Olympus Viewer 3 Petition

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by fabienp, Apr 20, 2016.

  1. fabienp

    fabienp New to Mu-43

    4
    Apr 20, 2016
    Hi,
    I'm using Olympus Viewer 3 because it gives me good colors without too much work but it's so slow...
    I was thinking about launching a petition on change.org to ask olympus to improve olympus viewer speed.
    Do you think that's a good idea ? Would you sign it ? What else other than speed could be improved in olympus viewer ?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Have the RAW development portion apply absolutely no sharpening at the default settings. There's a level of sharpening that's actuated no matter what you do and it's not always flattering at higher ISO's. The residual noise takes on a look that reminds me of particle board. I also have and use PhotoNinja, and when carefully used, it turns residual noise into a more regular shaped grain that's way more desirable. If they could give us a variable noise control rather than 3 steps and fix that sharpening issue, I'd be happier with OV3.
     
  3. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    My main issue isn't so much the speed (yes it is SLOWWWWWW), but the fact that when you do something there is absolutely no indication if it is still working on the adjustment or if it is done. So speeding it up would be great, but simply having an indicator telling you that it is still processing would be extremely helpful.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2014
    Vancouver BC
    Graham
    Speeding up OV3 by cleaning up the process would be my first ask of Olympus. Adding some selective editing and sharpening tools would be something I would pay for in an enhanced version of the software, though that would put them into competition with Adobe and other software companies.
    I'm still dithering on buying LR6 because I'd like some more advanced tools but resent the $200 CDN price tag for software that I would use the advanced capabilities of only infrequently.
     
  5. fabienp

    fabienp New to Mu-43

    4
    Apr 20, 2016
    So only 3 people are interested on this forum ? It seems that not so many people would sign the petition and it will be hard to convince Olympus !

    But, don't give up yet and let's sum up requests :
    - speed up OV3
    - display a progress bar or other indicator to display if ov3 is processing
    - rework the sharpening sliders to allow a real zero sharpening value
    - better noise control sliders (variable instead of 3 steps)
    - add some features like selective editing and better sharpening tool (algorithm ?)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. mcasan

    mcasan Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 26, 2014
    Atlanta
    Personally I would just as happy if Olympus stopped spending time and money on Viewer. The vast majority of their customers will be using 3rd party post processing tools from Adobe, Apple, Capture One, or other.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
  7. m4/3boy

    m4/3boy Mu-43 Veteran

    306
    Jul 21, 2013
    I would much rather see them switch to the DNG format for raw files.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  8. wjiang

    wjiang Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    It's not that much to just use Adobe DNG converter is it?
     
  9. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    If you don't mind having Olympus let Adobe's converter decide how to interpret their camera's photos to Adobe's universal standard. Personally I prefer for Olympus to do that.

    An interesting article on the subject: Why I Stopped Using the DNG File Format
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Personally have no desire to use Olympus viewer, I really prefer the one stop shop I get from LR. In LR I can edit my photos (even using various plugins like Silver Efex or open directly in PS if I need to) and keyword them all in one place. It's not just an editing software, it is also for photo management. If I want to find all my photos of a white bird catching a fish while standing on a log at sunset I can. Then if I want to narrow it down to an egret I can, with further narrowing down to specific egret like a snowy egret. I keyword everything and it really helps if I need to find a specific kind of photograph. By just using LR I don't have to manage things separately, saves me huge amounts of time and so far LR meets 90% of my needs for photo editing. Once you get a preset for initial editing worked out, it takes seconds to edit a photo to my liking.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    Then why are you replying to this thread?

    This thread is for people who WANT to use viewer and have ideas for improvement. Or for people who might not use it now or rarely but might want to use it if certain things were improved or changed.

    With all due respect, in this particular thread, no one really cares what you do with LR. If you have no interest in Viewer then move on to another discussion.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I replied because the OP was curious as to why only 3 people expressed an interest in his thread. My reason for not being interested in a standalone image editor is a valid reply to the OPs curiosity into why not much interest. I don't use it because it is standalone, if they made it work as a plugin for LR maybe I would.

    Why the attack on me and not the person who said they should just abandon it and put their resources elsewhere? At least I showed one reason for not much interest. Although it would not hurt my feelings if they did just abandon it, but I would feel bad about the developers who lost their jobs.

    Oh......FYI I can respond to any thread I want as long as I don't break any forum rules, which I did not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. kingduct

    kingduct Mu-43 Veteran

    305
    Oct 12, 2013
    Disclaimer: Like some others, I've never used bundled RAW processing software. (I use Lightroom.)

    That said, I like it that each manufacturer bundles software, even if it isn't that good. Why? I think it serves as a reference for how the manufacturer thinks the RAW files should be processed. Typically, reviews note that the bundled software produce final JPEG files that are quite similar to the straight out of camera jpegs. To me, that's the most useful aspect of this software. Should it be minimally competent otherwise? Sure, but I don't think a change.org petition is the right way to pressure the companies.

    I do wish that manufacturers would make an effort to create default presets for Lightroom (and other RAW-processing software) that were top notch. When I get a new camera, I don't want to have to fuss around to get Lightroom to produce something that's comparable to the SOOC jpegs.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    Well there ya go, a suggestion to improve Viewer, right? Now we are back on topic. And actually that is a good idea.

    The main reason people seem to struggle along with Viewer is that they feel Viewer simply renders Olympus RAW files best and you get an initial output the matches exactly how Oly intended the camera to take the photo. So while the may hate using it, the view Viewer as a necessary evil. But a lot of people like yourself rather have a one stop processing tool that does everything instead of first having to use one application then another. If Olympus could instead make some sort of plug in version or a way to get it to work in tandem with other apps that would work as the RAW conversion front end, now you get the true Olympus rendering (if that is what you desire) then then continue with all the other tools you know & love.

    Ah the internet. Every time someone disagrees with someone, it is automatically "an attack", flame, etc. There was no attack intended. Simply an observation that you came into a topic specifically about Viewer to point out you instead use LR and why.

    While I suppose it also wouldn't be against the rules would you also go into the Panasonic Cameras discussion and in a post where they are talking about what you want to see in the next Panny model and post that you have no interest in that Panny and here is why you use Olympus model xxx?
     
  15. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    If I ever found myself in the Panasonic forum and they were wanting a feature that Olympus has and Panasonic doesn't (like live composite or focus stacking) I would.

    Hell there are always Panasonic shooters jumping into threads where we are talking the C-AF focus ability of various lenses on the EM1 saying Panasonic DFD is superior and should switch to it. So, guess I should maybe troll some Panasonic threads :biggrin:
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  16. hese

    hese New to Mu-43

    8
    Dec 23, 2013
    Speed and lack of highlight recovery are biggest downfalls for olympus viewer. I could even live with the speed issues if hightlight recovery would be any good.
     
  17. Henk

    Henk Mu-43 Regular

    197
    Aug 18, 2010
    the Netherlands
    Years ago I did a comparison between Oly software (it was before they changed the name to Viewer) and a number of other raw developing tools. I found then that Olympus' software added nothing over the out of camera jpg's. Even free raw developing tools found more data, especially in the highlights. This all at basic settings!

    Olympus will not spend any time and money on their software other than enable it to update firmware for new camera models.
    When m4/3 did not even existed the 4/3 community already tried to convince Olympus to improve their raw development software.
    You know the result.

    My advice is: download some trial versions of commercial and free raw developers and compare the results. Your raw files deserve it. Else shoot only jpg. Use Oly viewer only for firmware updates of your camera and lenses.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. fabienp

    fabienp New to Mu-43

    4
    Apr 20, 2016
    I downloaded some softwares but I don't succeed in getting close to Olympus Viewer (Oly jpgs) renderings. That's why I stay with Olympus Viewer (I export as a tiff and then I do some more edits if needed).
     
  19. Henk

    Henk Mu-43 Regular

    197
    Aug 18, 2010
    the Netherlands
    Ok, fine but do not have high expectations of better image quality compared to the OOC jpg's and do not expect that Olympus will change their mind concerning the raw developing software.
    It's kind of sad to see how Olympus throws away so much valuable image data that other developers save, especially in the highlights and that Olympus have a history of ignoring user's wishes.

    Good luck with your petition.
     
  20. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    767
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    A new thought or two on Viewer and Olympus's software history.

    One nice thing about viewer is that, as many have mentioned, often puts out the same image as you get from the in camera JPG engine. Why this is significant is that is can be a very good tool to learning the setting of your camera, especially those vague titled ones that sound like they do one thing but really do something else. With viewer default is your image is shown "as shot" using the settings of your camera at the time. Want to learn more about what your camera's setting can do? Take some of your shots you had hoped would have been better and start playing with some of those settings. Never used the highlight and shadow curve tool? Now is a great time to see what it would have done for you. Wondering what vague "noise" setting actually do? Try them all on that one sort of noisy shot.

    I am a firm believer that you should always try and get the shot the way you want it right out of the camera. Even when shooting RAW you should be always thinking like you are shooting JPG only and have to get the settings right for the they way you "see" the image in your head. Unfortunately being firm believer doesn't translate to actually having those skills. ;) So I have to shoot RAW cause I know I still don't know enough about my camera's setting to get them as I envisioned them. So Viewer is a great tool for learning after the fact how you might have better tweaked the camera settings to get your closer to not needing any post adjustments at all. One of my goals for this year is to start using Viewer even if just as a learning tool to discover what all my camera setting actually do.

    And the other thought on SW is that Olympus has a long history in its digital existence of poor SW support to the point of almost being a complete afterthought. My first digital camera was the Oly D-220L which was a whopping 640x480 sensor, no zoom, sliding door type point and shoot. One of its "features" was supposed to be a panorama mode. However Olympus didn't have it ready when the camera came out and so that mode was OFF in firmware. Eventually They ended up sending a third party program called QuickStitch to all registered users (back in the dial up days for most of the world, so we got mailed a CD). In addition many of those early models came with a bundled version of Adobe's PhotoDeluxe for photo editing since Oly didn't have anything of their own. So I suppose we could be thankful we have Viewer at all. :)