Proprietary RAW Converters: A New Perspective on First Party RAW Editors

In a recent discussion with a fellow imaging professional we both discovered that we are huge fans of proprietary RAW editors. If used correctly, they can give you outstanding results, workflow benefits and much more.
.
Video Content:
0:00 Introduction
1:18 About RAW and JPEG
2:23 The Signature Look
4:29 The RAW Converters
6:46 RAW Converters - A Closer Look
9:35 The Workflow
12:15 Conclusion
.
Article: www.thomaseisl.photography/blog/proprietary-raw-converters
.
Instagram: / thomaseisl.photography
Website: www.thomaseisl.photography/
Facebook: / thomaseisl.photography
.
🎥 OM System OM-1
.
#RAW #JPEG #Hasselblad #PHOCUS #PhaseOne #CaptureOne #Canon #DigitalPhotoProfessional #Nikon #NXStudio #OMSystem #OMWorkspace #Sigma #PhotoPro #Sony #ImagingEdge #Fujifilm #XRAWStudio #RAWFileConverterEX #Panasonic #SilkypixSE #Pentax #DigitalCameraUtility5 #RAWEditor #RAWConverter #SilkyPix #ThomasEisl #ThomasEislPhotography

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Please consider supporting the channel, donate a cup of coffee ☕ ko-fi.com/thomaseislphotography

[@tempuser3185]

Just wanted say how much I enjoy your videos. I stopped off photography KZbin for the longest time since it just felt like a bunch of hobbyists, and lifestyle gurus hyping up gear. You've been a breath of fresh air

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much, that is really great to hear!

[@sergiodonadeo2810]

Finally the first RAW Editors lesson arrived! I wait for it because I understood that OM Workspace is great for OM-1 conversion of RAW files but, I also learned that exposing on the right is a good choice; so, it's necessary to manage light and OM Workspace is not so easy and quick to use. I'm afraid to obtain a worse result as clunky use of light correction. So, I encourage Thomas to go keep going further on this way and to explain to us the best actions to do with OM Workspace. Thank you very much Thomas. Sergio from Milano, Italy

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Sergio! When using Workspace, exposing to the right should not be used. The way the software converts RAW files is different to regular tools - which is great, as it allows for a more traditional, very efficient yet high quality workflow! More details in the next video! Thank you very much for your comment and your kind support on Ko-Fi!

[@sergiodonadeo2810]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Thank you so much, Thomas. I wait with deep interest for your second lesson, and all others ones.

[@tremaincheerful4189]

Thank you so much, Thomas! You make me want to go back and reprocess all my "favorite" original RAW files again, starting with the proprietary software first. Another very valuable lesson, brilliantly explained.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank YOU so much for your kind feedback! RAW processing can be fun, when you do not have to move 1.000 sliders around. That is also one of the reasons why I love proprietary RAW converters. Many thanks!

[@windynotes]

Thank you Thomas, for being one of the very few who speak about them in a positive light and did not dismiss them outright.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you for your nice comment - I am using them for my professional workflow and I am very happy with the results. In a future video, I will illustrate my OM Workspace workflow in greater detail.

[@mxyptlk]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Always interesting Thomas and well presented. I really look forward to your OM Workspace video with interest.

[@windynotes]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography yes please do. As I'm an advocate for proprietary software, please consider the NX studio for Nikon too. I only use proprietary raw format, never DNG so it's probably the best way of conversion with proprietary photo software.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Agreed! I will put something together for NX as well - it will take some time though

[@andresgonzalezcerda7635]

I’ll be waiting an specific video how to work with om workspace to do the custom Jpegs to the camera. Interesting video as always.thanks!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Soon - the nest video is about that! Thanks for the kind comment!

[@ArndvonRuden-jy7jv]

Gut wie immer/high quality level kept! You really cover topics hardly covered anywhere else. Many thanks for this/herzlichen Dank!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Vielen herzlichen Dank!

[@tapere7277]

Excellent video as usual, thank you. Really looking forward to the OM Workspace video.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great, thanks. I'm already working on it!

[@peterwilborn3233]

Please keep your videos going! I’ve learned so much from you, answering my questions fully.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

That is great to hear! Will do!

[@bublt4me]

I rely on free and perpetual license software for my editing. These videos are really helpful.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great to hear Martin! Same here, I've been avoiding everything subscription - and currently, I'm very happy with what the manufacturers provide, especially OM Workspace and Nikon NX.

[@Crowuk01]

Excellent video, I am always advising people to use their camera brands proprietary software !

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for sharing, I completely agree. That is sound advice.

[@RonK]

interesting... never thought of that... gonna give it a try.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great to hear! My next video will be about OM Workspace!

[@patrickhin4301]

Correct me if i am wrong, a jpeg picture is an edited version from the particular camera software you are using . so basically the camera always take a raw picture and only saves it when you shoot raw. Thank you!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yes, that is correct 👍

[@Martin_Siegel]

This was easier to understand for me. And it's only logical that the manufacturer know their gear best and factored it into their software. I wonder how much of the legendary Minolta colours made it into the Sony software.Thanks for the insight and best wishes, Martin.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Martin! I lack extensive experience with Sony, but I am quite sure that there is still quite some Minolta DNA in the JPEG engine!

[@humanelements2]

This was a great video. As a user of Sigma PhotoPro and OM Workspace, another major benefit is comparing how the detail and color rendition of the first party RAW converters compares to my editor of choice, Capture One. The 1st party look is better in most cases. So I spend time making adjustments to detail and color sliders and comparing the JPEG exports. That way, I can figure out which adjustments will get me close to the 1st party look while keeping the benefits of more flexible software. Sometimes there is no substitute for 1st party RAW editors, though. Especially for Sigma foveon cameras.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks for the very interesting comment - that is very relevant input, great that you've shared your experiences , which are in line with mine. Best wishes, Thomas

[@olavisaksjoflot2932]

Brilliant video! I also love Your precise way of describing and explaining the various topics. I'm a Nikon user and just downloaded Nikon NX-Studio, - eager to try it out. Keep up the good work!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great to hear Olav, thank you very much! I hope you'll enjoy NX as much as I do. Have a great week!

[@olavisaksjoflot2932]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography I also love Your approach regarding "Value for Money" and to resist the urge to always go for The Latest & Greatest Gear. in the long run it comes down to learning to use the gear you have, being creative and getting out there and find the good subjects.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much Olav!

[@offtraildog701]

Hi Thomas. I have been using Capture One for a couple years (for Sony FF RAW) and when I bought my OM-1 system, I tried OM Workspace. Same computer, same RAW files. For me, the C1 raw conversion engine does a much better job then OMW. I use the C1 built in ICC profile OM-1 ProStandard and corresponding Lens Profile (ex. 12-40/2.8 Pro II). My resulting images are much better initially and it only takes me a minute or so to tweak most of the RAW images to my liking. It took me awhile to be comfortable with C1 but they have tons of great videos and the intereface is highly customizable. Please keep producing these informative videos !

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Bill! Picking a RAW converter is really like picking a developer and photo paper in analog times. It comes down to taste and expectations! Thanks for sharing your valuable experiences - very much appreciated!

[@howardrollinson3819]

Thank you Thomas as with all your videos very good info to take onboard regards Howard Rollinson

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great to read, thanks Howard!

[@howardpolivy9394]

Thanks!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank YOU very much for your support! Glad you liked the video 📸

[@henkpeter1755]

Fifteen years ago I compared several raw converters like the predecessor of Olympus workspace. It was unable to retrieve highlights but SilkyPix did an excellent job. Later I compared a number of raw converters and found that CaptureOne gave me the best image quality. When I tried the same raw image file of the Olympus E3 that I used in the first comparison in the new Olympus workspace the highligts still could not be retrieved. I can convert raw files more than fifteen years old in CaptureOne with excellent image quality.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks for sharing your experiences Hank - great input! Every RAW converter operates completely different. For example: Although all have an exposure slider, the processing is usually very different. Workspace is a prime example of that - that is why I will follow up with a separate video. After spending quite some time with the tool, I'm pretty confident to state that it is able to squeeze every tiny bit of information out of the file with very little effort, but you have to transform your workflow first, otherwise it won't work(space). 😉 It is pretty exciting and I'm looking forward to sharing that soon! C1 is a great tool of course, and capable of outstanding results - so is silkypix which I really love!

[@markusbolliger1527]

My standard editing software is Lightroom - so my RAW- files are developed in Adobe RAW. The results are satisfying in normal conditions, will say: If the image is well exposed, and has not been taken at high ISO's. If I am not satisfied with the output, I run the RAW's through DxO Pure RAW II (now: Version III is available), which is installed as a PlugIn to LR, and this converter really pushes the image quality to a higher level. Three years ago I went from mFT (Olympus E-M1 MkIII) to full frame (Nikon Z). If DxO Pure RAW II would have been in my hands I probably wouldn't have changed the system. Because even relatively noisy mFT- files are transformed into detailed and practically noise free images.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for sharing your workflow and your valuable experiences. I agree that AI tools are really a great addition to the "toolkit" - I personally quite like the noisy appearance, it is a bit trending at the moment, I think - with all the digicam retro wave we are currently experiencing. But yes, if you want to get rid of it, nothing like AI denoising! Thanks for contributing, much appreciated!

[@markusbolliger1527]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Gern geschehen Thomas - ich schätze deine, man darf schon sagen: Vorlesungen über das OM- System sehr: Fundiert, umfassend, didaktisch gut aufgebaut, gut vorgetragen. Sehr sympathisch!! Weil mir mein Nikon Z- Geraffel immer schwerer am Rücken hängt - man wird eben nicht jünger - trage ich mich ernsthaft mit dem Gedanken wieder zu Olympus, äh: OM- Systems zurückzukehren. Ich habe mir für meine Schwerpunkte schon die passende Grundausrüstung zurechtgeplant: OM-1 Kit mit dem 12-40/2.8 II PRO, 8-25/4.0 PRO, 12-100 f/4 PRO ODER 40-150/4 PRO, 20/1.4 PRO. Das Makro 60mm/2.8 habe ich noch - tolles Glas bei minimalem Gewicht. Die kreativen Möglichkeiten der OM-1 sind überwältigend und überzeugen mich - und wie gesagt: Wenn man das rauschende Korn liebt kann man es lassen (je nach Motiv reizvoll, erinnert an den Silberhalogenidfilm), und wenn man es weghaben will gibt es DxO Pure RAW II/III oder eine andere Software.

[@francishwlee]

Thanks for this video, Thomas. I agree with your main point that proprietary RAW converters can ensure that you retain the propriety character of your camera's images. But I have to say that OM Workspace is pretty unstable as a software application. I've used it on different computers and it has always been prone to crashes and errors. If I were to use it professionally, I would use it only to cull and apply basic lens corrections. However, for the casual hobbyist doing light work, it does offer great value, since it also updates your firmware on top of letting you process your RAWs.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Agreed - OM Workspace is a bit quirky. I've had good results with the current version, in terms of stability. In my next video, I will share my workflow soon! Thanks for the valuable input!

[@ianparr1533]

My experience of OM Workspace is all on iMacs and MacBooks, the newest is 5 years old. No stability issues, but it is slow on my machines even with SSD drives and additional RAM installed.

[@francishwlee]

@@ianparr1533 I'm on PC with upgraded ram and SSDs. OMW is quite slow and not very stable processing modest shoots with a few hundred shots. OTOH, my dxo pl6 has handled projects with several thousand shots with nearly no issues.

[@ianparr1533]

I regularly use OM Workspace as an alternative to DXO Photolab for RAW development. For some files, it seems to give more "natural' results. However, DXO is much faster and convenient to use and you can only apply Prime NR directly to the RAW file, so DXO remains my primary choice. I have also had great results from Canon DPP. Some files that I would consider unusable in 3rd party developers will process nicely in DPP. I agree with Thomas - don't diss OEM s/w, get familiar with what it can & can't do and it may save your bacon some day.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks Ian! That's exactly how I roll as well - it is important to have many different tools at your disposal and to pick the right one. Never dismiss anything right away. Thanks for the contribution!

[@ianroe1076]

While this does sound like a very cool way to add uniqueness to your photos, I do think the inconvenience of having to plug my camera into my computer to use Fuji X Raw is too much, when I can just load my pictures into Capture One and get to work. Also, I might be wrong on this (as in, using bad settings and not properly testing the limitations of my camera), but I do think Capture One has better noise reduction software than Fujifilm's in-camera processor. Fuji's NR setting always looks sort of waxy, in my opinion.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Ian! Every editing tool has to be tested properly - there are many potential pitfalls and also personal preferences. I'm no way against third party software, more often than not the results are great. Also, I agree that the "must plug-in" aspect is very inconvenient. I also did not like that. Thanks for sharing your experiences, very much appreciated!

[@singstadmusic4027]

I totally agree in using the cameras own raw converter. It also relates to how I shoot. However, the OM Workspace is really slow, especially on mundane tasks such as previewing folders and collections. 😢

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks! Yes, OM Workspace is a bit slow for these tasks - I use Photo Mechanic for culling and then I only edit the selected images in OM Workspace.

[@stehlealexander]

Danke, ich werde es ausprobieren mal in RAW zu fotografieren & in OM Workspace zu entwickeln. Schauen ob ich nicht wirklich viel Zeit verliere an meinem MAC. 🙂

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Super! In meinem nächsten Video werde ich meinen Workspace Workflow teilen, der genau darauf abzielt, die Schwächen des Programms hinsichtlich Geschwindigkeit zu minimieren und die Stärken hinsichtlich Bildverarbeitung zu maximieren. Liebe Grüße, Thomas

[@chrispatmore8944]

Interesting. I've been using Photoshop since version 1, so still use it out of familiarity and (an expensive) habit. I found that ACR does the best job on processing and colour correcting my photos, but I am shooting live music under some pretty terrible LED lighting. However, an imminent move to a country where live rock music isn't a big part of the local scene will mean exploring new things to photograph. I have recently started enjoying macro and nature photography (I must be getting old) so won't have to deal with bad artificial light. So, it could be a good time to start exploring OM Workspace. I have tried it and found it very slow, even on an M1 Mac, but read that you can connect the camera and also use its image processor, which could speed thing up. I'm going to investigate. Also, Workspace has the same lens restrictions on compositing focus-bracketed shots that in-camera focus stacking has, but as there is only one non-compliant lens that I very occasionally use for that, I can composite those in Affinity Photo, which does an excellent job. Maybe I'll finally be able to free myself from the financial shackles of Adobe.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for sharing that - you should definitely give it a try for a gig, it might feel slow at first, but as I will show in my next video, the workflow is very different which makes the "slowness" not a huge issue. Interestingly, I've used Workspace for those crazy fashion shows with strange colored lights - because it dealt with them so well. In any case, there are many good options, Workspace definitely being one of them!

[@MikePageKaltenberg]

My raw converter (ON1 Photo Raw) offers proprietary profiles as well as camera-specific profiles. Working with Workspace to create tifs before editing in ON1 would explode the amount of hard-drive space I need.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

I've also used ON1 and it is a good tool. However, the included camera specific profiles are not really matching the OM RAW engine in terms of color and the overall demosaicing and more is very different as well - which is not necessarily a bad thing! The TIFF is not meant to be done with all images, just with the ones that need retouching. I'll get into more detail in my next video. I completely agree that exporting every file to TIFF would be a waste of hard drive space!

[@davidredfearn6065]

A very interesting argument. The biggest counter-argument is that these manufacturer editors are very slow - so slow that I have decided they are not usable for processing a lot of images. And, if you shoot with more than one camera (I shoot with the Sony A7RV and the OM-1) you need to learn two different editors. But, I get the idea that the manufacturer color science may be best for the camera (and you should like it since you bought the camera!). I have found that jpeg quality has improved so much over the past 5 years that I most often use the jpegs and don't need to do any raw editing at all. (One interesting difference is that Sony is still sponsoring a Sony only version of Capture One 23 - but I don't know how much that is optimized for the Sony cameras.) I really enjoy your videos - different and challenging!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you very much for your contribution and your kind words. I agree with what you said - my current video and my upcoming video will illustrate the OM-only workflow and I think it might be of interest to you. I'm also shooting multiple brands, but found this workflow to be relatively easy to learn - maybe you'll like it as well! Looking forward to your feedback on those, if you have the time. Thanks again, great conversation!

[@davidredfearn6065]

Here is what an image editor developer says about the camera editors. I look forward to your OM workflow videos. Yes, the standard argument for manufacturer RAW decoder software is that they understand the sensor best. Which is fine. Except: They also choose to keep their algorithms private, so that no one can replicate what they are doing with an alternative UI or feature set. They keep the format itself private, and encrypt fields (!) to make it harder for third parties to read the files. They do not offer a way for a third party to link with their code and and then add additional imaging features on top (if the camera company still wanted to keep the implementation private) Usually their software produces only 8-bit output (which would make it pointless to link to their library anyway).

[@stevenbirds2920]

Thank you for another very entertaining video. Essentially, your suggested WF was, for some time, as you describe. In those days I also used Apple Aperture. I concluded that I much preferred the Olympus converter, especially so on two counts. Firstly, it incorporated the in camera adjustments into the Raw file on import and secondly and most importantly when writing eking in black and white it used a grain profile carried over from Kodak and the options and output was wonderful. In the end however I gave up using both pieces of software and moved to Capture One simply because the OM Workspace became impossibly slow to work with on my mid 2015 Mac Book Pro and Apple, of course, stopped supporting Aperture and I found Photo to be just horrible. I hope to upgrade our Apple Computer this year and would be very interested to hear what specification you have found that will allow OM Workspace to work at something more then a snails pace? Thank you. Ps : it might be worth pointing out to your audience that one of the reasons why OM Workspace is so slow is that it is generating extremely high quality previews on the screen.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Steven! Thanks for your valuable, extensive contribution - completely agree: Workspace is only viable with a high end PC or a plugged in OM camera. My next video will be about that and your comment is a great contribution for this video! Thank you!

[@frstesiste7670]

I tried the SilkyPix version that came with a Fujifilm camera years ago. It was horrible compared to Adobe's products and didn't even support the EXR sensor in the camera it came with properly. Maybe it's all different now - this was ten years ago. On the other hand, Canon's RAW converter has always been pretty good. I've tried Nikon, Olympus and Sony converters too, but don't remember details. My main problem with proprietary converters is that I have to learn a new one for each brand. I use Olympus, Sony and my Samsung phone (DNGs) regularly, have lots of older Canon and Nikon RAW files and I'm also scanning a old negatives and slides that need post processing and using the same software for everything is a huge advantage in my opinion.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Absolutely! If you are shooting with many different brands, a "one stop shop" is very useful. Thanks for your contribution!

[@metalmick99]

Quite an interesting clip and, as always, a very insightful one that warrants strong consideration. I find that OM Workspace to be a bit underwhelming, and after trying it for a while, quickly moved to a proprietary product (ON1, though I also have Affinity Photo). I struggled to get good results from OMW (which might not be the software's fault!) and couldn't compile images for focus-stacking at all. I did think though, that noise reduction (at the very least) ought to be superior to other software, although OMW gave very unsatisfactory results on a pelican in flight that I was rather fond of. A recent article indicated that ON1 plus OM-1 RAW files isn't the best alternative, so I was thinking that maybe my best choice would be to use OMW to convert the files (to tiff, as you said) and then do all my other post-processing in ON1. I think perhaps the most important messages in this and many many of your clips are: keep an open mind, and; think things through. Both of which are bound to yield benefits rather than handicaps. As an aside, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on FOSS like Darktable (now that it finally supports OM-1 ORF!), RAWTherapee (though it still seems not to), and perhaps DigiKam.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Michael! Thank you very much for your kind comment and that you took the time to share your valuable experiences! I've also used ON1 with Affinity, still have both programs. It really is about doing the conversion process in Workspace, and other editing in ON1 and similar - we are on the same page here. My next video will illustrate the workflow in greater detail, I think it might work for you! When I started out, I used RawTherapee a lot, switched to ON1, then ACDSee and now Workspace and Silkypix. I love trying different things to be able to provide advice and find the best solution for my work. In any case, I think that the free converters are worth trying - of you know how to use them the results can be very good. I'm currently really hooked on Workspace, as it really optimized and sped up my workflow. But again, there are many good options and I will try covering them in future videos here on the channel!

[@washingtonradio]

I never thought about using the native RAW converter instead of a 3rd party converter.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

You should give it a try - they are better than you think!

[@flyfishnfoto]

Another very good video Thomas. Do you think conversion of the OM-1 ORF to a DNG file using Adobe DNG Converter results in any loss of information? I use Lightroom 6 (for both its catalogue and edit function) which does not recognise the OMD orf file hence the need to convert. I prefer downloading the images with Olympus Viewer 3 to Oly Workspace. Sometimes I will use Oly Workspace for edits but find it very slow.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thank you! I would assume that the DNG conversion should not harm the quality, but I cannot rule that out completely. I'd really recommend using Workspace - my next video will illustrate how to use it efficiently and how to really speed up the program. I edit all my jobs with it, I'm very satisfied with it. Btw, you can use Workspace to batch import images. Best wishes!

[@RichardBO9]

Excellent video! I have encountered one other photographer who does all in-camera processing through Canon DPP and has awesome looking images. One of my concerns about switching to MFT (again) is what I will call a "thin negative" look, where skies are noisy and the photo appears to be "dingy" looking. How much of this can be attributed to applying "adobe color science"? I admit that I didn't try OM Workspace for very long because it was slow. The only thing holding me back from switching to MFT's is concern about dingy looking clouds and skies. It's interesting how many OM System Ambassadors on KZbin don't seem to have the "thin negative" look, but the average MFT's shooter on Flikr does. I really want to understand how to make this system rock and roll with great image quality.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Thanks - I'm pretty sure this is related to poor exposure decisions and post processing. I'm using MFT for magazine work, and I've had an editor mentioning the look. I know what you mean, though, but you can find it with any sensor format. It is just poor technique. MFT is capable of professional results, actually it is almost too much IQ for most applications. If you like, we can get on a call and get into greater details. Just send me an email, if you like. Best, Thomas 📸

[@thorstenjaspert9394]

Manufactures RAW converter are underrated. These are the off camera picture engines. I use use de DPP4.0 for my Canon 90D. Yout can make a lot with it. for basic correction ist is good enough,. But for saving highlights or light up deep shadows, third party products are better. To finish the pictures you have to export as 16Bit TIFF File and process it to finish and export in the final file format. Other ones give a all in a box solution to the final export picture. Taht is more efficient. Canon can build great cameras, but they could do more to improve its house RAW converter. It feels like increativ. Other softwaremanufatures can do better.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks for the extensive comment! Much appreciated - I agree, there are advantages and disadvantages to both variants.

[@kimginnerup5819]

My only issue with OM Workspace is: that it cannot save as a dng.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yes, that is not possible. But WS is a RAW converter so you can get the finished image - DNG is still a RAW format that needs further processing and cannot be used for e.g. skin retouching. In my next video, I'll share my workflow, maybe it is suitable for you as well! Thanks for the comment!

[@petervandenbroek273]

Hello Thomas, you state, that "you can transfer most settings to the in-camera JPEG processing". I have an OM1 camera and I would like to know how you go about, when setting the results, you made in Workspace, over to the camera. You talk about "presets". I am anxious to know the steps/changes you make in the camera. Apart from that: I really enjoy your videos and written articles! Wenn es für Sie einfacher ist um in Deutsch zu antworten: kein Problem!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hello Peter! Thank you very much for your kind words - I am very happy to announce that my next video will cover exactly that: I will share the key aspects of my OM Workspace workflow and how which settings can be transferred to the OM-1's JPEG engine. Please stay tuned :-) Thanks again for the feedback!

[@sourcebased]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography wow this will get interesting! Never played with the ooc jpeg settings of the OM-1 to be honest. Thanks 🙏

[@scotimages]

"Slow, clunky to use, lack professional features". I certainly agree with that. Sorry, but nothing you have said after that convinces me otherwise. We now know that a range of software developers have their strengths and weaknesses.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Don't be sorry, just use what suits your needs. Stay tuned, in my next videos I will show how to work with those tools. This video was just the teaser.

[@robwinklerphoto2189]

Enjoy your channel, Thomas. As a nature photographer, I shoot in raw and use Nikon NX Studio alone to edit photos I take on my Nikon D500 and Z50. I make only minor adjustments. Don't understand using Affinity in addition NX Studio. I did try Adobe Photoshop Elements and found that, compared to NX Studio, it gave my photos artificial colors and unacceptable grain. The idea of editing a photo first in Camera Raw and then in Photoshop itself, adjusting some of the same options in both, also made no sense to me. Sounds like editing in Affinity after doing so in NX Studio would be redundant like this. Why use two photo editors, especially if, as you say, NX Studio is full featured? It would be like writing with two word processors.

[@ianparr1533]

Everyone's workflow is different but I find that I often want to make local adjustments and the OEM s/w that I'm familiar with doesn't offer these functions. Exporting a developed TIFF to Affinity or PS allows you to apply masks to the image to make local adjustments.

[@robwinklerphoto2189]

@@ianparr1533 OK, thanks. NX Studio does have a local adjustment called "color control points." I go back to the film era, when I did my own black-and-white processing and printing. In my digital photography, I keep to the basics: white balance, exposure, sharpness, noise reduction, saturation, dodging/burning-in. As you say, everyone is different. For me, going any further wouldn't adhere to my definition of photography.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Hey Rob! Thanks for bringing this up - much like you, I'm also in the camp of minimal editing and keeping it real. However, as a fashion photographer it is necessary to provide at least skin retouching and so on. Also, I find that a two-step workflow can be better in some situations than a one-step workflow, and I'm sure you'd like it as well. I'd say using two editors is not like using two word programs, but like in the analog days : developing the film, printing it and retouching the print (or the negative). My next video will be about an OM System specific workflow with Workspace, but the same principles apply for Nikon. Hope you will watch it, it will illustrate my suggestion more clearly. Thanks for asking and your input, much appreciated!

[@robwinklerphoto2189]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography Thanks, Thomas. Greetings from Connecticut, USA. Interesting comparison of your two-step workflow to the analog process. BTW, you speak perfect English. My grandfather came to New York City from Vienna in the late 1800s. Look forward to your next video.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Wow, thanks Rob! That means a lot, really.

[@RoderickJMacdonald]

I suspect that goal of the user is important. I want to get the “most” from my photo, but I don’t want to change it. OM Workspace allows me to do this. I used to spend a lot of time with Lightroom “enhancing” images. In reality, I was often compensating for errors made when taking the picture, usually lighting or simple composition.

[@francoisleger287]

Yep, this is exactly why i shoot raw: i am NOT a profressional photographer and i do not take perfect photo. I therefore use a good raw editor to compensate/explore defficiencies from my image capture. For this, you need a good raw processor, and for this i believe Capture One is the most versatile solution even if the most expensive.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Completely agree, Roderick!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

​@@francoisleger287 you won't believe how many times pros actually mess up and have to cover up. Many amateurs are at least on par with professional photographers in terms of technique.

[@francoisleger287]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography What I wanted to say, most of my photos are not prepared, but opportunistic, this is where my technic is not adequate, I miss muscle brain knowledge in what I can extract from a scene, I need thinking, and on multiple hours treck, time is very limited. Raw processing us then very helpful. This does not invalidate your point.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Yes! I'm looking forward to your feedback when my workspace video is up! Maybe it is a good raw converter for your line of work!

[@vancouverbluesea]

When I bough my camera (about 9 years ago) I tried Canon's proprietary software. It was slow and clunky. And I used it on a newer machine. Ironically - a free software (Darktable) that was on an older machine worked faster and better (on Linux). I take your point why the manufacturer's software maybe good (and especially compared to Adobe that charges monthly). But the manufacturers don't consider Linux at all. Since photography is a hobby for me - the Linux / Darktable (and other FOSS) worked better than the Windows environment - it was just too slow and expensive. The suggestion in the video will likely work only for windows / mac users and hobbyist. Maybe some pros will use it but I am not sure how this may work if they have more than one brand of cameras. At the very least they would need to learn 2 different software instead of one.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Very valid points! Thanks for taking the time to write this extensive comment - much appreciated.

[@michaelrasmussen3347]

For me the choice is easy. None of manufacturers provide a version of their software which can run on my OS.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Ah, I'm sorry to hear that :-(

[@daviddyephotography]

why is saving as TIFF recommended versus DNG

[@sergiodonadeo2810]

Interesting question: I'ld know the opinion of Thomas about DNG format. I don't know how is appreciated in professional world. It's quite useful to add the native RAW information AND the choice of the photographer about post-production, in a unique file readable by all image software. Isn't it? If we think about the pdf format....

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

DNG is still a RAW format and therefore not suitable for retouching.

[@pjay3028]

​@@ThomasEisl.Photography will this issue be explained in more detail in your next video. I am not clear about exactly what retouching is and how it is different to any other kind of editing, whatever that may be called. Thanks

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

​@@pjay3028 yes, I will cover that in great detail. Short answer upfront: Retouching skin defects, local adjustments, dodging and burning are some of those steps I recommend doing in a photo editor.

[@pjay3028]

@@ThomasEisl.Photography thank you. I am really looking forward to the next video. I have never taken the step in to raw editing, but I suspect that, with your advice and encouragement, I will have the confidence to do so. Thank you again.

[@lichtloper]

10:20 Step 3: white balance setting. Why isn't this THE 1st Step?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Because step one and two have to be done first to allow for setting the correct WB.

[@larsarvidoma6207]

Great video! Interesting and important for me as a Olympus/OM shooter. I am using C1 for my work, but I´m not sure the C1 is the best for high resolution shots. What is your opinion? Will I get better quality with OM Workspace on my high-res shots?

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

I would definitely try Workspace - it is my go-to converter for everything OM. In my next two videos, I will expand on that. Especially why it is so good for HighResShot files. And it is free, so trying will do no harm! Thanks for your kind words and your contribution!

[@otm646]

Why should the manufacturer have any input on my creative decisions? Should they also tell me where and how to take my photos? That's like like them telling me I can only use their specific film in my camera.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

In this video, I do not recommend handing over creative decisions to third parties. In any case, you are always "dependant" on third parties - I assume the film you are using is also made by someone other than you. So is your third party RAW converter and your camera sensor.

[@tremaincheerful4189]

Since it's not "film", the photons entering the lens are converted into information in a file, that requires software. The manufacturers' software is created over many generations to provide the most correct match to the data. The data and the software converting it into anything other than a raw file are better matched. Therefore you get a converted file with the most accurate representation of what your exposure and focus choices resulted in, that you are then free to monkey with to your hearts content in another brand of software. Satisfied?

[@ianparr1533]

You can use any film you like, but only if a film manufacturer makes it. What Thomas is suggesting is using today's technology to effectively brew your own film recipes.

[@TL-xw6fh]

Donald, I think you are "misled" into thinking that the manufacturer is trying to influence your creative decisions. What the OEM software does is reflecting the optimal (as they interpret it) conversion of raw data (in laymen's data terms, the 1s and 0s) into meaningful visual output (what you see on screen). How you then enhance the output further is entirely up to you! It is just like processing analogue films where the manufacturer will recommend developer times and temperatures, but we are free to manipulate the developing times and temperature to change the colour tones, film grain and contrast. We also used to spend endless hours in a darkroom, dodging and burning in, etc etc.

[@451804]

Thanks!

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Many thanks for your kind support!