Files Shared

Olympus Viewer 3 vs ACDSee Pro 9

ACDSee are a well established company in the photo management business. I can remember using a very early version of ACDSee when I first started using computers for graphic design (and that was a long time ago). Theyve come a long way since then and now offer a vast range of design and photography related products - as well as version 19 of the original Digital Asset Management (DAM) programme I used all those years ago.

What Im currently interested in testing is ACDSee Pro 9. ACDSee are marketing Pro 9 as "the most complete solution for the enhancement and control of your image production". Thats a fairly lofty claim. But with tools like Batch Editing, Lens Correction, Smart Collections, Non-destructive image editing, Photo Management, 4k monitor support, Photoshop plug-in support and slick metadata controls (they are DAM specialists after all), ACDSee Pro 9 really could be the perfect replacement for Adobes Lightroom. Currently, its also exceptional value - only $58NZ (for a limited time).

Because their suite of products is so vast, they also offer subscription-based plans where you can get a range of software for a monthly fee. Im trying to move away from this subscription based model, so this is less appealing. But the option is there for those who like this kind of system.

To see exactly how well AC9 works as a RAW conversion programme, I will be comparing unaltered Tiffs exported from AC9 against Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff files. The original RAW files are Olympus .orfs from an OM-D E-M5 MkII.  Ive already compared the same files with Adobes Lightroom CC and Corels AfterShot Pro 3 (see previous posts) and found the Olympus Viewer 3 (OV3) files to be superior (IMHO).

ACDSee Pro 9 Tiff on the left and Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff on the right. Not much in it really?

I have to admit, that having gone through this process with Lightroom CC and AfterShot Pro3, and not being impressed by either, I didnt really expect anything different from ACDSee Pro 9. Well, I was surprised. Pleasantly surprised. Just looking at the comparison above, you can see that theres not much in it. The OV3 file is perhaps slightly lighter and has slightly less noise. But colour-wise its very close.

ACDSee Pro 9 Tiff on left, Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff on right.

Above is a comparison with OV3 at its default settings of 0 (which actually does apply sharpening, contrast etc). You can see that the Olympus file is sharper, but again, the colours are almost identical. The ACDSee Pro 9 file may even have a touch more detail remaining in the highlights - perhaps again due to Olympuss tendency to apply contrast for a more finished result? Its really the colours that Im more concerned about being rendered accurately though.  And in the files Im seeing, ACDSee Pro 9 is nailing the colour perfectly.

Colour rendition with unedited 16bit Tiff files from all 4 RAW conversion programmes

Ive been using a sunset photo as my critical example of colour rendition and accuracy for all of the programmes. The OV3 file is my master file - the one by which all other conversions are judged. Surprisingly, Adobes Lightroom CC (version 2015.4) is the worst of all of them. Its a very flat and dull rendition as a starting point, with a complete lack of colour in the highlights. And while some may argue that RAW files are supposed to deliver flat files for post-processing, I know which files Id rather be working with as a starting point for further editing. The less time spent having to fiddle with sliders the better.

Corel Aftershot Pro 3 is better, although still not as good as the OV3 file. The files are quite soft (you can even see this from the example above), and  have a very definite red/yellow cast in all the images I processed. It was as if the software struggled to get the white balance right in all the images.

Of all the RAW conversion programmes Ive tested so far, ACDSee Pro 9 is the clear winner. In fact, when I compare it to the Olympus Viewer 3 master file, I actually think I prefer the ACDSee Pro 9 image! It has exceptional colour quality and image definition - especially considering its a straight, unedited conversion. Im very impressed with ACDSee Pro 9s RAW processing capabilities, far and above the likes of Adobes Lightroom. Its also a fairly powerful, yet intuitive programme, with a very good UI.

I have about 6 months left on my student subscription to Adobes entire Creative Suite, after which the price skyrockets to beyond my budget. Besides which, Im too old and set in my ways to want to use a subscription-based model for software. Just let me pay for it, own it, and then Ill decide when and how often I want to upgrade.

ACDSee also offer an Ultimate 9 version which includes the ability to work with non-destructive adjustment layers. Ultimate 9 looks like a "one-two" punch designed to become a Photoshop/Lightroom all-in-one replacement. Unfortunately, its also almost 3x more expensive than Pro 9. Im definitely going to download the trial version and give it a very serious look. For someone wanting to eventually jump off the Adobe subscription band-wagon, ACDSee Ultimate 9 might just be the solution Im looking for? And in the meantime, ACDSee Pro 9 has me seriously, seriously interested.

Go to link Download

Olympus 9mm Fisheye Bodycap lens initial review

A few days ago I was lucky enough to receive the Olympus 9mm Fisheye bodycap lens from my wife for my birthday (thanks honey).

Olympus 9mm f8 Fisheye Bodycap lens

I wanted this lens for a couple of reasons. First, its a fisheye lens, for a very reasonable price (NZ$169). I enjoy using a fisheye on the odd occasion, even pulling them out to use at a wedding every now and then. But they tend to be very specialized (and therefore very expensive) lenses, so Ive only ever owned one in my career (a Tokina that was a fisheye zoom).

Second, its considered a fun lens to have. Something that takes up no room, you have with you all the time, and you use on the odd occasion just for a different effect. The fisheye look can quickly become overdone, although the 9mm (18mm equivalent) Olympus bodycap fisheye has a slightly narrower 140 degree field of view (as opposed to the traditional 180 degree angle of view of a traditional fisheye lens).

As you can see from the specs, the bodycap is only 12.8mm thick, 56mm in diameter, weighs just 30 grams, but manages to fit in 5 glass lenses, 2 of which are aspherical elements for image correction (although the lens is still prone to chromatic aberration in high contrast areas).

Olympus have previously released a 15mm bodycap lens, but the image quality was not up to much, and it didnt really make sense to me since I already own the tiny 17mm f2.8 pancake. But a 9mm fisheye! Thats another story. And with the inclusion of 2 aspherical lens elements, Olympus is obviously taking the IQ of the lens fairly seriously. Although having said that, the 9mm bodycap lens is not given the Zuiko brand name. Its considered more of an accessory rather than an actual lens. So given all that, how does it perform in real life?

Home Office. 9mm bodycap fisheye

Surprisingly well, actually. Especially for a very cheap bodycap lens. Its a fixed f8 lens, with no electronic contacts whatsoever. Mount it on the E-M5 MkII and the camera reverts to manual focus, which is controlled by a very simple lever on the front of the lens itself. The first position is lens closed (by a thin shutter), the second position is infinity focus, the third position is for general photography that will cover 90% of shooting scenarios (hyperfocal distance), while the final position is for close focusing of around 20cm.

The extreme edges are a bit soft and blurry, but the rest of the image is acceptably sharp, to very sharp in the central portion. Images from the 9mm bodycap would print up to A3, and maybe even bigger with some localized sharpening applied.

The extreme edges do have some purple fringing, especially in high contrast areas, but this is easily fixed in software like Lightroom.

Coal Creek Falls. Olympus E-M5 MkII with 9mm bodycap Fisheye. F8 @ 500th sec, ISO 200

As can be seen above, the fisheye look doesnt have to be extreme. The figure taking a photo at the extreme left of the image still looks fairly natural, since she wasnt too close to the camera when I took the picture. If you get up close and personal, then things will start to bend and look fishy, but give your landscape some breathing space, and everything looks pretty natural. This is partly due to the slightly narrower 140 degree angle of view that the 9mm captures. Colours look good, contrast is ok, and most things are pretty sharp. Overall, very impressive for an accessory :-)

Forest Interior. Olympus E-M5 MkII with 9mm bodycap fisheye. F8 @125th sec, ISO 800

Here we can start to see a little more of the fisheye effect, especially in the trees on the edges of the frame. Surprisingly though, the ferns in the foreground still look relatively natural. Sharpness is still pretty good - depending on your definition and tolerance. Pixel peepers may be disappointed, but we mere mortals should have no problems using this lens on a regular basis. Ill say it again - IQ is very good for a bodycap lens sold very cheaply as an accessory.

Flare is also well controlled.

Some reviewers have complained that the lens doesnt capture the vibrant Olympus colours that the Zuiko lenses are capable of. This may be true, but its nothing that Lightroom or Photoshop wont fix. And without wanting to sound like a broken record - this isnt a Zuiko lens. Its a cheap, plastic, fully manual, bodycap lens.

Since its a bodycap, there isnt any thread to attach a lens hood or filters. And with such a wide field of view, its almost impossible not to include a portion of the sun in some of your images when shooting landscapes. Fortunately then, the 9mm fisheye bodycap controls flare extremely well, although Id still want to avoid shooting into the sun whenever possible.

I might also try placing a square cokin filter in front of the lens while shooting, just to see if I can use filters without getting my fingers in the shot!?

The photo above shows a small amount of flare in the top of the image, but it hasnt affected the contrast too badly, and the rest of the image is perfectly exposed.

Dinosaur eggs or Fungi? Olympus E-M5 MkII and 9mm bodycap fisheye.

This last image was a bit of an experiment. I came across this patch of fungi that reminded me of dinosaur eggs from Jurassic Park. I wanted to get as close to them as possible, but I kept the lens set to the hyperfocal distance setting, and not the close focus setting. I didnt measure, but Im pretty sure I was closer than 20cms to the fungi.

The result was exactly what I was after. The lens has kept the middle of the image nice and sharp, but getting up close has really exaggerated the fisheye effect around the edges of the frame. Pretty freaky, but also pretty cool. And a lot of fun. Which is exactly how I described this lens at the start of this post. Just plain FUN.

Maybe you shouldnt take the Olympus 9mm fisheye bodycap lens too serious? Maybe that misses the point of this accessory?

But, then again, maybe the IQ from this lens warrants a serious appraisal. Its a piece of kit that can be used to capture some seriously good images. If youre in the market for a fisheye lens that wont break the bank, you need to seriously consider the Olympus 9mm Fisheye bodycap lens.

Best birthday present ever! Thanks honey :-)

Go to link Download

Musings on the new Olympus Pen F

Advertising for the new Olympus Pen F

The new Olympus Pen-F starts shipping this month (here in New Zealand) and, not surprisingly, its creating a lot of internet buzz. Breaking away from the more consumer oriented Pen series cameras, Olympus have created the Pen-F to appeal to the more enthusiast end of the camera market. Yeah - you and me :-)

As someone who loves the early Olympus Pen film cameras (aesthetically speaking at least), this new digital Pen is indeed very enticing. Ill admit that if a large bucket of cash landed in my lap this month, the first thing Id do (after paying off the mortgage and all that other boring stuff), is go out and get the Pen-F. In a heartbeat. Why?

Well, for a start, the internet buzz and early reviews of this camera coming in from the USA has been overwhelmingly positive. Its a superbly made, fantastic looking (lets not deny it) Olympus Pen with a built-in OLED electronic viewfinder (finally for a Pen camera), 20 megapixel sensor with the amazing 5 axis image stabilisation that weve come to know and love.

Top View of the new Pen-F

As you can see from the top-down view, the new Pen also places many of the cameras more important functions (like exposure correction) on the outside of the camera for quick access. All advertising for the camera so far has centred around street shooting, and the Pen-F certainly gives off a strong street-shooters vibe (a-la Fujis cameras).

Im not a street shooter though, so why else would I be interested in the Pen-F? Well, for a start, I am looking for a back-up camera for my EM-5 MkII, and so a small, light, and fully featured camera like the Pen-F would be just the ticket as a second body. Im writing this blog post while off work for a week with a torn disc in my back. While not camera related, this nevertheless makes me ever more aware of my ageing body (Im approaching 50!) and desire to cut down on the gear that I carry. Just a year ago I was a firm believer in the bigger is better (heavier is better) approach to photography. But that was before the EM-5 MkII changed all that. Now Im even loathed to put an external grip on my cameras, whereas when I was a DSLR shooter it was the first accessory I purchased.

So a small, light (relatively) and fully-featured compact Pen body like the Pen-F would be just the ticket as a back-up/second body combination with the EM-5 MkII. In reality, Ill probably end up getting a second hand Panasonic G something or earlier consumer line Pen, since the bucket full of cash probably wont eventuate :-(

Olympus Pen-F in all black

Why bang-on about the Pen-F at all then, since Im not likely to get one? Well, one feature excites me above all others on the new Pen-F, that Im hoping I will get to have eventually on the EM-5 MkII. And thats the new colour modes, controlled on the Pen-F by that funky dial on the front of the camera.

With this new dial on the Pen-F, you can get to some very cool new monochrome and colour presets. There are three in each, with a normal, Tri-X style and infrared mode in the monochrome set (each with varying levels of grain selectable) - while the colour sets give a chrome look to jpegs (again similar to the Fuji film simulations that people love). This is VERY cool, and very exciting. And I hope that its just a firmware tweak so that these settings will eventually be available as an upgrade for the EM-5 MkII? Please Olympus.....

Olympus look to have another stellar product in the Pen-F. A recent interview with Japanese executives from the camera division seemed to indicate that the Pen-F is a test camera for them. A toe-in-the-water for a higher class of enthusiast-level Pen cameras. If it sells well (and I think that it will, despite its initial high asking price), then we may well see more of this style of fully-featured Pen down the track. I certainly hope so.

Go to link Download

Olympus OMD EM5 MkII Abstract Landscapes

A photographer friend of mine (Hi Stew) and I went out shooting last evening to grab a sunset along the Coast Road.

Unfortunately, it didnt really eventuate - even though the night before (and the one after) were fantastic! Murpheys Law in practise once again :-(

17 Mile Beach Sunset. Olympus OMD EM5 MkII with Zuiko 12-50mm f3.5/6.3. F4.5 @ 80th sec. ISO 500

It never got better than the image above, with fairly flat lighting, but still some elements of colour. Whenever Im presented with these conditions I think of two things; black & white and ICM (Intentional Camera Movement).

Olympus OMD EM5 MkII with 9mm Fisheye bodycap lens. F8 125th sec at ISO 1600

So I tried the black and white first, although there isnt a lot of contrast in the scene to really make black and white work. Its OK, but not great.

The light, what there was of it, was fading fast - perfect conditions for the long shutter speeds required for ICM photographs. But if you want to intentionally blur your images with an Olympus mirrorless, then you need to turn the Image Stabilisation OFF first - it really is that good.

Olympus OMD EM5 MkII with 12-50mm EZ lens. F16 @  0.8secs, ISO 200

I aslo turned Auto ISO to OFF, setting the camera at its lowest ISO of 200 (for longer exposures). I then began to move the camera around as I exposed - effectivley painting with light with the camera as the paintbrush. There are an infinite number of ways of moving the camera, so the results are practicaly limitless - and a whole lot of fun.

Olympus OMD EM5 MkII with 12-50mm EZ lens. F16 @ 2.5secs, ISO 200

With some colour still in the sky, the exposures werent too long - only about 2 to 3 seconds. This is long enough to get some movement, but short enough to still retain a lot of the detail in the image. The result is a mysterious lansdcape that is obviously blurred, but still very readable as a landscape picture.

Olympus OMD Em5 MkII with 12-500mm EZ lens. F11 @ 3.5secs, ISO 200

The longer the exposure, the less landscapy the images are - and the more abstract they become. Im a huge art  lover, and one of my favourite artists is Turner. His abstract expressionist paintings have always inspired me, and I strive for that look and feel in my ICM images.

Olympus OMD EM5 MkII with 12-50mm EZ. F16 @ 5secs. ISO 200.

ICM is a lot of fun and can really create some strikingly beautiful images. Granted, they may be more like paintings than traditional photographs - but therein lies the joy of experimentation.

Olympus OM-D EM-5 MkII with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. F11 @ 8secs, ISO 200

Next time youre faced with a landscape that isnt quite doing it for you in terms of light and drama, think about slowing down your camera and trying some ICM (Intentional Camera Movement). It can be very counter-intuative at first - especially if youre used to shooting landscapes on a tripod. But once you start seeing the results on the lcd screen, and realise how liberating it can be to intentionally shoot for blur, then I think youll be hooked on the technique. Enjoy!

Go to link Download

Olympus 45mm f1 8 initial thoughts

I weakened, and I bought one...

This weekend just gone, I went to Christchurch with my son to do two things; attend Promise Keepers and buy the HLD-8 grip for my OM-D EM-5 Mk2.

I did one of those things, and not the other :-)

Promise Keepers was fantastic and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The HLD-8, however, did not turn up in time. And then I had second thoughts about spending $400NZ on a battery grip when I could get just the grip itself for $175NZ and then maybe get another couple of lenses as well!

To that end, another camera store in Christchurch just happened to have an incredible deal on a new Olympus 45mm f1.8 for $385NZ (thats $180NZ off normal retail) - so yeah, I got one.

Joshua. Olympus OM-D EM-5 Mk2 with 45mm f1.8

Its small, its light (although it does have a little heft to it) and its largely made of plastic, albeit with a metal mount and lots of nice glass.

On the trip back home, I couldnt resist getting Josh to do a little model shoot - just to test the lens you understand. Ill be doing a much more comprehensive shoot soon, but initial impressions are obviously very good. Its known as a sharp, fast lens with decent bokeh - not to mention amazing portability. It really is a tiny lens, ideally suited to the size of the OM-D EM-5 (or EM-10 for that matter).

Olympus Zuiko 45mm @ f2.2, 1/100th ISO 320

I shot at f2.2 - opened up a little bit to increase sharpness - and kept an eye on the exposure compensation to make sure I didnt blow the highlights. These are the first portraits Ive taken with the EM-5 Mk2, so it was the first time I had experienced face detection auto focus. I must admit, it felt weird watching the auto focus point move around over Joshuas face, without me controlling the point manually. But I forced myself to let the camera do its own thing, so I could gauge its accuracy afterwards. If it works as intended, then I can see it being an amazing help on a wedding shoot.

Face detection close-up. Check the bokeh as well.

Looks nice and sharp to me. Of course I intend to give it a decent work-out, but initial impressions are positive. And Im pleased with the bokeh in the images, even opened up to f2.2. The forest behind Joshua isnt an easy background to blur nicely, but the lens did a decent job of it.

Joshua at Arthurs Pass. Olympus 45mm @ f2.2, 1/100th sec ISO 320

Many people argue that the whole reason to get a micro four thirds system is for their small, fast, sharp prime lenses. Im not necessarily of that opinion. I like the idea of sharp, fast primes, but I would actually rather shoot with fast zooms. I really have my eye on the 12-40mm f2.8 zoom which, while heavier, will probably suit my shooting style a bit more. Having said that, the lens is about $1500NZ, which is way above my price range. So in the interim, maybe a small prime like the 45mm f1.8 will fill the gap? Yes, I have the 45mm range covered with my current 12-50mm f3.5/6.3 - but at 45mm that lens will open to f5.6 at best. Thats 4 times slower than the 45mm f1.8 prime! Not to mention the difference in bokeh. I will test this soon to show the difference with the two lenses at the 45mm focal range, and I suspect that it will be like night and day!?

So yes, at the moment the 45mm f1.8 has a prime (excuse the pun) place in my kit. Hopefully I will eventually get the 12-40mm f2.8 and then I might have to re-evaluate things. But for the price I paid for it, I can probably sell the 45mm in a couple of years time and not loose any money on it. Thats the other upside of buying good fast glass.

Go to link Download

Olympus Viewer 3 vs Lightroom CC

I used to be an Aperture 3 user on the Mac. I preferred the Aperture user experience over Adobes Lightroom, but alas, as we all know, Aperture is no more. So Ive switched to Lightroom - right?

Well no, actually. I have played around a bit in Lightroom, and I own it as part of my Adobe Creative Cloud subscription. But I dont actually have it installed on my computer at home - although it is installed on my machine at work.

Having been an Aperture user, Im obviously not adverse to taking the less popular option when it comes to software. My workflow consists of Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw, with the final edits in Photoshop - all through my CC subscription. At the moment, Im lucky enough to have the entire CC collection for a student rate. But that will end next year. And then I have some serious decisions to make. Because theres no way Im going to pay Adobe around $50NZ a month to rent their software! No way.

I could go down to the Photography package of just Photoshop and Lightroom for about the same as Im paying monthly at the moment for the whole suite - but I really want to have InDesign, Illustrator and Premier as well - which bumps me back up into that $50 a month bracket. Damn.

So whats a man to do? Well if hes me, he starts looking around for alternatives. Cheaper (in the long run) alternatives. And theyre out there. Adobe isnt the only kid on the block anymore.

When youre looking for cheaper alternatives for a RAW converter, the first place you should really look is the manufacturers own software. After all, it comes with your camera. You dont get much cheaper than free folks!

Hang on though. Surely that means that it cant be very good? Itll be slow, and clunky, and produce fairly average images? If, like me, you thought that would be the case, then youd be right - about two of those three assumptions. Yes, Olympus Viewer 3 is slow. Sometimes painfully slow. And yes, its clunky. No UI design awards here. BUT - the images it produces... well thats where it gets very interesting.

When I was a Canon shooter I would occasionally come across a post from a photographer extolling the virtues of using Canons own proprietary RAW processing software. But then youd have responses from others saying things like slow and clunky and Id quickly move on. I was using Aperture, was very happy with it, and saw no reason to change. But that was then....

Since Im now in the market for a RAW processing programme, I though it might be time to look at Olympuss offering and compare it with the megalithic giant that is Adobe Lightroom. The results are very interesting.

Lightroom CC Tiff on the left, Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff on the right.

Obviously in any RAW software you can tweak and alter an image to your hearts desire. So all I did to compare "apples with apples" was to take the RAW .orf (Olympus Raw Format) file and process it as a 16bit uncompressed Tiff file completely unaltered. Nothing was touched, nothing was changed, no slider was moved. I simply opened the RAW file in the respective programmes and saved them out immediately. I should also mention that I shoot my RAW images with everything in-camera set to neutral.

It may be hard to see from the internet resolution, so Ill tell you what I see on my computer monitor in the comparison above. First, the Tiff file from Olympus Viewer is much sharper that the one from Lightroom. Much sharper. Which is odd, and somewhat surprising, since I read somewhere recently that Lightroom adds about 25% sharpening by default to all its RAW conversions (since RAW images are softer out of camera). So I was expecting that the Lightroom Tiffs would be sharper than Olympuss. But it just aint the case.

Second, the colours of the Olympus rendered Tiff look more accurate to me. And not just more accurate, but also more vibrant. Blues are bluer and whites are whiter, whereas the Lightroom Tiffs introduce a slight colour shift.

And third, and again surprisingly (to me at least), the Olympus images have a lot less noise apparent in the image. And I mean a lot. Noise in the blue of the water in the above magnified crop is practically non-existent in the Olympus Tiff (shot at ISO 200). Whereas the Lightroom Tiff had obvious noise.

Lightroom Tiff on left, Olympus Tiff on right.

Again, the above comparison shows the Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff to be sharper, punchier, and yet truer in colour rendition. And this was a trend that continued shot after shot.

Lightroom on left, Olympus Viewer 3 on right.

Sometimes the differences are subtle, but they are still definitely there. Olympus Viewer 3 just produces better conversions every time. And although initially this surprised me, when you stop and think about it, it makes perfect sense. RAW files are unique for each manufacturer. They encode them with their own special sauce (so to speak) to differentiate them from others. So who best to unlock that code than the manufacturer themselves. Adobe (and other third party software developers) have to reverse-engineer the RAW codes each and every time a new camera is released, which is why it sometimes takes a while for new cameras to be added to the Lightroom catalogue. They get their own conversion algorithms close - but not perfect. Olympus, of course, gets it perfect.

Lightroom on left, Olympus Viewer 3 on right.

Of all the examples, the one above perhaps illustrates best the benefits of using Olympus Viewer 3 over Lightroom. Again, these are straight, unaltered conversions of the same .orf RAW file. The colours are almost night and day different, and the results speak for themselves. I know which one Id rather be using as a starting point for any further editing.

Of course you could tweak the Lightroom file to look like the Olympus file - you can almost do anything you like with a RAW file - thats the point of shooting RAW. But the Olympus software saves you that initial hassle by getting it right out of the box.

Final image, processed with Olympus Viewer 3 and edited in Photoshop CC

The final image is exactly what I wanted to portray with this shot. Yes, I could have got there by using Adobe Lightroom, but it would have taken a lot longer to fix up the colour and noise issues inherent in the Lightroom file, that simply didnt exist in the Olympus rendered file. It makes me wonder what software camera reviewers use when they give an opinion about the noise of certain cameras/sensors? Looking at the Lightroom Tiffs I would have said that the OM-D E-M5 Mk2 had a fairly noisy sensor - even at ISO 200. But look at the Olympus Viewer 3 Tiffs and it disappears.

So I may have become a convert to using Olympus Viewer 3 for my RAW conversions from now on? Yes, it is slower, and yes, it is clunkier. But at the same time it is also fairly intuitive and usable. And at the end of the day, the time you save not having to tweak the images further in Lightroom probably cancels out the slowness of the software.

I have also downloaded Corels AfterShot Pro 3 RAW conversion software, which I will try against Olympus Viewer 3 next. But I have a feeling its going to need to be mighty impressive to knock Viewer 3 off the top of the RAW Software perch. Very interesting indeed. 

Go to link Download