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

What does LR6 Do That OV3 Doesn't?

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by Carbonman, May 27, 2015.

  1. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2014
    Vancouver BC
    Graham
    I'm looking at LR6 as a more powerful editing tool but can't find any comparison of features between the two. What advantages does Lightroom 6 have over Olympus Viewer 3 besides processing speed? I'd like to try some more advanced techniques like image stacking, selective sharpening and selective lightening/darkening. I'm new to digital image processing, only having used OV3 and Irfanview to generate TIFs and JPGs.
     
  2. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    So far I've seen a massive difference in RAW processing - giving OV3 a huge point in its favor.

    That being said, if you shoot JPG or process RAW to TIFF or JPG in OV3 - then the workflow and easy of process definitely goes to Lightroom.
     
  3. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2014
    Vancouver BC
    Graham
    My typical use of OV3 is to process RAW and export as resized JPG for posting on Flickr and full size 16-bit TIF if I'm getting prints to hang in future. What does LR do that can't be accomplished with OV3?
     
  4. mpg01

    mpg01 Mu-43 Regular

    154
    Oct 21, 2012
    The thing that really drew me over to LR is the adjustment speed. OV3 can be painfully slow. But it does interpret all of the Olympus specific image processing. For instance if you shoot raw and set the picture mode to Monochrome, OV3 displays your image as such but LR will not recognize it and you would need to desaturate. OV3 is also free with your Olympus purchase.
     
  5. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    LR allows you to do correct colour conversion.
    LR allows flexible multichannel B&W conversion.
    LR allows selective 'brush-on' application of a range of editing functions including sharpening, EV, contrast, saturation, clarity....
    LR allows a vast range of custom presets (only a few included with the software purchase) to be applied to any or all image files, including user-defined presets, with quick preview of the effects of the presets, and batching functionality.
    OV3 allows your camera settings to be applied to your raw files, so they look like the camera's JPEG files would have looked, if you were shooting in JPEG.

    I don't believe that there is an important difference in the inherent quality of raw processing, but the default settings are vastly different. LR provides a rather soft, flat, dull base image for further individual customization, either singly or in batches. OV3, as mentioned above, defaults to look like an out-of-camera JPEG, and needs all the settings reversed if you want to take a personal approach to each image.

    You only asked about editing, so I won't mention LR's cataloging and tagging ability.
     
  6. mcasan

    mcasan Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 26, 2014
    Atlanta
    Not surprising that there is no written comparison. Lightroom has huge marketshare and OV3 is limited to only Olympus bodies. So only a Olympus body owner would likely be interested.

    Remember that Lightroom has multiple modules:
    • Library
    • Develop
    • Slideshow
    • Map
    • Book
    • Print
    Does OV3 have such a wide range of functions? I doubt that very much.

    When I import in the LR library I always use default presets that create the same basic starting point for post processing. Use the power of presets to get you way down the post processing road. Does OV3 do presets?

    https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/applying-adjustments-develop-module-basic.html
     
  7. mcasan

    mcasan Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 26, 2014
    Atlanta
  8. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I would recommend downloading a 30 day trial version (for free). If you are like me, you'll find it a menacing, lumbering beast of a program that makes it harder to achieve good results, and you'll uninstall it in a couple weeks and happily spend your $150 elsewhere.
     
  9. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    Sorry, I cannot agree with you on that. If you had said that about Photoshop, I'd agree with you....but perhaps I'm biased as I had to learn Photoshop before Lightroom was even an option. In comparison, going to Lightroom is relatively easy.

    If we go with that train of thought - a more simplistic option might be ACDSee products.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    That's OK. That's why the trial is good. Maybe you like it. I did not. But we get to find out before dropping the $$$.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    Absolutely. Sound advice.
     
  12. GBarrington

    GBarrington Mu-43 Veteran

  13. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2014
    Vancouver BC
    Graham
    I just watched a few LR6 tutorials on the Adobe website. They brought me to the heart of what I wanted - retouching. I'm not concerned with making changes on the scale of PS capabilities, but want to be able to edit out blemishes and other unwanted details that sometimes take an image from 'delete' to 'great image'. ("Layers" in PS completely mystifies me.) The ability to lighten or darken individual areas is something I'd really like to have as a resource with images having both very bright and very dark zones.
    I think I'd use OV3 to export images as TIFs and work on those to do the spot removal and other retouching. As long as I could save the final results as either 16 bit TIF or JPG, it seems useful to me. LR does look like it requires some practice to provide really good final results, though.
    Any other suggestions? I still haven't figured out OV3 RAW 'False Color Suppresion' & 'Isolated Point Removal', Edit 'Unsharp Mask' & 'Lightness' vs 'Brightness'. As you can see, I have a lot to learn.
     
  14. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    This is just my view but I prefer to avoid exporting an image from one RAW processing app to another wherever possible. The reason for that is simple. Both OV3 and LR provide non-destructive processing. What that means is that when you edit an image in either of those applications, it does not change the RAW file. What it does is it stores the edit changes as a set of instructions in a database and then applies those changes whenever you reopen the image in that application. You can go back at any time and alter any of those individual changes simply by moving the sliders you've already used to a new setting, and you can add new editing changes whenever you like and then go back and alter them subsequently as well.

    When you export an image as a TIF or JPEG, the application creates a new file with those editing changes applied. That's what gets sent to the second application and you can edit that image and have it sent back to the first application, but the first application then sees and treats the returned image as a second file.

    So, for example's sake, you open a RAW image in OV3 and you make some edits including contrast and exposure. You export the image to LR for some local editing and it gets sent back to OV3 but what gets sent back is an altered TIF or JPEG file, it's not the same file as was originally exported by OV3. OV3 now has 2 files, the original RAW file and the edited TIF or JPEG that got sent back from LR. You subsequently decide that you want to adjust the exposure or contrast of the image you worked on in LR. You are now editing a TIF or JPEG so what you are doing is changing those parameters in the TIF or JPEG, you are no longer in the original RAW processing workflow. The original RAW file has no working relationship to the TIF or JPEG and you have less processing leeway when you edit a TIF or JPEG than you have when editing a RAW file. If you want to adjust the exposure or contrast settings at the RAW data level you can edit the TIF or JPEG but the results of those edits may not be as good as if you went back and re-edited the original RAW file. The problem is that if you re-edit the RAW file, the resulting image will not contain the edits you previously made in LR and you are going to have to export the image to LR again and make the changes you previously made there all over again. That means that what LR sends back to OV3 is going to be another changed TIF or JPEG so now you have one RAW file with a list of edits and 2 different TIFs or JPEGs. Every time you re-edit the RAW file you need to export a new TIF or JPEG to LR and redo the edits you made there if you want the final image to contain both sets of edits, and you end up creating a new TIF or JPEG in the process.

    There are also some things such as white balance and the white and black clipping points which can only be edited in the RAW file. When you create a TIF or JPEG from the RAW data on export from OV3 to LR you fix those parameters in the exported file and they can't be subsequently altered so if you decide you want to change one of those things after you've done some processing in the second application you have no choice but to go back to the original RAW file, re-edit it and then re-export it to the second application for reprocessing there. You simply cannot make those changes in the TIF or JPEG. Add to that the fact that RAW files have no colour space, they aren't sRGB or Adobe RGB or anything, they're just the RAW data. TIFs and JPEGs are created within a particular colour space and that places limitations on the range of colours they can show. The sRGB colour space is smaller than the Adobe RGB space so you can create an sRGB image from an Adobe RGB image though the colour conversion involved and the results may not be as good as you get when you create an sRGB TIF or JPEG from the RAW file, but you can't create an image with the full range of colours present in the Adobe RGB space from a file in the sRGB space. When it comes to editing colour information it's best to do it with the widest range of colour information available and that means it's always best to make those changes while working with the RAW data, not to a TIF or JPEG because the colour information available in those formats is never going to be as extensive as that contained in the RAW file. You always throw away some data in any conversion to TIF or JPEG and that is always going to place some limitations on what you can subsequently achieve when editing that file.

    On the other hand, if you work entirely in one application you just keep on editing, making whatever changes you like, and they just keep getting stored as part of that list of changes which are applied to the original RAW data whenever you re-open the RAW image in that application and which are also going to be applied whenever you export the image as a file for a purpose like posting on the web or printing. Whenever you edit the RAW image you always have full access to all of the data contained in the RAW file as well as to all of the previous edits you have made. That can be a big advantage and you are less likely to find the quality of your results being limited by earlier processing decisions.

    As to LR requiring some practice to provide really good final results, yes, that is true but so does OV3. All processing applications require practice to get the best results. If you can keep all of your processing in the one application, then you only have to learn how to work with that application. If you are going to do some things in OV3 and some other things in LR, you are going to have to acquire experience and skills in both applications in order to get the best results so you have two learning curves to get over rather than one.

    If you are just learning to process then in my view you're better off just working in one application and not swapping between applications for different tasks. You've got only one learning curve to get under your belt and whatever you do with the image you're always working with the original RAW data and you've got all of the advantages that go with editing RAW data rather than going to a particular point with the RAW data and then having to continue on with a TIF or JPEG file which has a different set of limitations on what you can and cannot do.

    Certainly there are some things you can do in LR that you can't do in OV3 and there are some things you can do in OV3 that you can't do in LR but you can get good results with either of them. You will probably find it a lot easier to just work with one, do everything in that one application, and to develop the skills and experience you need to get good results in that particular application. If you do that you're going to find that you can do more than you currently expect in that one application and when you've learnt to use everything it offers you may discover that you don't need or want to use a different application for some of the things you now think you make want to do that way.

    So my advice is to pick one application, either OV3 or LR, and just use it for everything until you're getting good results with it. Then think about what you can't do in that application but want to do and consider what the best way of doing those things is. It may be exporting the image to a second app for some processing, or it may be swapping to a different app and doing everything from the start in that app. Either way you're going to have to face the learning curve for the second application but it's a lot better, and easier, in my view to deal with one learning curve at a time, and to get reasonably proficient in one application before you start trying to learn a second one.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2014
    Vancouver BC
    Graham
    David A - wow! Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful input. I guess I'll need to find a way to make the basic LR RAW conversion look as much like OV3 as possible, then carry on from there. I understand the default setting of LR gives a slightly less saturated output than OV3, so I'll need to think on that. LR seems to be pretty popular compared to the free software each camera manufacturer provides. I'm not sure if it's because of the retouching capability or the better workflow.
    First thing is to get LR6. I think it would make a good birthday present from my wife.:thumbup:
     
  16. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    I mentioned that in post #5

    If you ever want to combine 2 images for any purpose, you will need to get a basic grasp of layers.
     
  17. David A

    David A Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 30, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    Why?

    The idea isn't to make the results from one thing look as much like the results from another thing. The idea is to make the results from whatever you're using look as good as possible. There's no reason to think that the results from OV3 are any more ideal than the results from any other application though they may very well be different. If you like the look of images from OV3 then that gives you an indication of what kind of result you're looking for but it doesn't automatically mean that you're going to be happiest getting as close to the OV3 result as possible.

    Don't limit yourself by trying to duplicate a particular result. Go for making the image appeal to you as much as you can make it. It doesn't matter whether it looks like the result from something else or not. What matters is that you really like the result for what it is, not whether or not it resembles something else.

    Glad you found my earlier response useful.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Brian Beezley

    Brian Beezley Mu-43 All-Pro

    I process first with OV3 and then export a 16-bit TIFF at final output resolution to RawTherapee. There I may do some local contrast enhancement, always do sharpening, and then I generate a final JPG. The main reason for doing things this way is that this two-program method does sharpening at final output resolution after resizing. In addition, RT has more effective sharpening algorithms than OV3. If I ever need it, it also has a sophisticated noise reduction algorithm with detailed controls.

    Sometimes I decide different OV3 processing would have been better. Perhaps I want a different white balance, overall contrast or brightness, or even a different output size. But I don't feed anything from RT back to OV3. I simply make the adjustments I want in OV3 and overwrite the TIFF. When I reopen it with RT, it automatically applies all of the processing I did previously. Usually that's exactly what I want and I immediately generate a JPG. If not, I readjust and then output it. I find this process easy.

    I don't keep the TIFFs since they can be easily regenerated.

    Brian
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2015
  19. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    I agree with everything David has said. My process is Lightroom-based for those very reasons. Its tools are powerful and it is a great one-stop-shop, up to the point where you want to use an image as a base for creative work. Then you need a pure editor.

    @Carbonman@Carbonman, most people these days don't fuss excessively about data space, because terabytes are cheaper than ever and that will continue. So I don't object to a workflow that passes modified TIFF images around between different editors. The key thing is to have a process that gets you the images you want in the end. Any intermediate images of half-worked-on files can be deleted at the end.

    If you browse the internet you will get a lot of negativity saying that Lightoom's raw conversion is inferior to this or that. Don't believe it. Their engines are powerful but the default settings are 'gentle', as I said in post #5, so your first vision of an image in Lightroom does not 'pop' etc, but the inherent quality is all there.

    I only recently got my first Olympus so I am new to OV3, but my impression is that its big strength is its ability to replicate the camera's settings for the initial conversion of a raw file. If you like to fine-tune your camera's image settings and like the look of what Olympus produces on the camera's screen, the OV3 gives you that as a starting point, which is great. It might also be a finishing point for many photos!
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Carbonman

    Carbonman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 10, 2014
    Vancouver BC
    Graham
    Thanks for the reminder to not try so hard to make images look like something else; I've found OV3 to give good colors right off the bat and want to keep getting good results. That said, I'm sometimes looking into adding a little saturation and sharpening to the original RAW files. (One of my favorite films was K64.)