Workspace (workflow/raw converter for Olympus) equivalent for Panasonic??

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
drj3 Forum Pro • Posts: 10,714
Re: Workspace (workflow/raw converter for Olympus) equivalent for Panasonic??

dunkreid wrote:

SrMi wrote:

dunkreid wrote:

LearningForeverIHope wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

LearningForeverIHope wrote:

Digital Dick wrote:

I'm no expert but I think a 16 bit Tiff contains all the data that is in the 16 bit raw file. Workspace doesn't appear to pull as much out of the shadows as LR. I should try opening a raw in Workspace and without processing it just save it out as a Tiff and then open the Tiff in LR to look for any differences with just opening the raw directly in LR.


I do not see how it will be possible to save a Raw in that workspace since it applies all the settings, with the exception of filters, that you made in camera.

But there is a heck of a lot more data in a 16 bit tiff compared to a jpeg,

True, true enough. Actually a raw file in MFT is only 12 bits deep. I wonder how and if that data is spread over the 16 bits of the TIFF or something else.

so that will allow more to be extracted with further post process edits before committing to a final jpeg.

All I meant is that the settings we choose in camera are applied by Workspace. That way the TIFF that we get is different from the raw file that we sent. Still plenty of data but not the same data.

What's the view on TIFF v DNG? If I'm required to convert my raw files into another format in order to have them readable by my old version of Lightroom I'm inclined to convert them to DNG because the DNG format will retain more info for headroom in both highlights and shadows than a TIFF.

Olympus Workspace won't export to DNG, therefore I'll skip it and use Adobe Raw converter instead.

Can you foresee any drawbacks to this approach?

In your case, DNG is a raw file, TIFF is not. You have more post-processing possibilities with DNG than with TIFF.

Eric Chan wrote:

A usual TIFF file that comes out the back end of a raw converter has already been rendered, i.e., it has been mapped to a standard color space, it has been tone mapped, white balancing has been done, etc. More technically, the image is output-referred.

...DNG is still scene-referred and can still benefit from many of the operations typically performed by a raw converter, such as white balance, the application of a camera color profile, HDR compositing, etc.

Excellent! Thanks for the response, which answers my query and partially that of the OP. There is quite a lot of fuzz and noise and lack of clarity, so to speak, on the web on raw, tiff and dng, so this is really helpful.


Adobe RAW converter or DNG can recover more highlights than the 16 bit tiff file from WS.

My problem with the Adobe defaults for the Olympus E-M1.2 is that the colors are not accurate. It is too RED and I do not want to try to color correct files. Therefore I use Abode for those files where I want to recover highlights and WS to tiff for everything else.

See the attached image. Exported from LR with just the Olympus camera defaults with two modifications. Noise = Low and Keep Warn Color Turned On. I would expect this to produce a warmer file than the Abobe LR conversion of the RAW file, but it does not.

I could easily adjust the Adobe file to look the same in sharpness etc., but I cannot easily correct the colors. The Adobe colors for the wood, the dead flower stems, the grass are all too red/brown and not very good, the Olympus colors are accurate.

The WS file is on the left.

-- hide signature --


 drj3's gear list:drj3's gear list
Olympus E-510 Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus E-M1 II +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow