Ian
I have converted my .ORFs to .DNG, retaining the RAW file and ensuring
that I can extract it later.
I know that there is some difference in colour between the 2 (see AG
Schnozz's previous post a while ago to that effect), but if you retain
the RAW file there should be no problem.
It can't be too long before Aperture supports E-3 .ORF, and Aperture 2
is really quite a sleek beast ...
Chris
On 19 Feb 2008, at 10:00, swisspace wrote:
> Now I have an E-3 which is unsupported in Aperture I was wondering
> what
> the best route for postprocessing would be. There is the adobe raw to
> DNG converter but do I lose anything in the conversion from ORF to DNG
> should I just convert my images to DNG and forget about it or is
> something lost in the translation.
>
> Currently I am shooting raw and jpeg, sometime the jpegs look fine
> (better than the default processed raw files) and sometime the raw
> files
> look better. I don't want to invest disk space and effort worrying
> about
> it if I could just convert them to DNG and process as before. I have
> read that the quality of the DNG conversion depends upon the
> openness of
> the raw file creator.
>
> I have looked for various raw convertors but I don't know which one is
> best for the E-3
>
> Question is will I regret it later if I just add the DNG conversion to
> my workflow and then forget about orf and jpeg, has anyone looked
> into this.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|