Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re (OM) Foggy trees

Subject: Re: [OM] Re (OM) Foggy trees
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:01:23 -0800
Chris Barker wrote:
> I'm only guessing, Joel, partly based on what we have discussed before on the 
> List.
>
> The application in which you open the RAW file must make assumptions about 
> how to present the image.  From what you say, and it sounds logical, Studio 
> and Master take account of the image settings in the Oly camera, perhaps the 
> ones used to generate a jpg.  Without having checked, I supposed that 
> Aperture doesn't even see these settings, but makes a guess at how it should 
> be presented for viewing and subsequent processing.  I should say that 
> Aperture treats all RAW files the same when making a preview and that's what 
> I mean by "neutral".
>   

Probably not quite right. As you say, the camera maker's converter will 
generally use the camera settings as default, certainly true of Canon. I 
don't know about Aperture, but would guess their approach is similar to 
Adobe's, who create their default settings for each camera based on 
shots of a test chart, similar in concept to creating an ICC profile.

So no, they don't treat all cameras the same, but yes, they aim for 
neutrality. Oddly enough, the few times I have checked, I've found the 
ACR defaults better than Canon's converter, with all camera settings at 
default.

> What do you think?  I shall do some experiments with jpg and RAF files in an 
> E-3 over the weekend.
>   

I didn't know the RAF had its own image file format.

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