The only think I was using FastStone for was as an image browser and
would never consider it as an editor with PhotoShop just a click away.
I have used BreezeBrowser for at least 7 years and well prefer it to
Bridge. Therefore my strong disappointment that my current version is
unable to do a simple slideshow from E-M5 embedded JPEGs. I really
don't care about precision of color results because all I'm looking for
is a quick view of the camera's rendition of "as shot". I use that view
to decide what I'm going to keep or scrap. All of the final photos will
have been converted to my own preferences from the raw files. The
additional points about inability to extract JPEGs or convert ORF files
is just a disappointment that the product hasn't maintained functional
compatibility with Canon/Nikon raw files that has always been there.
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/12/2013 2:13 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 2/11/2013 8:04 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Yes, the E-M5 does have an embedded JPEG in the raw file and the image
>> is medium sized at 3200x2400. ...
>>
>> So FastStone to the rescue. FastStone isn't particularly fast but
>> clearly also uses the embedded JPEGs for slideshows. It doesn't have a
>> specifically identified function for extracting the JPEGs but will do
>> the job with its export for email (which you can direct to a a file).
>> It was FastStone which identified the JPEG file size by defaulting to an
>> image size of 3400x2400.
>
> Its easy enough to see the size of the embedded JPEGs in Raw files in
> FastStone. Just go full screen on a Raw image and
> the size is shown at the top.
>
>> FastStone can also convert the raw file but is fairly slow and seems to give
>> some different colors.
>
> There's been some talk about FS functions here. It's pretty obvious that the
> developer is embedding various free and
> open source processes, not developing them himself.
>
> The result is inconsistent quality, as someone recently pointed out about its
> NR function. IMO, anyone using FS for
> image editing is limiting the amount they can do and the quality of what they
> do.
>
> Not to say it doesn't have some excellent functions, but test 'em first,
> before relying on them for something important.
> The downsampling batch actions give a lot of flexibility and work quite well,
> for example.
>
> Raw development is almost certainly using DCRaw, which will by default have a
> different rendition than Oly or Adobe
> software.
>
>> Adobe Bridge clearly uses the embedded JPEGs for slideshows also but
>> seems to forget what they might useful for if you ask it to export
>> images sized at 3200x2400 with a raw file as input. It does so slowly
>> because it needlessly uses Camera Raw to convert the raw file before
>> writing the JPEG.
>>
>> Silly software.
>
> I don't believe Adobe would agree. Part of what they charge all the big bucks
> for is standard results. With each new
> camera they support for Raw files in ACR, they photograph a color reference
> and make a default conversion profile that
> looks a whole lot like their default conversions for other cameras, as much
> as they can, in fact.
>
> In the case of the 5D and 60D, I prefer their defaults to Canon's.DPP
> converter defaults.
>
> They want any output from Bridge to match what ACR/LR defaults would
> produce, not some other look. They are all about
> integration and consistency.
>
> As you have found, FS is happy to pull out the embedded JPEGs, no matter what
> camera settings may have produced them.
> And there are other ways, including some stand alone apps, to do that.
>
> Standardized Moose
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|