The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
OM-D E-M1 Shipment Notification
- Thread starter k-hawinkler
- Start date
Annna T
Active member
Not sure to understand : Olympus Viewer is one of the rare proprietary converter to produce conversion matching the incamera jpegs. At least that is my experience with the E-P3 and E-M5. To the point that when people don't like the results of the incamera jpegs I tell them to open OW, play with the settings untill they get something they like and report these settings in their camera.
May be you mean that you aren't able to reproduce incamera jpegs with LR ? that has been my experience, LR IMO doens't do a very good job with Olympus colors. It produce great results on my Canon bodies, where it can mimick the Canon picture styles, but I have never liked the Adobe standard colors (the only profile offered for MFT bodies). For the E-M5 in particular the results are often way to yellow and the skies to cyan for my taste.
Olympus Viewer on the other hand, while it is able to reproduce the incamera results as long as you are using the same settings than on your camera (the menus mimick the body settings) isn't very flexible when it comes to fine tone adjustments or recovering highlights/shadoes etc.
That said, I don't see the point of shooting raws if you convert them in Olympus Viewer : you will just reproduce what is already done in the jpegs. You can always shoot jpegs+raws, just in case something went wrong and you need more tweaking in another converter.
DPreview compared DXO, C1 and LR/ACR a while ago and came to the conclusion that depending on the brand, some converters were doing a better job than others. I remember that for Olympus Jpegs LR came last (btw, they were using the standard settings in all tests).
Raw Converter Showdown: Capture One Pro 7, DxO Optics Pro 8 and Lightroom 4: page 2: Digital Photography Review
tashley
Subscriber Member
Annna
I was trying out the bundled flash this evening and shooting at ISO3200.
The first is developed in LR with my own currently preferred approach for the EM-1 at higher ISO. I process so that it looks 'right' to me at 50% zoom so as to emulate print resolution.
The second of these is developed in Oly viewer from RAW at defaults then exported as 16 bit TIFF.
Both are then cropped and exported as 92% quality, 100% size crops from LR to Zenfolio. But they look the same as they do here in LR before that export, and indeed when one is in LR and one in Viewer in two side by side windows.
I think that though mine certainly needs refining, and though I clearly prefer to see more grain and more detail and avoid an overly NR look, the Viewer version is just horrid! Had I shot RAW+JPEG I could have assessed how close the Viewer version is to the in-camera JPEG but I would have assumed that by default they would be very similar if not the same...
What do people think?
Karl-Heinz, I have yet to do a comparison at ISO 200 but I will get to it. I suspect that at lower ISO the in-camera JPEG will be harder to match or beat. I also suspect that the Oly colours will as Annna points out be quite hard to get at in LR....
I was trying out the bundled flash this evening and shooting at ISO3200.
The first is developed in LR with my own currently preferred approach for the EM-1 at higher ISO. I process so that it looks 'right' to me at 50% zoom so as to emulate print resolution.
The second of these is developed in Oly viewer from RAW at defaults then exported as 16 bit TIFF.
Both are then cropped and exported as 92% quality, 100% size crops from LR to Zenfolio. But they look the same as they do here in LR before that export, and indeed when one is in LR and one in Viewer in two side by side windows.
I think that though mine certainly needs refining, and though I clearly prefer to see more grain and more detail and avoid an overly NR look, the Viewer version is just horrid! Had I shot RAW+JPEG I could have assessed how close the Viewer version is to the in-camera JPEG but I would have assumed that by default they would be very similar if not the same...
What do people think?
Karl-Heinz, I have yet to do a comparison at ISO 200 but I will get to it. I suspect that at lower ISO the in-camera JPEG will be harder to match or beat. I also suspect that the Oly colours will as Annna points out be quite hard to get at in LR....
Last edited:
Brian Mosley
New member
Hi T, what ISO is this? And is this a 100% crop?
Thanks
Brian
Thanks
Brian
tashley
Subscriber Member
3200 and yes they are 100% crops
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Annna
I was trying out the bundled flash this evening.
The first is developed in LR with my own currently preferred approach for the EM-1 at higher ISO. I process so that it looks 'right' to me at 50% zoom so as to emulate print resolution.
The second of these is developed in Oly viewer from RAW at defaults then exported as 16 bit TIFF.
Both are then cropped and exported as 92% quality, 100% size crops from LR to Zenfolio. But they look the same as they do here in LR before that export, and indeed when one is in LR and one in Viewer in two side by side windows.
I think that though mine certainly needs refining, and though I clearly prefer to see more grain and more detail and avoid an overly NR look, the Viewer version is just horrid! Had I shot RAW+JPEG I could have assessed how close the Viewer version is to the in-camera JPEG but I would have assumed that by default they would bel very similar if not the same...
What do people think?
Thanks Tim,
I am looking at your two images with an iPad3.
The first image has a lot of noise but is otherwise looking good IMHO.
The second image looks pretty horrible to me with lots of artifacts.
LR5 or CS6 and Nik would be my preferred processing for this image.
Lately I have been relying only on Nik for noise reduction and sharpening.
I have not tried C1 yet on my raw images from the E-M1.
Godfrey
Well-known member
As has been said, Olympus Viewer 3 should give you pretty much the exact same thing that comes out of the camera as JPEG when you input an .ORF file and export it to TIFF using the "As Shot" settings (the default).
I took one of my JPEG+raw files from last evening and looked at it in LR 5.2 as well as Olympus Viewer 3. I wasn't trying to match the out of camera JPEG at all, just looking to see what LR and Viewer 3 did. Here are the results:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/25268645/oly_e-m1_raw-conversion/index.html
G
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Godfrey
Well-known member
Viewer3 did a decent job of rendering with less evident smearing of detail, but the greenish-yellow cast is pretty off the mark.
I pushed the LR rendering a bit too hard on contrast and NR, softening it a bit more than I like. There's a small magenta cast still. But overall it's pretty close to my memory of the scene.
With the light as it is in there, any 'accurate' color is a judgement call. ;-)
G
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Thanks Godfrey. A greenish-yellow cast is certainly there.
scott kirkpatrick
Well-known member
Good points. To me, the only purpose in using the relatively clumsy Olympus Viewer is to get jpeg quality out of .ORF files during the month or so that it takes for Capture One to make a release available that is calibrated for the new Olympus model. With the E-P5 I shot RAW+jpeg for a month before receiving a version of CO7 that could see them. The no-adjustment rendered files were better than my jpegs, and I found about a stop each of highlight and shadow room that could be retrieved when needed. COne seemed to be the winner for Olympus M5 files in the DPreview study. It should be along for the E-M1 soon and we'll see, with room for various opinions, if it is the best again.
scott
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Re: OM-D E-M1 Images
Typically I have used the EM-5 up to ISO 1600.
Here is such an image, shot with E-M5 + APO-Extender-R 2x + APO-R 280/4 @ ISO=1600, and processed with LR5, CS6, and Nik.
From images presented in this thread it's obvious to me that noise reduction and sharpening at higher ISO can lead to distracting artifacts.
I have therefore shot the following sequence of OOC JPGs with the E-M1 + Vario-Elmar-R 105-280/4.2 and these settings:
Contrast = Sharpness = Saturation=0, Noise Reduct. = Noise Filter = Off
ISO=200
ISO=1,600
ISO=3,200
ISO=6,400
ISO=25,600
Full size OOC JPGs are accessible here: 2013-10-01 Departing - winklers' Photos
Well, it's apparent that increasingly higher ISO leads to increasing loss of detail and loss of colors.
But it seems other distracting artifacts have been avoided.
The following image was developed from the .ORF file with CS6 (ACR) and Nik.
ISO=3,200
My conclusion: If unavoidable I will be using the E-M1 certainly up to ISO 1,600, maybe even up to ISO 3,200.
What do you think?
Typically I have used the EM-5 up to ISO 1600.
Here is such an image, shot with E-M5 + APO-Extender-R 2x + APO-R 280/4 @ ISO=1600, and processed with LR5, CS6, and Nik.
From images presented in this thread it's obvious to me that noise reduction and sharpening at higher ISO can lead to distracting artifacts.
I have therefore shot the following sequence of OOC JPGs with the E-M1 + Vario-Elmar-R 105-280/4.2 and these settings:
Contrast = Sharpness = Saturation=0, Noise Reduct. = Noise Filter = Off
ISO=200
ISO=1,600
ISO=3,200
ISO=6,400
ISO=25,600
Full size OOC JPGs are accessible here: 2013-10-01 Departing - winklers' Photos
Well, it's apparent that increasingly higher ISO leads to increasing loss of detail and loss of colors.
But it seems other distracting artifacts have been avoided.
The following image was developed from the .ORF file with CS6 (ACR) and Nik.
ISO=3,200
My conclusion: If unavoidable I will be using the E-M1 certainly up to ISO 1,600, maybe even up to ISO 3,200.
What do you think?
Last edited:
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Re: OM-D E-M1 Images
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + Leica WATE 16-18-21/4
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + Leica WATE 16-18-21/4
Last edited:
Annna T
Active member
Re: OM-D E-M1 Images
It will not create artifacts nor blurr details like the noise filter. Unless you are shooting stars in a night sky, or want to avoid waiting while the camera takes a second dark frame of the same duration of the main picture, there is no need to deactivate it.
Thank you for all the test pictures; your post processing looks very good. What are you doing in each of these softwares ? Where are you doing the sharpening and noise reduction ? In CS6 or Niksoftware ?
It is better to leave noise reduction on auto : noise reduction will just substract a dark frame from pictures taken at slow shutter speeds and you can adjust when it is kicking in. Default should be a few seconds (2 or 4, I don't remember but it is adjustable).
It will not create artifacts nor blurr details like the noise filter. Unless you are shooting stars in a night sky, or want to avoid waiting while the camera takes a second dark frame of the same duration of the main picture, there is no need to deactivate it.
Thank you for all the test pictures; your post processing looks very good. What are you doing in each of these softwares ? Where are you doing the sharpening and noise reduction ? In CS6 or Niksoftware ?
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Re: OM-D E-M1 Images
Many thanks for your explanations. Much appreciated.
So, it's similar to the dark frame substraction on my M9.
Here is what the E-M1 user manual has to say, quote:
"This function reduces the noise that is generated during long exposures.
[Auto]: Noise reduction is performed at slow shutter speeds, or when the internal temperature of the camera has risen.
[On]: Noise reduction is performed with every shot.
[Off]: Noise reduction off.
• Noise reduction requires about twice the time needed to record the image.
• Noise reduction turns off automatically during sequential shooting.
• This function may not work effectively with some shooting conditions or subjects."
I use sharpening and noise reduction only in Nik.
Their U Point feature is very convenient to selectively apply sharpening and/or noise reduction only in specific local areas.
So, I start in ACR, either in LR5 or CS6, but disable sharpening and noise reduction.
BTW LR5 can use Nik as a plugin in CS6. That's how I use it.
First application is noise reduction, or in E-M1 speak, noise filtering where it's needed.
Next is creative sharpening for selected areas only.
I had noticed that even for images shot at base ISO one can generate quite a bit of noise in post-processing by cranking up contrast or clarity. This noise shows up particularly well in smooth areas like OOF backgrounds and needs to be dealt with. Also these areas shouldn't be subjected to any kind of sharpening as that would generate noise again. One nice feature of Nik are their B&W graphical displays that indicate where in an image functions are applied to what degree. Very nice.
I also use PS features proper like the auto curves function.
It sometimes seems to have the effect of clarity on steroids.
It can eliminate quite a bit of haze when shooting through extensive stretches of atmosphere. Here in New Mexico where I live the air is pretty dry and one can see for close to one hundred miles horizontally. Taking the haze out of an image feels like lifting a veil.
Finally, after image enhancements and output sharpening are completed I switch to 8 bits and sRGB for images to be posted to the web.
Hi Anna,
Many thanks for your explanations. Much appreciated.
So, it's similar to the dark frame substraction on my M9.
Here is what the E-M1 user manual has to say, quote:
"This function reduces the noise that is generated during long exposures.
[Auto]: Noise reduction is performed at slow shutter speeds, or when the internal temperature of the camera has risen.
[On]: Noise reduction is performed with every shot.
[Off]: Noise reduction off.
• Noise reduction requires about twice the time needed to record the image.
• Noise reduction turns off automatically during sequential shooting.
• This function may not work effectively with some shooting conditions or subjects."
You are welcome and thanks again.
I use sharpening and noise reduction only in Nik.
Their U Point feature is very convenient to selectively apply sharpening and/or noise reduction only in specific local areas.
So, I start in ACR, either in LR5 or CS6, but disable sharpening and noise reduction.
BTW LR5 can use Nik as a plugin in CS6. That's how I use it.
First application is noise reduction, or in E-M1 speak, noise filtering where it's needed.
Next is creative sharpening for selected areas only.
I had noticed that even for images shot at base ISO one can generate quite a bit of noise in post-processing by cranking up contrast or clarity. This noise shows up particularly well in smooth areas like OOF backgrounds and needs to be dealt with. Also these areas shouldn't be subjected to any kind of sharpening as that would generate noise again. One nice feature of Nik are their B&W graphical displays that indicate where in an image functions are applied to what degree. Very nice.
I also use PS features proper like the auto curves function.
It sometimes seems to have the effect of clarity on steroids.
It can eliminate quite a bit of haze when shooting through extensive stretches of atmosphere. Here in New Mexico where I live the air is pretty dry and one can see for close to one hundred miles horizontally. Taking the haze out of an image feels like lifting a veil.
Finally, after image enhancements and output sharpening are completed I switch to 8 bits and sRGB for images to be posted to the web.
Godfrey
Well-known member
One of the things I looked at with the E-M1 was how many stops of underexposure could retrieve a usable image. I've tested this with the Leica M9 and find that I can elevate underexposure a full 5 stops with its "ISO-less" sensor, so I was curious what the capability of the E-M1 sensor was.
Image one shows a test snap of my beloved partner about to sneeze. On the left is the out of camera JPEG, showing massive underexposure due to the bright sky behind him throwing off the meter reading:
Image two zooms in to 1:1 on just his hand:
I think that's pretty good blackpoint recovery from severe under-exposure. It is pulled up 4 stops from ISO 200 (effectively turning ISO 200 into ISO 3200) and the LR5.2 Basic panel and Detail panel noise reduction and sharpening settings are shown here:
Not "as good" as the Leica M9, but for a sensor that's close to the same resolution and is only 26% the area, I'd say it's close enough for usefulness.
(It says there's a reason I'll keep the Leica M9 too, btw ... ;-)
Oh yes: the lens was my old standby, the Olympus ZD 35mm f/3.5 Macro. An amazing lens for under $200.
G
Image one shows a test snap of my beloved partner about to sneeze. On the left is the out of camera JPEG, showing massive underexposure due to the bright sky behind him throwing off the meter reading:
Image two zooms in to 1:1 on just his hand:
I think that's pretty good blackpoint recovery from severe under-exposure. It is pulled up 4 stops from ISO 200 (effectively turning ISO 200 into ISO 3200) and the LR5.2 Basic panel and Detail panel noise reduction and sharpening settings are shown here:
Not "as good" as the Leica M9, but for a sensor that's close to the same resolution and is only 26% the area, I'd say it's close enough for usefulness.
(It says there's a reason I'll keep the Leica M9 too, btw ... ;-)
Oh yes: the lens was my old standby, the Olympus ZD 35mm f/3.5 Macro. An amazing lens for under $200.
G
tashley
Subscriber Member
Mine is theoretically en route - I'll be most interested to hear what you think...
Godfrey
Well-known member
Well, I can tell you that already without actually fitting it to my camera yet. I had the chance to experiment and handle it fitted with my lenses back in September.
For me, for my hands, it is the piece that completes the camera and makes the ergonomics sing.
The E-M1 without it is too short for my hand span ... fully two fingers are off the bottom of the camera and curled underneath. This makes the camera difficult to hold steadily for any period of time. It's one of the first things that bugged me about the Panasonic G1 in 2008 too ... over time I adapted to it, but it was never comfortable. The E-1 and E-5 are not like that: my hand was fully supported even without the grip fitted. Even though they're larger and heavier cameras, I can shoot with them all day because they don't tire my hands out.
I haven't used the E-M1 too much yet as I've been waiting for the grip to get here. With it fitted, I can really start to enjoy this camera.
G