OMD Raw in Viewer 2

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by Antonio, Jan 13, 2013.

  1. Antonio

    Antonio Mu-43 Regular

    98
    Jun 27, 2011
    Sao Paulo, Brazil
    I decided to work on some raw images in Viewer 2 this morning but I have one initial doubt.

    The pictures were taken as raw + jpeg but when I display them side by side they look identical. Shouldn't the raw version be a (how to put it) raw image and the jpeg be a processed image with different appearance as to white balance, sharpening, noise reduction and so forth? Is there any setting in Viewer 2 that I am messing with?
     
  2. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Not by default, no. By default, Viewer is intended to mimic the in-camera processing as closely as possible. There are many settings that you can change - everything from WB to the tone curve. As which ones you should change, that's really image-specific.

    The main value of RAW is that it allows you to process with different software and/or different settings and get better quality.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    Larry
    Same answer as Dara's above. When you first open the raw file in Studio, it will have most of the settings you've applied in camera to the jpeg. They can all be changed, however.

    My biggest gripe with Studio is that it limits you for the most part to settings available in the camera anyway, for instance the noise reduction does not allow you to set chroma and luminance noise seperately. Lightroom and Capture one offer many more development options, and, at least on my computers, are not as SLOW as Studio has always been for me. I used it for a long time, though, because I could not afford to buy other software, and along with NeatImage, for better treatment of noisy files, it did just fine. Good luck!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Antonio

    Antonio Mu-43 Regular

    98
    Jun 27, 2011
    Sao Paulo, Brazil
    Thanks. I was under the impression that I would see a very crude image to work on. So what I have is basically what came out of the camera but with more options to work than if the photo was only a JPEG image. Now it makes sense.

    And understand that in Viewer 2 when I have shot raw+jpeg and then process the raw version and save it, the raw version continues untouched and the processed jpeg replaces the OOC jpeg. Is this right?

    I am trying to understand better the process of raw development because it has become clear to me after looking at many posts in different sites that at the end of the day a well developed raw image can be much better than the original ooc jpeg.

    The problem is that I have been struggling to get the right touch. I have recently started developing some raw images taken with the EM-5 to upload to Shutterstock and many of the photos have been rejected because of noise and over-sharpening. I had uploaded EPL2 JPEGs before with no problem.

    Do any of you guys know of a good tutorial for developing raw images?
     
  5. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    With the right tools, raw is the way to go. I have my Canon gear set to raw only and would NEVER think of using JPEGs right OOC. This is a good place to start to explain the basic idea:

    Tutorials – The RAW File Format

    There are lots of raw tools available in the market. I'm new to MFT (Pen E-PL5), but I've been using Canon gear for years with Bibble (now acquired by Corel and called Aftershot Pro). That is/was a great post processing tool and I wish it supported the Pen 5, but it doesn't and Corel seem very slow now with new camera support (I think they'll kill what was a great piece of software).

    If you want free, I've recently downloaded Rawtherapee which is OK and works with the Olympus raw files fine (at least with the E-PL5, but I think it'll support the OMD-E5 too). Probably the best tool (and I can see me having to buy it to replace Corel/Bibble in the not too distant future) is Adobe Lightroom (LR).

    What both LR and Aftershot Pro do is so-called 'non-destructive' raw editing. They save all the changes you specify to an image in a separate file (.xmp). Each time an image is displayed in the tool, it interprets the .xmp and shows the result. To generate files for output, they offer a batch processor which converts the image with the edits into JPG/TIFF etc.

    One of the biggest issues I've noticed with raw processing on the Pen 5 though is that the lens (I've got only the 14-42 kit zoom at present) has MASSIVE barrel distortion. You don't normally notice it though since it's automatically corrected by the camera and the Viewer 2 app. Rawtherapee could do the same, but there is no lens profile for it. LR might have one though, but I don't know.

    I'd recommend that you download Rawtherapee, sit down with a coffee and a few hours to explore what it can do. If you like the idea, then you can buy LR (in fact, I think there is a trial download for it). It ain't cheap though!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Effectively. But you can save the processed JPEG anywhere (so it doesn't have to overwrite the OOC JPEG).

    If you have examples, it would be easier to say what's going on. You can certainly reduce noise by turning the setting for Noise Filter up on your E-M5 and adjust sharpening down.

    For serious RAW exploration, I'd suggest trying something other than Olympus Viewer though. It's not very efficient, and while the colors are usually nice, there's only so much it can do in terms of noise and sharpness. Commercial RAW converters like Adobe's Lightroom or Corel's Aftershot Pro offer much more extensive options, and most have 30-day demos so you can try before you buy.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    All raw processors need a starting point. Olympus uses the settings you chose in camera. Lightroom and C1, etc can't read those so they have their own profiles and starting points. That's all the differences are. From then on you can adjust the file how you like, non destructively (jpegs are compressed and therefore destuctive in editing). Say for example your white balance is off. Easy to adjust on a raw file as that information hasn't been baked into the file data yet. Not so easy in a jpeg as white balance is already baked into the file.

    Lightroom and other third party processors will give you more options and they have their own processing engine. They also have their own idea of where you should start from. Where as Olympus think that the camera settings are the place to start from, Adobe places more emphasis on a neutral start point that retains as much original luminance data as possible. And the tone curve has very little contrast by default. That's why the files "look" flat. And boy do people complain about it.

    As for a third party suggestion. If you're not shooting huge quantities, then hava a look at the latest version of Photoshop Elements. Cheaper than LR, same engine and most of the same options.

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Actually, just discovered that Rawtherapee supports the LR/Adobe lens profiles. There are profiles available for a lot of lenses, including the Zuiko and Panasonic lenses. You can download them using the Adobe Lens Profile Downloader tool (free download). I tried the one for the 14-42 lens, but whilst it offered some distortion correction, it wasn't enough. However, the file (.lcp) is actually an XML file and I found the parameter to tweak to increase the correction and it now works just fine.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Antonio

    Antonio Mu-43 Regular

    98
    Jun 27, 2011
    Sao Paulo, Brazil
    These two photos were rejected at Shutterstock:

    <a href="http://500px.com/photo/22409679"> 4. "Sao Paulo Black &amp; White by Antonio Cintra (afac)) on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;"></a><br/><font style="font-size: 120%;"><a href="http://500px.com/photo/22409679">Sao Paulo Black &amp; White</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/afac">Antonio Cintra</a></font>

    <a href="http://500px.com/photo/19666833"> 4. "Sao Paulo by Antonio Cintra (afac)) on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;"></a><br/><font style="font-size: 120%;"><a href="http://500px.com/photo/19666833">Sao Paulo</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/afac">Antonio Cintra</a></font>

    The reasons for both rejections was noise and oversharpening. I thought both were good images (especially the colour one).

    Do you see any major raw conversion flaws?
     
  10. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    Firstly, nice compositions!

    At this resolution, they look fine to me. But my guess is you submitted higher resolution versions to shutterstock? If so, it's going to be hard to judge based on a significantly downsampled image.

    The B&W shot is at ISO 6400. I don't think there's any way you're going to avoid having noise at that ISO. The E-PL2 will be much worse in that regard.

    The color shot should be clean - ISO 200 after all. One thing that will help sharpness some is not to stop down so much, unless you're short on depth-of-field. For this shot, probably f/8 or even f/5.6 would have been sufficient.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Hard to tell at these small sizes. Some people are really over-sensitive to over-sharpening though. Maybe the editors at Shutterstock are like this.

    Why don't you try winding down the sharpening? It'll reduce the noise too.
     
    • Like Like x 1