PDA

View Full Version : Olympus Studio 2


knikki
10th March 2008, 01:50 PM
I have looked throught the forums and seen a few people use it.

So the question is:

Is it worth the 99Euros for a license key or is there a better way to deal with E3 RAW files :confused:

No do not feel like updateing to CS3, and Bibble Pro is cheaper and I know works quite well

Cheers :cool:

Ian
10th March 2008, 01:57 PM
I have looked throught the forums and seen a few people use it.

So the question is:

Is it worth the 99Euros for a license key or is there a better way to deal with E3 RAW files :confused:

No do not feel like updateing to CS3, and Bibble Pro is cheaper and I know works quite well

Cheers :cool:

Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 is excellent value for around 69. Its Adobe Camera RAW support is very good.

Ian

Scapula Memory
10th March 2008, 06:35 PM
You can try it out on a 30 day trial, best way to find out if you can get on with something.

Jim Ford
10th March 2008, 06:43 PM
Is it worth the 99Euros for a license key or is there a better way to deal with E3 RAW files

I have an E3 and use Photoshop CS2.

I convert the E3 ORF files to DNG using the free Adobe DNG Camera Raw converter, then process with CS2 Adobe Camera Raw.

Works well for me!

Jim

Johnny Jetstream
11th March 2008, 09:39 AM
There is nothing that will give you better quality files from RAW BUT it is a real pain to use. On My Mac (8-core) it runs just about fast and will quit every fourth or fifth file processed like clockwork. Also, none of the other RAW converters have specific control over distortion, auto tone etc

HughofBardfield
11th March 2008, 10:38 AM
Personally, I am a fan of Lightroom and have been since beta test days. It's not cheap though.

I haven't used Studio but "Viewer" and "Master" are just too clunky to make me want to try.

Also worth mentioning is GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program - which has most of the functionality of Photoshop) and the companion converter UFRAW - both are free downloads.

Silkypix also has its fans - and the basic version is free.

Nick Temple-Fry
11th March 2008, 12:48 PM
Also worth mentioning is GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program - which has most of the functionality of Photoshop) and the companion converter UFRAW - both are free downloads.



And alongside GIMP - and drawing on one of its coverters there is RawTherapee - another fully featured raw converter/manipulator. And of course - free.

Nick

250swb
12th March 2008, 08:15 AM
Is it worth the 99Euros for a license key or is there a better way to deal with E3 RAW files

No it isn't worth the money.

You are better saving your money and buy Photoshop Elements 6 which uses the same RAW converter as CS3 and Lightroom (ACR 4.3.1). You would be able to upgrade your license later to CS3 from there, and if you ask most people a question, or read a newstand magazine, the explanations and answers will be spoken in 'Photoshop'. It is a worldwide language for good reason, it is the best product.

Ian
12th March 2008, 09:34 AM
I

No it isn't worth the money.

You are better saving your money and buy Photoshop Elements 6 which uses the same RAW converter as CS3 and Lightroom (ACR 4.3.1). You would be able to upgrade your license later to CS3 from there, and if you ask most people a question, or read a newstand magazine, the explanations and answers will be spoken in 'Photoshop'. It is a worldwide language for good reason, it is the best product.

I think there is a lot of good advice in what you say. But I'd not be too harsh on Studio. It's a lot cheaper than, say, Lightroom and is really complementary to Photoshop, like Lightroom. You do need a powerful PC or it can be a bit slow and clunky, but it produces excellent results and it does have multiple image batch processing. It also models the camera's internal processing very closely, which can be useful and it has the camera remote control functionality if you need it.

Ian

Scapula Memory
12th March 2008, 10:13 AM
I
You would be able to upgrade your license later to CS3 from there, and if you ask most people a question, or read a newstand magazine, the explanations and answers will be spoken in 'Photoshop'. It is a worldwide language for good reason, it is the best product.

Is it really the best or is it becoming the M$ Windows of the photo world? Likely to strangle the opposition (or buy them up) then charge the end consumer what it likes for its products and even rip off the existing customers through expensive upgrade paths? To me it is starting to look that way, and you will then find that just like Windows it might seem like the best but actually there is little to compare it to whilst in the meantime you are paying through the nose for it.

The best thing the OP can do is trial everything that is out there and the one he uses the most will be the best one for him regardless of cost. It might come as a shock to you but some people do not choose Adobe.

Ray Shotter
12th March 2008, 01:14 PM
Knikki,

I am still trying to familiarise myself with Olympus Studio 2 and find it contains more functions than I have yet used or needed so far. Previously, I was using Photoshop Elements 4 but became disillusioned with it when I found it could not process my RAW files taken on my E-510. This was also the case when I tried to see my RAW files from my E-3. So, having used Olympus Master for basic operations I began to use some of the functions of the trial version of Olympus Studio 2 and eventually decided to pay for the Code and have been using Olympus Studio 2 ever since. Which software you buy must ultimately depend on how sophisticated you want your software to be and how much manipulation you require of your photographs. So far I am very satisfied with Olympus Studio 2 and Olympus Master and don't intend to pay for the latest Photoshop Elements 6. Since, it appears that the Adobe Photoshop Elements products do not appear to have a free or discounted upgrade process. If I am wrong about the upgrade process of Elements I would like to be corrected !! My son-in-law (who is a professional Graphics Artist/Designer) uses the professional Photoshop CS 3 but, from what I have seen of it, it appears to be much too sophisticated for my purposes and, as an amateur/enthusiast photographer, I am not convinced yet that I want or even need to be able to manipulate my photographs to that degree. Also if I want to part with that sort of money I think I would prefer to put it towards another lens.

Regards,

Ray.

HughofBardfield
12th March 2008, 01:28 PM
My son-in-law (who is a professional Graphics Artist/Designer) uses the professional Photoshop CS 3 but, from what I have seen of it, it appears to be much too sophisticated for my purposes and, as an amateur/enthusiast photographer, I am not convinced yet that I want or even need to be able to manipulate my photographs to that degree. Also if I want to part with that sort of money I think I would prefer to put it towards another lens.


Most people seem to find Elements sufficient. I have a copy of CS (which came with my PC), but since I got Lightroom I rarely use it (but when I need it, I really need it. Until that point, I found GIMP was perfectly satisfactory, although I wasn't shooting RAW then.

Many of the extra bells and whistles in CS3 can be found in other packages (many of which are free- or share-ware) if you look around. However, some are limited, eg to TIFFs. Scapula Memory is quite right about the dominance of Adobe - just because it's the market leader, doesn't mean it's automatically the best. Software is just like a camera - personal preference and working style means a lot.

Johnny Jetstream
12th March 2008, 02:06 PM
I think there is some confusion about what Studio is for - it is a RAW converter that at a stretch can be used as an image editor. The RAW conversion in CS3 or elements is vastly inferior despite the fact that Photoshop is a fantastic image editor.

If you want the best image quality you should use Studio to precisely convert RAW files into tiffs and then use CS3 for image editing. I use Lightroom for cataloguing and previewing files, send them to Studio for conversion and them polish in CS3.

Ian
12th March 2008, 02:35 PM
I think there is some confusion about what Studio is for - it is a RAW converter that at a stretch can be used as an image editor. The RAW conversion in CS3 or elements is vastly inferior despite the fact that Photoshop is a fantastic image editor.

If you want the best image quality you should use Studio to precisely convert RAW files into tiffs and then use CS3 for image editing. I use Lightroom for cataloguing and previewing files, send them to Studio for conversion and them polish in CS3.

I think you're being unfair to Adobe in that bit of your statement. A year ago I'd have agreed to an extent - especially concerning ACR's sharpening, which tended to be very harsh on Olympus RAW files. But ACR has been refined steadily and it's pretty good now. Even better in many ways is DxO Optics Pro, but there is no native support for Olympus RAW files at the moment.

Ian

250swb
12th March 2008, 05:03 PM
If you want the best image quality you should use Studio to precisely convert RAW files into tiffs and then use CS3 for image editing.

Balderdash. The main thing that Studio does (also Master) during its RAW processing is add saturation, tweak the tone curve, add more local contrast, and add more sharpening to the photo, all by default. These are things you have no control over after its initial implementation. So to the untrained eye it instantly looks more colourful and appealing. It is why baby rattles are bright colours, and why Studio does the same thing to a grown ups perception.

ACR on the other hand provides all these functions, and more, without forcing you to use them. It is the work of a few minutes to mimic the same functions that Studio applies in ACR and save it as a preset profile, which you can adjust as you want, and use each time you want to process an Olympus file.

OlyPaul
12th March 2008, 05:14 PM
I think there is some confusion about what Studio is for - it is a RAW converter that at a stretch can be used as an image editor. The RAW conversion in CS3 or elements is vastly inferior despite the fact that Photoshop is a fantastic image editor.

If you want the best image quality you should use Studio to precisely convert RAW files into tiffs and then use CS3 for image editing. I use Lightroom for cataloguing and previewing files, send them to Studio for conversion and them polish in CS3.

Then that is a expensive cataloguing (DAM) program, as it has been my experiance that there are better DAM programs than Lightroom about just for cataloguing and sending files to a raw convertor or/and editor.

Its a bit like hi fi systems you either go for the conviniance off a all in one midi system that does everything or hand pick your seperates...I'm in the later catorgory ;)

Johnny Jetstream
12th March 2008, 05:25 PM
Okay - perhaps CS3 will give you 85-90% of the quality that a Studio RAW conversion will and if you are in need of speed then it is adequate - but if oyu are spending 1100 on a body and thousands on lenses then I think 99 for Studio is a must for quality.

Scapula Memory
12th March 2008, 06:54 PM
Balderdash. The main thing that Studio does (also Master) during its RAW processing is add saturation, tweak the tone curve, add more local contrast, and add more sharpening to the photo, all by default. These are things you have no control over after its initial implementation.

Are you sure you have used Studio 2? My version does none of what you claim it does by default. It does pick up my E1 settings if I have altered them in camera for example sharpness, contrast and saturation so it rightly assumes this is what the user wanted and matches it. Is this what you meant? This is all changeable anyway at no loss before you convert it to something else.

Maybe something else happens if you select speed priority over quality priority in options though I have never tried this. As for control there is total control over all the settings. I have found S2 a superb converter most of the time and when it cannot quite get there with *difficult* shots I use Phase One.

I actually think it is worth the money but it is not enough on its own. Roll out GIMP and together most angles are covered without the huge cost of CS3

250swb
13th March 2008, 08:53 AM
My version does none of what you claim it does by default

If it does it by default why would you see it? It happens in the background and as my point said, you have no control over it.

Take for example the local or micro contrast. Without any user application to change settings Studio or Master (camera settings and RAW settings 'zero' or 'auto') gives a noticably punchier image in the small details than a default ACR conversion. Put the two images side by side and increase the Clarity slider in ACR (this adjusts the local contrast) and lo and behold you can get the same level of local contrast that Studio gives by default And so on comparing the other settings.

So you say perhaps 'if Studio does it so well and you need to tweak ACR to do the same thing, why criticise it?'. Well take again the micro/local contrast as an example. You want smooth skin tones, aiming to hide the warts and all, and what does Studio do by default, it increases the contrast in those very areas, and you can't stop it.

So yes Scapula I have used Studio 2 (and Master 2) and ACR, but it would seem you haven't used ACR.

As for the "huge cost of CS3" I thought that had been covered? The same RAW converter is used in Elements 6, but then knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing will lead some people to sit on their hands and wait for something free to come along whatever the cost. What is most important, the end photograph, or fiddling with clunky half featured bits of shareware?

Ian
13th March 2008, 09:34 AM
If it does it by default why would you see it? It happens in the background and as my point said, you have no control over it.

Take for example the local or micro contrast. Without any user application to change settings Studio or Master (camera settings and RAW settings 'zero' or 'auto') gives a noticably punchier image in the small details than a default ACR conversion. Put the two images side by side and increase the Clarity slider in ACR (this adjusts the local contrast) and lo and behold you can get the same level of local contrast that Studio gives by default And so on comparing the other settings.

So you say perhaps 'if Studio does it so well and you need to tweak ACR to do the same thing, why criticise it?'. Well take again the micro/local contrast as an example. You want smooth skin tones, aiming to hide the warts and all, and what does Studio do by default, it increases the contrast in those very areas, and you can't stop it.

So yes Scapula I have used Studio 2 (and Master 2) and ACR, but it would seem you haven't used ACR.

As for the "huge cost of CS3" I thought that had been covered? The same RAW converter is used in Elements 6, but then knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing will lead some people to sit on their hands and wait for something free to come along whatever the cost. What is most important, the end photograph, or fiddling with clunky half featured bits of shareware?

All RAW converters have to start from default settings or the image would be a fairly horrible mass of red green and blue pixels.

If you load the same RAW image into a variety of RAW converters, they will look different in each.

The degree of adjustment to the different parameters will also be slightly different.

If you are saying that the default settings in Studio aren't adjustable - then I don't really understand that.

Ian

Scapula Memory
13th March 2008, 10:53 AM
If it does it by default why would you see it? It happens in the background and as my point said, you have no control over it.

Take for example the local or micro contrast. Without any user application to change settings Studio or Master (camera settings and RAW settings 'zero' or 'auto') gives a noticably punchier image in the small details than a default ACR conversion. Put the two images side by side and increase the Clarity slider in ACR (this adjusts the local contrast) and lo and behold you can get the same level of local contrast that Studio gives by default And so on comparing the other settings.

So you say perhaps 'if Studio does it so well and you need to tweak ACR to do the same thing, why criticise it?'. Well take again the micro/local contrast as an example. You want smooth skin tones, aiming to hide the warts and all, and what does Studio do by default, it increases the contrast in those very areas, and you can't stop it.

So yes Scapula I have used Studio 2 (and Master 2) and ACR, but it would seem you haven't used ACR.

As for the "huge cost of CS3" I thought that had been covered? The same RAW converter is used in Elements 6, but then knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing will lead some people to sit on their hands and wait for something free to come along whatever the cost. What is most important, the end photograph, or fiddling with clunky half featured bits of shareware?

So you have established what everyone already knew? Load an image into different raw converters and they might look different? No need to re-invent the wheel at the present time.

You could make a thousand comparisons between this and that and the way settings are handled but this does not matter to an individual who is getting good results with the tools he uses. The OP only asked if S2 was worth the money, and will it give him good results regardless of background technicalities.

Yes I have used ACR, and no I did not criticise it. Yes it is very good, but no it is not the "language" for everyone and the best product which you claim it is. It is merely another solution.

Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing does not apply here as all of these products have a trial version for people to try before they buy. This at least means that anyone who is capable of forming a reasonable opinion can do so, and if they want to go off and fiddle with the half clunky bits of shareware that you so eloquently describe and post fantastic images right here on this very forum then why should they not do this?

I agree the end photo is what matters, but this still leaves your claim that ACR is the best product dead in the water.

250swb
14th March 2008, 04:38 PM
If you are saying that the default settings in Studio aren't adjustable - then I don't really understand that.

Once more.

There are things that happen in Studio RAW conversion that you cannot adjust, and that impair further post processing. The sharpening that happens irrespective of the setting you choose, and the contrast settings that are applied irrespective of those you choose. These are not 'default settings', things that you are able to adjust from a neutral position, they are default actions applied as the image is brought to screen.

Think of it like this, using Master is like taking your old film cassettes into Boots to be processed, and the images will be OK. Studio is akin to taking your pictures to a pro lab, the results 'can' be better than Master. But you only get the control over the entire image making process if you work with a package such as Photoshop, the equivalent of your old darkroom.

Ray Shotter
26th April 2008, 10:21 AM
Knikki,

I don't know whether you have already made a decision about Olympus Studio but since my comments in March 2008 I have been using it quite a lot. I tend to shoot in Raw with my E-3 and use Olympus Studio to correct brightness, contrast, cropping and levelling the horizon (I'm afraid I often take a shot which is not level !). I use it for converting to jpeg, resizing and amending colour balance where necessary. I find it is very informative when it comes to reading the Exif data unlike my Photshop Elements 4 which, for example, does not tell me which lens I used. I do not find it any slower to use than Elements 4 and there are still several functions of Olympus Studio which I have yet to explore. The one feature which I find very useful in Elements 4 (and use regularly) is when cropping for a particular size of print. Elements 4 does this automatically whereas I have not been able to find a similar function in Olympus Studio yet. I have decided that I shall continue to use Olympus Studio as my main basic editor and converter from Raw to jpeg and when I need a function which does not appear to be included in Olympus Studio I shall use Photoshop Elements 4. Elements 4, of course, does not convert Olympus Raw files taken on either my E-510 or my E-3. It did convert the Raw files taken on my E-1 however.

I shall try to improve my knowledge of the functions of Olympus Studio and Photoshop Elements 4 in the next few months but my original comments about purchasing the more expensive Photoshop software stands - ie - I would prefer to put that sort of money towards another lens. I don't intend for the present to upgrade to Photoshop Elements 6 since I don't think I have anything to gain by doing so.

As my knowledge about these different software packages increases then I may change my mind but, currently, I have so much to learn about my existing software that I can't see that happening for a long time to come.

My final comment on Olympus Studio is that it is a very good basic editing software and copes exceptionally well with all Raw files from all Olympus cameras. The batch editing function (which is not available in elements 4) is very useful also.

Ray.

ardvorlich
30th April 2008, 08:33 AM
Ian. I note from elsewhere you met with DxO and wondered if any news on Oly. support ? Sorry for deviation from subject.
Iain