Thanks To UHH and A Couple Questions For Oly EM5 MK2 Users: First I would like to give a shoutout and thanks to all the people who helped me out with my question about M4/3 adapters.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

First I would like to give a shoutout and thanks to all the people who helped me out with my question about M4/3 adapters. Except for one who shall remain nameless ( hint hint: male feline) who wanted to devolve the conversation into insults and I'm sorry to say, I willingly obliged. But hey, water under the bridge. I wish him well.
Now first question. Do you have a preferred PP program for your oly files? I have PS & LR, but I've read where Fuji files don't look all that great in PS, so wondering about Oly.
Second question. Do you know anywhere I can get a L bracket for the EM5 MK2 with grip attached. I've searched RRS, Kirk, Ebay, Amazon, Smallrig, 3 Legged Leg to no avail.
Thanks in advance if anybody answers

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The Fuji question...I wonder if you're referring to the pre-sets applied to a raw file when opened in the camera manufacturer's software, as compared to "naked" in other editors?

I have the EM10 Mark II, and use PS Elements and Nik Collection. Elements has fewer options in its version of ACR than does LR/PS. Have you tried editing raw yet in your PS and LR?

blue sky, on Flickr

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

mflowe wrote:

First I would like to give a shoutout and thanks t... (show quote)

I use LR/PS for all my Olympus files (EM5 & EM1v2). I have established import presets that give the Oly raw files a good starting place and it is all some of them need. They have a little more of that Oly zip than the standard Adobe import preset but they have all the flexibility that raw provides.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

Linda From Maine wrote:

The Fuji question...I wonder if you're referring t... (show quote)

Thanks. I had read that some people said the Fuji files had some strange artifacting in PS, so they used another Raw program, can't remember what it was.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

minniev wrote:

I use LR/PS for all my Olympus files (EM5 & EM1v2). I have established import presets that give the Oly raw files a good starting place and it is all some of them need. They have a little more of that Oly zip than the standard Adobe import preset but they have all the flexibility that raw provides.

Thanks,that's good to know.

Bill P

Bear in mind that it's probably not productive to compare a software's treatment of files from some Fuji cameras against Olympus files. Certain Fuji cameras have a sensor that uses their own proprietary arrangement of the different colored pixels, while the Oly cameras use a standard Bayer sensor. Many have questions of how well the software developers have harnessed Fuji's sensor, and perhaps if the various camera companies would reveal their processing so it not need be reversed engineered would help, but that's not gonna happen.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

Thanks.I understand that. It's just that reading about the Fuji files made me wonder if there were any problems with other systems.

Bill P

Problems with one camera's files doesn't mean there will be problems with others.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

Bill P wrote:

Problems with one camera's files doesn't mean there will be problems with others.

Thanks. I totally understand that. But when I read about the Fuji problems that made me wonder weather there were any problems with other systems. That's why I was asking.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

mflowe wrote:

First I would like to give a shoutout and thanks t... (show quote)

I use LR/PS for my Oly EM5 M2 work. The most accurate raw rendering will always be from the Manuf software. Note If you shoot JPEG then it doesn’t matter. But we are talking minor differences and raw files all look flat before processing. When you are processing raw then you adjust to what you want. So why does it matter what it looks like before processing?

I Hope that helps.

I don’t know the answer to (2).

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

JD750 wrote:

I use LR/PS for my Oly EM5 M2 work. The most accurate raw rendering will always be from the Manuf software. Note If you shoot JPEG then it doesn’t matter. But we are talking minor differences and raw files all look flat before processing. When you are processing raw then you adjust to what you want. So why does it matter what it looks like before processing?

I Hope that helps.

I don’t know the answer to (2).

Thanks. The problems I read about were not simple matters of colors, etc. They were weird artifacts in the images which took extra steps to remove them.

Bill P

Do you enjoy using the camera? Having fun going out and shooting? If you keep looking for problems, none of that will be true.

As to manufacturers software, its mostly lightly modified Silkypix. Not a good thing. That's one place where Leica got it right, just generate a .dng file, which is also supported and readily available without any particular problems. Camera companies have been bad about keeping things secret and developing third rate software.

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

mflowe wrote:

First I would like to give a shoutout and thanks t... (show quote)

I have the E-M1mk2 and haven't had any problems with using the RAW files in LR/PS. I have been meaning to run some photos through LR and compare the output with the Olympus software.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Bill P wrote:

Do you enjoy using the camera? Having fun going out and shooting? If you keep looking for problems, none of that will be true.

As to manufacturers software, its mostly lightly modified Silkypix. Not a good thing. That's one place where Leica got it right, just generate a .dng file, which is also supported and readily available without any particular problems. Camera companies have been bad about keeping things secret and developing third rate software.

Just in case it is not obvious about the mention of .dng files with Leica. This requires that the camera must provide the demosaicing in camera before outputting a file. This then means that Leica has control over the demosaicing process and makes it produce the colors that they want, and the detail that they want, and control over any artifacts that the process might generate.

With a RAW output, there are any number of different RAW editors that can generate different looking files. I can see this with the difference in colors using DxO vs Lightroom.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

mflowe wrote:

Thanks. The problems I read about were not simple matters of colors, etc. They were weird artifacts in the images which took extra steps to remove them.

I have not experienced anything like that opening .ORF with PS or Lightroom.