Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] ( OM) OM film prints versus E-510 screen images

Subject: Re: [OM] ( OM) OM film prints versus E-510 screen images
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:20:19 -0700
Brian Swale wrote:
>
> Yes I agree with the observation that digital is rather like using slide film.
>   

Similar on the highlight end. Quite different on the shadow end - and 
that makes all the difference.

Allow me to paraphrase what you've said, reordered for clarity.

> Funny thing, I never use the histogram facility.
>   

1. I choose not to use the most effective exposure tool for digital.

> Sometimes if I think the balance of light and dark needs special management, 
> I will take the exposure reading from what I guess is an OK midpoint, but 
> seldom do more than that. 
>   

2. I choose not to carefully use more conventional, older means of 
controlling exposure, opting instead to semi-randomly guess.

> Then I discovered that none of the programs I have recognise (or do anything 
> with) ORF files; not even Raw Therapee; 

3. [None of the programs? What about the Oly software that came with the 
E-510?] I didn't check for updates. [Current versions of Faststone and 
RawTherapee both support the E-510, and indeed all E-thingies through 
the E-420/520.

> so I gave up the game as a bad job since it was using up a ridiculous amount 
> of disk space.
>   

4. Disk space is more important to me than image quality.

In summary, you choose not to use those tools and techniques required to 
get optimal results from your DSLR, then say it can't be done. That's 
wrong in my book. It more correct to say you can't get good results with 
the limited effort you are willing to expend in learning and using 
correct technique.

> I doubt that there was anything I could do to get that trellis apricot 
> (formerly called apple) shot in good condition with digital; when you look 
> closely there is so much wrong with it if you want to be fussy.
>   

Here, I strongly disagree. The E-510 gives away about a stop of dynamic 
range compared to the best DSLRs in this aspect of performance. However, 
with a static subject and tripod, you can shoot at ISO 100 and have 
nice, clean shadow detail. The technique is, as Chuck pointed out, to 
shoot for the highlights, "to the right". I then convert from RAW in 
16-bit to retain both, and balance in PS.

Here is an example I think is at least as extreme as yours, with deep 
shadow along with some clear distinction between bright, blue sky and 
white clouds. I exposed at -2/3 to hold the highlights. As it turns out, 
there are a couple of small areas of cloud that were still blocked, but 
small enough not to matter. 
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Dynamics/_MG_5558.htm>

1. This is the embedded JPEG from the RAW file. Yes, If I had played 
around with the camera settings, I could improve it, but I've never 
learned how, for what I hope are obvious reasons. Further, adjusting 
settings often as one walks between wildly differing light conditions is 
really time consuming.

2. This shows that considerable tonal detail has been compressed in the 
ends of the JPEG histogram and may be recovered. This is just 
illustrative; a better final version could be made. However, it will 
never be as good as one from RAW. Look at the sky in the upper left. 
There are hints of blue in the rather undifferentiated white, but 
compare to the sky in 5-7, where sky and cloud are clearly distinct.

Then take a look at the bright background foliage lower right. Notice 
the subtler graduations of greens. Although the JPEG has recovered some 
detail, it's rough, as compression into the top few of only 256 
brightness steps in the JPEG has removed subtle tonal detail.

3 & 4. Conversion from RAW using Canon's Digital Photo Professional and 
Adobe Camera RAW at their default settings give similar, very 
unsatisfactory results. RawTherapee gives similar results.

5. Conversion in ACR with custom settings of WB, Exposure, Fill Light 
and Black (point) gets the image much more in shape in terms of tonal 
distribution. I could probably have finished the image there, but my 
work flow corrects only exposure and WB in the conversion. Similar 
results should be posible in any of the RAW converters.

6. This isn't a bad image, but actually lighter than I would want to 
give a sense of what the subject looked/felt like. I include it simply 
to show how much more shadow tonal detail I had available than I 
actually needed.

7. I let some shadow detail slip down near invisibility to create the 
look I remember from the subject.

Note that this image was shot at ISO 800. An E-thingie at ISO 100-200 
should have no more problem with noise limiting practical shadow range 
than this.

With the reported lesser highlight flexibility of the E-510, EV -1 or -1 
1/3 might have been needed to hold the sky/clouds. Depends too on the 
exposure mode and how it reacts to the scene. Again, the histogram is 
the best meter. You have to experiment to learn how to best use the one 
on your camera.

So, you may choose not to apply the time and effort to learn how to 
capture the full dynamic range of shots like your apricot trees, but 
please don't claim the equipment isn't capable of doing so without 
giving a real chance.

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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz