On 8/7/2011 4:00 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> . . .
> The geometric distortion is corrected in part by subject distance which
> should make it better--in actuality appears
> to matter very little in practice compared to CS5 profiles.
I'm sure there are occasions where it makes a difference. But how often - and
will anyone notice, or care? There are
very few subjects where such precision is useful.
> The deconvolution is applied to the softer areas of the lens
> and can help a tad at F4 at longer FL's with the 24-105, but for web
> presentation , doubt it is worth the trouble.
As you say, is it worth the trouble? If the app were otherwise worthwhile,
saving the time of differential amounts and
masking would be nice.
> For some reason the RAW level NR is very very good for the G9 and with
> flash at ISO 400, it excels and is especially good with skin tones.
> Fairly small role.
> It just took me 200 images to find out. Oh, the volume anamorphosis
> correction can be very nice to use, however.
>
> http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/optics_geometry_corrections/anamorphosis
>
> Perhaps there is a PS plug in for that.
A little research shows that there are other solutions in PS and plug-ins. It
turns out that I have done some of that
sort of correction on rare occasions _ I just didn't know the name.
> I had no clue you used NI at lower ISO's.
All a function of the camera. I don't do so on 5D images. G11 images have noise
in deep shadows even at lowest ISO, so
some get NR. I've been shooting by far the majority of images for the last
three+ months with the 60D. It still has a
bit of noise in shadows at ISO 100, but not much. OTH, I've been shooting a
great deal with 'Highlight tone priority'.
That gives a softer shoulder for greater dynamic range and more highlight
recovery capability - at the price of some
added noise in shadows.
Very useful for many kinds of shots in bright sun, but often means using NR
even at ISO 200. It seems to be a different
thing than high ISO noise.
> Seems I should just pony up for the new version unless imagenomic utility is
> better.
I'm not married to NI. It was simply the best I found at the time. If
Imagenomic works better, I'll happily switch.
Until recently, most of my web images got a final step of Intellisharpen II.
Now many get a Focus Magic OOF 1 treatment
adjusted for effect by layer opacity.
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/
|