Reading mode: Light Dark

Best workflow for Oly M43 images.

Go to last post
Regor250

Regor250

Veteran Member
Messages
8,214
Solutions
2
Reaction score
7,027
Location
Victoria BC, CA
I have started a quest to determine what workflow works best on my Olympus RAW files. I have another discussion thread going under M43 (see M43 discussion ) with image examples, but thought to seek feedback from this thread also.

For the longest time, my typical workflow has been: Oly Workspace --> TIFF/JPEG --> Denoise AI --> Sharpen AI --> Editing. However having recently acquired ACDSee Ultimate 2021 for its DAM capability, I noticed more details in my images processing the initial RAW out of ACDSee; quite significantly more actually. The down side is that ACDSee does not have lens correction data for my 12-45/4, and currently only Oly Workspace gives me that. I downloaded DxO 4 hoping to get the same level of details as I do with the ACDSee workflow AND lens correction but so far the result has been disappointing (see M43 discussion above for examples) and not better than what I get from Oly Workspace workflow. I am therefore wondering if anyone else has gone through the same quest and willing to share his/her observations. I tried turning off all NR in OlyW and DxO, still can't achieve nearly the same level of details as I do with ACDSee.
 
irv00 said:
rogerstpierre said:
I have started a quest to determine what workflow works best on my Olympus RAW files. I have another discussion thread going under M43 (see M43 discussion ) with image examples, but thought to seek feedback from this thread also.
Click to expand...
I have an EM-1 Mark II and use LR/PS with great results.
Click to expand...
Olympus lens profiles are conspicuously absent from Adobe listing https://helpx.adobe.com/ca/camera-raw/kb/supported-lenses.html can LR/PS get it from ORF metadata?

--
Roger
 
Last edited:
rogerstpierre said:
The down side is that ACDSee does not have lens correction data for my 12-45/4,
Click to expand...
hard to believe that in 2021 Anno Domini we have a converter like ACDSee that still can't read the optics correction data that Olympus embeds in raw files since a long time ago ... however if it is true you can always either use Adobe DNG Converter or Iridient X-Transformer to get ORF to DNG... if ACDSee is still impotent to read & apply optics correction data based from publicly available DNG standard from Adobe then bake the correction in using for example XTransformer to generate a linear DNG file...
 
rogerstpierre said:
irv00 said:
rogerstpierre said:
I have started a quest to determine what workflow works best on my Olympus RAW files. I have another discussion thread going under M43 (see M43 discussion ) with image examples, but thought to seek feedback from this thread also.
Click to expand...
I have an EM-1 Mark II and use LR/PS with great results.
Click to expand...
Olympus lens profiles are conspicuously absent from Adobe listing https://helpx.adobe.com/ca/camera-raw/kb/supported-lenses.html
Click to expand...
because Olympus provides those "profiles" in their raw files for all raw converters to use... so ACR/LR simply use that embedded information ... RTFM (the link is on that same page... bother to read = https://helpx.adobe.com/ca/x-productkb/multi/lens-profile-support.html )

PS: ditto Panasonic, Sony, Fuji... that all started with Panasonic which has the distinction of the company that forced Adobe to update DNG standard to reflect optics correction date embedded in raw files !
 
Last edited:
dp20210116 said:
rogerstpierre said:
The down side is that ACDSee does not have lens correction data for my 12-45/4,
Click to expand...
hard to believe that in 2021 Anno Domini we have a converter like ACDSee that still can't read the optics correction data that Olympus embeds in raw files since a long time ago ... however if it is true you can always either use Adobe DNG Converter or Iridient X-Transformer to get ORF to DNG... if ACDSee is still impotent to read & apply optics correction data based from publicly available DNG standard from Adobe then bake the correction in using for example XTransformer to generate a linear DNG file...
Click to expand...
That is what I was just thinking. XTransformer (according to Iridient web site) converts Fujifilm's proprietary RAF image data to the openly specified DNG image format, how does that works with Olympus ORF files?... [Addendum] Oh never mind, they have OTransformer for ORF. Tx for the tip I'll give that a try.

I'll try the DNG route to see if that works, failing that I'll raise a change request with ACDSee, meanwhile I might give LR a try to see if that's any better; not keen about the subscription model though but might have to bite the bullet.

--
Roger
 
Last edited:
rogerstpierre said:
I have started a quest to determine what workflow works best on my Olympus RAW files. I have another discussion thread going under M43 (see M43 discussion ) with image examples, but thought to seek feedback from this thread also.

For the longest time, my typical workflow has been: Oly Workspace --> TIFF/JPEG --> Denoise AI --> Sharpen AI --> Editing. However having recently acquired ACDSee Ultimate 2021 for its DAM capability, I noticed more details in my images processing the initial RAW out of ACDSee; quite significantly more actually. The down side is that ACDSee does not have lens correction data for my 12-45/4, and currently only Oly Workspace gives me that. I downloaded DxO 4 hoping to get the same level of details as I do with the ACDSee workflow AND lens correction but so far the result has been disappointing (see M43 discussion above for examples) and not better than what I get from Oly Workspace workflow. I am therefore wondering if anyone else has gone through the same quest and willing to share his/her observations. I tried turning off all NR in OlyW and DxO, still can't achieve nearly the same level of details as I do with ACDSee.
Click to expand...
This is an example of the difference between embedded lens correction (=jpg) as used by Adobe etc and DXO which measures the lens correction in their own labs. Olympus 12-100mm Pro lens:



DXO
DXO



Adobe
Adobe

This is at 12mm, notice the increased FOV when using DXO.

Ian
 
rogerstpierre said:
irv00 said:
rogerstpierre said:
I have started a quest to determine what workflow works best on my Olympus RAW files. I have another discussion thread going under M43 (see M43 discussion ) with image examples, but thought to seek feedback from this thread also.
Click to expand...
I have an EM-1 Mark II and use LR/PS with great results.
Click to expand...
Olympus lens profiles are conspicuously absent from Adobe listing https://helpx.adobe.com/ca/camera-raw/kb/supported-lenses.html can LR/PS get it from ORF metadata?
Click to expand...
Lightroom has built-in profiles for Olympus M4/3.

Check this thread:

Solved: Olympus lens profiles in Lightroom? - Adobe Support Community - 9650312

More info here:

Can't Find Olympus in Lightroom CC's Lens Correction Module: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
 
Last edited:
rogerstpierre said:
dp20210116 said:
rogerstpierre said:
The down side is that ACDSee does not have lens correction data for my 12-45/4,
Click to expand...
hard to believe that in 2021 Anno Domini we have a converter like ACDSee that still can't read the optics correction data that Olympus embeds in raw files since a long time ago ... however if it is true you can always either use Adobe DNG Converter or Iridient X-Transformer to get ORF to DNG... if ACDSee is still impotent to read & apply optics correction data based from publicly available DNG standard from Adobe then bake the correction in using for example XTransformer to generate a linear DNG file...
Click to expand...
That is what I was just thinking. XTransformer (according to Iridient web site) converts Fujifilm's proprietary RAF image data to the openly specified DNG image format, how does that works with Olympus ORF files?... [Addendum] Oh never mind, they have OTransformer for ORF. Tx for the tip I'll give that a try.
Click to expand...
right... as I am using it only for Fuji I automatically typed XTransformer... but as u already saw they have the same stuff for Olympus, which is indeed called OTransformer :-) ... mea culpa !
 
IanYorke said:
rogerstpierre said:
I have started a quest to determine what workflow works best on my Olympus RAW files. I have another discussion thread going under M43 (see M43 discussion ) with image examples, but thought to seek feedback from this thread also.

For the longest time, my typical workflow has been: Oly Workspace --> TIFF/JPEG --> Denoise AI --> Sharpen AI --> Editing. However having recently acquired ACDSee Ultimate 2021 for its DAM capability, I noticed more details in my images processing the initial RAW out of ACDSee; quite significantly more actually. The down side is that ACDSee does not have lens correction data for my 12-45/4, and currently only Oly Workspace gives me that. I downloaded DxO 4 hoping to get the same level of details as I do with the ACDSee workflow AND lens correction but so far the result has been disappointing (see M43 discussion above for examples) and not better than what I get from Oly Workspace workflow. I am therefore wondering if anyone else has gone through the same quest and willing to share his/her observations. I tried turning off all NR in OlyW and DxO, still can't achieve nearly the same level of details as I do with ACDSee.
Click to expand...
This is an example of the difference between embedded lens correction (=jpg) as used by Adobe etc and DXO which measures the lens correction in their own labs. Olympus 12-100mm Pro lens:... , notice the increased FOV when using DXO.

Ian
Click to expand...
The "increased" field of view with DxO would be because of a lack of distortion correction. This particular image does not make it obvious, but when correcting the geometry part of the image is lost. The size of the FOV can never be increased, it is what it is, but rather decreased by the inevitable cropping necessary after correcting the geometry, therefore some how DxO didn't apply the correction in this case, also the two images have different aspect ratio.

--
Roger
 
Last edited:
rogerstpierre said:
dp20210116 said:
rogerstpierre said:
The down side is that ACDSee does not have lens correction data for my 12-45/4,
Click to expand...
hard to believe that in 2021 Anno Domini we have a converter like ACDSee that still can't read the optics correction data that Olympus embeds in raw files since a long time ago ... however if it is true you can always either use Adobe DNG Converter or Iridient X-Transformer to get ORF to DNG... if ACDSee is still impotent to read & apply optics correction data based from publicly available DNG standard from Adobe then bake the correction in using for example XTransformer to generate a linear DNG file...
Click to expand...
That is what I was just thinking. XTransformer (according to Iridient web site) converts Fujifilm's proprietary RAF image data to the openly specified DNG image format, how does that works with Olympus ORF files?... [Addendum] Oh never mind, they have OTransformer for ORF. Tx for the tip I'll give that a try.

I'll try the DNG route to see if that works, failing that I'll raise a change request with ACDSee, meanwhile I might give LR a try to see if that's any better; not keen about the subscription model though but might have to bite the bullet.
Click to expand...
The Adobe DNG conversion works, tx for the tip. Interestingly enough it converted the focal length to FF equivalent! Iridient DNG conversion is also nice, sharper when all NR is set to none. It also preserves the FL. I might buy it after some more testing on different files. Both converters handle CA removal slightly differently so I have to see a few cases before I decide if it is worth the cost.
 
I have been using ACDSee (Professional) with Oly RAWs for a few years. I get by with the general correction tools. Obviously lens specific tools would be better, but my results are good enough for me.

Welcome to ACDSee. And don't completely right off their preset Actions (with browser).

Kelly Cook
 
rogerstpierre said:
IanYorke said:
rogerstpierre said:
I have started a quest to determine what workflow works best on my Olympus RAW files. I have another discussion thread going under M43 (see M43 discussion ) with image examples, but thought to seek feedback from this thread also.

For the longest time, my typical workflow has been: Oly Workspace --> TIFF/JPEG --> Denoise AI --> Sharpen AI --> Editing. However having recently acquired ACDSee Ultimate 2021 for its DAM capability, I noticed more details in my images processing the initial RAW out of ACDSee; quite significantly more actually. The down side is that ACDSee does not have lens correction data for my 12-45/4, and currently only Oly Workspace gives me that. I downloaded DxO 4 hoping to get the same level of details as I do with the ACDSee workflow AND lens correction but so far the result has been disappointing (see M43 discussion above for examples) and not better than what I get from Oly Workspace workflow. I am therefore wondering if anyone else has gone through the same quest and willing to share his/her observations. I tried turning off all NR in OlyW and DxO, still can't achieve nearly the same level of details as I do with ACDSee.
Click to expand...
This is an example of the difference between embedded lens correction (=jpg) as used by Adobe etc and DXO which measures the lens correction in their own labs. Olympus 12-100mm Pro lens:... , notice the increased FOV when using DXO.

Ian
Click to expand...
The "increased" field of view with DxO would be because of a lack of distortion correction. This particular image does not make it obvious, but when correcting the geometry part of the image is lost. The size of the FOV can never be increased, it is what it is, but rather decreased by the inevitable cropping necessary after correcting the geometry, therefore some how DxO didn't apply the correction in this case, also the two images have different aspect ratio.
Click to expand...
I see where you are coming from but the original pixels are the ones recorded on the camera sensor which determine the lenses FOV and the crop gives you 12mm.

The jpg correction embedded in the raw file does include a crop as part of the lens corrections. The FOV after crop corresponds to the quoted focal length of 12mm. Therefore the lenses true focal length is wider than the quoted focal length. DXO's optical corrections are superior to the jpg corrections and allow distortion free access to the true focal length/FOV. There is an option to retain aspect ratio or not. User choice.

Ian
 
Last edited:
Regor250 said:
The "increased" field of view with DxO would be because of a lack of distortion correction. This particular image does not make it obvious, but when correcting the geometry part of the image is lost. The size of the FOV can never be increased, it is what it is, but rather decreased by the inevitable cropping necessary after correcting the geometry, therefore some how DxO didn't apply the correction in this case, also the two images have different aspect ratio.
Click to expand...
Really?
Here are some examples:

SOOC JPEG - just resized
SOOC JPEG - just resized

DXO processed RAW wthout distortion correction
DXO processed RAW wthout distortion correction

DXO processed RAW with distortion correction (without keeping aspect ratio)
DXO processed RAW with distortion correction (without keeping aspect ratio)

DXO processed RAW with distortion correction and keep aspect ratio checked
DXO processed RAW with distortion correction and keep aspect ratio checked
 
rogerstpierre said:
I have started a quest to determine what workflow works best on my Olympus RAW files. I have another discussion thread going under M43 (see M43 discussion ) with image examples, but thought to seek feedback from this thread also.

For the longest time, my typical workflow has been: Oly Workspace --> TIFF/JPEG --> Denoise AI --> Sharpen AI --> Editing. However having recently acquired ACDSee Ultimate 2021 for its DAM capability, I noticed more details in my images processing the initial RAW out of ACDSee; quite significantly more actually. The down side is that ACDSee does not have lens correction data for my 12-45/4, and currently only Oly Workspace gives me that. I downloaded DxO 4 hoping to get the same level of details as I do with the ACDSee workflow AND lens correction but so far the result has been disappointing (see M43 discussion above for examples) and not better than what I get from Oly Workspace workflow. I am therefore wondering if anyone else has gone through the same quest and willing to share his/her observations. I tried turning off all NR in OlyW and DxO, still can't achieve nearly the same level of details as I do with ACDSee.
Click to expand...
I've had a quick look at that thread, and don't think you provided access to the raw file. It would be helpful if you could do so (using something like Dropbox), so some of us can see what we can do with PhotoLab on it.

Also for comparison, please upload the full-size JPEG you're happiest with, produced using any other tool(s), so we can compare them.
 
rogerstpierre said:
IanYorke said:
rogerstpierre said:
I have started a quest to determine what workflow works best on my Olympus RAW files. I have another discussion thread going under M43 (see M43 discussion ) with image examples, but thought to seek feedback from this thread also.

For the longest time, my typical workflow has been: Oly Workspace --> TIFF/JPEG --> Denoise AI --> Sharpen AI --> Editing. However having recently acquired ACDSee Ultimate 2021 for its DAM capability, I noticed more details in my images processing the initial RAW out of ACDSee; quite significantly more actually. The down side is that ACDSee does not have lens correction data for my 12-45/4, and currently only Oly Workspace gives me that. I downloaded DxO 4 hoping to get the same level of details as I do with the ACDSee workflow AND lens correction but so far the result has been disappointing (see M43 discussion above for examples) and not better than what I get from Oly Workspace workflow. I am therefore wondering if anyone else has gone through the same quest and willing to share his/her observations. I tried turning off all NR in OlyW and DxO, still can't achieve nearly the same level of details as I do with ACDSee.
Click to expand...
This is an example of the difference between embedded lens correction (=jpg) as used by Adobe etc and DXO which measures the lens correction in their own labs. Olympus 12-100mm Pro lens:... , notice the increased FOV when using DXO.

Ian
Click to expand...
The "increased" field of view with DxO would be because of a lack of distortion correction. This particular image does not make it obvious, but when correcting the geometry part of the image is lost. The size of the FOV can never be increased, it is what it is, but rather decreased by the inevitable cropping necessary after correcting the geometry, therefore some how DxO didn't apply the correction in this case, also the two images have different aspect ratio.
Click to expand...
I downloaded an example of a raw+JPEG image, and processed the raw in PhotoLab 4, with DeepPRIME. I believe the JPEG was produced by ACR, which will have the same field of view as an OOC JPEG.




This is the JPEG:



OOC JPEG
OOC JPEG

Now the same image processed by PhotoLab:



Produced using PhotoLab with DeepPRIME
Produced using PhotoLab with DeepPRIME

There's lots more detail in the DxO version.

The DxO version is fully corrected, and larger, as can be seen below:



DxO has recovered more of the original image than the camera or Adobe managed
DxO has recovered more of the original image than the camera or Adobe managed

So PhotoLab recovered a larger, more detailed image than the camera or Adobe could do.
 
Digital Nigel said:
Also for comparison, please upload the full-size JPEG you're happiest with, produced using any other tool(s), so we can compare them.
Click to expand...
The results of such a test often demonstrate more about user skill than software quality. Two users of different skill levels will always produce different results with the same software - and even bigger differences with different software.
 
irv00 said:
Digital Nigel said:
Also for comparison, please upload the full-size JPEG you're happiest with, produced using any other tool(s), so we can compare them.
Click to expand...
The results of such a test often demonstrate more about user skill than software quality. Two users of different skill levels will always produce different results with the same software - and even bigger differences with different software.
Click to expand...
Very true. I'll make the files available later on today for anyone to get a go at it. I am learning a lot from this exercise.
 
irv00 said:
Digital Nigel said:
Also for comparison, please upload the full-size JPEG you're happiest with, produced using any other tool(s), so we can compare them.
Click to expand...
The results of such a test often demonstrate more about user skill than software quality. Two users of different skill levels will always produce different results with the same software - and even bigger differences with different software.
Click to expand...
I'd go further: two users with the same skill level, using the same software, will produce different results, as they may favour a different look.

But it's hard to evaluate software that you don't know and are just guessing how to use.
 
Here DropBox links to the ORF and JPEG versions for those who would like to have a look at it:

Ooops.. not sure if these links are allowing you to download, let me know if not.

JPEG Version

ORF Version

Tx everyone,
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

John McCormack
Comparing Denoising in the New ACDSee 2026 vs DXO PL 7
Replies
19
Views
5K
John McCormack
John McCormack
G
Workflow
Replies
6
Views
1K
normanthecorgi
normanthecorgi
Glen Barrington
ACDSee for Mac Users... Am I missing something?
Replies
4
Views
2K
IanYorke
I
Matt2134
PL9 workflow with Photoshop - DNG or TIFF
Replies
16
Views
2K
Zeee
Z
S
Workflow with multiple editing apps?
Replies
11
Views
1K
bmoag
B

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