Lightroom and Oly

MikeyPhoto_digital · Apr 10, 2009

New to Olympus - E520 and E410, like using Lightroom2 and used to shoot RAW Nikon. With Oly it seems that, at least in LR2, Raw conversion is not up to the quality of JPEG. Also in LR I can non-destructively edit JPEG's and with careful exposure it does not seem there is much of an advantage shooting RAW.

Any opinions,

Thanks

travelfotografer · Apr 10, 2009

Like to hear your observations about "not up to the quality of JPEG". Do you mean Color, Sharpness, Noise, etc?

Did you try the different camera profiles in LR2? The most recent are the Adobe Standard Profiles. You can check what profile you are using under the Calibration Panel in the Develop Module.

MikeyPhoto_digital said:
With Oly it seems that, at least in LR2, Raw
conversion is not up to the quality of JPEG.

--
Leon . http://picasaweb.google.com/travelfotografer

E-3-420-330-1 918.1122.1260.1450'rit.25'lux.25.50.50200SWD 14.20.25 50R B+W FEISOL LEXAR

MikeyPhoto_digital · Apr 10, 2009

Have tried profiles in LR, profiles downloaded from this forum and various develop settings. JPEGS seem crisper with better colors, and just sl more noise artifact.

Godfrey · Apr 10, 2009

MikeyPhoto_digital said:
New to Olympus - E520 and E410, like using Lightroom2 and used to
shoot RAW Nikon. With Oly it seems that, at least in LR2, Raw
conversion is not up to the quality of JPEG. Also in LR I can
non-destructively edit JPEG's and with careful exposure it does not
seem there is much of an advantage shooting RAW.

I use LR2 to process all my RAW files. If your results in JPEG look crisper, it's purely a matter of how much sharpening and edge contrast you apply.

When I make RAW format exposures, I expect to customize the processing. I cannot process JPEGs with the flexibility that RAW files provides. But ... If the out of camera JPEGs meet your needs, why bother?
--
Godfrey - http://www.gdgphoto.com

Private Custard · Apr 10, 2009

travelfotografer said:
Did you try the different camera profiles in LR2? The most recent are
the Adobe Standard Profiles. You can check what profile you are using
under the Calibration Panel in the Develop Module.

I can't seem to locate the camera profiles, are they buried somewhere in the settings?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/private_custard/

Timskis6 · Apr 10, 2009

MikeyPhoto_digital said:
New to Olympus - E520 and E410, like using Lightroom2 and used to
shoot RAW Nikon. With Oly it seems that, at least in LR2, Raw
conversion is not up to the quality of JPEG. Also in LR I can
non-destructively edit JPEG's and with careful exposure it does not
seem there is much of an advantage shooting RAW.

I've found that with Lightroom I can mimic just about any color profile there is with minor adjustments. There no longer is an advantage to using Olympus Studio or relying on "OOC JPEG quality" - there simply is no benefit. I can achieve these colors inside LR using Adobe's profiles and/or minor color saturation/lumi changes.

If you find you are not able to do this, I believe it is a matter of practice and experience rather than an impossibility.

--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/E410/7-14/12-60/50-200/25/25/EC-14
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

Jeff Charles · Apr 10, 2009

Private Custard said:
...
I can't seem to locate the camera profiles, are they buried somewhere
in the settings?
...

They are at the top of the Camera Calibration panel.

zuikowesty · Apr 10, 2009

So it sounds like the OP used to shoot Nikon in RAW with LR, and is now using Oly RAW with LR. It also sounds like he found LR did a decent job with Nikon RAW (perhaps compared with Nikon OOC jpeg), but not so well with Oly RAW, compared with OOC jpeg. So, the question... is this an issue of LR Oly profiles not being as well tuned as LR Nikon profiles, or that Oly OOC jpeg engine is just that much better than Nikon's, or some combination of the two?

I have zero experience with Nikon RAW, and very little with their JPGs, so this is just speculation based on the OP, and what I've read. Being new to DSLRs in general, I have little to compare with, so don't really know if my E-410 RAWs are not being well processed by LR. As a long time darkroom guy, I switched to RAW very quickly though, and chose LR as it seems to have the power I need. But I am a long way from harnessing that power. I'm interested in seeing this thread develop, as I know there are more than a few skilled LR people here, Tim included.

--
Shawn Wright
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikowesty/

MikeyPhoto_digital · Apr 10, 2009

Shawn, you've hit the nail on the head. Oly JPEG's seem very good, much better than Nikon. Raw processing in LR2 struggles to match color and crispness, probably because camera profiles are not as up to date or sophisticated as those for Nikon and Canon. I have been doing some experimenting tonite and it seems that if you play with contrast, tone curve and split toning you can get results that are much better. When (and if) I find settings in LR that really seem to work I will try to post them.

Timskis6 · Apr 10, 2009

MikeyPhoto_digital said:
Shawn, you've hit the nail on the head. Oly JPEG's seem very good,
much better than Nikon. Raw processing in LR2 struggles to match
color and crispness, probably because camera profiles are not as up
to date or sophisticated as those for Nikon and Canon. I have been
doing some experimenting tonite and it seems that if you play with
contrast, tone curve and split toning you can get results that are
much better. When (and if) I find settings in LR that really seem to
work I will try to post them.

I'm a strong opponent of "one setting fits all" for post processing. If you're importing into LR and applying a camera profile, then exporting to JPEG, you're wasting your time with RAW. If you're importing into LR and applying a preset, then exporting to JPEG, you're likely wasting your time with RAW. For the former, the excellence of JPEG far outweighs the size and time applied to each RAW image. For the latter, there are batch processors far better than LR that can apply these presets faster and more efficiently to JPEGs. In both cases, RAW certainly isn't required.

Be sure to evaluate your shooting needs and determine if RAW is correct for you...

--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/E410/7-14/12-60/50-200/25/25/EC-14
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

Glen Barrington · Apr 10, 2009

In photography, people sometimes tend to do things because 'everyone' says they should rather than because it makes sense for them.
--
Mayonnaise on white bread, mmmmm!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://glenbarrington.smugmug.com/

Spadetown · Apr 11, 2009

Timskis6 said:
Be sure to evaluate your shooting needs and determine if RAW is
correct for you...
--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/E410/7-14/12-60/50-200/25/25/EC-14
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

--

That's what I'm trying to do at the moment. I've just moved up to an E-520 after a few years using a Canon G7 which didn't offer RAW, so I didn't have this decision to make. But now... should I shoot RAW because although I don't do much post processing, except levels and sharpening, I may wish to in the future as my experience grows... or stick with Oly JPGs which everyone seems to agree are excellent?

And if I decide on JPG I first have to find out which in camera settings I prefer.

Mmmm...

)

PeterNMIF · Apr 11, 2009

With the improvements in jpegs over the years, the difference between RAW and JPEG will diminish. In other words, the advantage of RAW would seem to me to get smaller over time. With Oly, the jpegs are known to have some of the biggest files sizes and least compression (Am I right about this?). Also, what I have been reading implies that fully knowing as Oly does that all things being equal the RAW from the 4/3 sensor will be noisier and less DR than an APS sized sensor, they have been putting their skills to work making the jpeg use as much information from the RAW as possible. Aren't reviewers finding, for example, that there is little headroom in the RAW files? Doesn't that mean that the jpeg is excellent? As a result, for jpeg shooters the "disadvanteages" of sthe slightly smaller sensor may not exist.

Peter F.

Denis de Gannes · Apr 11, 2009

If you had your raw files from three years ago you would be able to re-process them with the greatly improved raw conversion software now available.

Think about what will be available two years in the future.
--
Denis de Gannes

Day Hiker · Apr 11, 2009

Lots of thoughts in no particular order:

I used to shoot jpeg only (E-1). Then I started shooting raw and PP in Olympus Viewer. I noticed that I was applying some consistent corrections to the images. I learned from raw what my ideal settings on my E-1 should be as a starting point.

Olympus (and my Leica) jpegs are truly excellent.

Raw gives me ultimate opportunity to return to an image and milk it for all it's worth. That may be 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, but having the raw is nice. OTOH, with a processor like Lr, I can milk a jpeg for all it's worth non-destructively on the jpeg. Decisions, decisions.

I'm thinking that raw+jpeg is the way to go if memory card and disk space are not a concern. Those can be important "ifs" but there you are. And in Lr, you can automatically stack the two images, so image management is minimized.

Wait!!! What about white balance? I frequently fiddle with that. It seems to me that raw has a huge advantage there. Am I wrong?

--
Cheers,

Jim Pilcher
Colorado, USA

'It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see...' -- Henry David Thoreau

Bootstrap · Apr 11, 2009

When I started digital with my E-10 I was a JPEG hold-out for a long time simply because I was unable to find a raw converter that would give me images as good as the E-10's JPEGs. "Comedia" Master was a joke!

Then, these guys called Pixmantec offered a free raw converter called RawShooter essentials. As the price was right, I gave it a shot and was quite impressed with the interface and the results. In November '06, RawShooter Premium was released and sold to RSE users for next to nothing. I was hooked.

A few months later, Adobe purchased Pixmantec's intellectual property so as to include it in the upcoming Lightroom which was offered to RSP owners at no charge.
As of this time, I shoot 100% RAW/ORF. There's really no reason not to.

My Panasonic DMC-L1s do not offer a RAW only option so mine are set to the lowest quality JPEGs and I largely ignore them.

--
Bill Turner
Eschew Obfuscation, Espouse Elucidation
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Infrared Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131/ir_photos

Steven Wandy · Apr 11, 2009

When I started with Olympus DSLRs (the E10 and E1) I only shot JPEGs and was very happy.

When I got the E510 I was a bit disappointed in the blown highlights and read that if I shot RAW it was easier to maintain detail in highlights and shadows. But I was using LR and felt the resulting images were dull compared to the OOC JPEGs. That seems to be the nature of RAW files (especially if you are using LR/LR2). Since these files don't get the processing that the JPEGs get out of the camera, they usually need a bit of work. But as was stated - the RAW files give you more room to work with.
Keep at it - I am sure you will be glad you did.
Steve

Stu 5 · Apr 11, 2009

PeterNMIF said:
With the improvements in jpegs over the years, the difference between
RAW and JPEG will diminish. In other words, the advantage of RAW
would seem to me to get smaller over time. With Oly, the jpegs are
known to have some of the biggest files sizes and least compression
(Am I right about this?). Also, what I have been reading implies
that fully knowing as Oly does that all things being equal the RAW
from the 4/3 sensor will be noisier and less DR than an APS sized
sensor, they have been putting their skills to work making the jpeg
use as much information from the RAW as possible. Aren't reviewers
finding, for example, that there is little headroom in the RAW files?
Doesn't that mean that the jpeg is excellent? As a result, for jpeg
shooters the "disadvanteages" of sthe slightly smaller sensor may not
exist.

Peter F.

That is when you have a reviewer with not much understanding of how to process RAW files correctly to get the most out of them. RAW files are only as good as the person processing them. As for the gap closing between JPEG and RAW it is completely the opposite, the gap is widening all the time. You can do stuff with the latest version of Lightroom that was not even possible with Lightroom 1. There is more to photography than Olympus colours. It's like saying I am only going to shot with this brand of colour film and never use anything else.

Stu 5 · Apr 11, 2009

Steven Wandy said:
When I started with Olympus DSLRs (the E10 and E1) I only shot JPEGs
and was very happy.
When I got the E510 I was a bit disappointed in the blown highlights
and read that if I shot RAW it was easier to maintain detail in
highlights and shadows. But I was using LR and felt the resulting
images were dull compared to the OOC JPEGs. That seems to be the
nature of RAW files (especially if you are using LR/LR2). Since these
files don't get the processing that the JPEGs get out of the camera,
they usually need a bit of work. But as was stated - the RAW files
give you more room to work with.

The colours do not need to be dull. All the controls are in Lightroom, you just need to understand how to use them.

Steven Wandy said:
Keep at it - I am sure you will be glad you did.
Steve

Stu 5 · Apr 11, 2009

James Pilcher said:
Lots of thoughts in no particular order:

I used to shoot jpeg only (E-1). Then I started shooting raw and PP
in Olympus Viewer. I noticed that I was applying some consistent
corrections to the images. I learned from raw what my ideal settings
on my E-1 should be as a starting point.

Olympus (and my Leica) jpegs are truly excellent.

Raw gives me ultimate opportunity to return to an image and milk it
for all it's worth. That may be 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, but having the
raw is nice. OTOH, with a processor like Lr, I can milk a jpeg for
all it's worth non-destructively on the jpeg. Decisions, decisions.

I'm thinking that raw+jpeg is the way to go if memory card and disk
space are not a concern. Those can be important "ifs" but there you
are. And in Lr, you can automatically stack the two images, so image
management is minimized.

Wait!!! What about white balance? I frequently fiddle with that. It
seems to me that raw has a huge advantage there. Am I wrong?

No your not. Shooting RAW for this one reason is well worth it but you do need a good understand of WB to get the most out of it.

Day Hiker said:
--
Cheers,

Jim Pilcher
Colorado, USA

'It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see...' --
Henry David Thoreau

Lightroom and Oly

Member

Senior Member

Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts