Fellow New France resident Joel de Wilcox wrote:
> This can be yours! (tilting, swiveling screen)
Yes, that E-330 is looking mighty fine. ;) Now, if it only tilted
sideways so I could look down on it while shooting verticals. The
P-1 prototype could easily be justified in my book if it knows the
additional dance moves.
> Please tell more. Last time I did anything with it I just went
> back to Viewer. Maybe Viewer is all I really need, but I'd like
> to know what people get out of Studio that they aren't getting in
> Viewer.
Well, the jury is still out, but my recent experience with Lightroom
and RawShooter has taught me a lot about workflow management.
Lightroom's primary advantage is its ability to work with all file
types, whereas Studio only knows Olympus RAW files, but will work
with JPEGs and Tiffs of other sources. Other than the lack of RAW
Agnosticism, Studio have nearly all of the features and capabilities
of Lightroom.
The base workflow code is the same as in Viewer, with the ability to
do A-B comparisons, sorts, etc. But it also has the ability to apply
batch setting changes to multiple files. I use this capability
extensively in RawShooter and in Lightroom. Frankly, Lightroom's
implementation of this is rather crude and lethargic. Studio's main
advantage over Lightroom is speed. I can whip through the project
rather quickly, making setting changes as I go and then let the batch
processer catch everything when I'm not needing to sit and watch the
grass grow.
I was really impressed with the Camera-Control function. I only used
it for experimentation before. This time I actually used it for
real. Very slick. Very fast. Very impressive. I'd shoot the
picture and it would immediately pop up on the computer. My framing
was much better and so was the results. I could see things happening
on-screen that you normally don't catch till later. You know
immediately whether or not the picture is going to work. On the
camera's LCD, it's a little misleading and you have a pretty good
idea whether you got the shot, but until the image is loaded up
you're really not sure. Especially when it comes to sharpness.
Now, about the RAW converter...
The high-function RAW converter in 1.5 has been tweeked. Without a
doubt, the image quality from Studio is slam-dunking ACR. No contest
there. As to sharpness, well I'll still give the nod to RawShooter.
Color? Viewer and Studio give pretty much the same results, except
there is some nuance with Studio that I can't quite put my finger on.
It looks to me like there is a difference in the algorithm that
gives a slightly more subtle tonal gradient in skin.
I showed my wife the results and she was very, very impressed. My
last couple portrait sessions were converted using RawShooter and
ACR. Studio gave much better coloring.
Ok, now comes the negative observation not Studio specific: During
testing I was wearing a black t-shirt and would subject myself to
some test shots when my kids blew me off and the teddy bear wasn't
happy. Yes, there was a slight magenta cast. What's up with that?
I've never seen that before. Is my E-1 actually a Leica M8?
AG
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|