I don't use it except for importing all my images into it prior to LR and for software updates. But it looks to me to be pretty good and useful, but I'm invested in LR so it gets little actual processing use from me.
Robin Smith wrote:
I don't use it except for importing all my images into it prior to LR and for software updates. But it looks to me to be pretty good and useful, but I'm invested in LR so it gets little actual processing use from me.
Unfortunately LR is one of the worst for ORF files.
scalanc2 wrote:
Unfortunately LR is one of the worst for ORF files.
would you kindly explain your position please.
I am a longtime Lr/Ps user and Olympus/OMDS shooter. I have always dabbled/and more in depth than simple dabbling, with numerous other RAW converter/editing apps (both free and paid).
I occasionally run a file or two through Workspace if only to keep abreast of it on a whole.
In my opinion (and many, many, other's as well) OM Workspace was/is always very slow. Too slow for many users.
If a person's use for Workspace is to run a couple files through per month then that sounds perfect.
For some silly reason, simple things like highlight recovery (the most important of RAW converting utilities) was/is a convoluted/crudely implemented exercise in Workspace.
When Workspace implemented it's own Ai powered denoise I found that it did not work nearly as well as other's and was surprisingly very slow.
Since day one (circa 2003) of using Olympus' RAW converter/editing apps...I've noticed the app introduces artefacts, easily noticeable on, ie., smooth skin. It still did the last time I checked.
--Colour--
Workspace 'had' always produced the most pleasing colours in my opinion.
With Lr I had to use custom generated colour profiles in order to come close as possible to the more pleasing colours from Workspace.
*using/creating custom colour profiles is neither difficult nor time consuming which is why I stuck with Lr.
HOWEVER...It's been a good long while now that I haven't had to bother with custom colour profiles in Lr because Lr now has colour profiles that are just as good (*ON A WHOLE) as Workspace's
*what I mean is...there are some differences in some colours between Workspace files and Lr files BUT the differences do not indicate a bad thing for either app...each file is an equally nice, sometimes slightly different, rendition of colours.
to be perfectly honest...if the question is....yes sure bub...blah blah blah, but which file shows the more accurate colours.
in my opinion...Lr.
Workspace seems to (gently and nicely) boost saturation in some colours. Lr does not (depending on the chosen profile).
So, in my opinion;
Lr colours (profiles) are now as good as Workspace's.
Lr is much easier and quicker to use.
Lr does not introduce artefacts.
Lr's Denoise Ai is the best on the market...not the fastest (and neither is Workspace's) but well worth the weight times in my opinion.
*I feel like I'm missing some other stuff...
If you were to explain how Workplace has very recently changed, and much for the better, I could believe you and would be pleasantly surprised at the same time.
I'd no doubt run a few files through it to see for myself.
I have just started playing with it a little, since I recently bought an OM-1, and the program seems to be pretty intuitive as well as extensive in its capabilities. I have used LR non-subscription for years, with Nikon files, and it will not recognize ORF files, although I have converted some to DNG and used them in LR. There seem to be plenty of instructional tutorials for OM Workspace, and although I have watched a few, I need to watch more and practice with the program. All in all, I think it will be a welcome addition to my Olympus photography work. Here's hoping anyway.
(assuming) your non-subscription version of Lr has not been updated for years and therefore means that it does not recognize the OM-1's ORF files and has no camera profiles to use with it.
have fun, good luck, and, enjoy using Workspace.
Paul_100A wrote:
would you kindly explain your position please.
I am a longtime Lr/Ps user and Olympus/OMDS shooter. I have always dabbled/and more in depth than simple dabbling, with numerous other RAW converter/editing apps (both free and paid).
I occasionally run a file or two through Workspace if only to keep abreast of it on a whole.
In my opinion (and many, many, other's as well) OM Workspace was/is always very slow. Too slow for many users.
If a person's use for Workspace is to run a couple files through per month then that sounds perfect.
For some silly reason, simple things like highlight recovery (the most important of RAW converting utilities) was/is a convoluted/crudely implemented exercise in Workspace.
When Workspace implemented it's own Ai powered denoise I found that it did not work nearly as well as other's and was surprisingly very slow.
Since day one (circa 2003) of using Olympus' RAW converter/editing apps...I've noticed the app introduces artefacts, easily noticeable on, ie., smooth skin. It still did the last time I checked.
--Colour--
Workspace 'had' always produced the most pleasing colours in my opinion.
With Lr I had to use custom generated colour profiles in order to come close as possible to the more pleasing colours from Workspace.
*using/creating custom colour profiles is neither difficult nor time consuming which is why I stuck with Lr.
HOWEVER...It's been a good long while now that I haven't had to bother with custom colour profiles in Lr because Lr now has colour profiles that are just as good (*ON A WHOLE) as Workspace's
*what I mean is...there are some differences in some colours between Workspace files and Lr files BUT the differences do not indicate a bad thing for either app...each file is an equally nice, sometimes slightly different, rendition of colours.
to be perfectly honest...if the question is....yes sure bub...blah blah blah, but which file shows the more accurate colours.
in my opinion...Lr.
Workspace seems to (gently and nicely) boost saturation in some colours. Lr does not (depending on the chosen profile).
So, in my opinion;
Lr colours (profiles) are now as good as Workspace's.
Lr is much easier and quicker to use.
Lr does not introduce artefacts.
Lr's Denoise Ai is the best on the market...not the fastest (and neither is Workspace's) but well worth the weight times in my opinion.
*I feel like I'm missing some other stuff...
If you were to explain how Workplace has very recently changed, and much for the better, I could believe you and would be pleasantly surprised at the same time.
I'd no doubt run a few files through it to see for myself.
...Show more →
I’m not referring to Workspace in particular. While I find WS very good for HR (50 and 80 mpx) files it is too slow and incomplete for general use. I much prefer C1 and PL7, specially the latest, for noise reduction.
I find LR more oriented to Sony, Canon and Nikon files. Obviously this is just my opinion.
scalanc2 wrote:
I’m not referring to Workspace in particular. While I find WS very good for HR (50 and 80 mpx) files it is too slow and incomplete for general use. I much prefer C1 and PL7, specially the latest, for noise reduction.
I find LR more oriented to Sony, Canon and Nikon files. Obviously this is just my opinion.
thanks for your time.
my bad...i mistakenly assumed you were specifically referring to Workspace in that it was a better alternative for processing ORFs than Lr.
scalanc2 wrote:
Unfortunately LR is one of the worst for ORF files.
I understand Light Room is not for you. Everybody has their own way of doing things and their favorite software to get them to that point. Whatever is used, it is the output finish product that is viewed. I does not matter what camera brand or software used to develop with. Go with what is comfortable and easy for you to use.
If some software does a better job at certain ways of editing, then sure share and I can see if it fits into my work flow and budget.
I have been using Light Room since version 2. Since going with ORF files since late 2019, it has been working out just fine for me and my gal.
Interested if you may, in your opinion why do you regard Light Room to be the worst for ORF files? You may point something out that I have missed over the years. Thanks, Patrick
PV Hiker wrote:
I understand Light Room is not for you. Everybody has their own way of doing things and their favorite software to get them to that point. Whatever is used, it is the output finish product that is viewed. I does not matter what camera brand or software used to develop with. Go with what is comfortable and easy for you to use.
If some software does a better job at certain ways of editing, then sure share and I can see if it fits into my work flow and budget.
I have been using Light Room since version 2. Since going with ORF files since late 2019, it has been working out just fine for me and my gal.
Interested if you may, in your opinion why do you regard Light Room to be the worst for ORF files? You may point something out that I have missed over the years. Thanks, Patrick...Show more →
To be the one of worst doesn’t mean it is bad. It means there are some better of it. I particularly refer to C1 and DXO….
C1 opens straight the ORF files more pleasant, DXO makes a better work fo noise reduction, Topaz allows top level upscales ad OMWS manage HR files better. LR is so so in any of these aspects with no excellency anywhere.
For example depending on files my workflow for optimum file is open in C1, then go through DXO (ORF files are a bit noisy also at 200 ISO) and if needed upscale with Topaz, for instance. I would be happy to achieve top level results with one software only (LR) but to me it is not the case.
Of course this is me and for sure others may have different experience.
scalanc2 wrote:
To be the one of worst doesn’t mean it is bad. It means there are some better of it. I particularly refer to C1 and DXO….
C1 opens straight the ORF files more pleasant, DXO makes a better work fo noise reduction, Topaz allows top level upscales ad OMWS manage HR files better. LR is so so in any of these aspects with no excellency anywhere.
For example depending on files my workflow for optimum file is open in C1, then go through DXO (ORF files are a bit noisy also at 200 ISO) and if needed upscale with Topaz, for instance. I would be happy to achieve top level results with one software only (LR) but to me it is not the case.
Of course this is me and for sure others may have different experience....Show more →
Thank you for your methods and work flow.
We have not used Workspace other than backing up the set files for cameras and firmware upgrades.
We have bought DXO and upgraded it a few times but have not made the time to use it to get a handle on the process. That goes for On1 also. Have used Topaz quite a bit, now that I've upgraded the graphics card it is much faster to use. But still Topaz denoise and sharpen takes time and does not give me positive feedback in real time when moving sliders. move sliders and regenerate for results, painful with old graphics card.
Have been using the new Noise AI in Lightroom and it does give me the positive feedback that I have been looking for. Also can do a good job on the noise. There are many examples and opinions how to use it out there on YouTube. The best explanation on how it works and how best to use it I have found so far is Steve Perry.
.
.
Thank you for your sharing your comments. Patrick
scalanc2 wrote:
To be the one of worst doesn’t mean it is bad. It means there are some better of it. I particularly refer to C1 and DXO….
C1 opens straight the ORF files more pleasant, DXO makes a better work fo noise reduction, Topaz allows top level upscales ad OMWS manage HR files better. LR is so so in any of these aspects with no excellency anywhere.
For example depending on files my workflow for optimum file is open in C1, then go through DXO (ORF files are a bit noisy also at 200 ISO) and if needed upscale with Topaz, for instance. I would be happy to achieve top level results with one software only (LR) but to me it is not the case.
Of course this is me and for sure others may have different experience....Show more →
“ DXO makes a better work fo noise reduction” “LR is so so in any of these aspects with no excellency anywhere.”
I may very well need to have another look at DXO and/or you may need to have another look at Lr’s denoise Ai.
I’ve found Lr’s denoise easily the best denoise software of all I’ve ever used; On1, Topaz, C1, DXO, Noise Ninja, and, Neat Image to name a few.
Since (circa) 2000 I’ve been using apps to convert RAW files and edit digital image files. In all that time I’ve never been satisfied enough with any one app that I simply ceased looking at, or re-visiting, other apps in search of an app that produces better or more consistent results.
I was always looking for the ‘holy grail’ of apps. I never found it.
With Lr, and its recent addition of Denoise Ai, for the first time in my digital image file life…the searching ended.
So…did DXO up their game and close the gap on Lr’s denoise? I honestly don’t know because I haven’t looked in a while.
I do know that when I was still having to compare all these apps…(before Lr denoise Ai), DXO’s ‘one-click’ results were amongst the best.
I was an extremely shocked and profoundly happy Lr user once they released their denoise Ai utility because it trounced all the other apps I’ve been using and keeping abreast of for decades.
Thanks for everyone that added their opinions and thoughts. Regardless of which program you feel is better, I wanted to hear the good and bad, realizing the input was just one's opinion: no right or wrong. Just their personal experience.
Again, thanks for the help, I really appreciate it!
jcw1982 wrote:
Thanks for everyone that added their opinions and thoughts. Regardless of which program you feel is better, I wanted to hear the good and bad, realizing the input was just one's opinion: no right or wrong. Just their personal experience.
Again, thanks for the help, I really appreciate it!
