Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Poor Lightroom OM-D profile
#1
Just a warning for future olympus owners & lightroom.



While Lightroom did just fine with the E-P1 AFAIR, it's doing a bit of a massacre with the OM-D files, at least on my computer. I suspected something wrong while reviewing the violet skyes of central park. Haven't had much blue skies until that trip.



See http://www.catbag.net/sylvain/temp/LR4vsOViewer2.png



Adobe on the left, Olympus on the right, default settings.

I found that adjusting the Adobe preset blue hue to -10 makes for a quick fix but the rest is still all over the place and you can fix that if you're patient enough.



Although I did remember it was also slightly different with the E-P1, this is now pretty ugly as I got to this conclusion without comparing. Something was just wrong. Sad shit...



I guess I won't bother for most "snapshots" like this one.



Just keep that in mind, you might need to export tiff from Olympus viewer file first. Which is a shame at 45megs the file...



Bonus question, is anything making TIFF files as flexible as raw files wrt highlight recovery (is the headroom in the file?), white balance tweaking etc ?



Greetings,

S.
#2
Hi Sylvain,

[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1351775971' post='20775']

....



Just keep that in mind, you might need to export tiff from Olympus viewer file first. Which is a shame at 45megs the file...



Bonus question, is anything making TIFF files as flexible as raw files wrt highlight recovery (is the headroom in the file?), white balance tweaking etc ?



Greetings,

S.

[/quote]

The answer to that question is both yes and no <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />. It depends on the colour space selected, and you may want to check your export for that as well, BTW, as choosing the wrong colour space may well result in these weird skies etc., or an overall shift in colour(s).



You need to make sure you do a "native" export to 16-bit tiffs, with at most only a little sharpening added (25%), Adobe RGB should be ok here. Having said that, I honestly don't know how much processing the OM-D itself does on files - the colour shifts may actually be recorded in the actual RAWs, who knows? OTOH, LR should really do at least the same thing in this regard as the camera does, i.e., fix any colour shifts which are recorded by the system as a standard unadulterated RAW...



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#3
Thanks Wim, I'll have to play a bit with all this. I never had to bother before, spending most of my time in lightroom. I find it hard to believe that Adobe botched it so much.
#4
Sylvain, please do check Photoshop as well if you do have a copy, to see what happens there. It may well be that support for the OM-D RAW files is not up to scratch yet. Another option would be to try the latest version of the free Adobe DNG-converter - LR should be able to handle the output files as well.



The one for Windows: [url="http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Windows"]http://www.adobe.com...latform=Windows[/url]



And the one for Mac: [url="http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?platform=Macintosh&product=106"]http://www.adobe.com...osh&product=106[/url]



HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#5
Thanks Wim,



I don't have photoshop anymore but I don't think I'd see a difference : Lightroom RAW engine is in fact embedded ACR. They even synchronize the release of both products.



All the develop controls are a perfect 1:1 mirror to adobe camera raw.



I'm still wondering about an elegant alternative workflow. The TIFF way is going to disrupt my newly established storage policy.



I guess the ideal way would be lobbying Adobe to death, but we know how deaf they are. Took them a millenium to add soft proofing... to leave out CMYK used by their cool Blurb integration feature.



Will keep you posted,



Sylvain
#6
Hi Sylvain,



From what I hear (and see), output from LR and PS is not the same, actually, and it requires a fair amount of work to get it the same, it that is one's objective. I would honestly suggest to try the free RAW and DNG converter to see how that handles things. It is also an extra step, but possibly more convenient. than tiffs. I have stopped using tiffs because they are so large, and generally use psds these days for intermediate steps.



To be very honest, for standard processing I tend to use DxO Optics, as that allows for convenient batch processing. For the special images I use PS - I try LR occasionally, but I don't find it intuitive (yet), plus I am used to all the nice add-ins I have, which work more conveniently in PS than they do in LR <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />..



HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#7
Just a heads up with DNG converter : exact same rendering in lightroom. Not really surprising.



Can't check in PS though.
#8
Ok, thanks Sylvain. That's a major pain IOW.



Kind regards, WIm
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#9
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1352375453' post='20886']

Ok, thanks Sylvain. That's a major pain IOW.



Kind regards, WIm

[/quote]



I'll see this weekend if I adobe has trial versions of photoshop but I don't think it will make any difference. I really think Adobe rationalized its RAW engine.



Major pain indeed, I'm very disappointed and feel stuck because I really like lightroom very much and I can't see myself moving away.



I can try my own calibration but there are still many things that I don't understand.

How can one calibrate regardless of a WB tint & temperature? Most chart based solutions you can buy either work on a "WB presets" basis (requiring from the user a tedious lab quality lighting control) or ask you to make a test shot "on-site" with the chart, a bit like with WB grey cards. Also a royal, unpractical pain in the memory card slot. Well, that's what I gathered from quick browsing. I just don't understand it fully yet.



When that part is solved, how can I calibrate to get the Olympus rendering? I stay with olympus because I like their colour identity the best.



The "huelight" profiles that many people seem to like don't seem to do anything about that huge violet cast and it often looks like trial & error calibration from the creator. And given it doesn't show in Olympus viewer, I don't think my camera is to blame.
#10
nobody reads this but for the sake of archival :



here are three shots from LR4, Olympus Viewer 2 et C One Pro 7 (nice 60 days trial, btw, very good approach to get to know it, looks like a nice software).



OV2 still best, followed by C1 & Adobe last.



Interestingly, the FOV of C1 is visibly larger, while still corrected !



I'm still not excluding some ICC issue...
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)