RAW conversion, OV3 v LR6...Tests.

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by Dave in Wales, Jun 25, 2015.

  1. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    Everyone, almost, seems to sing the praises of OV3 when it comes to ORF conversion, so I thought I'd play around with them.

    Where I find OV3 slips up is in bringing out the detail in the black and white areas, and not showing a lot of detail.
    The whites are still slightly blown and blacks clogged.
    Whereas with LR6 I can get the B and W areas to show a lot more detail.

    This may well be due to the fact that I'm more familiar with LR6 than OV3

    I've also noticed that there is much more adjustment in LR6, OV3 seems to be limited to replicating the 'in camera' settings.

    Any pointers, I can't seem to find any form of tutorial for OV3, apart from Robin Wong that is.
  2. Halaking

    Halaking Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 17, 2012
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
  3. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    Many thanks for that.

    However, my tests display very little difference....:doh: what could I have done wrong.

    As instructed in the video the same ORF was imported into OV3 and LR6 at default settings.
    The files were not NOT, in the case of OV3, edited. Nor developed in the case of LR6.
    The files were converted to JPG's and re-sized, they were not sharpened after re-sizing.

    Make your own mind up.

    [​IMG]P6180914-OV3-RS by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

    OV3, 100%.
    [​IMG]P6180914-OV3-100%-RS by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

    [​IMG]P6180914-LR6-RS by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

    LR6, 100%
    [​IMG]P6180914-LR6-100%-RS by Dave in Wales, on Flickr
  4. SojiOkita

    SojiOkita Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 23, 2014
    Just my two cents... but there is no point of comparing "default settings" on two raw softwares.

    For a RAW image, "default setting" doesn't mean "no post-processing", it's just processed with the setting that the editor thinks is a good starting point.
    (and for example, the default sharpening in Lightroom is very low)

    In case of Olympus Viewer, the settings are the one the user has set on the body.

    What's interesting is what you can make at the end with your images, with both software.
    (and that's a very personal thing, very subjective)
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  5. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Looks like a different tone curve was used across the two processors. As SojiOkita says, raw files require processing and what you're seeing is the different interpretations in their default settings. I would think you could get the two looking almost identical with some playing around.

    None of this of course says anything about their respective abilities to lighten shadows or pull down highlights and there might indeed be differences there.
  6. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    Well, you're comparing OV3 to LR6 whereas the comparison in the link is between OV2 and LR4. It's not the same comparison and both programs have improved since that first comparison was made.

    Second, what everyone needs to realise when looking at comparisons like the ones Rob Knight does using default settings only, is that the default settings aren't the end of the RAW conversion process in any RAW conversion program. They're what the program is set to offer you as a starting point for you to begin work on what will become the RAW conversion. All of the edits you make to the default settings change the instructions the program uses to make the RAW conversion and it only makes the RAW conversion when you export the image in a file format like JPEG or TIFF. If you want to compare how good 2 different programs are at RAW conversion, what you have to do is to compare images after you've finished editing them and have exported them, not compare the default setting results on import.

    Until you export the image in a format like JPEG or TIFF, you haven't made a RAW conversion. All you have until you export the image is a RAW data file, which isn't an image but just a file containing data from each pixel on the sensor and some metadata, and a set of processing instructions in the application's data bank. The default settings are just the first part of the instructions that the application stores and they get applied only because the application has to apply some settings in order to give you something you can see to work with. They're not intended to be regarded as *THE* RAW conversion. It's up to you to set the parameters for the conversion using the adjustments the application provides. The application does the conversion the way you want it to do the conversion and if you simply export the image to an image file format with the default settings then what you're doing is saying that you want the RAW conversion done that way rather than any other way.

    As for the quality of the image you see when you open the file in a particular application using that application's default settings, what you get depends on the quality of the exposure you made and how well the application's default processing works with that exposure. If the scene fell within the dynamic range of the sensor and you exposed it so that the various tones in the scene get mapped to reasonably accurate brightness values by the default settings, then the default settings will end up giving a pretty good result. If you've got a wide range scene and clipping at either or both ends, or a high contrast scene, or a low range scene and you've exposed to the right, or any of a range of other possibilities then the default settings aren't going to give you a good result and accepting them will give you a bad result but that doesn't mean the application is delivering a worse RAW conversion than another application which applies slightly different default processing and delivers a more pleasing result at it's default setting. What it means is that you haven't used the application correctly because you haven't adjusted the default settings to deliver the result you want.

    If you were buying a new car and you had 2 options, would you say that one was better than the other after a driving test in which you compared only what speed each car was capable of in first gear, given that you would normally need to use third or fourth gear for normal driving speeds? I doubt it, but comparing results in different RAW conversion programs by looking at what you get with the default settings in each program is like comparing the suitability of 2 cars for normal driving by comparing their performance in first gear. The car that does best in first gear may not be best in fourth gear, and if both just happened to be identical in first gear that wouldn't mean that they would still be identical in fourth gear also. Comparisons of default setting results tell you nothing about how good or how capable the applications are. Basically it's probably equivalent to telling you how comfortable each car is to sit in before you start the ignition and begin to drive.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. budeny

    budeny Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 4, 2014
    Boulder, CO
    I suspect that after all adjustments the end result will be very similar in most modern raw processors. The workflow is what makes the difference. And specific to LR, instruments like adjustment brush with auto-mask is big advantage (for me at least).