Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Olympus dSLR (
-   -   Can it be ...that LR2 (thus ACR5.x) produces more detailed p (

HarjTT Apr 13, 2009 4:53 PM

I've been still in 2-3 minds on what the best RAW convertor for ORF files would be for ages and a whiel ago decided that if teh Jpegs were good enough I was more than happy. Until today I had always thought that the in cam jpegs and thus Studio/Master were producing the best jpegs (esp with regards to detail, sharpness and noise characteristics) . However. I still havent made the jump to Studio as I just don;t find it as easy to use as it should be and I've ended up still plugging away with Adobe ACR/LR (now version 2.3).

To cut a long story short - I took the my nephews dogs out for a walk and too a few pics of them with the E3+35-100F2. What suprised me with LR2.3 was that there was more detail showing in the RAW files than the out of cam Jpegs, and as always there's the better highlight/shadow recovery with LR/ACR/Bibble. Let me know what you think as I;d like to know if anyone else has noticed this or am I just seeing things ?

Here's an example pic:

E3 (firmware 1.4); ISO 400, f5.6 @ 1/320s

1. E3 Out of Cam Jpeg - Default settings (no NR, Super fine jpegs):

2. Light Room 2.3 Jpeg (Adobe Std 2 profile, No NR, sharpening 50% @ 0.5, converted from 16bit PSD to 8bit jpeg in CS3, No additional sharpening in CS3 - I;d usually add a wee bit of USM but in this case I had not)

3. Crop nose

OOC E3 Jpeg LR2.3 8bit Jpeg

4. Crop Eye:

OOC E3 Jpeg LR2.3 8bit Jpeg

5. Jaw line:

OOC E3 Jpeg LR2.3 8bit Jpeg

6. Ear

OOC E3 Jpeg LR2.3 8bit Jpeg

Regards the 1.4 update - definitely a nice update to the AF. I've not tested CAF but SAF feels a lot snappier with instant AF with the 35-100 at least.



:O :?


Took another look at the RAW and if I drop the exposure in LR by -0.5 then all of the fine hair and detail around the nose which is mainly blown out in both of these versions is there to see.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:15 AM.