My only complaint about Olympus Viewer is that so far as I can tell, the Chromatic Aberration tool doesn't do anything, and I have legacy lenses that could really use it. However, those features can be de-selected if you like. It will also by default apply the usual corrections and whatnot that it would when creating the in-camera JPG I consider this a plus, as Olympus' straigh-out-of-the-camera JPEG algorithms are pretty good. I would like to also reply to Bryce's statement, though: All you have to do is select the RAW tab, and Olympus Viewer will open the files in a 16-bit color space using all the RAW data. Are photoshop products able to open OM-D raw files yet? The last time I tried using their converter, the results sucked.
Olympus viewer 3 tutorial software#
:-( Moot point anyway, I guess.Īnyway, I do think that the Olympus Viewer software does the following nice things:ġ) I think it takes advantage of "knowing stuff" about the Olympus camerasĢ) It has all the data to automatically do lens corrections for Olympus lenses and even for some other lenses on Olympus cameras I hear that that data can be hard to get for Photoshop.ģ) It can import Olympus RAW, and export in useful formats like 16-bit TIFF with the aforementioned brand-specific corrections already applied. I think that is the one, but I can't watch it to make sure. I suppose you are talking about this video? 111 months ago Unfortunately, that video doesn't seem to be available anymore.
Olympus viewer 3 tutorial pro#
There was a youtube video in which a pro compares the default output of Olympus Viewer to the output of Lightroom, and is surprised at the better quality of the default Viewer output. Olympus Viewer displays the JPG image, even if you shot in raw. Lightroom displays the bare raw image unless you shot specifically in JPG. Indeed, a number of settings in olympus viewer are "as shot", I will check again with some options turned off. Yeah, doesn't Olympus Viewer take camera settings into account when displaying the image?
Olympus viewer 3 tutorial iso#
Could it be possible it applies it in OV3, and not in Lightroom? What iso was the photo taken at? It appears that there is definitely some noise reduction being done on the left photo.
:origin()/pre00/db81/th/pre/i/2015/114/f/6/cover_by_lovelivelilith-d58nq3z.jpg "olympus viewer 3 tutorial")
Is there noise reduction happening automatically when you upload to olympus viewer? On your camera, you can set a noise reduction value in your menus. How do they look at sizes close to those that you'd intend to use the photo at? It's noisier, that's for sure, but the Olympus Viewer one seems mushier to me and I'd take noise over mushiness, myself. So, I don't have experience of the former, but I'm not at all sure that the Lightroom version is inferior. I've never used Olympus Viewer and never had any issues with Lightroom (I'm using 4 still).
I can imagine that adobe does not have all the secrets from olympus to produce a comparable result, but the color difference and grainy look is quite disturbing. Has anyone else experienced such a difference or am I missing something? Right side is the raw file directly imported in LR5. Left is the image exported in OV3 to 16-bit tiff and imported in lightroom for easy comparison. I have opened other files in both programs but never noticed such a big difference between the unmodified images. I'm rather new to post processing and after fiddling with it a little in Olympus Viewer 3, I tried it also in lightroom 5. I have a picture that is a little underexposed and not too sharp that I wanted to try and improve a little with some post processing.
0 kommentar(er)
