RAW ORF import - files dark & muddy & resolution is wrong

[dotlyc]

I'm evaluating the trial version of AP to see if it will free me from PS Elements. One problem that's really bothering me is the poor quality of the ORF RAW files imported from my Olympus E-M1. They're dark and muddy looking -- they look nothing like what I see in Oly's Viewer 3. Is this because I'm still using the trial version 1.4. (If so, it's not a feature that encourages someone to buy the program.) Will it be different if I buy the program and get the latest updated Beta version? If not, has anyone found a solution to this problem? I read a previous thread that said the problem was fixed but it's not fixed for me.

 

I also just discovered that the ORF files appear to be imported at 96 DPI, despite the fact that a resolution of 300 is set in the camera. I saved some processed files before I realized this and now I have to do them over again. Why does this happen and how can I make sure imported RAW files are the correct resolution?

 

Also, why is it not possible to see the image resolution anywhere in the UI? I had to use the Resize Document menu to see that the resolution is 96 DPI and change it to 300 DPI.

[MikeFromMesa]

I have not seen anything like what you are describing when using Canon raw images with AP and APB. There is no difference between how the trial and the full version treat images and I would be interested in finding out if the problem is related to AP or something on your system. Would it be possible for you to upload one of your raw images to someplace like dropbox so some of us could see if we get the same results? If we see the same thing then it is something to do with how AP handles these particular the raw images but, if we do not, then it must be something on your system.

 

I have not heard anyone complain about this problem with any other raw images and I have personally used Canon, Nikon and Sony raw images without any problem.

 

[dotlyc]

I have not seen anything like what you are describing when using Canon raw images with AP and APB. There is no difference between how the trial and the full version treat images and I would be interested in finding out if the problem is related to AP or something on your system. Would it be possible for you to upload one of your raw images to someplace like dropbox so some of us could see if we get the same results? If we see the same thing then it is something to do with how AP handles these particular the raw images but, if we do not, then it must be something on your system.

 

I have not heard anyone complain about this problem with any other raw images and I have personally used Canon, Nikon and Sony raw images without any problem.

 

Thanks for your response. Based on a comment made in another forum thread, I was able to solve the "dark and muddy" problem by changing the RAW engine settings in the Develop Assistant and tweaking some of the Exposure and Enhance settings with a preset. I can now get imported RAW images that look very close to what I see in Olympus Viewer 3.

 

However, the problem with the RAW files being imported at 96 dpi remains. I still have to change them to 300 dpi using the Resize menu. I do this without resampling. Am I correct that this retains the quality of the image?

[James Ritson]

Hi dotlyc,

 

I shoot with an E-M1 and I can't say I've noticed a quality issue. Do bear in mind that the Olympus viewer will probably mimic the picture mode settings that you shot with, whereas most RAW converters will not. It might be worth checking that your picture settings are not influencing how you expose your images, as it could be throwing the brightness/contrast off.

 

Regarding DPI, if you simply change the value without resampling then you are not physically altering the image, so no worries there. Try not to get too hung up on DPI, changing it in camera will not influence the resolution, it's more for printing purposes. Your RAW files are going to be 16 megapixels regardless of the DPI setting. You would probably find that a JPEG from the camera will store the DPI value you have set.

 

Hope that helps!

 

[Edit] Just to clarify further - the DPI value does not affect the decoded resolution of your RAW files. You will find different RAW converters use various DPI values by default (for example 240, or in Photo's case, 96). What you should be concerned with are the pixel dimensions, which can be found in the top left of the Develop persona when you load a RAW file into Photo (near the Develop and Cancel buttons).

[dotlyc]

Hi dotlyc,

 

I shoot with an E-M1 and I can't say I've noticed a quality issue. Do bear in mind that the Olympus viewer will probably mimic the picture mode settings that you shot with, whereas most RAW converters will not. It might be worth checking that your picture settings are not influencing how you expose your images, as it could be throwing the brightness/contrast off.

 

Regarding DPI, if you simply change the value without resampling then you are not physically altering the image, so no worries there. Try not to get too hung up on DPI, changing it in camera will not influence the resolution, it's more for printing purposes. Your RAW files are going to be 16 megapixels regardless of the DPI setting. You would probably find that a JPEG from the camera will store the DPI value you have set.

 

Hope that helps!

 

[Edit] Just to clarify further - the DPI value does not affect the decoded resolution of your RAW files. You will find different RAW converters use various DPI values by default (for example 240, or in Photo's case, 96). What you should be concerned with are the pixel dimensions, which can be found in the top left of the Develop persona when you load a RAW file into Photo (near the Develop and Cancel buttons).

 

 

Thanks for this information. I only use the Natural picture mode in the E-M1 and I have all the settings for sharpening, contrast etc. set to zero. I only shoot RAW, not JPG. So I assume the camera is imposing very minimal, if any, processing on the images. From reading these forums, I discovered the Develop Assistant and when I changed the settings to enable "tone curve", that took care of the "muddy and dark" problem. A few adjustments of black point, contrast and clarity in a preset took care of the rest. The pixel dimensions of the imported RAW files are correct, even though the DPI is set to 96. The files I've processed so far seem to be turning out okay.

[James Ritson]

Hey again, I was intrigued to see the difference so I downloaded the Olympus Raw Viewer software and opened some E-M1 files, but I'm not seeing a huge difference. I've attached one comparison so you can see how they compare. I use the Natural picture mode as well.

 

Is it a consistent difference with all your images, or are there certain types of shots that look muddier and darker? It would be interesting to see the results you're getting as I can't reproduce them here.

 

Thanks,

James

[dotlyc]

Hey again, I was intrigued to see the difference so I downloaded the Olympus Raw Viewer software and opened some E-M1 files, but I'm not seeing a huge difference. I've attached one comparison so you can see how they compare. I use the Natural picture mode as well.

 

Is it a consistent difference with all your images, or are there certain types of shots that look muddier and darker? It would be interesting to see the results you're getting as I can't reproduce them here.

 

Thanks,

James

 

Hi, James:

 

Your test images were pretty close to each other and that is not what I was seeing originally when I imported ORF files into AP.

 

I only just started using AP so I didn't test a lot of images but I did try several different kinds. All the ORF files looked "muddy and dark" when I imported them but the ones that were naturally darker were worse than the ones that were naturally lighter.

 

Things improved considerably when I changed the "tone curve" settings in the Developer Assistant from "take no action" to "apply tone curve. I could make further improvements by tweaking the following settings in the right-hand panel: Exposure/Black point and Enhance/Contrast-Clarity-Vibrance. I created a preset for these but they can be adjusted with each image.

 

I've attached a PDF showing three images. The first is what I see in Olympus Viewer 3. The second, which looks quite similar, is what I get with the preferences and exposure/enhance adjustments in AP described above. The final image is what I was getting before making those adjustments. You can see it looks dark, soft and washed out -- like it has a dirty gray layer on top. This was a light image; the results were even worse with darker images. 

 

ORF test images.pdf

 

I haven't found a way to get the files imported at 300 DPI. It's not a big deal to change it but I have to make sure to remember to do so before I process and save the files to another format.

[James Ritson]

Interestingly, it looks like the default option for you is not to apply the tone curve - it is usually the other way round whereby the tone curve is applied by default.

 

Not applying the tone curve would achieve the washed-out look you have described: raw files use a linear tone curve, whereas processed jpegs have a logarithmic curve, which is perceptually more pleasing for us to look at. Therefore we typically add a tone curve to the raw image to make it easier for us to view.

 

If you were to load the raw file into another program that lets you define/disable the tone curve, you would see a similar result (FastRawViewer from LibRaw enables you to do this).

 

There's actually a tutorial video called Maximising Raw Latitude that explores removing the tone curve, so rest assured all the detail and latitude you would want is still retained even if the image looks washed out. It's actually a great way of starting with the "flattest" image possible and having more control over how it looks tonally. The first thing I do whenever I load a raw file into Photo is disable the tone curve and bring the highlights down; this gives me more flexibility to carve out the look I want using adjustment layers and retouching tools.

 

 

Also, could I ask why you're determined to change the DPI of your images? Only because I suspect you may be creating more work for yourself than is necessary!

 

Thanks,

James

[dotlyc]

Interestingly, it looks like the default option for you is not to apply the tone curve - it is usually the other way round whereby the tone curve is applied by default.

 

Not applying the tone curve would achieve the washed-out look you have described: raw files use a linear tone curve, whereas processed jpegs have a logarithmic curve, which is perceptually more pleasing for us to look at. Therefore we typically add a tone curve to the raw image to make it easier for us to view.

 

If you were to load the raw file into another program that lets you define/disable the tone curve, you would see a similar result (FastRawViewer from LibRaw enables you to do this).

 

There's actually a tutorial video called Maximising Raw Latitude that explores removing the tone curve, so rest assured all the detail and latitude you would want is still retained even if the image looks washed out. It's actually a great way of starting with the "flattest" image possible and having more control over how it looks tonally. The first thing I do whenever I load a raw file into Photo is disable the tone curve and bring the highlights down; this gives me more flexibility to carve out the look I want using adjustment layers and retouching tools.

 

 

Also, could I ask why you're determined to change the DPI of your images? Only because I suspect you may be creating more work for yourself than is necessary!

 

Thanks,

James

 

James:

 

Thanks for this very useful information and the video. I learned a lot from it. I tried the techniques it mentioned and found that I can indeed process even a "dark and muddy" RAW image to my liking. I was just worried that the way AP was importing the RAW images was causing them to lose information but you've reassured me on that point.

 

Regarding DPI, I confess I'm no expert on this subject. I struggle to understand the best choices when it comes to resizing, resampling, uprezzing etc. I'm curious to learn more about why you suggest that converting the RAW images to 300 DPI would be making unnecessary work. My concern is with the quality of the final JPGs that I produce for different purposes once the RAW images have been processed and saved in lossless PNG format. Some of the JPGs are high res (300 DPI) for printing or for clients. Others are lower resolution images (usually around 72 to 150 DPI with resampling) for displaying on the web or for other situations in which I don't want to use high res images.

 

If I leave the RAW image at 96 DPI and create a processed PNG image at 96 DPI, will there be a loss of quality when I convert the PNG to JPGs of various resolutions? I realize that JPGs are lossy so there will be  some loss of quality making that conversion in any event. What I'm not sure about is whether there'd be an additional loss of quality related solely to converting a 96 DPI PNG to a 300 DPI high-res JPG or a lower-res 72 DPI JPG. This is why I've opted to convert to 300 DPI at the RAW stage and save the PNG at that level. Am I mistaken about this?

[anon1]

It´s totally fine to get confused by this at the first time but luckily its actually very simple:

 

DPI is just Dots PER Inch.

mathematically spoken: Dots/ inch * inch = dots (pixels)

Based on the assumption that image information (pixel) defines the image quality, you can specify the quality of your images in two ways:

 

DPI + Inch which means you've got the pixel density (DPI) and the size (inch) and with the equation above you can get the pixels 

 

The other way to specify your image quality is straight out using absolute pixels.

 

So why do we need DPI then anyway?

> It´s for display/ print purposes. 

A printer prints the document at it´s embedded file size (in this example inches). Therefore it utilizes the present pixels and that results in the DPI

 

Now if you change the DPI (say you're increasing it to 300 DPI) and have "resample" unchecked you´re not changing the image quality by any means. Your´re just embedding a new information about the absolute dimensions which the picture should have when being displayed or printed (smaller in this case).

 

sidenote:

If you have resample checked, Affinity Photo will keep the absolute dimensions and increase the pixels so that you get 300 DPI. This does produce a bigger file size but not necessarily a more detailed image. You can´t gain any image information. Nevertheless sometimes it might be a good idea to do so (scale up an image by increasing it´s resolution above it´s native resolution) because Affinity let´s you choose the resampling algorithm. And the Lanczos algorithm might be more advanced than what your targeted device does to upscale the image.

 

Hope that helps

[James Ritson]

Regarding DPI, I confess I'm no expert on this subject. I struggle to understand the best choices when it comes to resizing, resampling, uprezzing etc. I'm curious to learn more about why you suggest that converting the RAW images to 300 DPI would be making unnecessary work. My concern is with the quality of the final JPGs that I produce for different purposes once the RAW images have been processed and saved in lossless PNG format. Some of the JPGs are high res (300 DPI) for printing or for clients. Others are lower resolution images (usually around 72 to 150 DPI with resampling) for displaying on the web or for other situations in which I don't want to use high res images.

 

If I leave the RAW image at 96 DPI and create a processed PNG image at 96 DPI, will there be a loss of quality when I convert the PNG to JPGs of various resolutions? I realize that JPGs are lossy so there will be  some loss of quality making that conversion in any event. What I'm not sure about is whether there'd be an additional loss of quality related solely to converting a 96 DPI PNG to a 300 DPI high-res JPG or a lower-res 72 DPI JPG. This is why I've opted to convert to 300 DPI at the RAW stage and save the PNG at that level. Am I mistaken about this?

 

I think the main message regarding DPI is... don't worry about it!

 

 

Let's take a typical E-M1 image. Once decoded in the Develop persona, it has a pixel resolution of 4640x3472 pixels.

 

Now, even if the initial DPI was an extremely low value (let's say 1!) your pixel resolution would still be 4640x3472 pixels.

 

Unless you specifically "resample" your image, which means changing the pixel resolution, you will not compromise its quality.

 

 

 

Where DPI comes into practical use is for specific measurements and sizes.

 

For example, if you wanted to create a new document that was exactly 5x7 at a DPI of 300, we would calculate:

 

5x300 = 1500

 

7x300 = 2100

 

So we would end up with a document that would be 1500x2100 pixels. Those are the dimensions that your document/image will want to be to print at 300DPI and be exactly 5x7" in size.

 

If you wanted to print the same 5x7" size at 600DPI, the resolution requirement would increase to 3000x4200 pixels.

 

So, if you want to send your work to a printers or editorial and they request specific dimensions and a DPI, you could create a new document following those requirements, then insert/paste your image into it and reposition/scale as necessary.

 

 

 

For personal use and general web delivery, however, don't worry too much about DPI. Leave it at the default of 96 or 72 and instead focus on your pixel resolution, as that's what counts.

 

 

 

[side note] If you start printing A3 or larger sizes, you may find yourself struggling to match the required resolution at 300DPI, which is optimal for print. Don't be afraid to drop the DPI down (to 200 for example). As long as your source material is of high quality and you're sensible with the resolution, you should get good results (provided you have a good printer, but that's another story!).

[dotlyc]

MBd and James:

 

Thanks very much to both of you for giving me this information about the DPI issue. I appreciate the assistance.