On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Studio2 has the "High Function" raw converter. (set under preferences).
> Does it make a difference? With E-1 files, a very significant different.
> How different? In image sharpness and edge details, about the difference
> between a 5MP E-1 file and an 8MP E-300/500 file.
> I too prefer the Olympus Colors, but have discovered through the years that
> it does amp up the blue skies in such a way that you don't have much room to
> play with until you get solarization. If you back off the intensity a bit
> things are OK, though.
I usually keep Sat at 0 and the picture at "Natural" rather than
"Vivid" (talking E-3 and E-410). Is this what you mean by "back off
the intensity"?
I hope this "high function" thing has a memory problem associated with
it because I can't find anything resembling it in Studio2. Are you
possibly thinking of the display quality setting?
> RawTherapee is coming along. Development has recently stagnated a bit, but
> the program has tremendous possibilities. A little too slow, but it
> operates very much like Lightroom where you can tweak one picture and then
> mass apply those settings to other pictures and the thumbnails all reflect
> the new changes.
Something I will never do, probably. It defeats the main purpose of
RAW conversion for me.
> I've been experimenting with something pushed on luminous-landscape
> regarding ETR (Expose to the Right). The suggestion is to lower contrast
> in-camera to minimum and switch camera setting to aRGB. I guess that for a
> landscape photographer who will spend unending hours with each individual
> photograph this is fine. But for those of us who actually use our cameras
> in anger to make money with, I'd rather have somebody mix kitty litter in my
> Grape Nuts.
Hey, I thought Grape Nuts WAS kitty litter. I would be partially
guilty of being said landscape photographer, except that I don't spend
unending hours with each individual photograph ("ending hours" only?).
> As a general rule, I attempt to get my in-camera settings to be
> as close as is possible to final result and then it doesn't matter too much
> if I shoot RAW or JPEG.
That makes sense in terms of what you do.
>But I usually use RAW and then batch process in
> computer using Olympus software. If there is any shot needing a bit of help,
> then I tweak that one. If I have shot 1800 pictures at a wedding or event,
> why in the world would I want to hand adjust every single one of those (that
> made it past initial culling)?
This makes sense to me, though it is not what I do. Nothing for me is
dependent upon processing a lot of images in a hurry.
> The most important thing I ever did with both of my digital cameras was use
> the supplied software to learn and tweak the in-camera settings. Both the
> Minolta and Olympus software used the exact same algorithms and mappings so
> whatever you did in the software could be used as your settings in camera.
> For example, though hours of tweaking I learned that my prefered E-1 WB
> setting for daylight was to have a -1 offset. I also learned that CS2
> (saturation setting) and +1 contrast combined with the WB tweak gave me the
> look I wanted. A further bit of testing showed that an in-camera sharpness
> setting of "0" kept noise to a minimum and provided maximum post-processing
> advantage. With these tweaks, I am able to shoot in-camera JPEG and get the
> image to nearly perfectly match Fuji 160S.
I think I picked up a lot of my tricks from you, which is why it has
surprised me at times that you have been catting around with all these
non-Olympus converters. <g>
> Instead of screwing around with in-camera settings on a new camera seeking
> that "perfect setting", just shoot some RAW shots and learn the settings in
> the supplied software. Once you get the camera customized, then go ahead
> and never use the software again--until the next firmware update.
Most of what you say here suggests that you are pretty much a jpg
shooter in principle who shoots RAW only for insurance purposes. I do
think I understand you better, brother. If I were to do events, I
would be inspired to do what you have done, too. I think you also
identify the weakness of a lot of us 100% RAW shooters who don't
bother with some important things in the way we shoot because it can
always be "fixed" through RAW conversion.
> Never learning and perfecting the in-camera settings is, frankly, as stupid
> as can be because you are then a slave to some third-party software package
> that really is clueless of what the camera is capable of. Shooting RAW
> without ever perfecting the settings is akin to buying a brand new 550 HP
> Corvette and only using the "Teen Key".
OT -- there's such a thing as a "teen key"? Does it take a couple
cylinders offline and cause the horn to toot when it is occupied and
the wheels aren't moving?
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|