Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Support for OM System (former Olympus) OM-1 RAW files

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Still no support half a year since OM-1's debut. Doesn't exactly instil confidence in their commitment and support for new cameras. I've stopped recommending ACDSee to friends and in the forums. OM Workspace works but isn't very intuitive for sorting and culling. ACDSee is still a better DAM, if only it had support for new cameras. At half a year old, the OM1 isn't even new anymore in the digital tech age.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by JK009 View Post
      Still no support half a year since OM-1's debut. Doesn't exactly instil confidence in their commitment and support for new cameras. I've stopped recommending ACDSee to friends and in the forums. OM Workspace works but isn't very intuitive for sorting and culling. ACDSee is still a better DAM, if only it had support for new cameras. At half a year old, the OM1 isn't even new anymore in the digital tech age.
      I agree. It's not like there are hundreds of new cameras coming out nowadays. There's hardly a handful of new cameras per year. I would expect updates to RAW support every 3mo. from a company that claims to be a leader in adopting new camera technologies. It is indeed shortsighted on ACDSee's part and disappointing; it's not like they can afford to sit on very long before they begin loosing some of their already small market share. Oh well, all we can do is hope
      Last edited by Regor250; 08-23-2022, 08:10 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Converting raw files to dng solves problem, it also allows metadata to be stored in source file.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by brajaq View Post
          Converting raw files to dng solves problem, it also allows metadata to be stored in source file.
          It does NOT solve the problem. The problem is that the new OM RAW file format is not yet supported. Converting to DNG is a workaraound, NOT a solution.

          I hope that ACDSee will be updated to support the new file format before I upgrade my camera again.

          Comment


          • #20
            I asked about this a few days ago and got the answer on the lines "sometime in the future - perhaps" I have just seen the latest release of Fastone 7.7, a free program, will handle OMF files.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Anthraquinone View Post
              I asked about this a few days ago and got the answer on the lines "sometime in the future - perhaps" I have just seen the latest release of Fastone 7.7, a free program, will handle OMF files.
              Yes FastStone viewer 7.7 can display OM-1 ORF raw images, and convert them to TIFF, but there is a fair bit of difference in the result when compared with DNG Converter.

              Click image for larger version

Name:	Compare FS7v7 & DNG Conv.jpg
Views:	203
Size:	355.7 KB
ID:	61588

              Unfortunately, if you own an OM-1 camera, having to convert the RAW OM-1 images in other software to get ACDSee to even display the images would be a complete pain,
              ACDSee is not alone in not yet being able to handle these images, Affinity Photo is in the same boat.

              Comment


              • #22
                Like many others, I am very frustrated by the slow pace of ACDSee dealing with the OM-1 RAW conversion. My wife and I both use OM-1s and between us have taken >20,000 images since we go the cameras. I uploaded example files in March 2022 and, despite chasing frequently, have not had any answer except "later".

                Thanks for the tip re Faststone, Greyfox. I installed it and seems to do a pretty decent job, so I wondered if your settings are optimised (F12 brings up settings, then select RAW tab).

                It is also frustrating that I have yet to find a converter that will render the RAW files into something that looks as good as the JPG. The latter are brilliant IMO, just a shame they don't have the dynamic range of the RAW.

                As an ACDSee user of 9 year's standing, I think the company really needs to up its game re support. Next step is an email to the CEO if things don't improve.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by PeterA View Post
                  ..re Faststone, Greyfox. I installed it and seems to do a pretty decent job, so I wondered if your settings are optimised (F12 brings up settings, then select RAW tab).
                  Yes, My FastStone Viewer RAW settings were as shown

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	FSV RAW Settings.jpg
Views:	195
Size:	88.7 KB
ID:	61616

                  With the image I used in the comparison in my previous post, the difference between the Adobe DNG conversion and the FastStone TIFF can be almost entirely removed by a simple Light EQ adjustment (Shadows +20, Midtones 0, Highlights 0). but I've I've since tried some other OM-1 RAW images and the differences are much less obvious which possibly precludes using just a simple preset..

                  But the main issue for me would be that whilst ACDSee can't decode the OM-1 RAW images, one can't apply keywords, etc without first converting to another format..

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Greyfox View Post

                    But the main issue for me would be that whilst ACDSee can't decode the OM-1 RAW images, one can't apply keywords, etc without first converting to another format..
                    I have found the SOC JPG pretty good if the dynamic range isn't too great, so have generally used those. The ORF is useful when I need the greater range, so I convert to TIFF and then Develop in ACDSee.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I raised another ticket for this and ACDSee have just confirmed that only the upcoming Ultimate 2023 will get support for OM-1 raw files. Much as I love ACDSee it's time to review the competition if I am going to be forced to upgrade.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        That's a new policy for ACDSee and one reason I never bought DxO, again disappointed!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Regor250 View Post
                          That's a new policy for ACDSee and one reason I never bought DxO, again disappointed!
                          ACD should make that policy clear in their support page. To me, it sounds like they're saying that new camera raw support will be provided upon request for latest version, but that does not appear to be the case. This is just my opinion, I think they should release a small patch or update to address the new camera raw support in the current version. That will strengthen customer satisfaction and loyalty. I still hope they do.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            RAW support was never version specific to my knowledge, hopefully ACDSee meant that the update won't be released before 2023 is launched. I am mildly hopeful ACDSee fixed many of existing shortfalls in U2022 instead of spending all their efforts on AI gadgetry.

                            Addendum: just saw the 2023 new features. While AI new features are there as expected, some of which were already released in Gemstone, they did implement a few desirable fixes such as the long overdue overhaul of the search feature many thumbs up on that one, updated the vector selection tool to add curves, which I had suggested, panorama, which many have asked for, new lens corrections (which I assume is an update to the Lensfun data) but no mention of support for embedded lens data though. Overall it looks like a worthwhile fairly well balanced upgrade 😀
                            Last edited by Regor250; 09-08-2022, 12:18 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Anthraquinone View Post
                              I asked about this a few days ago and got the answer on the lines "sometime in the future - perhaps" I have just seen the latest release of Fastone 7.7, a free program, will handle OMF files.
                              Thank you so much for pointing out FastOne. I had no idea it had been updated to support OM1 and other new cameras like the Canon R7. It works flawlessly and is so useful in culling photos quickly. I feel ACDSee really dropped the ball on this one and support for new cameras came way too late. Even the completely free FastOne was on top of things faster than ACDSee. As such, I have no need to upgrade to 2023 anymore just to get OM1 support when I was so ready to weeks ago. I'd rather make a donation to FastOne.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Ultimate 2023 now "support" the OM-1. I said "support" because the LensFun lens profile data file used for Olympus Mil-C lenses does not allow auto-detect to work (it's buggy, as many others). It does work if you use the file I provided above.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X