• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Stop struggling with Lightroom! There's no need to spend hours hunting for the answers to your Lightroom Classic questions. All the information you need is in Adobe Lightroom Classic - The Missing FAQ!

    To help you get started, there's a series of easy tutorials to guide you through a simple workflow. As you grow in confidence, the book switches to a conversational FAQ format, so you can quickly find answers to advanced questions. And better still, the eBooks are updated for every release, so it's always up to date.

OM1 Mk2 - No ORF Raw compatibility

Status
Not open for further replies.

drpeej

New Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
9
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
Lightroom Version Number
Lightroom Classic version: 13.1
Operating System
  1. macOS 13 Ventura
I have just bought the new OM-1 Mk2 and am really disappointed with the fact that Lightroom (and Photoshop) cannot import its ORF raw files. The same with DNG converter)

I know that this is common when new cameras are released but my question is WHY? The new ORF file format must have been finalised months ago so why can't the camera developers and Adobe software developers put their heads together to ensure that the Adobe software is compatible on release date.

It's such a pain!

Peter
 
Last edited:
I think the explanation is that Adobe will not develop anything for a camera that could still be changed. That is the official statement when it comes to new versions of MacOS and Windows (an update of Lightroom is also not released on the day that the next MacOS version is released), so I don’t think new versions of a raw file will be treated differently.
 
I know that this is common when new cameras are released but my question is WHY?
Time, money, capitalism.

First of all Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax, Etc. are all seperate companies. Even getting two departments in the same company to collaborate on something takes an act of god (or at least the CEO), so in order to get that kind of collaboration between differenet companies is nearly impossible unless one hires the other.

Second, each of these camera companies has their own apps for dealing with their own RAW files which they are very proud of and want their customers to utilize. Why then would they be eager to share their proprietary, trade secret, information with a competitor (e.g. Adobe) for the purpose of the competitor stealing customoers away from using their own product? BTW, from what I understand, even after a camera is released, most camera companies still refuse to share info on their RAW files with Adobe and Adobe more or less has to reverse engineers sample RAW files they take with those cameras.

And third, as @Johan Elzenga said Adobe doesn't want to spend resources chasing a moving target.
 
Time, money, capitalism.

First of all Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax, Etc. are all seperate companies. Even getting two departments in the same company to collaborate on something takes an act of god (or at least the CEO), so in order to get that kind of collaboration between differenet companies is nearly impossible unless one hires the other.

Second, each of these camera companies has their own apps for dealing with their own RAW files which they are very proud of and want their customers to utilize. Why then would they be eager to share their proprietary, trade secret, information with a competitor (e.g. Adobe) for the purpose of the competitor stealing customoers away from using their own product? BTW, from what I understand, even after a camera is released, most camera companies still refuse to share info on their RAW files with Adobe and Adobe more or less has to reverse engineers sample RAW files they take with those cameras.

And third, as @Johan Elzenga said Adobe doesn't want to spend resources chasing a moving target.
I am sure you are right on all points however IMHO the manufacturers own apps are not a patch on LR & PS.

However all is not lost because there is a solution of sorts. All it takes is to fool Lightroom into thinking the Raw file is from an OM-1

To do this I copy the raw ORF files from my camera card to a folder called OM1 on my MacBook. I then run "exiftool -model="OM-1" *.ORF" in Terminal and it changes all the raw files so they look as if they came from an OM-1. It also helpfully keeps copies of the originals in case of disasters. You need to install exiftool from https://exiftool.org/. You can then import the ORF Files as usual and convert to DNG if you wish. It is a minor inconvenience but I can live with this until a new version of LR is released.

This works with most raw files but there may be exceptions where new features are used. The one thing I have discovered that doesn't work is 14-Bit Hi-Res images (not surprising really!). However it works fine with 12-Bit images and other new computational features (eg Live ND Grad) also work fine.

I hope this information is of use to anyone who has splashed out on the OM-1 Mk2. Its a lovely camera and a good upgrade from my previous E-M1 Mk3
 
However all is not lost because there is a solution of sorts. All it takes is to fool Lightroom into thinking the Raw file is from an OM-1
When Adobe uses ACR to convert a RAW image, it checks the file header to determine which model RAW converter to use. Often times camera manufacturers use the same RAW format from one camera model to the next. The only change being the camera name in that name/model field. The number of people purchasing a new camera mode before Adobe can release a new version incremental update is relatively small. So you will be among a tiny minority.
 
However all is not lost because there is a solution of sorts. All it takes is to fool Lightroom into thinking the Raw file is from an OM-1
As @clee01l ponted out, many times camera companies do not really change their RAW file format when coming out with a new version of an existing model. This is especially true if the new model uses the same sensor as the prior one. In these cases your work around seems like a reasonable solution. However, I would mark these images in some way (e.g. keyword or Colleciton) so that once LrC supports the new model, you can go back and revert the EXIF back to the real camera model.
 
As @clee01l ponted out, many times camera companies do not really change their RAW file format when coming out with a new version of an existing model. This is especially true if the new model uses the same sensor as the prior one. In these cases your work around seems like a reasonable solution. However, I would mark these images in some way (e.g. keyword or Colleciton) so that once LrC supports the new model, you can go back and revert the EXIF back to the real camera model.
Thanks, good idea.
 
I am sure you are right on all points however IMHO the manufacturers own apps are not a patch on LR & PS.

However all is not lost because there is a solution of sorts. All it takes is to fool Lightroom into thinking the Raw file is from an OM-1

To do this I copy the raw ORF files from my camera card to a folder called OM1 on my MacBook. I then run "exiftool -model="OM-1" *.ORF" in Terminal and it changes all the raw files so they look as if they came from an OM-1. It also helpfully keeps copies of the originals in case of disasters. You need to install exiftool from https://exiftool.org/. You can then import the ORF Files as usual and convert to DNG if you wish. It is a minor inconvenience but I can live with this until a new version of LR is released.

This works with most raw files but there may be exceptions where new features are used. The one thing I have discovered that doesn't work is 14-Bit Hi-Res images (not surprising really!). However it works fine with 12-Bit images and other new computational features (eg Live ND Grad) also work fine.

I hope this information is of use to anyone who has splashed out on the OM-1 Mk2. Its a lovely camera and a good upgrade from my previous E-M1 Mk3
I tried this method using exiftool but it threw up errors (minor) and would not modify the file. Error was MakerNotes tag 0x2010 IFD format not handled
 
I tried this method using exiftool but it threw up errors (minor) and would not modify the file. Error was MakerNotes tag 0x2010 IFD format not handled
Hmmm - that's strange. Did you issue "CD om1" before the exiftool command? The only time I've had errors is when I forgot this.
 
Sadly it isn't on the list but I have found a solution. See my reply to Califdan

Peter
Yes it is. Maybe you didn't recognise it as "OM Digital OM SYSTEM OM-1 Mark II". The "OM Digital" is redundant. "OM System OM-1 MkII" would be more succinct.
 
Yes it is. Maybe you didn't recognise it as "OM Digital OM SYSTEM OM-1 Mark II". The "OM Digital" is redundant. "OM System OM-1 MkII" would be more succinct.
What is disappointing is that Adobe still doesn't recognise the OM System file type .ORI. That makes things awkward. The work around by is by changing the file name and type but the easiest way is to simply add .ORF so the file name becomes ***.ORI.ORF.
By way of explanation, with OM System cameras, there are two high resolution (HR) modes. These produce three files, a HR jpeg, a HR ORF and a .ORI file. The HR ORF is a sensor shift compilation of a stack of standard resolution raws. The ORI is the first of the stack. It's intended as a standard fallback or to be upresed and compiled with the ORF in Ps or the like, to mask out motion artifacts. So, can be quite a useful file. Yes, I and others have requested support for the ORI, in the appropriate place but as yet, no response. There is unlikely to be a response because we don't have the numbers and with Adobe, it's a numbers game.
 
Yes it is. Maybe you didn't recognise it as "OM Digital OM SYSTEM OM-1 Mark II". The "OM Digital" is redundant. "OM System OM-1 MkII" would be more succinct.
Thanks. I missed that. I think its because I scrolled down to the Olympus section
 
Yes it is. Maybe you didn't recognise it as "OM Digital OM SYSTEM OM-1 Mark II". The "OM Digital" is redundant. "OM System OM-1 MkII" would be more succinct.
I've just updated LRC to version 13.2 and Hey Presto it now imports my OM1 MkII files

I tried it with Hi Res 14 bit files and it seems to work OK but I need to do more testing

I'll shut up and stop grumbling :)
 
I am sure you are right on all points however IMHO the manufacturers own apps are not a patch on LR & PS.

However all is not lost because there is a solution of sorts. All it takes is to fool Lightroom into thinking the Raw file is from an OM-1

To do this I copy the raw ORF files from my camera card to a folder called OM1 on my MacBook. I then run "exiftool -model="OM-1" *.ORF" in Terminal and it changes all the raw files so they look as if they came from an OM-1. It also helpfully keeps copies of the originals in case of disasters. You need to install exiftool from https://exiftool.org/. You can then import the ORF Files as usual and convert to DNG if you wish. It is a minor inconvenience but I can live with this until a new version of LR is released.

This works with most raw files but there may be exceptions where new features are used. The one thing I have discovered that doesn't work is 14-Bit Hi-Res images (not surprising really!). However it works fine with 12-Bit images and other new computational features (eg Live ND Grad) also work fine.

I hope this information is of use to anyone who has splashed out on the OM-1 Mk2. Its a lovely camera and a good upgrade from my previous E-M1 Mk3
Thank you for taking the time to read my reply!
Can you please show what the command line should look like to fool lightroom into thinking my Markii files are my OM-1 files?
I understand that there Adobe has released an update for Lightroom. But I wouldn't be able to update my system for at least 2 mouths now. We live in the woods high up on a mountain without electricity. I have to run a generator to operate my computer and have very limited service through my cell phone.
Winter travel is done by snowmobile so until the access road opens in the spring, This is when I can bring my computer down to a WiFi location.
I have downloaded the exiftool and having no luck using it. any help would be appreciated by this 70 year old man!
Thank You
 
I am sure you are right on all points however IMHO the manufacturers own apps are not a patch on LR & PS.
In terms of raw conversion, there are those that know this sort of thing better than I, that believe that third party apps cannot match the manufactures' apps. My own testing has shown that OM Workspace (OMW) can elicit ever so slightly more detail from an ORF than LrC. How they do it is, of course, a corporate secret. However, OMW is as slow as a wet week, clunky, editing not as powerful and its data management a far cry to that of LrC. That's why I'm here even though I'm paying for it and OMW is free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top