Finally Discovered an efficient DNG converter for Oly ORF Files

B

Benjamin Marks

Veteran
Local time
10:13 AM
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
3,340
I bought an OM-D E-Mi, Mark II earlier this year and have been very pleased by it. The silent shutter mode - even on the rapid-fire (low) setting is effectively silent in the street. Even in an indoor setting it is quieter than any of my Leicas. The only think approaching it would be one of those noise-cancelling "blimps" I used in the 1990's on movie sets.

BUT, the ORF files defy my older stand-alone version of Lightroom and PS5. The jpgs are pretty good, but I prefer having all my options open.

Enter Adobe's DNG converter v. 10.5. Easy peasy, not like the OEM Olympus software, which I find slow and inefficient.

Download link is here:

https://supportdownloads.adobe.com/detail.jsp?ftpID=6383
 
Addendum: turns out that the RAW files (in my case ORF) can't be mixed in with other files in a directory. You have to copy all the files to a folder and then turn loose the software on the whole directory. Very efficient, and much better for batch processing than the native Olympus software, at least with respect to processing time. I have not done an A-B image quality comparison.

When Adobe came out with their DNG format (kind of "TIFF-plus") I decided to store all my images in it so I wouldn't be trying to track down NEF or ORF converters years from now. Luckily, Pentax and Leica, two of my faves, have DNG as a RAW file option. No conversion issues there. . .
 
I never, ever shoot JPEGs in my Olympus Pen-F. Fine detail resolution is an order of magnitude greater with RAW processed in Lightroom than with the out of camera JPEGs.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
I'm confused here. Is "ORF" a RAW format? Why can Chris process his Pen-F RAW files with Lightroom and Benjamin can't?
Click to expand...

Yes, ORF is Olympus's RAW file format. I can process them because I have the latest Lightroom CC, while Benjamin is using an old version of Lightroom made before the camera he owns was introduced.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Yes, ORF is Olympus's RAW file format. I can process them because I have the latest Lightroom CC, while Benjamin is using an old version of Lightroom made before the camera he owns was introduced.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I stopped my software upgrade cycle with PS5 and LR 5.7. I do photography in intense bursts, and it feels sort of odd to pay a monthly license fee for something that I already "own." Of course, I don't own it, not really. None of us do. If I was doing photography professionally, or every week in personal pursuits, then the CC model would make more sense for me. It does mean that I have to think about new gear purchases carefully, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
 
I use the 64 bit edition of Lightroom 5.7 (which is a standalone version) and it does not have a problem with handling RAW files from my Olympus cameras (an OMD EM 5 and a EPL 2. Maybe the earlier version of Lightroom which apparently you have is the problem.

But having said that, in the past I have from time to time used Adobe's DNG converter to convert other RAW files for processing when the earlier version of my editing software failed to cope. It is not a bad solution given the ubiquitous nature and universality of DNG files.
 
peterm1 said:
I use the 64 bit edition of Lightroom 5.7 (which is a standalone version) and it does not have a problem with handling RAW files from my Olympus cameras (an OMD EM 5 and a EPL 2. Maybe the earlier version of Lightroom which apparently you have is the problem.

But having said that, in the past I have from time to time used Adobe's DNG converter to convert other RAW files for processing when the earlier version of my editing software failed to cope. It is not a bad solution given the ubiquitous nature and universality of DNG files.
Click to expand...

Peter: yes, same with older files from those cameras. The newer cameras though have newer versions of the ORF file. Why the camera makers insist on "updating" their formats, I cannot guess. Still, with the new-ish OM-D EM-1 Mk II (ye gods, who comes up with those model names?), the files are unreadable by older versions of Lightroom/PS etc.
 
I once converted all my 5d raw files to DNG files after reading some internet nonsense about dng being a future proofed universal format blah blah blah.

Long story short all those files are stuck in 2010 level raw conversion technology and look like junk compared to current conversion technology on the same files, and there's nothing I can do about it. I personally would just update to adobe CC or find a way to pirate it. Never ever unnecessarily convert your raw files to any other format.
 
gavinlg said:
I once converted all my 5d raw files to DNG files after reading some internet nonsense about dng being a future proofed universal format blah blah blah.

Long story short all those files are stuck in 2010 level raw conversion technology and look like junk compared to current conversion technology on the same files, and there's nothing I can do about it. I personally would just update to adobe CC or find a way to pirate it. Never ever unnecessarily convert your raw files to any other format.
Click to expand...

LOL. I am reasonably sure my standards are lower than yours. :D I say this because I have no files that look like junk. I have 2010 images I love, and 2018 images that I love. Heck, I have ERF files from the Epson RD-1 that look better than I remember. I can discern no difference in file quality -- resolution, yes, but I really don't print large or need big files. I need dynamic range. However before we start a flame war over my low standards, rest assured I am keeping both copies (ORF and DNG because life is long and storage is cheap). I am thinking of buying stock in Seagate, though. ;)
 
Benjamin Marks said:
LOL. I am reasonably sure my standards are lower than yours. :D I say this because I have no files that look like junk. I have 2010 images I love, and 2018 images that I love. Heck, I have ERF files from the Epson RD-1 that look better than I remember. I can discern no difference in file quality -- resolution, yes, but I really don't print large or need big files. I need dynamic range. However before we start a flame war over my low standards, rest assured I am keeping both copies (ORF and DNG because life is long and storage is cheap). I am thinking of buying stock in Seagate, though. ;)
Click to expand...

All's well if you're keeping the original ORFs. To give you an idea of what I mean when I say the old converted DNG files look like junk, the ISO1600 files from 2010 look like the same files at ISO 3200 pushed 1 stop converted with current technology. Roughly 2 stops better in high iso performance just by converting using current RAW conversion software. Basically the difference between having really noisy photos taken at night, and acceptably clean ones.
 
Benjamin, update your adobe raw developer, it should allow you to work the files. Check the update function in the help pull down and see if it will do that for you. Another supposed advantage to converting to DNG is that, at least the new version of LR, you can "validate" your converted files to be sure that none have been corrupted. Oh goody, another step in post.
 
DNG files are raw data files. If your DNG files look like junk, it has nothing to do with them being DNG files and everything to do with whatever raw processing has been done to them.

DNG Converter simply writes the raw data from whatever native raw format you hand it into the DNG raw file format. It doesn't do any other processing or conversion.

I use Lightroom v6.14, the very last perpetual license version. It will process native Olympus e-M1 II and Pen-F .ORF files as well as any DNG files derived from them with identical results. As well as my Leica CL native DNG files... :)
 
Godfrey said:
DNG files are raw data files. If your DNG files look like junk, it has nothing to do with them being DNG files and everything to do with whatever raw processing has been done to them.

DNG Converter simply writes the raw data from whatever native raw format you hand it into the DNG raw file format. It doesn't do any other processing or conversion.

I use Lightroom v6.14, the very last perpetual license version. It will process native Olympus e-M1 II and Pen-F .ORF files as well as any DNG files derived from them with identical results. As well as my Leica CL native DNG files... :)
Click to expand...

Depends upon the type of DNG file it is. If it is linear DNG then the demosaicing has already happened and the data is no longer just 'raw' sensor data. On these files the file size is about 3x larger than native raw. This is what the Iridient Transformer I linked to above outputs. This lets you use their demosaicing and sharpening which on the Fuji files is better than what LR can do. It also lets LR open the files much faster than native RAF.

Shawn
 
shawn said:
Depends upon the type of DNG file it is. If it is linear DNG then the demosaicing has already happened and the data is no longer just 'raw' sensor data. On these files the file size is about 3x larger than native raw. This is what the Iridient Transformer I linked to above outputs. This lets you use their demosaicing and sharpening which on the Fuji files is better than what LR can do. It also lets LR open the files much faster than native RAF.

Shawn
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd forgotten about the linear form of DNG output. That's a pretty rare thing to use for most cameras that I'm familiar with ... I'm not surprised that that it is useful for the Fuji files, which are non-standard/non-Bayer mosaic in their original form. Linear format DNG is not supported by a lot of raw processing apps

However, I was referring to Adobe's DNG Converter, not the Iridient Transformer, where DNG Converter does not default to the linear form in any case ... you have to select it intentionally. The Iridient Transformer was probably designed by Iridient to allow better processing of Fuji XTrans and other quirky sensor data and likely does more for that purpose.

(I've avoided any Fuji cameras because of their oddities in raw file format: I just don't see any advantage to it at all, and it complicates the processing quite a lot. My opinion ... No issues if you disagree.)

G
 
I used dng from adobe only a short while. For me, my work flow went from processing my canon cr raw files using acr. I didn’t see any advantage using dng converted raw cr files over the raw files from my camera processing with acr. Then I made jpegs which got delivered to the clients.

As I understand, Leica picked dng for their raw file format for some of their digital cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom