ORF to DNG

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by MikeM, Sep 23, 2006.

  1. MikeM

    MikeM Guest

    I converted my ORF files to DNG using Adobe DNG converter. When
    viewing a directory with both the ORF and DNG files with FSView slide
    show I noticed that the DNG files look slightly brighter and a bit
    more saturated. Is this a prpoerty of the conversion or just how
    FSView displays the different formats?

    Thanks
    Mike
    MikeM, Sep 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MikeM

    just bob Guest

    "MikeM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I converted my ORF files to DNG using Adobe DNG converter. When
    > viewing a directory with both the ORF and DNG files with FSView slide
    > show I noticed that the DNG files look slightly brighter and a bit
    > more saturated. Is this a prpoerty of the conversion or just how
    > FSView displays the different formats?



    I do not know of FSView but is it possible Adobe used "Auto" settings as it
    does by default in ACR/Bridge?
    just bob, Sep 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. MikeM

    John Bean Guest

    On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:45:32 -0700, "just bob"
    <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> wrote:

    >
    >"MikeM" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>I converted my ORF files to DNG using Adobe DNG converter. When
    >> viewing a directory with both the ORF and DNG files with FSView slide
    >> show I noticed that the DNG files look slightly brighter and a bit
    >> more saturated. Is this a prpoerty of the conversion or just how
    >> FSView displays the different formats?

    >
    >
    >I do not know of FSView but is it possible Adobe used "Auto" settings as it
    >does by default in ACR/Bridge?
    >


    Yes, the converter uses auto settings to generate the
    preview.

    MikeM: it doesn't affect the raw data, only the preview. The
    ORF will have a preview that matches the camera settings at
    the time of exposure, the DNG will have a preview that
    reflects how ACR would convert the file using its "auto"
    default settings. It's unlikely that the two will ever look
    exactly the same.


    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Sep 23, 2006
    #3
  4. MikeM

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    John Bean <> wrote:

    {..}
    >
    > Yes, the converter uses auto settings to generate the
    > preview.
    >
    > MikeM: it doesn't affect the raw data, only the preview. The
    > ORF will have a preview that matches the camera settings at
    > the time of exposure, the DNG will have a preview that
    > reflects how ACR would convert the file using its "auto"
    > default settings. It's unlikely that the two will ever look
    > exactly the same.


    Yes, I've found this too. I got my E500 yesterday, and the few test
    shots I took were able to at least give me a chance to test various
    software to deal with the ORF files.

    I did the tests using only the software's default settings, and carried
    out no adjustments at all. All were then saved to a TIFF file.

    iPhoto and PhotoShop Elements seemed to treat the files about the same,
    with a little extra saturation, and bit of colour casting - I took some
    flowers that were pink, and both of these softwares put a purple cast on
    them. The only difference was the TIFF in iPhoto ended up at 65MB!, The
    Elements version was a more normal 20MB.

    I also tried the supplied Camedia Master software too. This was a little
    slower in processing the images, as it did a fresh 'developing image'
    run every time I adjusted anything (which I didn't use in this test).
    However, the images it produced were much more neutral in colour, and
    had a lot more detail left, but were slightly darker too. It does have a
    habit of cropping a tiny amount off the top of every image though.

    Initially I think my process would be to use Camedia Master to
    post-process the RAW file, and then use Elements to do any further
    editing on a TIFF file.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/>
    <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
    Andy Hewitt, Sep 23, 2006
    #4
  5. MikeM

    John Bean Guest

    On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:03:58 +0100,
    (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    >iPhoto and PhotoShop Elements seemed to treat the files about the same,
    >with a little extra saturation, and bit of colour casting - I took some
    >flowers that were pink, and both of these softwares put a purple cast on
    >them. The only difference was the TIFF in iPhoto ended up at 65MB!, The
    >Elements version was a more normal 20MB.


    You probably made a 16-bit TIFF with iPhoto and an 8-bit
    TIFF with Elements.

    >I also tried the supplied Camedia Master software too. This was a little
    >slower in processing the images, as it did a fresh 'developing image'
    >run every time I adjusted anything (which I didn't use in this test).
    >However, the images it produced were much more neutral in colour, and
    >had a lot more detail left, but were slightly darker too. It does have a
    >habit of cropping a tiny amount off the top of every image though.


    Adobe raw converters don't do a good job on Olympus colour I
    have to agree. Silkypix is the only converter I've used
    (other than the Olymus software) that gets it right.

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Sep 23, 2006
    #5
  6. MikeM

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    John Bean <> wrote:

    > On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:03:58 +0100,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    > >iPhoto and PhotoShop Elements seemed to treat the files about the same,
    > >with a little extra saturation, and bit of colour casting - I took some
    > >flowers that were pink, and both of these softwares put a purple cast on
    > >them. The only difference was the TIFF in iPhoto ended up at 65MB!, The
    > >Elements version was a more normal 20MB.

    >
    > You probably made a 16-bit TIFF with iPhoto and an 8-bit
    > TIFF with Elements.


    Yup, I have just worked that out, doh!

    > >I also tried the supplied Camedia Master software too. This was a little
    > >slower in processing the images, as it did a fresh 'developing image'
    > >run every time I adjusted anything (which I didn't use in this test).
    > >However, the images it produced were much more neutral in colour, and
    > >had a lot more detail left, but were slightly darker too. It does have a
    > >habit of cropping a tiny amount off the top of every image though.

    >
    > Adobe raw converters don't do a good job on Olympus colour I
    > have to agree. Silkypix is the only converter I've used
    > (other than the Olymus software) that gets it right.


    Hmmm, looks like I'll stick with Camedia for now than, although that's
    not actually a bad bit of software as it is.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/>
    <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
    Andy Hewitt, Sep 23, 2006
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. leo

    question on ORF in L3 VPN

    leo, Apr 11, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    342
  2. EugeneC173

    Need help on Oly C8080 ORF. file conversion

    EugeneC173, Jun 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
    EugeneC173
    Jun 13, 2004
  3. Gene Palmiter

    ORF and THM Files from Oly E-10

    Gene Palmiter, Sep 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    338
    Gene Palmiter
    Sep 2, 2004
  4. Sample files required : - CRW, RAF, ORF

    , Mar 1, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    564
    Bob Harrington
    Mar 2, 2006
  5. stratocasted

    URGENT HELP required for olympus orf raw file

    stratocasted, Nov 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    879
Loading...

Share This Page