Olympus OM-D E-M5, E-M1, E-M10 - Mk1, Mk2 & Mk3 Owners Thread

Olympus RAW files seem so much more drab than the Canon ones I was used to, and i sometimes genuinely struggle to get the final results I was used to using LR. At what point is the profile that you mention above applied to the RAW file by LR? I wonder if its possible to tweak it.........

From what Jeff says above it is possible to use a "vivid" setting to your RAW files in camera which will carry through into LR. Would that be your understanding as well? I do understand (of course) that the image we see on the LCD or EVF is a jpeg generated in camera and not the RAW file.

.... As I understand it, regardless of which RAW editor you use, your preferred in-camera colour choice results such as style will be converted as part of the editor's RAW Conversion from data to image at the instant you import the file into that RAW editor. Which is why I avoid using RAW editors/converters other than Capture One because I want consistency.

But with RAW images it's not necessarily that important because you can easily adjust everything in a full-blooded RAW editor anyway. JPEG files are limited and have far less data to play with as I think we all know, but some photographers find them useful for other reasons such as quickly sending images to clients and/or the media.

I personally do not find Olympus RAW files more drab than my Canon CR2 and CR3 ones were. But it may be down to Capture One's versus Lightroom's RAW Conversion Engine as Capture One has specific variants for several camera brands. Phase One's Capture One was originally developed as the software which could handle image files generated from the extremely high quality Phase One cameras and their whole development history has been geared to specific camera brands.
 
Last edited:
Okay so this afternoon I have been playing around with two different basic shots I took earlier to practice with & by only using the Basic panel I have managed to change the raw files into something that I feel is better and more like an image I would like.

Also following doing so I can see what everyone means by only a small change on each slider, can actually have a big effect so hopefully in general I haven't done too bad (bellow are side by side comparison from LR showing the raw & my processed image).....

flower compare.jpgplant compare.jpg

If i'm right the next tab I think I need to look at is the Details tab? & any comments on the above, would be much appreciated.

Thanks again to all for your help & advice today.
 
For using LR and PS CC for Olympus RAW images is fine. I have only used Olympus so I see no issue.
First off I reckon you should use the camera profiles I have natural set as default and will change to vivid where I feel the need.

A great place to learn to use it is on the Adobe LR channel

If you shoot jpeg alongside the RAW and view them alongside in LR you can see what the camera suggest and see if you can edit the RAW file to close the jpeg and then to edit you want it look like
 
Once you have got the picture looking pretty well as you want it, go to the line that says adobe colour with the four little boxes ,click on it and A separate set of windows come up with lots of different variations you can then flit from one to another to find the profile that fits your own minds eye .lots of choices have fun.

there is also the curves control that you can adjust your colour casts in i.e take out a to green grass by using the green button
 
Last edited:
Details = sharpness. If you sharpen an image it normally sharpens the noise as well, making it more visible. You then need to use the Noise reductioin slider as well - Luminance is normally sufficient in most cases.
For using LR and PS CC for Olympus RAW images is fine. I have only used Olympus so I see no issue.
First off I reckon you should use the camera profiles I have natural set as default and will change to vivid where I feel the need.

A great place to learn to use it is on the Adobe LR channel

If you shoot jpeg alongside the RAW and view them alongside in LR you can see what the camera suggest and see if you can edit the RAW file to close the jpeg and then to edit you want it look like
Once you have got the picture looking pretty well as you want it, go to the line that says adobe colour with the four little boxes ,click on it and A separate set of windows come up with lots of different variations you can then flit from one to another to find the profile that fits your own minds eye .lots of choices have fun.

there is also the curves control that you can adjust your colour casts in i.e take out a to green grass by using the green button

Thank you all for your advice, hints & tips. As always very helpful & much appreciated.

I feel I am starting to get to grips with the beginnings of this, of course I realise I still have a way to go however I think my biggest issue before today was I was trying to practice using a complex image of a garden bird on a feeder with a complex background and so now using these more simple images I think has been a better starting point to learn with.

Cheers :)
 
Thank you all for your advice, hints & tips. As always very helpful & much appreciated.

I feel I am starting to get to grips with the beginnings of this, of course I realise I still have a way to go however I think my biggest issue before today was I was trying to practice using a complex image of a garden bird on a feeder with a complex background and so now using these more simple images I think has been a better starting point to learn with.

Cheers :)

Have a look here also


Here is a good starter video

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AraTUsPc_0&list=PLmXfFxjdp3CHCRpDULlvcaqWfK_zLPWF2&index=15&t=0s
 
Hmm, I think it's a mistake to follow a recipe of settings too rigidly and it's definitely pointless to make precise colour judgements based on what you see on your camera's LCD screen or even in its EVF. It's also misleading to copy someone else's preferred settings - They have their own exposure preferences, probably different cameras and also different lenses. And you are shooting in different light as well. Everyone has their own post-processing preferences too, especially when it comes to saturation and contrast.

Furthermore, we are all viewing images on different screen monitors when uploaded and after processing. The same image file even looks different on different devices - On my EIZO 27-inch and my MacBook Pro or iPad/iPhone for example.

Every image is different - Be brave and experiment and find your own preferred style. That's how you learn.
I'm not so sure that I agree entirely tbh. Following a preset is not a bad way to learn, and also people are happy to use other's presets which is why people like VSCO get away with charging a lot of money for them. I have always developed my own preset so that images are how I like them. Of course WB, light, explores will always affect things so that image won't always look the same there is still a consistency, no different to shooting jpeg. With in camera jpegs the same 'process' is applied to every image to give a certain shade of green, red etc etc.and this is no different than applying a preset. You may still have to tweak exposure and white balance, and you may choose to change more than this but it gives you a base to start. I always set a preset so that the colours closely match the D750 as possible, as these are my favourite colours to date. I've learnt a hell of a lot from looking at different presets, especially how to get a film look and how to use the individual RGB tone curves

What I do agree with is one persons preset won't be another persons, and that you need to work on a properly calibrated screen. You shouldn't copy someone else's presets as you say, but I believe they are a good way to understand how it works and how to develop your own (y)

.... As I understand it, regardless of which RAW editor you use, your preferred in-camera colour choice results such as style will be converted as part of the editor's RAW Conversion from data to image at the instant you import the file into that RAW editor. Which is why I avoid using RAW editors/converters other than Capture One because I want consistency.
I'm not sure this is true tbh, I don't think that the picture style or colour selected in camera affects the raw in LR. I'm always happy to be corrected but LR imports with whatever colour profile you choose, and if you don't choose any it uses adobe but default (Adobe colour I believe). I don't see why Capture 1 gives any more consistency than LR or any other software tbh?
 
Last edited:
Once you have got the picture looking pretty well as you want it, go to the line that says adobe colour with the four little boxes ,click on it and A separate set of windows come up with lots of different variations you can then flit from one to another to find the profile that fits your own minds eye .lots of choices have fun.

there is also the curves control that you can adjust your colour casts in i.e take out a to green grass by using the green button
Like this
Screenshot 2020-07-14 at 19.01.18.png
Screenshot 2020-07-14 at 19.01.33.png
 
With mine it comes up as a Photo which obviously makes it easier. I have found with club members if 20 people use the same p.p i.e lightroom they will ALL do it differently . But get similar results
 
I'm not so sure that I agree entirely tbh. Following a preset is not a bad way to learn, and also people are happy to use other's presets which is why people like VSCO get away with charging a lot of money for them. I have always developed my own preset so that images are how I like them. Of course WB, light, explores will always affect things so that image won't always look the same there is still a consistency, no different to shooting jpeg. With in camera jpegs the same 'process' is applied to every image to give a certain shade of green, red etc etc.and this is no different than applying a preset. You may still have to tweak exposure and white balance, and you may choose to change more than this but it gives you a base to start. I always set a preset so that the colours closely match the D750 as possible, as these are my favourite colours to date. I've learnt a hell of a lot from looking at different presets, especially how to get a film look and how to use the individual RGB tone curves

What I do agree with is one persons preset won't be another persons, and that you need to work on a properly calibrated screen. You shouldn't copy someone else's presets as you say, but I believe they are a good way to understand how it works and how to develop your own (y)

I'm not sure this is true tbh, I don't think that the picture style or colour selected in camera affects the raw in LR. I'm always happy to be corrected but LR imports with whatever colour profile you choose, and if you don't choose any it uses adobe but default (Adobe colour I believe). I don't see why Capture 1 gives any more consistency than LR or any other software tbh?

.... I possibly did not make myself clear enough in some of my earlier post. I wasn't talking about 'Presets' which are either your saved or third-party Filters applied after you have converted and adjusted your RAW files - I was talking about your own saved default settings for your Adjustments (assuming Lightroom offers that like Capture One does) applied automatically on import/conversion. If you set your camera body to shoot a 'Neutral' colour style then that is what appears in Capture One's RAW editor for further Adjustments, or not, as you desire. sRGB or RGB are different underlying settings from WB/Style settings.

If someone is finding their RAW files look drab on first opening, then it might be down to their in-camera settings, including exposure and the histogram. It can also be down to which RAW preview software is used such as FastRawView for example which can be notoriously dull although much improved in recent updated versions.

Btw, Capture One now have a version which is very specifically Nikon RAW file orientated. I recently imported direct from card some Nikon RAW files which were portrait shots a friend took of me for a project and noticed the Nikon references within Capture One. They have had a dedicated Sony specific version for some time and also Fuji. I don't know if Lightroom has that approach as I have no reason to install and use LR for anything.

I think we are fundamentally in agreement about much of what we have discussed, especially the subjectivity and advice to explore and find your own preferred style. I apply a different style to my surfing images than my wildlife images for example.
 
.... I possibly did not make myself clear enough in some of my earlier post. I wasn't talking about 'Presets' which are either your saved or third-party Filters applied after you have converted and adjusted your RAW files - I was talking about your own saved default settings for your Adjustments (assuming Lightroom offers that like Capture One does) applied automatically on import/conversion. If you set your camera body to shoot a 'Neutral' colour style then that is what appears in Capture One's RAW editor for further Adjustments, or not, as you desire. sRGB or RGB are different underlying settings from WB/Style settings.

If someone is finding their RAW files look drab on first opening, then it might be down to their in-camera settings, including exposure and the histogram. It can also be down to which RAW preview software is used such as FastRawView for example which can be notoriously dull although much improved in recent updated versions.

Btw, Capture One now have a version which is very specifically Nikon RAW file orientated. I recently imported direct from card some Nikon RAW files which were portrait shots a friend took of me for a project and noticed the Nikon references within Capture One. They have had a dedicated Sony specific version for some time and also Fuji. I don't know if Lightroom has that approach as I have no reason to install and use LR for anything.

I think we are fundamentally in agreement about much of what we have discussed, especially the subjectivity and advice to explore and find your own preferred style. I apply a different style to my surfing images than my wildlife images for example.
TBH I think we're kind of saying the same thing but in different ways. Presets aren't 'filters' but settings applied such as colour profile, saturation, contrast etc, so as you say if you choose camera neutral in camera you can have it set as camera neutral in Lightroom, and these are applied on import if you set it up that way. I think the only difference between Capture 1 and LR from what you're saying is that Capture 1 automatically picks up on the camera settings and applies this for you. However, like LR the settings will not be those set in camera but those 'mimicked' by Capture 1. It is clever that Capture 1 can pick up on this data and apply it automatically though.

That being said I've yet had a camera where I've been 100% happy with the jpegs and so would not want my software to replicate this 100%. This is why software like these are so great, you can personalise them to your taste.

As for your comment about RAWs looking drab as I've mentioned before many raw converters (including LR) do not apply in camera settings to the raw (other than WB) so it would make no difference if you had saturation and contrast set to max in camera. Unless you set it differently LR uses the 'camera profile' "Adobe Colour" which I do think is a bit dull, although not as dull as it used to be prior to Adobe CC.

In answer to your other question, LR does indeed have camera specific profiles, so you have all the Olympus ones (neutral, portrait etc etc) just like you have all the Sony ones (as I posted above in the screenshot) and Nikon etc etc. They are also not only brand specific but camera specific, as brands do tweak their own profiles between cameras (especially new vs old). You can also choose to have these set on import.

So my workflow is set a 'preset' that I'm happy with (from memory for Olympus it's camera neutral profile, bit of contrast boost, bit of vibrance boost, tweak the colour hues and saturation to taste, bit of sharpening and a touch of clarity) and then set this to apply on import. Then every time I import a photo there's very little I need to do, maybe adjust exposure if I didn't get it quite right, likewise WB and also crop if necessary. So in essence it's no different to shooting jpeg other than I've chosen exactly how I want the colours rather than Olympus, Nikon, Sony or whoever, and I have more data so highlights and shadows are better preserved.

I'm not sure if any of this makes sense or if it's just waffle :LOL:
 
Last edited:
TBH I think we're kind of saying the same thing but in different ways. Presets aren't 'filters' but settings applied such as colour profile, saturation, contrast etc, so as you say if you choose camera neutral in camera you can have it set as camera neutral in Lightroom, and these are applied on import if you set it up that way. I think the only difference between Capture 1 and LR from what you're saying is that Capture 1 automatically picks up on the camera settings and applies this for you. However, like LR the settings will not be those set in camera but those 'mimicked' by Capture 1. It is clever that Capture 1 can pick up on this data and apply it automatically though.

That being said I've yet had a camera where I've been 100% happy with the jpegs and so would not want my software to replicate this 100%. This is why software like these are so great, you can personalise them to your taste.

As for your comment about RAWs looking drab as I've mentioned before many raw converters (including LR) do not apply in camera settings to the raw (other than WB) so it would make no difference if you had saturation and contrast set to max in camera. Unless you set it differently LR uses the 'camera profile' "Adobe Colour" which I do think is a bit dull, although not as dull as it used to be prior to Adobe CC.

In answer to your other question, LR does indeed have camera specific profiles, so you have all the Olympus ones (neutral, portrait etc etc) just like you have all the Sony ones (as I posted above in the screenshot) and Nikon etc etc. They are also not only brand specific but camera specific, as brands do tweak their own profiles between cameras (especially new vs old). You can also choose to have these set on import.

So my workflow is set a 'preset' that I'm happy with (from memory for Olympus it's camera neutral profile, bit of contrast boost, bit of vibrance boost, tweak the colour hues and saturation to taste, bit of sharpening and a touch of clarity) and then set this to apply on import. Then every time I import a photo there's very little I need to do, maybe adjust exposure if I didn't get it quite right, likewise WB and also crop if necessary. So in essence it's no different to shooting jpeg other than I've chosen exactly how I want the colours rather than Olympus, Nikon, Sony or whoever, and I have more data so highlights and shadows are better preserved.

I'm not sure if any of this makes sense or if it's just waffle :LOL:
This makes sense to me & reading your workflow is also a helpful tip for me personally so thanks for that :)

One think I also found when I started using LR Classic last week was when I imported my raw files over & JPGs, was in the library screen the raw files looked the same as the JPGs, to which I then realised that LR can also import the embedded JPG to which is used as the preview untill you view it in the develop screen. So I have actually changes this so LR only creates a standard preview, which now as far as I see when I import raw's into LR now I actually see the true raw (washed out looking) file, which means I can practice and learn adding my own post processing based on the actual raw file.

I hope what I have said & understood above is correct haha but I was quite happy when I worked that one out .

Cheers everyone, :)
 
I'm not sure if any of this makes sense or if it's just waffle :LOL:

.... It makes sense :)

All my other image editing apps include filters which they call 'Presets' and also there are many third-party packages of filter Presets which you can acquire. Hence our different interpretations of the term 'Presets'.

At the risk of seeming pedantic, perhaps 'Personally Saved Default Settings' would better describe it.
 
Last edited:
This makes sense to me & reading your workflow is also a helpful tip for me personally so thanks for that :)

One think I also found when I started using LR Classic last week was when I imported my raw files over & JPGs, was in the library screen the raw files looked the same as the JPGs, to which I then realised that LR can also import the embedded JPG to which is used as the preview untill you view it in the develop screen. So I have actually changes this so LR only creates a standard preview, which now as far as I see when I import raw's into LR now I actually see the true raw (washed out looking) file, which means I can practice and learn adding my own post processing based on the actual raw file.

I hope what I have said & understood above is correct haha but I was quite happy when I worked that one out .

Cheers everyone, :)
It's a long time since I've used classic tbh as I've been on CC for so long (although the 'regular' version of CC not the mobile one) and I wasn't aware/forgotten that LR can show the embedded jpeg. As for my LR settings here's my settings, as discussed above it might not be your tastes or anyone else's for that matter (ignore the exposure setting this was saved as 0 and then each photo was individually tweaked). I saved this preset, used it on import and then saved myself a whole heap of time processing from then on. As I mentioned, all I did for most photos then was adjust exposure and WB if necessary and crop if necessary. Of course there was the odd photo that I'd 'go to town' on and would veer away from this.

Screenshot 2020-07-15 at 09.07.05.png
Screenshot 2020-07-15 at 09.07.15.png
Screenshot 2020-07-15 at 09.07.45.png
Screenshot 2020-07-15 at 09.07.59.png
Screenshot 2020-07-15 at 09.08.30.png
 
.... It makes sense :)

All my other image editing apps include filters which they call 'Presets' and also there are many third-party packages of filter Presets which you can acquire. Hence our different interpretations of the term 'Presets'.

At the risk of seeming pedantic, perhaps 'Personally Saved Default Settings' would better describe it.
Ahh, yes very confusing o_O
 
It's a long time since I've used classic tbh as I've been on CC for so long (although the 'regular' version of CC not the mobile one) and I wasn't aware/forgotten that LR can show the embedded jpeg. As for my LR settings here's my settings, as discussed above it might not be your tastes or anyone else's for that matter (ignore the exposure setting this was saved as 0 and then each photo was individually tweaked). I saved this preset, used it on import and then saved myself a whole heap of time processing from then on. As I mentioned, all I did for most photos then was adjust exposure and WB if necessary and crop if necessary. Of course there was the odd photo that I'd 'go to town' on and would veer away from this.

View attachment 286543
View attachment 286544
View attachment 286545
View attachment 286546
View attachment 286547

Thank you very much for this, very much appreciated and I will definitely give these ago and see if I can get myself a good starting point :)

One quick question, am I right in saying the LR Classic & LR CC work in pretty much the same way in terms of processing & editing, except CC is cloud base, where as Classic is local hard drive based (which is why I'm using it for now)?

Cheers again :)
 
Thank you very much for this, very much appreciated and I will definitely give these ago and see if I can get myself a good starting point :)

One quick question, am I right in saying the LR Classic & LR CC work in pretty much the same way in terms of processing & editing, except CC is cloud base, where as Classic is local hard drive based (which is why I'm using it for now)?

Cheers again :)
No worries.

With regards to LR it's a bit confusing. Adobe CC is a subscription based software and it gives you both Lightroom CC classic (which I use) and Lightroom CC mobile. There's then the old standalone product Lightroom Classic (I think the last one is version 6). Both classic's are very similar, it's just that CC gets free constant updates and so you now get a 'texture' slider. Mobile is quite different and I don't like it.
 
.... :D Thanks Steve but I'm sure you'll agree that I either hit the nail on the head or I get it spectacularly wrong! I have quite a few 'Duh Robin!' moments :LOL:
Yeah, you've struck your thumb a few times mate :LOL:
 
No worries.

With regards to LR it's a bit confusing. Adobe CC is a subscription based software and it gives you both Lightroom CC classic (which I use) and Lightroom CC mobile. There's then the old standalone product Lightroom Classic (I think the last one is version 6). Both classic's are very similar, it's just that CC gets free constant updates and so you now get a 'texture' slider. Mobile is quite different and I don't like it.

Ah okay in that case then I've gotten a bit confused as I have the new subscription to LR Classic & LR CC & PS CC.. so I think I actually use the same as your using as I also have the texture slider; which I'm yet to learn about aha.

But thank you for the clarification :)
 
As for your comment about RAWs looking drab as I've mentioned before many raw converters (including LR) do not apply in camera settings to the raw (other than WB) so it would make no difference if you had saturation and contrast set to max in camera. Unless you set it differently LR uses the 'camera profile' "Adobe Colour" which I do think is a bit dull, although not as dull as it used to be prior to Adobe CC.


As a result of the discussion here yesterday I went looking for info on camera profiles in Lightroom and discovered where they are. As I'm still on LR6.14 they are hidden away somewhat in "Camera calibration" at the bottom of the develop panel and there is only a limited selection of them (unfortunately). As you say Adobe Standard is very drab and the others are more vivid, ranging from Camera Vivid (ghastly) to Monotone, Muted, Natural, and Portrait. I'm going to have to play around with those to see which suits my landscape work the best. Although on first look they all appear to be more vivid than I was used to with my Canon files.

I can honestly say that I had no idea these settings existed. So I must say a big thank you to those above who pointed me roughly in the right direction towards finding them.:clap::clap::clap:
 
as a demo of what can be done I have just done a couple for a demo ,not my best as I am still suffering from blurred vision at the moment . but it gives you a idea . will do more in a bit
first off a SOC full file totally untouched
followed by a cropped and processed as in the comments above . take into consideration i'm a self taught nearly 75 year old and if I can anyone can
unedited by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

the three amigos by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
 
as a demo of what can be done I have just done a couple for a demo ,not my best as I am still suffering from blurred vision at the moment . but it gives you a idea . will do more in a bit
first off a SOC full file totally untouched
followed by a cropped and processed as in the comments above . take into consideration i'm a self taught nearly 75 year old and if I can anyone can
unedited by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

the three amigos by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

That's brilliant, the proccesed image looks really nice, alot clearer and vibrant yet doesn't actually look like it been processed.

Thankyou for showing an example of what can be done & I'm hoping with all of your helpful hints and advice over the last couple of days I will be able to get somewhere similar :)
(I'll post some examples hopfullly once I get somewhere ahah)
 
As a result of the discussion here yesterday I went looking for info on camera profiles in Lightroom and discovered where they are. As I'm still on LR6.14 they are hidden away somewhat in "Camera calibration" at the bottom of the develop panel and there is only a limited selection of them (unfortunately). As you say Adobe Standard is very drab and the others are more vivid, ranging from Camera Vivid (ghastly) to Monotone, Muted, Natural, and Portrait. I'm going to have to play around with those to see which suits my landscape work the best. Although on first look they all appear to be more vivid than I was used to with my Canon files.

I can honestly say that I had no idea these settings existed. So I must say a big thank you to those above who pointed me roughly in the right direction towards finding them.:clap::clap::clap:

Jerry
I went through similar with my Olympus ZX-1 I was OK with my E-620 DSLR at the time the CC version seems to sort this for you.
The correct profiles then applies lens corrections too
 
As a result of the discussion here yesterday I went looking for info on camera profiles in Lightroom and discovered where they are. As I'm still on LR6.14 they are hidden away somewhat in "Camera calibration" at the bottom of the develop panel and there is only a limited selection of them (unfortunately). As you say Adobe Standard is very drab and the others are more vivid, ranging from Camera Vivid (ghastly) to Monotone, Muted, Natural, and Portrait. I'm going to have to play around with those to see which suits my landscape work the best. Although on first look they all appear to be more vivid than I was used to with my Canon files.

I can honestly say that I had no idea these settings existed. So I must say a big thank you to those above who pointed me roughly in the right direction towards finding them.:clap::clap::clap:
Ahh yes, Olympus is natural not neutral as I said above. That's the one I use as a base and then tweaked from there. I don't know why they shifted the camera profiles tbh, I forgot they used to be at the bottom.
 
gatekeeper butterfly from the weekend
at the gate by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

Another amazing image Jeff :)

Im starting to get the hang of using Lightroom & my understanding of what things do is getting better, however the only thing I am still not 100% sure on is the Details panel in regards to sharpening & noise reduction... I can see what they do but is this one panel where it really is individual to each image? or is there again a standard set for sharpening & noise reduction? or is it a case that some (hopefully most) images wont actually need it applying?

Any advice or tips on this area would be much appreciated.

Cheers, Joe
 
Another amazing image Jeff :)

Im starting to get the hang of using Lightroom & my understanding of what things do is getting better, however the only thing I am still not 100% sure on is the Details panel in regards to sharpening & noise reduction... I can see what they do but is this one panel where it really is individual to each image? or is there again a standard set for sharpening & noise reduction? or is it a case that some (hopefully most) images wont actually need it applying?

Any advice or tips on this area would be much appreciated.

Cheers, Joe

Joe
I do my noise reduction and sharpening in Photoshop I presume it is available to you as you are on a subscription.
Most images will need a little applied sharpening and LR defaults to sharpening everything a little where and it can be masked to
Some colour noise reduction is applied no luminence noise reduction is done as a default

Watch this for how to use LR but remember you are probably using a different camera so use the videos as a guide.

View: https://youtu.be/tTC5cThggsc
 
Last edited:
Joe
I do my noise reduction and sharpening in Photoshop I presume it is available to you as you are on a subscription.
Most images will need a little applied sharpening and LR defaults to sharpening everything a little where and it can be masked to
Some colour noise reduction is applied no luminence noise reduction is done as a default

Watch this for how to use LR but remember you are probably using a different camera so use the videos as a guide.

View: https://youtu.be/tTC5cThggsc

Thank you Alf for the advice & the video link. I have been watching & reading a few things this morning, but still bit confused and this one I haven't come across, so hopefully this video I will help me out.

Cheers :)
 
Watch this for how to use LR but remember you are probably using a different camera so use the videos as a guide.

Great video - I've only messed with noise reduction and sharpening without really understanding what I'm doing.
This person really explains it quickly and simply so now I think I might revisit some night scenes and see if I can improve them.
Thanks for the link!
 
Just seen a link to this Olympus interview over at e-group.

Do you think that your product lineup will get smaller?

We will focus on the high-end market more than ever. High-end cameras and lenses in the ILC lineup. There may be some changes in the product lineup for strategic reasons, but we don’t plan simply to reduce the number of products.

A disappointment to me personally but I understand the reasoning.

In other news I also spotted a spec sheet for the OM-D E-M10IV rumoured to be arriving in September.
USB charging, the screen flipping underbody for selfies and the 20MP sensor are the standouts
 
TBH I don’t bother with it ,since buying topaz de.noise as a plug in any noise reduction is done with that and it also sharpens at the same time ..imho it should be included with every Olympus camera as standard
 
Joe
I do my noise reduction and sharpening in Photoshop I presume it is available to you as you are on a subscription.
Most images will need a little applied sharpening and LR defaults to sharpening everything a little where and it can be masked to
Some colour noise reduction is applied no luminence noise reduction is done as a default

Watch this for how to use LR but remember you are probably using a different camera so use the videos as a guide.

View: https://youtu.be/tTC5cThggsc

Alf, thank you so much for pointing me in the direction of this video, it has actually really helped me & I have even spent the last few hours watching some of his other videos which have also helped in other areas of LR. Thanks again, very much appreciated :)
 
Back
Top