1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

EM5 and lightroom

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by charleychen, May 28, 2012.

  1. charleychen

    charleychen Mu-43 Regular

    May 13, 2012
    New York
    I received my EM5 a few says ago and tried processing them in Lightroom last night. I noticed that the sharpness when viewing the pictures on the LCD is vastly different than what I'm seeing in LR. I never noticed this difference with my K5 or D7000 files.

    I tried sharpening the images, but I just can't get it close. Any suggestions on how I should sharpen the image? Unfortunately, I didn't take both jpg and raw to compare.

  2. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    That's odd. The E-M5 doesn't let you view the image at 1:1 when you shoot RAW only. If anything, you should be seeing a bigger increase in detail with the E-M5 than with other cameras.

  3. charleychen

    charleychen Mu-43 Regular

    May 13, 2012
    New York
    Hmm, I can zoom up to 8x. I'm not sure if that's 1:1, but enough to see details on the eyes. I'll try to shoot with both jpg and raw for the next couple of days.
  4. kevinj909

    kevinj909 New to Mu-43

    Aug 6, 2012
    I've noticed the same thing. Try viewing them in Olympus Viewer 2 (that came with your camera) and even process your .ORF files into TIFF files for post processing. They for some reason look much better using the native software. Hope this helps.

  5. monchan

    monchan Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 7, 2012
    Tottori City, Japan
    I noticed that viewing my raw images in olympus viewer 2 looked really bad??
    I didnt know why and starting shooting jpeg and they look fine?? have no Idea why??
  6. sprocket87

    sprocket87 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jun 29, 2011
    My guess is that the camera is performing basic RAW>JPG processing in camera for the preview (and possibly the JPG preview rendering that goes along with the RAW file). The RAW file itself is unprocessed so when you pull it into LR or another RAW editor it is at its base values -- no sharpening or other processing effects applied.

    This is why default JPEGs appear to be less noisy than RAWs, for instance if you look at the noise samples at DPreview -- but it's really an artificial comparison because the RAW shots simply have not had any noise processing performed yet (you do that to suit your own tastes in post).

    Just a guess.
  7. newbert

    newbert Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 22, 2012
    Glens Falls, NY
    Here's a preset to use with Lightroom that I've found useful. It includes sharpening settings.

    Hope this helps you.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    How are you sharpening? What presets (if any) are you using?

    I haven't upgraded to LR 4 yet, and I do most of my processing with DxO. Default processing gives me absurd levels of sharpness from E-M5 RAW files.
  9. ShrubMonkey

    ShrubMonkey Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 6, 2012
    I noticed similar issues with my OM-D raw files in LR4, they just don't look that great, opening my Panasonic G3 raw files look great before any sharpening. The OM-D files look better in viewer2 also. I suspect adobe OM-D raw processing is not that great without tweaking in LR4
  10. ShrubMonkey

    ShrubMonkey Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 6, 2012
    Thanks, never tried DxO before, just downloaded the demo and I'm blown away by the auto correction wizardry!
  11. richie15

    richie15 Guest

    Try sharpen to 80 but drop the detail to 15
  12. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I really don't know what to make of that preset. I created it and then tried it on a range of my shots. On some I liked the result but in those cases it tended to be very little different to my basic processing approach With some other shots it gave very different results which I tended to find not pleasing. On one outdoors night time shot which looks dark in my processing, the result was a very yellow cast which I didn't like. Looking at what it does to a range of shots, I find it hard to get a handle on what's going on .

    I also find what's going on with the adjustments in the preset quite difficult to understand, even contradictory. I've been reading Martin Evening's book on Lightroom 4 and two of the things he advises are first, to get things as close to what you're looking for with adjustments in the basic panel first, then fine tune elsewhere, and since the same thing can often be adjusted in a number of different places, to avoid making too strong an adjustment in one place and correcting that overly strong adjustment by making an opposing adjustment in another place. He thinks it's best to avoid cumulative adjustments to the same thing in different locations if at all possible.

    This preset certainly doesn't seem to try to work along those lines. Looking at some of the adjustments I find:

    — there's a strong negative exposure adjustment coupled with negative highlight adjustments in both the basic and tone curve panels. That's what I would do to correct overexposure and/or blown highlights but this is being presented as a basic preset to be applied as an overall starting point for general use and I wonder about making that sort of adjustment to exposure and highlights for shots that are properly exposed or underexposed, and/or have no highlight problems. Yes, these things can be adjusted and corrected after applying the preset if your shot isn't overexposed and/or the highlights aren't blown but if you're getting your exposure reasonably correct most of the time you shouldn't be needing to apply a bit over a -1 EV adjustment plus extremely large negative highlight adjustments in both the basic pane and the tone curve as a matter of course. That simply doesn't work for me as a starting point.

    — it's worth noting that while the negative exposure adjustment darkens the image noticeably, there are a lot of positive luminance adjustments applied to individual colours later on to brighten the image. I wonder whether the amount of luminance adjustment applied in the HSL panel later would be required if we weren't starting with that -1.05 EV exposure adjustment and darkening the image so much in the first place.

    — a -20 contrast adjustment in the Basic panel but a series of tone curve adjustments which tend to increase contrast overall. The contrast slider in the basic panel sets the overall contrast for the image and the tone curve then "fine tunes" that result. I wonder whether the same cumulative effect can be achieved with a different contrast adjustment and a smaller curves adjustment. There's also a large clarity adjustment which largely affects mid range contrast and the curves adjustment seems to be quite strong in the mid range as well.

    — both the vibrance and saturation controls are being boosted. Both adjust saturation with the difference being that vibrance doesn't increase saturation in the skin tone range or in colours that are already reasonably saturated. If you're going to use the saturation slider, surely you can get the effect of the additional vibrance adjustment with a slight increase in saturation and forget the vibrance adjustment, and if you don't want to affect skin tone and already saturated colours surely you can get the same total effect with a slightly greater vibrance adjustment and no saturation adjustment. My understanding is that these 2 adjustments aren't intended to be used together. Normally I just use vibrance in accordance with Martin Evening's recommendation.

    — in the HSL panel there's a +18 adjustment for green saturation and then there's a -40 adjustment for green saturation in the camera calibration panel. The adjustments for blue saturation in both of those panels are -2 and +1 respectively. The hue adjustments for green in those 2 panels are -18 and +20 respectively. Why increase saturation in one place, and reduce it in another? For red the adjustments in one panel don't go in the opposite direction to those in the other panel but they are cumulative. Surely it should be possible to achieve the same results for R, G and B hue and saturation with a single set of adjustments in one location.

    My experience with so far with Lightroom (I swapped from Aperture a few weeks ago) is that if I adjust things in the basic panel so that the result is close to what I want, then I really don't need to make a lot of adjustments elsewhere to get a result I'm happy with and so far I've never had to make as extensive a range of adjustments as there are in this preset in order to get results I'm happy with.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. CPWarner

    CPWarner Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 24, 2010
    I have had some strange issues with Lightroom and EM5 raw files as well. I have some files that just will not load. And only seem to give me a low resolution view. No amount of waiting seems or load the file. I am wondering if this is was is causing the OP issues as well.
  14. newbert

    newbert Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 22, 2012
    Glens Falls, NY
    I agree with all of your points. The various slider settings don't make much sense to me, and I never would have come up with this combination based upon how I use Lightroom. However....the preset works for me. I don't shoot people, so skin tones aren't a factor in my assessment. For what I shoot (landscapes and scenics mostly), the preset works well as a starting point.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.