DPR's shootout between ACR and Workspace!

[GBarrington]

Posted 2/28/2021 on the front page. Surprisingly positive considering the source. WS's shortcomings were noted, and it didn't really "beat" ACR, but I think we m43s users are sometimes too hard on Workspace.

 

[retiredfromlife]

Worth a read for Oly users

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/adobe-camera-raw-vs-olympus-workspace-which-app-should-you-use

 

[RichardC]

I'm grateful for any freebies and workspace is very capable software.

I prefer the Adobe products though and I don't mind paying for them.

 

[John King]

The main reason I do not use WS is because it does not offer ProPhotoRGB as a colour space.

Also, back in the day, it did not save the EXIF data when saving as TIFF-16. I always use a PPRGB-16 workspace, except when editing JPEGs.

 

[GBarrington]

The main reason I do not use WS is because it does not offer ProPhotoRGB as a colour space.

Also, back in the day, it did not save the EXIF data when saving as TIFF-16. I always use a PPRGB-16 workspace, except when editing JPEGs.

This is why I suggested, over at DPR, that OMDS treat Workspace like an asset worth using to generate income from. Sink some R&D money into it, turn it into a true Workflow manager, open it up to other raw formats, make sure it can handle smartphone files, and create a cross marketing program with someone like Serif, for Affinity Photo.

An Olympus/OMDS only version could be given away with each camera. But my suggestion would generate at least some new revenue, get Smartphone users used to doing business with OMDS (for those thinking of an upgrade), and create added value for both Workspace and software like Affinity Photo. (The exact details, could be worked out between them without my help!)

 

[John King]

@GBarrington Good thinking, Glen.

Nice to see someone actually thinking positively for a change ... .

 

[GBarrington]

Can you imagine what Workspace's proposed ability to handle the Affinity file format could do for sales? No one else handles it besides Serif. Give Serif a 'taste' of each sale and they might be very happy.

 

[John King]

Exactly.

Non-linear thinking can take us a long way.

Just look at Einstein's relativity, for just one example.

Darwin's observation of earthworms and their contribution to soil tilth is another. Darwin considered this to be his greatest work.

 

[RAH]

The surprising thing here is that they reviewed WS at all! Must have been a slow day, I guess.

As I reported in other threads, I find WS to be better than RawTherapee in processing tripod Hi-res RAW output from my E-M5.3. Since I don't use the Adobe product, I cannot compare it. But for hi-res, I usually start with WS and sometimes making some small adjustments, especially fine-tuning noise reduction and detail. Then I generate a 16-bit TIF and do any further processing in a regular image editor (Corel PaintShop Pro in my case).

 

[mcasan]

With ACR you can select, use and even create camera profiles. That is hugely powerful. Nothing close in Workspace.

 

[GBarrington]

With ACR you can select, use and even create camera profiles. That is hugely powerful. Nothing close in Workspace.

Why would that be needed in Olympus specific software?

 

[mcasan]

Why would that be needed in Olympus specific software?

For the same reasons as in LR/ACR. First is color accuracy for a specific camera body. The second is the HUGE creative control that adds to how the images are processed.

 

[GBarrington]

For the same reasons as in LR/ACR. First is color accuracy for a specific camera body. The second is the HUGE creative control that adds to how the images are processed.

Isn't color accuracy built into Workspace? My understanding is, that is why people would want to use the software produced by the camera manufacturer.

And can you elaborate how it enhances creative control?

 

[John King]

Isn't color accuracy built into Workspace? My understanding is, that is why people would want to use the software produced by the camera manufacturer.

And can you elaborate how it enhances creative control?

Glen, a raw file doesn't have a colour space until you assign one to it. I'm sure you already knew this.

OWS only allows 16 bit aRGB. My default is 16 bit PPRGB, which is a much larger colour space than aRGB.

My printer will also print most of the visible part of the PPRGB space, and it is a 16 bit device, an Epson R3880 (see Schewe & Fraser, "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop").

That alone makes Adobe my editor of choice.

 

[GBarrington]

Ahh. But isn't a CAMERA profile different from a color space, and a printer profile? I was under the impression that a Camera profile is used at the point where the image is rendered into something other than raw. Say, the point where the image is displayed on screen, and at the point where the image is exported to jpg, tif, or whatever.

I should think that manufacturer produced software would already have a base profile for each camera built into the software. Now, granted, Workspace doesn't allow one to CHANGE that profile, but is that REALLY how most people expect to use Workspace? Don't people expect Olympus to have optimized the entire system for really satisfactory results across the board? Otherwise, how could Workspace reproduce the OOC jpg from a raw image?

Specialty software probably, SHOULD be used for those who need to alter this base profile for some reason. But I suspect most people are happy to have a single built in and optimized profile baked into their software.

 

[John King]

Glen, you need to understand how any RAW file is mapped into a colour space in order to answer your own question. This is a very complex topic technically, but simple in practice.

Simply put, the 12 bit RAW file can be mapped into either a very narrow colour space (sRGB), where a lot of colour nuance is lost, and some colours cannot be rendered at all (vibrant yellows, oranges and reds, but other colours as well), or a wide colour space (aRGB or PPRGB) where that colour information is preserved.

The changes to Adobe ACR and Photoshop over the last 15+ years mean that this mapping is now far superior to what it used to be.

Similarly, OWS is different from Olympus Viewer of yore too.

 

[RAH]

Yes, this is confusing, at least to me, someone who hasn't really paid too much attention to color profiling and printing. I mean, I've always been able to get a good print (matching closely what I see on my monitor) without resorting to those color spider thingies you hang in front of your monitor, or paying any attention to the profile I am using with the printer.

But, especially since I've been working with hi-res, it does seem that the whole point of that is to get the best image you can. So I do hi-res and then use OWS instead of RawTherapee because I got better results with OWS (just for hi-res; NOT for regular res RAW images). (I'm not interested in using any of Adobe's products.)

But it would be helpful if someone ( @John King - hint, hint ) could give a brief explanation. For example, here is Rawtherapee's color option panel before using the pulldowns for "Working Profile" and "Output Profile", showing the defaults:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

If you pull-down the "Working Profile" you get a bunch of selections, including "ProPhoto" (the default), "Adobe RGB", and "sRGB". So which would be the best one to choose here?

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Finally, if you pull-down the "Output Profile" you get a LARGE number of selections, including a bunch labelled with the name of my printer:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

So which of those would be good? The default seems to be "RTv4_sRGB" - are we saying that I should choose a different one? What about all those printer ones, perhaps picking the type of paper I will be using? (This setting seems to be obviously a PRINTER setting, but I could be wrong).

I realize that people might not be familiar with RT, but surely the settings in this area are similar in concept to this thread's discussion (i.e. Working profile and Output profile). I have always assumed that if I chose a 16-bit TIF as my output, color would take care of itself, but now it seems that this is incorrect. Or does it only matter if you are going to PRINT something that this matters and for regular TIF use (eventually to be edited with an editor and saved, sometimes to jpg) it doesn't matter after all?

Inquiring minds want to know...

 

[GBarrington]

Yes, this is confusing, at least to me, someone who hasn't really paid too much attention to color profiling and printing. I mean, I've always been able to get a good print (matching closely what I see on my monitor) without resorting to those color spider thingies you hang in front of your monitor, or paying any attention to the profile I am using with the printer.

But, especially since I've been working with hi-res, it does seem that the whole point of that is to get the best image you can. So I do hi-res and then use OWS instead of RawTherapee because I got better results with OWS (just for hi-res; NOT for regular res RAW images). (I'm not interested in using any of Adobe's products.)

But it would be helpful if someone ( @John King - hint, hint ) could give a brief explanation. For example, here is Rawtherapee's color option panel before using the pulldowns for "Working Profile" and "Output Profile", showing the defaults:
View attachment 877027

If you pull-down the "Working Profile" you get a bunch of selections, including "ProPhoto" (the default), "Adobe RGB", and "sRGB". So which would be the best one to choose here?
View attachment 877028

Finally, if you pull-down the "Output Profile" you get a LARGE number of selections, including a bunch labelled with the name of my printer:

View attachment 877029
So which of those would be good? The default seems to be "RTv4_sRGB" - are we saying that I should choose a different one? What about all those printer ones, perhaps picking the type of paper I will be using? (This setting seems to be obviously a PRINTER setting, but I could be wrong).

I realize that people might not be familiar with RT, but surely the settings in this area are similar in concept to this thread's discussion (i.e. Working profile and Output profile). I have always assumed that if I chose a 16-bit TIF as my output, color would take care of itself, but now it seems that this is incorrect. Or does it only matter if you are going to PRINT something that this matters and for regular TIF use (eventually to be edited with an editor and saved, sometimes to jpg) it doesn't matter after all?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Color Science is just plain weird, in my mind!

 

[RAH]

Color Science is just plain weird, in my mind!

No, actually Color Science is just plain; weird is your mind...

 

[John King]

@RAH Rich, the simple version is this:

Use either PPRGB or aRGB 16 bit for editing, and Epson Photo Glossy for printing (assuming some kind of non-Epson paper). If there is a manufacturer profile for your paper, use it! I use Ilford papers, and Ilford supplies both profiles for specific paper/printer combinations, and recommendations for generic printers with Ilford papers. e.g. there are specific profiles for their papers for my R3880, and recommendations for which Epson profile to use for my Epson XP-970.

PPRGB is the best colour space to edit in.

However, aRGB is the safest for editing if you do more than minor colour adjustments during editing, as you can see what you are doing, assuming a decent video card and monitor.

Never use sRGB except for email and the web. sRGB is deficient (too small) and defective (the colour axes are not equal in length).

There is no commercially available monitor that can display PPRGB or 16 bit colour. Closest affordable is a Dell UP2516D (about AUD$750), which has a 14 bit colour lookup table and a 12 bit panel which will display 100% of an aRGB colour space.

However, where printers are concerned, it's different. e.g. my Epson R3880 will print most of the visible part of PPRGB using 16 bit data.

After this practical advice, things get very complex, very quickly. I've read several thousand pages on this subject.

IIRC, Cambridge in Colour has some accurate and understandable information available. I will see if I can find it.