Olympus EM-1 raw files look flat in LR 5.3 RC

Raw (ORF) files from the OM-D EM-1 look much flatter in 5.3RC than with the Olympus Viewer software.  I'm having to add considerable exposure and contrast adjustments to give good results.  Is the support for the EM-1 optimized in the Release Candidate?
A second question:  Why are there no lens profiles for micro four thirds lenses?  I'm having to manually correct vignetting.

One approach is to stop shooting JPGs with your camera and concentrate on getting the look you want from your raw files in LR.  
It could also be that LR isn’t able to display your images properly due to an incorrectly calibrated monitor.  Are you using hardware calibration?
Many micro-four-thirds cameras have always-on profiles built into LR, so you won’t see them listed.  This is due to Adobe needing to agree to non-disclosure agreements with some camera manufacturers for help in profiling their camera lenses and not being able to show the images raw from the camera, and not even being able to say whether a particular camera has a built-in profile or not. 
You can see the distortion of the original using a program like RawDigger:
http://www.rawdigger.com/
(click on the red version number at the top download)

Similar Messages

  • Problems with Lightroom 5.2 and Olympus EM-1 RAW files?

    There have been reports on DPREVIEW of color problems using Lightroom 5.2 with RAW files from the Olympus OM-D EM-1 camera.  This causes  difficulty creating camera profiles, and creates a red shift in Images.  JPG images are unaffected.
    Anyone else seeing this?
    When may we look forward to LR 5.3, hopefully with a fix?
    Thanks............... Jack Winberg

    The read me file from Adobe indicate that LR 5.2 has "preliminary" support for the Olympus EM-1 raw files.
    I would make sure you keep your original raw files so they can be converted when the support is finalized. i.e. I would not convert to dng on import if that is your normal workflow.

  • Olympus E-PM1 raw files

    Does anyone know how I can edit Olympus E-PM1 raw files in Photoshop elements?....is there a plugin or something?

    Can you look at what version of Camera Raw you have. Launch the Editor and click the menu:
    Help >> About Plug-in >> Camera Raw
    You should see a version number on a pop-up (press Esc to close) and it needs to be version 6.5 or later.

  • Why do Sony DSC-RX100M3 raw files look strange in PE9 when flash has been used in the shot?

    I have just bought a Sony DSC-RX100M3 camera and use it to shoot raw + jpeg.  I want to use the raw files in my Photoshop Elements 9, which has the Camera Raw plug-in version 6.5.0.216 installed. I have downloaded the Adobe DNG converter version 8.7.1.311 so I can import my Sony raw files into PE 9 as they cannot be used directly. Most of the time these raw files look OK, but when I use the flash on my camera and then look at the raw files in PE9 they look far more pink than the corresponding jpeg files. The jpeg files look more or less as I remember the scene when I shot the picture.
    When I look at the same raw and jpeg files in Sony's own Image Data Converter software (version 4.2.04.17270) the raw and jpeg files look very similar to one another, and there is no pink colour cast in the raw file.
    What am I doing wrong in Photoshop Elements? I though the DNG converter keeps all the information from the original raw file and makes no changes to it, so why does the raw file look so different when flash has been used?
    Thanks for any help you can give!
    AVM

    Looking at the pictures of the camera online, I'd say there is no lens shade--a device to keep light from the sides from causing lens flare--and the camera lens, itself, was just too far extended and there was a lens shadow.  You probably can't use the flash that close up and should back off and zoom in further.  Experimenting would give you a sense of what situations will have a shadow of the lens or not.
    Your ACR plug-in is old enough not use have Process Version 2012, yet, only 2010 and 2003 so Adobe didn't have the idea to put the selector down next to the camera profile. The toning options are better with Process 2012 so that would be a reason to upgrade, but I am not sure that the Camera Neutral profile in PSE9 would be different than PSE13.  If Adobe changed the camera profiles then people's pictures would look different once they upgraded to a new version and that's not something that's supposed to happen.
    You can certainly download the PSE13 trial and see if things look any different, but they may not:  Download a free trial or buy Adobe products | Adobe downloads   There would be newer minimum OS version requirements for the newer versions of Adobe software so check those out before trying to install, unless you're on Windows 7+ or OSX 10.8+ then it should be fine.
    One more thing, the White-Balance tint is set to +10 by the camera:
    This As Shot WB is more magenta and even when using the Adobe Standard profile, moving the Tint down to +0 makes things a little more green like your camera JPG.  So there is more than just changing the camera profile that you can do:

  • My RAW files look washed out jpegs are OK

    My RAW files look washed out, in camera I introduced warm colours by setting it on cloudy and set to vivid. They look great in other programs, how do I retain the original colors?

    Buddy, the issue is that Photoshop Camera Raw / Bridge don't use the parameters you set in-camera at all.  It may seem odd that it doesn't, but that's the way it works. 
    The idea is that these software tools give you full control over literally hundreds of factors that go into your raw conversions, and trying to emulate the presets on the camera just doesn't make sense.
    You need to save new Camera Raw Defaults to deliver color you like in new exposures you haven't opened before.  Check especially the Camera Profile setting in the Camera Calibration tab in Camera Raw.  Adobe does provide some options that will get you close to what the camera does, then you can tweak the settings further.
    For what it's worth, it's not wrong to want the color to match, especially if you like the color the camera delivers.  I've created Camera Raw Defaults for my own cameras that provide a very good match between the in-camera color and what a new exposure looks like when first opened in Camera Raw...  I don't always leave it that way, though. 
    -Noel

  • Aperture 3.1.3 and Olympus E-PL2 RAW files

    Hi all;
    I'm using Aperture 3.1.3 on a mid-2010 MacBook Pro 2.66 GHz, 8 gig RAM. OS is OS X 10.7
    My new Olympus E-PL2 RAW files  (.ORF) do not seem to be compatible, despite Apple indicating that they are supported. The corresponding DNG files produce the same error message.  Whenever I try to export or use a plug-in, I get the following message:
    Editing Error
    This image cannot be renedered for editing
    because Aperture does not support the image format.
    Does anyone have any recommendations for fixing this issue?
    Thanks!!
    Tim

    Hi Tim,
    I'm running a similar configuration (hardware and camera) and I'm able to edit RAW in Aperture/Lion. Do you have all other s/w maintainance applied?
    Only problem I've seen since Lion is problems with images not on the MBP, in particular my NAS library is no inaccessible.

  • Why are my RAW files looking like infrared?

    Hi All,
    I use Aperture frequently for my editing - just recently had a ridiculous problem that results in my RAW files looking infrared.
    Have I enabled only a red channel or something?? Please help!  See pic!

    Wow, what a silly oversight - I knew I had had an update to do, but hadnt bothered with it yet. Thanks a bunch Ernie, I should have thought of us.
    Much appreciated.

  • Heavily Jagged Curves/Diagonals on Olympus EP-L1 RAW Files and possibly the whole PEN Family

    Hello everybody
    I have a serious situation here. My Olympus EP-L1 raw files have serious jagged diagonals. It's only visible on sharp curved surfaces. I ran some test on straight sharp diagonals from 45º to 0º but found no artifacts. Here is a comparison between in-camera jpeg and .ORF converted to DNG in Lightroom 3.3, ACR 6.3. BTW, this is visible on .ORF files as well as DNG. I took these photos with RAW+JPEG at full resolution, highest quality.
    Full thread and samples here
    Thanks

  • Olympus E-30 Raw files compatibility

    When will be able Olympus E-30 Raw files compatibility with aperture ?

    Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.6 doesn't works properly with Olympus E-30 Raw files.
    A 4032 x 3024 file i rendered to a 160 x 120 file.?????
    No problem with Lightroom.
    I try and retry with aperture and my 60 thousands images,excellent with light, color and detail treatment, but with too much problems with image management.............
    Any solution ?
    I have to wait a new camera raw update ?

  • Olympus E-500 raw file problem with long exposures

    Hi,
    This topic has come up before, but wasn't resolved. Maybe its somewhere else, but I can't find it.
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4994383&#4994383
    Raw files from my Olympus E-500 with exposures over 3.2s come up with overexposed looking previews in Aperture. I think there is some automatic noise reduction (dark frame) info in these files, since they are 16.68Mb instead of the normal 13.47Mb. Apparently Aperture doesn't know what to do with these larger files.
    Is there a known way around this within Aperture? The files open fine within Olympus Master 2 and Raw Photo Processor.
    I've pasted a screen shot here with some links to raw files:
    http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~grant/wp/2007/10/raw-problems-with-aperture/
    cheers
    Grant

    Yea, I've had that issue also and figured out the DNG workaround. Filed a bugreport with Apple on Nov 2nd, 2006. It sat with what looked like no attention right up until I got an e-mail on Oct 26th, 2007 (notice the date) saying that the issue was fixed in 10.5. I had already preordered Leopard so was hoping this was right. It wasn't. It's still borked. Logged notes back into the issue saying it wasn't.
    Perhaps if more E-500 users report this it'll get more attention.
    http://bugreport.apple.com

  • Olympus E-P1, RAW files, barrel distortion and Snow Leopard

    I currently use Aperture 2.0, a MacbookPro, and a new Oly E-P1.  I have just returned from a trip to Spain with over 1000 RAW files.  Aperture won't recognize them.  Tricking Aperture into accepting them as E-30 RAWs leaves in huge barrel distortion issues. Always silent Apple won't even say if they're working on recognizing them in an upcoming release.  The native OLY RAW converters mostly correct the barrel distortion with funny math in their extremely lame Olympus Master 2 that came with the camera.  Raw Photo Processor (which I was counting on to save me) which will recognize the files, also leaves in barrel distortion.
    I understand that the latest Adobe Camera Raw 5.5 will read Oly E-P1 RAW files.  I see no way to use Adobe Camera Raw 5.5 without upgrading my current Photoshop from CS to CS4 and purchasing Lightroom.  Total cost, about $400.  I might be willing (as an amateur) to do this, as I probably need to upgrade to CS4 anyway, BUT, I understand through a little digging on the web, that I will probably have to downgrade my OS from OS X v. 10.6 (Snow Leopard) apprently not supported by Adobe yet.  Both of these will be a major commitment of time and money.
    I would like to make sure that the Adobe Camera Raw 5.5 does indeed correct the barrel distortion first.  Anybody out there using it?  Also, if anyone has any other suggestions, I'd appreciate it.
    Thanks.

    If you want to try, just download the LR 2.5 demo version from the Adobe Website. You don't need to upgrade Photoshop. Lightroom will work just fine by itself, even when using CS as the external editor as it contains the full ACR raw rendering kernel and you can just have Lightroom render tifs to be sent to PS. Also, Lightroom and CS4 work perfectly fine on 10.6. Lightroom should be run in 32-bit mode for the time being if you need the tight Photoshop integration, but that is about it. I don't know where you got the info that you would need to downgrade. That is simply false.

  • Why will CS4 not open DNG files converted from Olympus E-M1 raw files?

    For several years I have been able to use the DNG Converter to convert .ORF raw files from my Olympus E-M1 and then open them for processing in CS4. Suddenly CS4 quit recognizing these DNG files saying "Photoshop could not complete your request because Photoshop does not recognize this type of file"
    I have not changed any preferences. I'm using E-M1 v3.0, DNG Converter v8.3.0.141 on a Mac. I have deleted DNG converter several times, even reinstalled an earlier version but nothing changes.
    However, CS4 will open DNG files converted from Pentax raw .PEF files from my K-5. Weird. It's the Olympus raw DNG conversions that won't open.
    I can view the DNG converted files in question in Mac's Preview just fine but not CS4. Any ideas will be appreciated.

    Be sure the DNG Converter's compatibility is set to provide support for your version of ACR:
    Benjamin

  • D600 RAW files look different that D300 raw files

    Please help me understand what's going on and more importantly, how to fix it.
    RAW files from my D300 and my D600 look completely different. These are both NEF files, imported to Lightroom 4.2 using exactly the same import preset. I did NOTHING to either file, except that the D300 one was at 1/160 second and the D600 one was at 1/200 second, so I changed exposure on the D300 one by 1/3 stop so they would match. What I did was to shoot the D300 picture, then carefully changed the lens over to the D600 without moving anything, changed the D600 to DX mode to match the field of view and shot the same picture. The files should be essentially identical.
    [b]This is from the D300:[/b]
    [b]This is from the D600:[/b]
    You will notice that the saturation on the D600 image is much higher. And it's much more yellow. The pictures were shot 2 minutes apart, from the same spot. Same lens, same camera settings.
    First thing I did was to change the color temperature and tint to match: from  4150/+6 to 4200/+2. There was no visible change (I'm looking at them in compare mode in Lightroom on a calibrated monitor).
    Next, I tried to change the D600 image to match the D300 one. I had to make substantial changes to both color balance and saturation of various colors, as well as contrast and black levels to get close. I'd give you absolute numbers but it varies from image to image. In this case, I had to drop the color temperature to 3500, for instance. The easiest way to do this was to use the white balance eyedropper on a grey area in the road.
    I'm wondering if this is related to how LR handles the D600 NEF files. LR 4.2 says the D600 algorithm is 'preliminary'. Could this be part of it?
    Anyone else here have a D600 and noticed the same thing?
    Message title was edited by: Brett N

    I'm not really good at using the right technical terms. Let me go back to basics.
    Adobe came out with Lightroom 4.2 which has (preliminary) support for the D600. I installed it. I put the memory card from the camera into the card reader and Lightroom popped up because that's what I had set for the default for uploading photos. I told it which folder to store the image in (J:photos/2012-10/2012-10-05) and where to put a second copy (D:/px/lightroom import copies). Then I told LR to "save Current Settings as New Preset..." and I named it "D600 imports". Then I clicked "Import".
    When I looked at the files afterwards in Lightroom, the sliders were all at zero except for the ones I noted before. I don't know why Lightroom chose 25 for the sharpening, but it did. Coincidentally, that's the same number it chooses for my D300 imports. I also don't know why it chose a color temp of 4200 and a tint of +4 (I was shooting on auto white balance).
    Then I plugged in the card from the D300. I decided not to touch the preset (which still said "D600 imports") and I clicked "Import". The files went to the same folders and presumably, had the same sharpening and other slider levels applied.
    Now when I look at the camera calibration in the develop module, under profile it says "Adobe Standard" on the D300 images and "Beta" on the D600 images, so Lightroom somehow knows which camera I used and sets itself accordingly.
    At no time did my fingers ever leave my hand, and I did not modify, click on or even breathe on any of the Lightroom default settings. FWIW, my programming days are 35 years behind me and I'm a total non-tekkie user now. I wouldn't know how to 'hack' the D300 files if my life depended on it.
    I know that conditions could have changed in the 98 seconds between the D600 shot and the D300 shot. Trust me when I say they didn't.
    Regarding Noise Reduction: as far as I know, there are only two user accessible settings in the cameras: "Long Exposure Noise Reduction" and "High ISO Noise Reduction". Generally I have both of those on... but since these shots were at 1/200 sec and ISO 400, they wouldn't have kicked in anyway.
    For WB, I used exactly the same spot on the road in both images. But you're right, I should use a grey target and I will next time.
    To make the two pictures match as best I could tell onscreen (I changed the D600 image to match the D300 one), I had to change the temp from 4200 to 3500, the tint from +4 to +18, the exposure to -.33, shadows to -48, blacks to -19 (these are huge changes) and it still didn't look as good as the D300 image. It was 'harder' or 'crisper'. There was no mood, no softness to it. It's like looking at a "vivid" Jpeg vs. a "Standard" Jpeg, or a cooked HDR, if that makes any sense.
    This isn't so much a complaint as a request for understanding, so that I know when I bring up an image, how to fix it. I shot a landscape and blew it up onscreen to 200%. I could see every leaf, every twig, every shadow's hard edge. That's not a bad thing, that's amazing: I just want to be able to control it.
    Glenn

  • Aperture 1.1 and Olympus E-500 RAW files

    Hi there.
    My problem:
    RAW data from my Olympus E-500 isn´t supported by Aperture 1.1
    After importing RAW files there´s no image data and the preview displays "unsupported image format"
    I wonder why, since that camera is listed in the compatibility list under http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/cameras.html
    Even if it is not listed in the compatibility list of apertures supported RAW filetypes, in my understanding aperture should deal with those files if the OS supports the camera. But this understanding seems to be wrong..
    I know that RAW files can be quite different in structure, so files generated by the E-1 seem not to be the same as RAW files generated by the E-500.. even if they have the same files extension. But I wonder that even the E300 is supported but not the E500.
    Does anybody knows if there is a workaround for this or if there is a chance to use Aperture with these files in the near future?
    Thanks for any information.
    G5 Dual 2.5 GHz, 4GB RAM   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

    I know that RAW files can be quite different in
    structure, so files generated by the E-1 seem not to
    be the same as RAW files generated by the E-500..
    even if they have the same files extension. But I
    wonder that even the E300 is supported but not the
    E500.
    You are indeed correct that the .ORF raw files generated by the E-1 and the E-300 are different from those generated by the E-500. Olympus must take the responsibility for this. I will assume that they had some good reason for changing the file structure between camera models, but I don't know what it is and have difficulty imagining what it could be. When the E-500 was released, there was considerable discussion about this on several forums (notably the Olympus SLR forum at dpreview.com) as there were several other software programs (sorry, can't remember which specific ones) that also had been working well with .ORF files from the E-1 and E-300, but did not support E-500 .ORF files.
    Why Apple has not added support for the E-500 raw files is another good question, and I hope you've posted your request as feedback for the Aperture team. I am using Aperture and an E-1, and have been enjoying the combination ever since Aperture 1.0 was released. The raw conversions for the E-1 have definitely improved since 1.1 was released, so Apple knows something about .ORF files. I hope that you will also get to experience that (soon) when support for the E-500 files is added. I'm not aware of any workaround at this time, but will post here again should I come across one.
    Let's hope that Apple has not simply assumed that all .ORF files are equal, and has not noticed that you have a problem.

  • Sony a77 raw files look noisy/grainy when opened on cs6?

    HI
    i'm having problems with my images looking quite harsh when opening the raw files, this didn't happen on the trial version, i've only just got the cs6 from adobe so is there a setting i need to change?
    thanks Andy

    You misinterpreted me.  I meant that without seeing what you're seeing it's hard to provide accurate help, and that answers would be more like "shots in the dark".
    Can you please post a photograph (or small crop from one)?  Perhaps even a link to a representative raw file, with which someone else could try and reproduce what you're seeing.
    -Noel

Maybe you are looking for