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!

E-P1 RAW Processing

barjohn

New member
I find it very interesting how different the various raw converters render an image. Currently, Bibble Pro Version 5 Beta ( a free trial version is available from there web site), Capture One and LR (using the DNG converter version 5.5). Bibble Pro 5 gives the most dynamic range image pulling clouds from an otherwise washed out sky. I would like to hear what other think. LR after conversion to DNG looks almost identical to the JPGs whereas Bibble Pro looks very different and much better I think. If I get some time I will post some images using each converter so you can see what I mean.
 

barjohn

New member
As promised here are some sample results using BB5, C1 and LR after DNG conversion. There are two shots for each conversion in the following order:
1. BB5
2. C1
3. LR

What do you think?
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
As promised here are some sample results using BB5, C1 and LR after DNG conversion. There are two shots for each conversion in the following order:
1. BB5
2. C1
3. LR

What do you think?
You do understand that these are the results of using three different RAW converters, at their default settings, on RAW exposures for cameras for which none of them have a defined camera calibration yet? The results will look different.

Setting up a camera calibration, then making the appropriate adjustments in all three RAW converters would render the results from all to be very very similar if not identical.

If one is only going to use a RAW converter at its default settings, it's often more sensible to set up the camera's image processing engine carefully and capture in JPEG maximum resolution/maxlmum quality instead. Reserve RAW capture for those edge cases where JPEG presents insufficient dynamic range and editability for the scene in question. Saves a lot of disk space and time... !

I capture RAW format exclusively, but I almost never use any RAW conversion application's default settings. I have my own camera calibrations and customized RAW processing presets to get what I want out of my exposures. :)
 

barjohn

New member
BB5 and C1 support the E-P1 .orf files and have the E-P1 camera profiles. LR is using the Adobe 5.5 beta DNG converter that supports the E-P1 .orf files. While it may be true that none of these is yet truly optimized for the E-P1 that is not the same thing as saying they don't have an E-P1 camera profile. There is a difference not only in color but in detail that is visible and I have not been able to get the outputs to match from each even after playing with the settings. Also, though I did not use it in these samples, BB5 supports a Noise Ninja plug in and it reduces noise much better than LR or C1.
 

barjohn

New member
I have to run out and do some errands but later today I will post 100% crops so you can see the difference in the detail rendered.
 
K

krohmie

Guest
Can you post a SF (superfine JPG) out of the camera for comparison?

Greetings Thomas
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
I appreciate your efforts, but I don't want people to get the wrong idea either. I don't think that there is any way that you can compare 3 raw converters in the way that you are doing. Each raw converter has lots of controls and settings. Mike Hatam can make any well exposed file sing out of Lightroom. Guy Mancuso can do the same with C1. It depends on the familiarity with the software. You can't just spit a photo out of all three and say that this is how it is.
 

nostatic

New member
I'm still bitter because Aperture doesn't support 2 of my 3 cameras. And likely never will. I'm not sure if I want to get rid of the cameras or Aperture...
 

kevinparis

Member
never say never with Aperture... they added Epson RD-1 support in one of the last updates... I am sure e-p1 will be there soon.

K
 

nostatic

New member
There is no dlux4 or lx3 support. Both do lens correction. The ep1 does lens correction with the 17. Seems that might be the criteria for support.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Bibble Pro v5 beta is looking promising for sharp detail, highlight recovery, noise reduction (integrated NN) and speed... but I wish the colour would match the Olympus Studio standard.

Here's an image which was severely blown - recovered nicely by Bibble Pro v5 beta.

E-P1 + mZD 14-42mm kit lens
1/500s f/5.6 at 42.0mm iso200


1:1 crop of above.


Bibble Pro v5 doesn't yet have distortion correction for the E-P1 + kit lenses - when it does, it will be well worth a look.

Kind Regards

Brian
 

Terry

New member
never say never with Aperture... they added Epson RD-1 support in one of the last updates... I am sure e-p1 will be there soon.

K
This is why I never adopted Aperture. When it was time to chose between it and Lightroom 2 of my 3 cameras weren't supported. Getting camera support on a timely basis is at best unreliable and there is no transparency that it will ever arrive. :(
 

nostatic

New member
When I chose Aperture all my cameras were supported. Now I'm only 1 for 3. It might be time to ponder a new workflow as I now have multiple Aperture libraries floating around due to some computer changes. I really need to get everything together onto one mirrored drive then figure out what to do. I have RawDeveloper and C1 (from the DLux4), but I really don't get along with how C1 works. Adobe is kind of like M$-lite so I try to avoid their stuff except for PS and Illustrator (by necessity).

*sigh* Almost makes me want to buy a film camera.

Well...almost.
 

barjohn

New member
When it comes to work flow I still prefer LR because it has integrated print ability. When it comes to color rendition I prefer C1 and I am really starting to like the new BB5, especially when it comes to cleaning up a high ISO file and keeping as much detail as possible. I am still a little miffed that Adobe does not continue to update CS as far as supported cameras go. I purchased CS3 which was not cheap with the idea that it would continue to be usable even after a CS4 or CS5. There is no reason that the plug in converter should only work with the latest version but not with prior versions. New features such as lens distortion correction (barrel & Pin) or a different way to calibrate individual cameras etc. might have justified switching. However, newer camera support is just not one of them to me. As a result I won't buy another one of their products and I will continue to use LR until a better solution arises or they quit adding newer camera support.
 

barjohn

New member
Ok. Here are the 100% crops and the SF JPG 100% crops.

The first image shown below is the JPG.
 
Last edited:
Top