philodelphi wrote: https://fotobasicaes.blogspot.com/2026/04/revelar-los-orf-cameraraw.html
Please summarize.
I took a look at the article.
I really don’t know what your point is so I am guessing you are inferring that Adobe products are inferior to others.
For HHHR shots OM WS is required I agree.
My experience with Lr and ORF files is that they come out of Lr looking much better than the sample images you provided in your article.
If any of my (ORF) files came out of Lr with image quality resembling your sample images they would all be deleted.
As far as I am concerned my files look great once processed in Lr and if they are converted with lower file size than other programs that is an absolute bonus for my HDs.
I also have doubts about the veracity of the claims in this article.
My impression is that the "better" images on the left have been denoised, more or less. The images on the right, from ACR, appear as not denoised. To my eye, there is actually more detail (look into the central blue area - in the wing) in the ACR image. Some of this fine detail is lost in all images on the left.
I understand that the author believes that the images on the left have not been denoised. I am simply not sure if this is actually correct.
I would like to see how demosaiced uncorrected images compare between ACR, Capture One, and DxO Photolab. If this is true that the image from ACR should display more noise, then this must be visible in such comparison.
Can you make the raw file available? I can post the uncorrected images from Capture One and Photolab for comparison.
I was just passing the article along. To tell you the truth, at this point in my early experience as a Sony user who just got my first micro 4/3, I am very happy just shooting jpegs. It's just part of the fun right now for me right now. To my eye, my om-3 jpegs are quite beautiful and I'm just enjoying a fun camera and not trying to get anything perfect.
