Converting Tiff with and without Exif , DNG, and 8 or 16 bits

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by gugarci, Mar 7, 2013.

  1. gugarci

    gugarci Mu-43 Veteran

    304
    Jul 8, 2012
    Lyndhurst, NJ
    Bill
    I noticed that in OV2 you can convert to tiff with exif or without. The without exif file let you choose between 8 or 16 bits, the non exif export does not. The exif export file size is smaller, 34.9 VS 69.7 MB's. So I'm guessing the exif export is only using 8 bits since I did not have the option to choose my bits. I was able to choose 16 bit on the non exif tiff export. My regular raw. orf files are generally in the 11 to 12MB range.

    Also is there any advantage in converting tiff to dng for LR use?
    Since the Olympus raw files are smaller are they only using 8 bits since I use the sRGB color space? I thought raw file use 16bits. Will changing in camera color space to Adobe RGB give me larger 16 bit raw files? I have always used the sRGB color space in my cameras even though I know Adobe RGB has a higher color gamut.

    Sorry for all the questions.
     
  2. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    I'll have to look into the first part.

    For the raw files. They're 12bit lossless compressed raws. Almost no small sensor cameras (35mm and smaller) do 16 bit capture. That's reserved for medium format. The files exported out of LR as a TIFF or PSD file will be a 12 bit file in a 16 bit wrapper (ie: 16 bits but 4 bits not used). In a raw file gamut is noted, not assigned and can be changed in post. Also gamut and bit depth are not dependant on each other. Changing to aRGB will not increase the bit depth of a file.

    FWIW some of the ridiculous high DR cameras like the D800 and Sony a99 use 14bit capture in raw.

    There's not a huge advantage in DNGs for .ORF files except that you can store LR catalogue data withinn the wrapper rather than in a sidecar file.

    Gordon
     
  3. gugarci

    gugarci Mu-43 Veteran

    304
    Jul 8, 2012
    Lyndhurst, NJ
    Bill
    Thanks for the reply. Also do you know why there's a file size differences between the Exif Tiff and non Exif Tiff?

    I figured if the converted Tiiff to DNG are as good as the ORF files. I can convert all my raw images with OV2 to Tiff, convert the Tiff to DNG's, discard the large Tiffs, and finish my newly created DNG's with LR.
     
  4. Henk

    Henk Mu-43 Regular

    197
    Aug 18, 2010
    the Netherlands
    Why would you convert your raw file in OV2 to tiff when you can load your .orf raw files directly in LR?

    The Olympus raw conversion programs are the worst you can think of. Try a comparison of the same .orf that you convert to DNG as you suggested above in LR, .orf against DNG.
     
  5. gugarci

    gugarci Mu-43 Veteran

    304
    Jul 8, 2012
    Lyndhurst, NJ
    Bill
    Since OV2 can read the camera's settings when you import the files using the defaults setting the OV2 file look better. Did you see Rob's thread?
    https://www.mu-43.com/f74/olympus-viewer-2-vs-lightroom-4-a-39682/

    He's correct. I installed OV2 a couple of days ago and my OV2 converted images at the default setting look better than the LR converted images at the LR default settings. in fact I have some images that OV2 converted that did not need any more tweaking. Those same images in LR needed tweaking.
    Just trying to speed up my workflow by starting with a more pleasing file from the beginning.
     
  6. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    No he's not. He compared the Olympus software and Lightroom at their default settings only, which misses the whole point of a program like LR in the first place. Experienced users of Lightroom create import presets that give them a look they want and these can easily match or exceed the quality of the files from OV2. It's just that most people who profess that RAW is better want to do nothing than have a file spat out using the cameras settings because they couldn't be bothered to spend the time to create a profile for themselves. Mostly they may as well shoot jpegs.

    Lightrooms design is based on presenting a starting point with as little baked into the file as possible and the maintenence of the maximum available detail and dynamic range. That means the files may appear flat upon import. It then up to the user to decide how far the file should be pushed.

    Everyone is entitled to their own workflow. But to state that the results from OV2 are superior to Lightroom is just plainly false.

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. gugarci

    gugarci Mu-43 Veteran

    304
    Jul 8, 2012
    Lyndhurst, NJ
    Bill
    I was talking only from a starting point also. Just trying to speed up my workflow by starting
    with a more pleasant image.

    I love LR and have been using since version 1. But at the default settings Ov2 give you a better looking
    file to start with. Same thing applies to Capture NX vs Lightroom. But I don't use Capture NX because
    it's not free.
     
  8. Henk

    Henk Mu-43 Regular

    197
    Aug 18, 2010
    the Netherlands
    All the Olympus conversion programs do is process the raw exactly as it would process in camera to a .jpg image. Including clipped highlights!!

    Take a raw which has clipped highlights and process it in both OV2 and LR. See how much (or little) you can recover in OV2. See how much you can recover in LR. You will be surprised! I did a few comparisons (OV2, LR, Silkypix, C1) some time ago and after seeing the results deleted all Oly conversion programs from my computers.

    Take the time to figure out a setting that pleases you and save it as a preset that you can apply when uploading your files to LR.
     
  9. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    Then you should try creating your own default settings, which Lightroom will allow you to do. Or you could download and apply one of the many free ones available on the net. Once you have a base poing you like its easy to set taht as a default for any new images imported.

    Gordon
     
  10. gugarci

    gugarci Mu-43 Veteran

    304
    Jul 8, 2012
    Lyndhurst, NJ
    Bill
    I'm going to try to tweak Archeogeolab's from DP Review.
    They were posted here in the past and I will play around with the results.
    Universal EM-5 preset for LR4.1 RC2: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

    Do you know of any other free ones I can try?

    Like I said I love LR and been using it since version 1. I used to be a long time Raw Shooter's Essential Pro user, and I was able to obtain LR for free since Adobe bought RSE from Pixmantec.

    Thanks again.
     
  11. hiimage

    hiimage New to Mu-43

    4
    Jul 8, 2013
    thank you, you are making good point in this situation
     
  12. _BG_

    _BG_ Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Sep 16, 2011
    Viseu - Portugal
    Can anyone tell me why the final jpeg, after using OV3 to import olympus orf files and then convert them to tiff so that I can use LR5, gives me the image as seen on camera's LCD while if importing orf files directly to LR5 they seem cropped?

    Is there anyway to change that behavior of LR5 when importing?

    I'll post an example as soon as I get home from work...
     
  13. foodmore

    foodmore New to Mu-43

    2
    Aug 27, 2013
    converting to tiff maybe an advantage compared with dng image format. so any suggestion on how to achieve this purposes. tiff file will take a large space will it too big for us?