Raw workflow with the E-P1?

[thearne3]

I just downloaded graphicconverter (Lemke Software - shareware). I believe it's Mac only, but it reads .orf files from e-p1 and outputs both .tiff and .psd. I downloaded an e-p1 .orf file from ImageResource (I think!) called ep1hHOUSE.orf - size is 13.9mb. Converted to .psd - size 36.7mb.

Hope that helps!
Tom

PS. My e-p1 is in the mail. I usually use Aperture, but was looking around for alternatives and found this thread...

 

[Rawfa]

Thanks, that does help. the PSD is bigger than I thought but it still almost 3 times smaller than a TIFF.

 

[thearne3]

Still awaiting my E-P1, but have done some more homework on Aperture. I have modified my Raw.plist file, cloning the E-3 (is there a more comparable camera?) section and naming it for the EP1. This 'sticks'. However, the one .orf file I have from an E-P1 still doesn't import. I am assuming that once a .DNG can be created using Adobe's RAW converter (when supported), this should work. I base this assumption on others' experience with hacking for earlier cameras that Aperture didn't support.

Any thoughts? I am also hoping the PTLens plug-in will work to address the lens-specific issues for the two kit lenses. Anyone done a profile for PTLens? They will create a profile for free - just need to send test shots using their form.

Best,
Tom

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks, that does help. the PSD is bigger than I thought but it still almost 3 times smaller than a TIFF.

Uncompressed TIFF files are large. I create TIFF files with zip compression when I need TIFF format files. They're in most cases about the same size as PSD files, other times smaller.

After all, Adobe owns the TIFF specification and PSD files are actually a specialization of TIFF file format with compression added by default. ;-)

 

[Godfrey]

Still awaiting my E-P1, but have done some more homework on Aperture. I have modified my Raw.plist file, cloning the E-3 (is there a more comparable camera?) section and naming it for the EP1. This 'sticks'. However, the one .orf file I have from an E-P1 still doesn't import. I am assuming that once a .DNG can be created using Adobe's RAW converter (when supported), this should work. I base this assumption on others' experience with hacking for earlier cameras that Aperture didn't support. ...

Apple has not yet supported any of the RAW format files that include the lens correction metadata that micro-FourThirds cameras include. Aperture also does an incomplete job of supporting DNG format. It supports DNG files with mosaic data now, but it doesn't support DNG files with linear data. So it's very hard to say for sure when proper Aperture support will be available for the E-P1 and some other cameras like the G1, GH1, LX3, DLux4, etc, or even DNG files created by converting these cameras RAW format.

The DNG Specification itself was updated to include options for this lens correction metadata in the very latest rev (v1.3) so perhaps Apple was waiting for that before working on support for these cameras. ... ?

 

[jonoslack]

Apple has not yet supported any of the RAW format files that include the lens correction metadata that micro-FourThirds cameras include. Aperture also does an incomplete job of supporting DNG format. It supports DNG files with mosaic data now, but it doesn't support DNG files with linear data. So it's very hard to say for sure when proper Aperture support will be available for the E-P1 and some other cameras like the G1, GH1, LX3, DLux4, etc, or even DNG files created by converting these cameras RAW format.

The DNG Specification itself was updated to include options for this lens correction metadata in the very latest rev (v1.3) so perhaps Apple was waiting for that before working on support for these cameras. ... ?

Hi Godfrey
without wanting to battle this one out again (and I quite agree that they don't support any RAW format files including lens correction metadata). I would have thought that you could clone the E30 information in Aperture and use that. (better than E3 at least). That's how it works with Capture one (and it certainly does work). Having said that, Apertures DNG 2 support seems to be much more complete than Capture One.

I think Linear files are a red-herring. However, you can now use Adobe DNG converter to produce 'normal' DNG files from the G1, D-lux4 LX3 etc. which will import into aperture normally (Adobe seem to have abandoned the linear 'half cooked' files).

Sorry, I'll make that clearer:

So it's very hard to say for sure when proper Aperture support will be available for the E-P1 and some other cameras like the G1, GH1, LX3, DLux4, etc, or even DNG files created by converting these cameras RAW format.

Although, as you say, Aperture is not supporting these cameras directly The DNG files created by converting these files using Adobe DNG converter has been supported by Aperture for some time now (except for the E-P1 as of today).

 

[Godfrey]

Hi Godfrey
without wanting to battle this one out again (and I quite agree that they don't support any RAW format files including lens correction metadata)....

There's nothing to battle about, Jono.

- I would never rely upon modifying Apple system frameworks (or hacking data in any application's code to enable it for that matter) for the RAW conversion engine for my uses.

I know that this is a point of contention, but I worked at Apple for over a decade in software development support and developer relations, AND I do consulting to fix problems caused by users doing this sort of thing. It's simply a bad idea. The engineering team on any application or system framework can change things and break this kluge at any time, rendering your workflow broken and costing time, money and aggravation.

I would never bet my photographic livelihood on such workarounds. It is simply a bad idea.

However, if it works for your purposes, who cares? Go ahead and have fun.

- Linearly represented, demosaicked DNG files are a part of the DNG file and format specification. If you don't support interpreting them, your implementation of DNG support is incomplete.

- I haven't tested .RW2 files containing lens correction metadata converted to mosaic representation DNG files with DNG Converter v5.4 (built on DNG Specification revision 1.3) in Aperture, iPhoto or Preview as yet. If Aperture can read them, great.

But are the intended lens corrections performed? If not, the support is incomplete again.

I haven't needed to test these things. I don't own an E-P1 yet, but I can process its .ORF files in Studio 2 (what a piece of garbage that is, but it works). Lightroom 2 fully supports the .RW2 files from LX3/G1/et al already, and will support the E-P1 soon too, so I have no issues working with what I need to work with at present.

...

When I answer questions regards this sort of stuff, I do it from my personal and business perspective, which is that of a professional photographer and computer systems consultant. I don't muck around with operating systems and applications for fun. I don't hack code to make something work unless at extremis for a client who's livelihood depends on it. These are not professional practices. I'm looking to promote getting work done, producing photographs for income and enabling others to do so as well.

I am not a hobbyist in this context, sometimes I wish I were. Hobbyists and enthusiasts have a lot more fun ... they can afford to accept more risk and if something breaks, it's annoying but does not cost them their livelihood.

 

[nostatic]

I don't know the technical minutae, but I can say that the DNG files from my K7 (which Aperture doesn't yet "support") tended to not look very good on jpg ouput. Using RawDeveloper (that does support the K7) yielded a much better looking final file.

I have been very happy with Aperture until lately. There still is no support for the DLux4, and now I fear the EP1 may suffer the same fate. To date I've stuck with my "lazy" workflow of having Aperture import images and working within there. As a result I've stuck to shooting jpg most of the time with DLux4 and EP1. While that is ok, it isn't optimal and when I've had shots I really thought were critical I've gone raw and used RawDeveloper. After the K7 experience I'm thinking that I may have to go to manual import/organization and use RD or C1 more (though both are clunkier to me than Aperture). Of course then I'll have to deal with lens correction with both DLux4 and EP1. *sigh*

 

[thearne3]

Reading these last posts is very interesting. I certainly appreciate the risk associated with any software hack!

From what Godfrey is saying, I gather that there is no reason to leave files in TIFF form - just go for the psd with no loss? My hard disk thanks you!

As a non-professional and a noob, I'm wondering how the PTLens plug-in fits into the equation? Once some form of non-jpg file can be imported into Aperture, wouldn't the PTLens product be an effective way to address MOST of the lens issues (CA, barrel, etc)?

Just a thought...

Tom

 

[Godfrey]

From what Godfrey is saying, I gather that there is no reason to leave files in TIFF form - just go for the psd with no loss? My hard disk thanks you!

On my system, TIFF files stored with zip compression are actually the same size or slightly smaller than the identical PSD files, on average.

As a non-professional and a noob, I'm wondering how the PTLens plug-in fits into the equation? Once some form of non-jpg file can be imported into Aperture, wouldn't the PTLens product be an effective way to address MOST of the lens issues (CA, barrel, etc)?

As long as you're going to work with RGB files, rather than RAW, sure. And when you develop a PTLens correction that works well too.

 

[jonoslack]

I am not a hobbyist in this context, sometimes I wish I were. Hobbyists and enthusiasts have a lot more fun ... they can afford to accept more risk and if something breaks, it's annoying but does not cost them their livelihood.

Hi Godfrey
and you always use a tripod too!

I'm glad somebody takes things seriously. I'm afraid I never really did - I will do whatever it takes to get the picture I want, if that means hacking into configuration files (which I understand) or hand holding macros, then so be it. However I clearly shouldn't encourage other people to behave so irresponsibly.

One thing I don't do is to represent opinions as facts.

I suppose I am simply a hobbyist - both with my photography, and with my 22 year old software business.

I stand suitably reprimanded

 

[Godfrey]

...and you always use a tripod too!

Not always, but quite often.

I'm glad somebody takes things seriously. I'm afraid I never really did - I will do whatever it takes to get the picture I want, if that means hacking into configuration files (which I understand) or hand holding macros, then so be it. However I clearly shouldn't encourage other people to behave so irresponsibly.

One thing I don't do is to represent opinions as facts.

You seem to be intimating that I don't understand configuration files and that I represent opinions as facts. I disagree with both notions, they seem to be a bit less than ingenuous.

I suppose I am simply a hobbyist - both with my photography, and with my 22 year old software business.

I stand suitably reprimanded

Stand however you'd like, just don't ascribe it to me. I've responded to a question in what I feel is an objective and responsible fashion. We've got similar time in these endeavors it seems (photography since 1964ish and software engineering since 1984 for me anyway ...).

BTW: I did open a couple of mosaic-data DNG (v1.3 spec) files from the G1 in iPhoto today and found it worked with them ... wretched tools for RAW adjustment imo but it worked. I neglected to test with DNG files that contained lens correction data, however ... I'll have to fit one of those lenses and make a few exposures to test further.

 

[jonoslack]

Don't worry Godfrey - I wasn't implying that you didn't understand configuration files (even though you did seem to be confusing them with application code I knew you didn't mean it). I do think you often present opinions as facts, but then, that's just my opinion.

I was only being flippant in the vain hope that you'd join in.

Don't bother to test mosaic-data DNG conversion files for lens correction - it doesn't do it (it actually says it doesn't in the DNG converter notes as far as I can remember). I completely fail to understand why you would want to use iphoto for RAW adjustment, but I guess it's because you don't have Aperture?

 

[Robert Campbell]

ACR/Lightroom support coming

http://forums.adobe.com/message/2133518#2133518

 

[Godfrey]

I see you edited this post again after I read it which implies you want a response.

Don't worry Godfrey - I wasn't implying that you didn't understand configuration files (even though you did seem to be confusing them with application code I knew you didn't mean it). I do think you often present opinions as facts, but then, that's just my opinion.

Do I need to be absolutely literal in every statement I make? Editing configuration files unofficially and hacking applications preferences ... I lump all these together into "hacking the code". Pardon my loose speech.

You're entitled to your opinion, wrong though it may be. You read too much into my statements.

I was only being flippant in the vain hope that you'd join in.

I saw nothing at all "flippant" in what you said.

Don't bother to test mosaic-data DNG conversion files for lens correction - it doesn't do it (it actually says it doesn't in the DNG converter notes as far as I can remember). I completely fail to understand why you would want to use iphoto for RAW adjustment, but I guess it's because you don't have Aperture?

Testing the Mac OS X system framework that does RAW conversion for compatibility can be done with any application that utilizes its services ... iPhoto, Preview, and Aperture. I have no desire to install Aperture on my desktop system again ... I do have the latest eval copy on my laptop but that computer wasn't booted up at the moment I decided to give it a try.

I don't like using either Aperture or iPhoto very much, I just wanted to test RAW conversion compatibility with the latest DNG spec files. I hadn't seen any such notes in the DNG Converter application notes, but eh? perhaps I didn't look that hard. It's not important to me, really. Just a point of curiosity.

I'm perfectly happy to wait until Adobe revs DNG Converter, Camera Raw and Lightroom for full RAW compatibility with E-P1 .ORF files. I'm sure it will happen soon. After LR supports it, I'll consider whether buying an E-P1 has benefit for me. I'm pretty happy with the G1's performance so far.

 

[jonoslack]

Do I need to be absolutely literal in every statement I make? Editing configuration files unofficially and hacking applications preferences ... I lump all these together into "hacking the code". Pardon my loose speech.

I'll let you off (I think I already had, hence the edit).

 

[jonoslack]

ACR/Lightroom support coming

http://forums.adobe.com/message/2133518#2133518

Thanks Robert - but they always do such a bad job with 4/3 sensors (this is just my humble opinion).
Anyway, I'm pretty sure Capture one will come up with support, and I'd think that even Apple will need to follow along this time.

I just wish that all these companies would use dng files (As Leica did with the M8 ricoh do) then we wouldn't have to have this struggle each time there's a new camera.

 

[Bob]

-- snip --
I just wish that all these companies would use dng files (As Leica did with the M8 ricoh do) then we wouldn't have to have this struggle each time there's a new camera.

But then there are the non-standard parts of dng files, the "maker notes" section.
Picking apart the dng standard and low and behold it has at least one area that requires specific camera by camera support.
The next issue is what revision of dng?
The latest supports all sorts of lens correction goodies, but as far as I know, is not yet implemented by any camera manufacturer or raw processor for that matter.
-bob

 

[Robert Campbell]

Jono,

If Adobe's ACR/LR do a bad job with 4/3 sensors and their .orf raw files, would they still do a bad job if Adobe's dng converter converted them to dng?

 

[jonoslack]

Jono,

If Adobe's ACR/LR do a bad job with 4/3 sensors and their .orf raw files, would they still do a bad job if Adobe's dng converter converted them to dng?

As far as I understand it (Godfrey might correct me here ), the answer is:

1. If they are linear DNG then Adobe is doing the demosaic, so YES (they will still be bad)

2. If they are not linear DNG then Adobe isn't so the answer is NO. (they will be as good as the other converter).