Olympus RAW

If I convert all my ORF files to Adobe digital negative raw files what will the downside be?

More RAW questions to follow when i can formulate them

many thanks
--
MichaelR

I don't see any downside..

On the upside: You're making your raw file "less proprietary" i.e. more portable for processing in other applications.

Michaelr205 said:

If I convert all my ORF files to Adobe digital negative raw files what will the downside be?

More RAW questions to follow when i can formulate them

many thanks
--
MichaelR

Click to expand...

The one and only downside I can think of is:

ORF files converted to DNG files can no longer be loaded into any Olympus software (to me, thats a SMALL sacrifice)..

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde

herebefore said:

ORF files converted to DNG files can no longer be loaded into any Olympus software (to me, thats a SMALL sacrifice)..

Click to expand...

An optional setting of Adobe DNG Converter lets you save the original ORF file within the DNG. Takes up more space, but you do have the option to extract and process the ORF directly later on.

Michaelr205 said:

If I convert all my ORF files to Adobe digital negative raw files what will the downside be?

Click to expand...

You will be exchanging one proprietary format* for another, with no guarantee that the DNG will be as useful as the ORF for a given purpose. Adobe have difficulty developing ORFs well, so they may have difficulty creating a DNG from the ORF.

* It is not a standard yet, so you may be better to wait until it is and Adobe release any revisions that may be required. (The format has undergone several revisions so far.)

If you do use DNG then I'd recommend you keep the ORFs as a backup.

I could not see any benefit from it in the past.

I think ORF can be viewed / processed in other RAW converters as well, whereas DNG in Adobe only. So it seems from one proprietary format you move to even more proprietary format and without any gain or benefit in the process. I would not do it if I were you.

--
- sergey

I agree. I don't see the point at all. It's a lot of faffing about for what might amount to zero benefit.

I think I'd only do it if I needed to open an ORF file in some software that happened to not support it, and even then it'd probably only be a file or two that needed it. Or you might need to do this if you've just bought a new model and nobody's updated for it yet - but don't forget that would include the Raw to DNG converter too!

I just have to wonder though, what gets lost in the translation? Think about it! Each Raw file is unique to each camera model, for a reason. Most people shoot Raw, or at least I do, in order to extract the maximum quality photo I can from that file. That means each Raw file format will be different for each camera, depending on the features and specifications of them. If you convert these to a single universal format, something has to be sacrificed.

FWIW, I haven't yet found an app that can't open my ORF files (they even open natively in Mac OSX), at least not as many as can't open a DNG.

--
Andy Hewitt

Sergey_Green said:

I think ORF can be viewed / processed in other RAW converters as well, whereas DNG in Adobe only. So it seems from one proprietary format you move to even more proprietary format and without any gain or benefit in the process. I would not do it if I were you.

Click to expand...

No, DNG is NOT a proprietary format.

Its specifications are public (you can actually download them) and the exploitation of the format is free without any need for for a licence (or fees). Adobe is even trying to get it under the control of the ISO body.

That's not the case for Olympus ORF format.. (undocumented for the public and requiring a licence)

Andy Hewitt said:

I agree. I don't see the point at all. It's a lot of faffing about for what might amount to zero benefit.

Click to expand...

That's debatable.. and I don't necessarily disagree with you.

Andy Hewitt said:

I think I'd only do it if I needed to open an ORF file in some software that happened to not support it, and even then it'd probably only be a file or two that needed it. Or you might need to do this if you've just bought a new model and nobody's updated for it yet - but don't forget that would include the Raw to DNG converter too!

I just have to wonder though, what gets lost in the translation? Think about it! Each Raw file is unique to each camera model, for a reason. Most people shoot Raw, or at least I do, in order to extract the maximum quality photo I can from that file. That means each Raw file format will be different for each camera, depending on the features and specifications of them. If you convert these to a single universal format, something has to be sacrificed.

Click to expand...

What you might loose is the metadata about camera settings inside the ORF file. I'm saying might because I don't know if it's still an issue today (you will have guessed that I'm not using DNG myself) : 5 years ago or so, I remember that Olympus was criticised by Adobe for encoding metadata in a "non-standard" way.

However, if you referring to the data related to the bit depth, that's unchanged between ORF and DNG. So don't worry about anything being sacrified at this level.

kermitG9 said:

Sergey_Green said:

I think ORF can be viewed / processed in other RAW converters as well, whereas DNG in Adobe only. So it seems from one proprietary format you move to even more proprietary format and without any gain or benefit in the process. I would not do it if I were you.

Click to expand...

No, DNG is NOT a proprietary format.

Its specifications are public (you can actually download them) and the exploitation of the format is free without any need for for a licence (or fees). Adobe is even trying to get it under the control of the ISO body.

That's not the case for Olympus ORF format.. (undocumented for the public and requiring a licence)

Click to expand...

It's been so long since I used anything other than Photoshop and Adobe Camera RAW to process my RAW files that I have never found a need to do research as to whether other third-party programs, such as Silkypix, Capture One, etc, a support the DNG format or not. For all I know everyone supports DNG, but I have not looked so cannot say for sure if that's right or not. If I were to ever want to change programs, I'd sure check it out first.

I've done a few conversions from ORG to DNG in the past when working newer camera files in older versions of Photoshop before upgrading and sure do not like to think I'd need or want to have to do that with every RAW file I captured.

kermitG9 said:

Andy Hewitt said:

I agree. I don't see the point at all. It's a lot of faffing about for what might amount to zero benefit.

Click to expand...

That's debatable.. and I don't necessarily disagree with you.

Click to expand...

That's why I use words like 'might' and 'if'

kermitG9 said:

kermitG9 said:

I think I'd only do it if I needed to open an ORF file in some software that happened to not support it, and even then it'd probably only be a file or two that needed it. Or you might need to do this if you've just bought a new model and nobody's updated for it yet - but don't forget that would include the Raw to DNG converter too!

I just have to wonder though, what gets lost in the translation? Think about it! Each Raw file is unique to each camera model, for a reason. Most people shoot Raw, or at least I do, in order to extract the maximum quality photo I can from that file. That means each Raw file format will be different for each camera, depending on the features and specifications of them. If you convert these to a single universal format, something has to be sacrificed.

Click to expand...

What you might loose is the metadata about camera settings inside the ORF file. I'm saying might because I don't know if it's still an issue today (you will have guessed that I'm not using DNG myself) : 5 years ago or so, I remember that Olympus was criticised by Adobe for encoding metadata in a "non-standard" way.

However, if you referring to the data related to the bit depth, that's unchanged between ORF and DNG. So don't worry about anything being sacrified at this level.

Click to expand...

Indeed, too many unknowns for me, and why I'd question whether this was a worthwhile option.

I wasn't trying to argue for or against DNG, but rather point out that there are too many unknowns. Also, why try to fix something if it's not broken?

--
Andy Hewitt

I shoot hundreds of pics every week along side Nokon and Cannon users and we are all asked to convert to DNG before turning in our images.

The meta-data stays with the DNG. All the info about the appature, shutter speed, lens, etc. come through fine.

Also I went back and selected a few thousand ORF files and did a massive conversion of all into DNG,

The computer had to work hard for a while, but it worked.

Adobe had promised to keep DNG as a standard far into the future.
--
Joe K
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_kinney/
E-5, E-3, 7-14,14-35,35-100,90-250,50mm Macro 1.4X, 2X

kermitG9 said:

Sergey_Green said:

I think ORF can be viewed / processed in other RAW converters as well, whereas DNG in Adobe only. So it seems from one proprietary format you move to even more proprietary format and without any gain or benefit in the process. I would not do it if I were you.

Click to expand...

No, DNG is NOT a proprietary format.

Click to expand...

Can the other RAW converters handle DNG? I do not know how it is now, but as I remember in the past it could only be opened with Adobe (which you have to buy first).

kermitG9 said:

Its specifications are public (you can actually download them) and the exploitation of the format is free without any need for for a licence (or fees). Adobe is even trying to get it under the control of the ISO body.

Click to expand...

And is written in black, but what is there for me?

kermitG9 said:

That's not the case for Olympus ORF format.. (undocumented for the public and requiring a licence)

Click to expand...

Is there free Photoshop somewhere, you know where?

--
- sergey

joekiney said:

I shoot hundreds of pics every week along side Nokon and Cannon users and we are all asked to convert to DNG before turning in our images.

Click to expand...

One shop that no-one heard about - new standard?

joekiney said:

The meta-data stays with the DNG. All the info about the appature, shutter speed, lens, etc. come through fine.

Click to expand...

Ok

joekiney said:

Also I went back and selected a few thousand ORF files and did a massive conversion of all into DNG,

The computer had to work hard for a while, but it worked.

Adobe had promised to keep DNG as a standard far into the future.

Click to expand...

Now, can you convert it back, if you need to? Or is it a one-way dead-end process?

--
- sergey

Gregm61 said:

..For all I know everyone supports DNG, but I have not looked so cannot say for sure if that's right or not. If I were to ever want to change programs, I'd sure check it out first.

Click to expand...

I know for a fact that CaptureNX does not. And since they are proprietary (Nikon) solution they do the conversion job the best. Why would I need ORF that works one way only? Now I understand this is not a Nikon forum, but is Olympus native software so bad that one should look elsewhere?

Gregm61 said:

I've done a few conversions from ORG to DNG in the past when working newer camera files in older versions of Photoshop before upgrading and sure do not like to think I'd need or want to have to do that with every RAW file I captured.

Click to expand...

Because your ORF files were not supported with the old Photoshop you decided to convert them to DNG. Now say there is a newer software that does the job better, can you now un-convert the same files back?

--
- sergey

Sergey_Green said:

Gregm61 said:

I've done a few conversions from ORG to DNG in the past when working newer camera files in older versions of Photoshop before upgrading and sure do not like to think I'd need or want to have to do that with every RAW file I captured.

Click to expand...

Because your ORF files were not supported with the old Photoshop you decided to convert them to DNG. Now say there is a newer software that does the job better, can you now un-convert the same files back?

Click to expand...

I converted using the format where the original ORF was embeded and could be pulled back. Never did many of them. Just enough to keep me occupied until I upgraded.

Sergey_Green said:

Gregm61 said:

..For all I know everyone supports DNG, but I have not looked so cannot say for sure if that's right or not. If I were to ever want to change programs, I'd sure check it out first.

Click to expand...

I know for a fact that CaptureNX does not. And since they are proprietary (Nikon) solution they do the conversion job the best. Why would I need ORF that works one way only? Now I understand this is not a Nikon forum, but is Olympus native software so bad that one should look elsewhere?

Click to expand...

I for one do not like the Olympus software much at all and think of it more as an external JPEG engine than a RAW converter and have no desire to do this convert to bloated TIFF file-thing and do more processing in something else I have read that some do in order to get a decent JPEG.

Just a couple of examples, Viewer has nothing similar to the recovery slider in ACR. It's possible to recover a decent amount of clipped highlights in ACR, but not at all in Viewer, the noise filtering is basically what your options are in-camera and you are locked into using one of the gradation options of normal, high, low or auto.....no tweeking it to what you want.....an external JPEG engine, that's it. The RAW converter in Olympus Viewer is something one could use to work out optimum in-camera JPEG settings because it mimics the in-camera parameters. If you want the ability to get everything out of an ORF file that's possible, Olympus software is not what you want to be using.

Before buying into Photoshop I was using Capture One LE and from what I recall now, Phase One did not support the DNG format back then either. Kept hearing they were going to eventually. Once I moved over to Photoshop I just put C1 out of my mind and never followed the programs' development to know if they ever did start supporting DNG or not.

Sergey_Green said:

joekiney said:

I shoot hundreds of pics every week along side Nokon and Cannon users and we are all asked to convert to DNG before turning in our images.

Click to expand...

One shop that no-one heard about - new standard?

Click to expand...

DNG is the only "standard" for RAW. It became absolutely the case when Canon dropped support for the RAWs from one of their early cameras from their own proprietary s/w. We all have to face the prospect of our favourite brand going to the wall. For goodness' sake, even IBM nearly went broke! AND it would have joined a very long list of "household name" companies that are no longer household names ...

Sergey_Green said:

Sergey_Green said:

The meta-data stays with the DNG. All the info about the appature, shutter speed, lens, etc. come through fine.

Click to expand...

Ok

Click to expand...

And it stays there through all 16 bit processing with any Adobe s/w. Even if you save the file as a PDF ... The loss of metadata during 16 bit processing is just one more reason I do not use the Olympus Studio/Master Viewer 1/2 s/w.

Sergey_Green said:

Sergey_Green said:

Also I went back and selected a few thousand ORF files and did a massive conversion of all into DNG,

The computer had to work hard for a while, but it worked.

Adobe had promised to keep DNG as a standard far into the future.

Click to expand...

Now, can you convert it back, if you need to? Or is it a one-way dead-end process?

Click to expand...

Yes, you can. The same program that creates the DNG file will extract the embedded RAW back to the exactly original RAW.

BUT only if the original RAW is embedded during conversion. I have only extracted the original a couple of times, but provides a further level of data protection. The same reason I shoot RAW + SHQ/LF JPEG. If the RAW should become corrupted (has happened twice to me); better to have a high quality JPEG as "backup" than lose the image altogether. Lady Luck determines that this sort of corruption always happens to the one file you need ... .

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

AFAIK you can't add keywords to the metadata on ORF files, although if anyone can point me at a half decent program which will I'll be very happy!

You can add keywords to the xmp metadata on DNG files, retaining the keywords when the files get moved around. Sidecar XMP files containing keywords are a poor alternative.

Sergey_Green said:

kermitG9 said:

Sergey_Green said:

I think ORF can be viewed / processed in other RAW converters as well, whereas DNG in Adobe only. So it seems from one proprietary format you move to even more proprietary format and without any gain or benefit in the process. I would not do it if I were you.

Click to expand...

No, DNG is NOT a proprietary format.

Click to expand...

Can the other RAW converters handle DNG? I do not know how it is now, but as I remember in the past it could only be opened with Adobe (which you have to buy first).

Click to expand...

Well I can list you a few applications: Corel Photopaint, ACDSEE, Irfanview .. even the freeware GIMP (Linux) supports it.

Sergey_Green said:

Sergey_Green said:

Its specifications are public (you can actually download them) and the exploitation of the format is free without any need for for a licence (or fees). Adobe is even trying to get it under the control of the ISO body.

Click to expand...

And is written in black, but what is there for me?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying there's anything for you.
I just gave the explanation why it was an open format.

Sergey_Green said:

Sergey_Green said:

That's not the case for Olympus ORF format.. (undocumented for the public and requiring a licence)

Click to expand...

Is there free Photoshop somewhere, you know where?

Click to expand...

I mentioned a few applications. Btw. to push it even further, Adobe is making the DNG SDK available to you free if you want to develop your own converter.. free of license fees. And this is valid for any software producer too.