![]() ![]() I'm also impressed with the broad range of control over the RAW files that V3 provides. After much comparing, I'm able to say without hesitation that the converted Viewer 3 files (converted to TIF) look better than the others in many ways, particularly at the pixel level. I've used it to convert a handful of RAW files that I'd previously processed and converted using both Capture One and LR. I've only had a couple of days working with Viewer 3. I also find the Viewer 3 conversion to tif to be slightly better than LR (it probably is preserving any in camera settings and LR may not), so I use it to convert selected RAW files to tif which I then PP in LR5 or CS6. I find Viewer 3 to be much better than LR 5 to simply view and select the photos that I want to convert to tif or jpeg files (no importing necessary). I take a large number of photos all in raw and many will never be processed. I also find the Viewer 3 conversion to tif to be slightly better than LR (it probably is preserving any in camera settings and LR may not), so I use it to convert selected RAW files to tif which I then PP in LR5 or CS6. I find Viewer 3 to be much better than LR 5 to simply view and select the photos that I want to convert to tif or jpeg files (no importing necessary). I've gone into the Options menu to make sure "JPEG" has been selected, and it has. It DOES let me view JPEGs that I've created via other software. I can view all of the ORF files but none of the original Olympus JPEGs. One major problem I'm having is that the Olympus JPEG files aren't showing up. Otherwise, I'm hard-pressed to understand what they were thinking when they designed and released it. Non-intuitive.īest thing about it as far as I'm concerned is that I can read all of the settings that don't often show up in Capture One. I am generally happy with my M10 mkii ooc jpegs but will switch to raw (+jpeg) to have a go at improving on them and gain the benefit of having a better quality back up of my photos.I've never used Olympus' conversion software, so I thought I'd give the latest version a try. Thank you for your reply - I think I understand how it works. Once you change settings to get your desired result you can save that as a default setting when opening an orf and setup up your camera with exact same settings. It's then up to you what settings you change to get the desired result. So it is effectively the ooc JPEG but in the raw format. When you select RAW editing tab the orf will open with the exact same camera settings you took the photo with. The default camera settings are basically what Olympus considers standard but not necessarily the best. Then based on what you have said you probably don't need to shoot raw. orf file for the first time in Olympus Viewer 3 are there some easy, straightforward settings or '1 click' to achieve a result like an ooc jpeg so I can get an idea of what Olympus recommends, or do I have to start from scratch adjusting each different setting? Apologies if this is a stupid question. I have absolutely no idea about raw editing, so my question is: when I open the raw. I've recently been tempted to try shooting raw, hoping I may be able to get better results with some photos that I didn't quite get it right when I took them. I have always stuck with jpeg because I feel raw editing will be a bit overwhelming for me, too many options, and I don't really know what will look best, so I've kept it simple with minor tweaks to jpegs. ![]() In fact I "revived" my old noisy Panasonic LX3 which looks like a new camera with its raw files treated by DxO. So for me OV3 for a reference converter, but DxO to get the best out of the raw file. In fact in critical tests at ISO 200 it (Prime noise reduction) actually seems to improve fine detail (again at silly pixel peeping levels). Gets rid of most noise but retails detail. With a high ISO noisy image then the DxO Prime noise reduction is certainly the best thing I've seen. In DxO's case each new body + lens combination it sees causes an auto download of a DxO lab created profile, which does deliver noticeably (pixel peeping) better results than the lens canned data that the raw file contains. Edge halos always annoy me.įor that reason I use DxO and do get better results. ![]() Good in that colours etc are predictable, but bad because it always applies some noise reduction and sharpening even if told not to. The bad thing about OV3 is that it processes the raw file the same way as the camera does. The good thing about OV3 is that it processes the raw file the same way as the camera does. I'm thinking about starting to use it for my raw conversions from my Olympus camera. How many use Olympus viewer 3 for your Olympus cameras? I've heard great things about the results from it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |