical prints from each program, using Qimage as my printer interface, and then showing them to various "average" viewers, revealed a strong preference for Raw Therapee followed by Silkypix, with Lightroom last. That was my reaction, as well. I think the determining factor is color rendition. I also think that spending time tweaking the programs would probably result in similar results from all three. But, Lightroom is certainly lagging in the area of noise reduction, and requires the use of a third party program for that. Too bad, because I prefer the Lightroom interface to that of the others. That being said, I can live with any of them.

Don
--
ingda
 
I've used all three of those, and now vastly prefer Lightroom. But they all have a learning curve, and it's not easy to make comparisons. Lightroom 2 has remarkably easy and effective dodge and burn tools that I've come to find very helpful. And I think the noise control works quite well on moderately noisy images. Usually if I see noise, raising the luminance noise slider to 25 or 30 really removes it without detail consequences.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK
 
.. obviates the need for noise reduction processing to a great degree. I shoot a lot of low light and almost never use noise reduction.

G
 
Of the converters I use regularly I would rate on a 1-10 scale as follows.

Olympus Master: User Frendly; 4 _ Speed; 5 - Conversion Quality; 9 - Options provided; 5

Lightroom: User Frendly; 8 _ Speed; 7.5 - Conversion Quality; 8.5 - Options provided; 9

SilkyPix: User Frendly; 7 _ Speed; 8 - Conversion Quality; 9 - Options provided; 8.5

Bibble: User Frendly; 7.5 _ Speed; 8.5 - Conversion Quality; 9 - Options provided; 8

Denis de Gannes --
Denis de Gannes
 
Bibble Pro's current interface is nothing to brag about, but version 5, due out soon, is a complete makeover, both in speed and interface.

I like its results. It has a thriving plug-in community as well. Plus the batch processing is not bad. It's price is close to something like Lightroom, but it produces nice images. Lens correction is another good feature it has as well.

--
Allan Crowson
 
I fully agree with your rating. I have to say that the results of development is not consistent. I shot picture at the latest Poznan marathon and tried to develop my pics with Lightroom. Default settings gave so unpredictable results that one could think that the pictures were taken by two different photographers in completely different shooting conditions. Of course, one could adjust all the settings manually. The thing is that neither Silkypix nor Olympus Studio give such unpredictable results.

PS The results are even worse with latest ACR with new development profiles. Maybe I will upload the RAW files and the development results to prove my words.

--
Smena 8M---> Practica LTL---> Minolta XTsi---> Fuji S6500fd---> Olympus E-420
 
It took me several weeks of using Lightroom with many dozens of photos to get results as good or better than I could in Master, Bibble or Silkypix. The default setting is very conservative and shows you a dull photo. Once I did get used to how to use it, I can't see giving up its raw dodge and burn capability, which works wonderfully, in addition to its library management.
Przemek Sperling said:
I fully agree with your rating. I have to say that the results of
development is not consistent. I shot picture at the latest Poznan
marathon and tried to develop my pics with Lightroom. Default
settings gave so unpredictable results that one could think that the
pictures were taken by two different photographers in completely
different shooting conditions. Of course, one could adjust all the
settings manually. The thing is that neither Silkypix nor Olympus
Studio give such unpredictable results.

PS The results are even worse with latest ACR with new development
profiles. Maybe I will upload the RAW files and the development
results to prove my words.

--
Smena 8M---> Practica LTL---> Minolta XTsi---> Fuji S6500fd---> Olympus
E-420
Click to expand...
--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK
 
This is nothing new, though somewhat depends on your tastes. I found the only acceptable raw converters for the E-1 were Silky Pix and Studio, and Studio had superior dynamic range. ACR was poor and Bibble and RawShooter were completely aweful.
Landscapephoto99 said:
This seems different from what I have read about experiences of
people here converting these files with ACR. Is this a general
problem of converting ORF files or is just because E-30 is new?
Click to expand...
--
dgrogers

http://www.pbase.com/drog
 
...why anyone would even consider the default settings in ACR.

At any rate, to each his own. Of all the RAW developers I've tried I can consistently get better results from ACR developing into Photoshop CS3 Extended than any other but again, that's just me and perhaps it's because I've spent many many hours fidgeting with it in order to divine the tricks that seem to work for me. I'm sure the other programs all work for those who take the time to learn them but I just have to say that to me Silkypix was terrible.

Now Lightzone looks to me to be a quality program, I've just not put any time into using it.

I will also say that Studio and Master at least do work - the output looks like something your camera would have produced and that's not a bad thing given how utterly competent the Olympus JPEG engine is. They're just horribly slow and buggy (in Vista) so I wont waste time on them when Photoshop works so well.

Regards,
Oly

--



http://www.pbase.com/olyinaz
 
... LR does a good job, but not with .orf. And I've done the complete Beta Test of 1-4 and the Beta of LR2.

Aperture gets the colors with far less effort.

The other very good RAW converter is Capture One in my point of view.

Timi

--
iThink, therefore iMac
 
I really liked the aperture interface and the possibility to use plugins (2.1 version?), however, got really mixed (unrepetable) results with different files, good detail tough, atleast sometimes... It's propably me and my way, as many seem to get outstanding results whatever prog they're using...I find myself using bridge to rpp(rawphotoprocessor) exclusively, rpp changed the whole way of working with and seeing orf's for me. The author recently modified e-510 profile, love the new yellows, which allways were allways difficut for me to get right..

Anders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top