![]() With these settings the image is too dark and I had to use Light EQ to selectively brighten it. I also dialled in -33 eV on 'Exposure' and finally I got rid of the clipped reds on the histogram. Therefore, I tried the 'Highlight Enhancement' slider to recover that detail (had to dial in the maximum of 99). If you look at the histogram you will see the red channel is overexposed, which, surprisingly, is not the case when I open the file in OV3. There are still some small areas which are just blotches of red without any definition. I've now done the same and the result is not satisfactory for me unfortunately. OV3 has this same 'side by side' feature, I could have used it, but I know ACDSee better and selected it by default. I made the default versions exported them to tif files and then compared them side by side in ACDSee Ultimate 8. Compared to OV2 and Lr 4, the differences are MUCH closer to each other than OV2 and Lr4. Note that this information applies to ACDSee Pro 8, as well. So I decided to compare OV3 to ACDSee Ultimate 8. For the last 2 years or so, I have been using ACDSee Pro, and now am using ACDSee Ultimate 8, which I like very much for orf files. While the default output of OV2 came closer to what a finished jpg would look like,īut I was curious about the newest OV version of OV3 (Which comes with every new Oly camera, BTW). In it, the poster, came to the conclusion that OV2 should be used for initial raw conversion, then export a tiff file for import into Lr4. I recently saw an Older video comparing the default output of Olympus Viewer 2 to Lightroom 4.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |