1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

For RAW shooters: ACR 8.3 and LR5.3 Final versions released

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Ulysses, Dec 12, 2013.

  1. Ulysses

    Ulysses Mu-43 Regular

    176
    Oct 21, 2013
    Those who shoot RAW with the OM-D E-M1 will be happy to note Adobe has released the final versions of ACR8.3 and LR5.3.

    Whereas before E-M1 shooters had access to only the one-size-fits-all Adobe Standard camera profile, Eric Chan and team have now provided the following camera profiles built specifically for the E-M1:

    Adobe Bridge CS6ScreenSnapz002.

    The differences between each camera profile are sometimes subtle, but if the goal is to use a camera profile that comes closest to emulating the E-M1 out-of-camera JPEG for a "Natural" Picture Profile setting, then probably either "Camera Muted" or the "Camera Natural" profiles might work for you. The latter has a slightly steeper tone curve applied than the JPEG.

    I have not yet experimented with skin tones to see how the response is there, but already I do see some interesting (odd) color errors happening with similar profiles for the E-P5. Hopefully this same problem doesn't exist in the E-M1 profiles, but I expect that they do.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. photo_owl

    photo_owl Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Nov 8, 2013
    you've lost me - surely the profiles should deliver a match to whichever basic camera jpeg setting is selected........?
     
  3. Ulysses

    Ulysses Mu-43 Regular

    176
    Oct 21, 2013
    Yes, they should. And they do come fairly close, but the match is not precise. This may or may not be important for the photographer, depending upon how critically matched you intend your results to be. For someone using this in professional application the way several of us do, it will be important to know where things are working properly and where they are not.

    Here is an animated example to demonstrate. The JPEG is provided by the camera's default Natural settings. Then in this animation (which in itself is imperfect) you see the result from the new ACR8.3 "Camera Natural" profile for the E-M1.

    i-qghK7rs-M.

    Again, we're not seeing worlds of difference. The ACR Natural version is a bit more contrasty, and the colors have slightly more pop. How this will translate in real-world shooting remains to be seen. For some shots you might see differences in contrast at best, and at worst you might see differences in certain hues. Just keep your eyes open for it.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. ckrueger

    ckrueger Mu-43 Veteran

    304
    Jul 16, 2011
    Awesome! Thanks for the notice, I'm eager to try it! The EM1 RAW conversion was pretty awful in the previous version of LR.
     
  5. Ulysses

    Ulysses Mu-43 Regular

    176
    Oct 21, 2013
    I use the E-M1 for pro work; however, I haven't done a lot of testing on skin tones with the RAW files. The in-camera JPEG engine is pretty solid, but all of my pro work is done in RAW. So I'll be greatly interested in how others are finding the ACR/LR performance in this specific area.
     
  6. photo_owl

    photo_owl Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Nov 8, 2013
    thank you for the usefull explanation but it's not related to what I questioned in your post.

    you wrote that if the goal is to use a camera profile that comes closest to emulating the E-M1 out-of-camera JPEG, then you should use a particular profile (s) - I simply pointed out that the particular profile you would select would be based on the particular camera JPEG setting you were looking to emulate; which might not be Muted or Natural.

    Or are you suggesting that the profile for Vivid is nothing like the camera Vivid default jpeg?

    I agree that if you are looking for a neutral profile most would be looking at Muted or Natural, but that's a whole different discussion :smile:
     
  7. Pili

    Pili Mu-43 Veteran

    224
    Jul 16, 2012
    Boulder, CO
    Alex
    In camera profiles are only applied to OOC Jpegs (unless you use Oly software on pc of course). If you shoot raw, your raw converter uses an independent profile to set color of the RAW file (among other things). The new lightroom profiles come much closer to replicating the OOC Jpegs produced which is a good thing as the Oly Jpegs are very good.
     
  8. Ulysses

    Ulysses Mu-43 Regular

    176
    Oct 21, 2013
    ^

    What Pili said up above. And he was much more succinct about it than I usually am. :smile:

    And just to repeat: Note that if you apply the "Camera Natural" profile to your RAW image in order to simulate what the "Natural" OOC JPEG would give you, these results will NOT be worlds apart. However, there are clear visible differences. The Olympus JPEG engine is very, very good. However, there are lots of situations in which enthusiasts and pros will want/need to develop their own RAW images. And the closer the Lightroom camera profile is to the equivalent in-camera Picture Mode, then the better. Or at least that's what photographers usually want out of their RAW development tools.
     
  9. Ulysses

    Ulysses Mu-43 Regular

    176
    Oct 21, 2013
    Pili, interestingly, I finally installed the Olympus Viewer 3 software because I was curious about its results with B&W. Even with this software, while I get results very, very close to the OOC JPEG when using "equivalent" RAW development settings to the in-camer settings, they are still not identical. For example, I see a curious magenta cast to my B&W images. These were not exhaustive tests due to lack of time. And I doubt anyone would have an issue with a print, but I could see the cast. Not a big deal, but thought it interesting to mention. :)
     
  10. ckrueger

    ckrueger Mu-43 Veteran

    304
    Jul 16, 2011
    I played with the new version briefly last night, and wow! Quite a large improvement! I had some files I shot RAW+JPEG(natural). I made a virtual copy of the RAW files and applied the new Adobe Natural profile to the virtual copy, then compared all three files.

    The OOC JPEG looked the best zoomed out, except perhaps for a bit of overcooking a red sweater.

    The old Adobe Standard RAW profile looked pretty ugly. I think you all know how this works... poor skin tones, uneven brightness, and an overall "flat" look.

    The new Adobe "Natural" RAW profile looked pretty close to the OOC JPEG. The color tones were very similar, and the overall tone of the image was the same. The biggest difference I noticed was that the RAW images seemed to be perhaps a third of a stop darker. I need to do more testing to confirm this; these were all indoor, flash-lit, ISO400 images.

    Speaking of ISO, I also now have much better luck reducing noise than I did with the old profile. The OOC JPEGs still do as well as me with zero effort, but that's OK; at least we're at parity now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Ulysses

    Ulysses Mu-43 Regular

    176
    Oct 21, 2013
    Thanks for running those tests. :smile:

    There is a possibility of gaining a slight improvement in red tones by increasing the in-camera JPEG quality to "Super Fine".

    Glad to hear skin tones are improved. I haven't had a chance to test for that.
     
  12. Pili

    Pili Mu-43 Veteran

    224
    Jul 16, 2012
    Boulder, CO
    Alex
    Finally had a chance to play with the profiles. The natural profile is leaps and bounds better than the old standard profile, but I still prefer Huelight standard as a baseline if I'm going to spend more than 30 seconds editing said photo.

    The new adobe profiles are a great option for a quick turn around with batch processing.
     
  13. Ulysses

    Ulysses Mu-43 Regular

    176
    Oct 21, 2013
    I am unfamiliar with this profile.
     
  14. Pili

    Pili Mu-43 Veteran

    224
    Jul 16, 2012
    Boulder, CO
    Alex
    http://www.colorfidelity.com

    The standard profile is what I would imagine the adobe standard should have been. Nice skin tones and even contrast; a good base for taking things further.
     
  15. photo_owl

    photo_owl Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Nov 8, 2013
    If you actually read what I asked you would realise this isn't exactly news to me - best just leave it now.
     
  16. Pili

    Pili Mu-43 Veteran

    224
    Jul 16, 2012
    Boulder, CO
    Alex
    Perhaps you should rephrase your question if no one is able it to answer it to your satisfaction. Thanks for assuming we all lack in reading comprehension though, appreciate it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Ulysses

    Ulysses Mu-43 Regular

    176
    Oct 21, 2013
    I edited my original post in an effort to address any confusion. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough, photo_owl.


    Moving forward, it's great to see these Lightroom camera profiles being developed for the Olympus cameras (several of them are now supported). That said, they are only approximations for the various in-camera Picture Profiles of the same name. In my original post, the example I was using was the in-camera "Natural" Picture Profile. However, the Lightroom picture profile called "Camera Natural" comes close, but with a steeper tone curve making it significantly more contrasty than the in-camera "Natural". So something like the "Camera Muted" may IN PRACTICE come closer to what you want to achieve. It's completely up to the photographer.

    Any of these new Lightroom camera profiles for the E-M1 are a better starting point than the canned "Adobe Standard" that is chosen by default in Lightroom. While this may not be news to some, it's a completely new concept to others, so I thought it worth sharing. Hopefully it's helpful to both enthusiasts and other pros here. :)
     
  18. Ulysses

    Ulysses Mu-43 Regular

    176
    Oct 21, 2013
  19. photo_owl

    photo_owl Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Nov 8, 2013
    thank you

    your chosen edit clarifies what you were trying to say perfectly in the context of my question and, as such, answers the question I was raising in full.

    I hadn't realised that this board permitted editing over such a period, and hadn't therefore looked back - learn't something.
     
  20. Ulysses

    Ulysses Mu-43 Regular

    176
    Oct 21, 2013
    I was just as surprised! :smile:
    It was really helpful being able to amend it even though so late.