I have mentioned many times here I prefer Olympus Viewer to other conversion
engines. The different may be small (actually sometimes rather big) but it
is there and Olympus always do better to my eyes.
There is cost for highlight and shadow recovery, it usually make the image
flat. When it is overly done, it shift the viewer's concentration from the
subjects.
BTW, you should try Viewer 3, it remember your RAW adjustment setttings.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> My wife recently asked me to take some photos of two of our grandkids in
> their baseball uniforms and make some 8x10 prints. I used a T-32 for
> fill light under outdoor shade and was pleased when viewing the results
> under BreezeBrowser. But, since I was shooting both raw and a 5MP JPEG
> what BreezeBrowser was actually showing me in a slideshow preview was
> the JPEG image produced by the camera.
>
> The JPEGs looked pretty good but I decided to do a little bit of work
> from the raw files to see if I could pull the highlights down slightly
> and also boost the shadow fill slightly plus another tweak or two. When
> I was finished I patted myself on the back for a job well done... until
> I did a direct comparison with the JPEGs from the camera. My PS raw
> conversions looked a little flat by comparison.
>
> To make a long story shorter (because I did several conversions with
> different parameters) I ultimately chose the "as shot" raw file
> conversion from Oly Viewer 2 as the best image. Doing an as shot
> conversion in PS/Camera Raw still resulted in a rather flat looking
> image relative to the Oly Viewer 2 result. Although the camera had been
> set for "normal" contrast, etc. it was clear there was at least more
> saturation involved from the Olympus side. So I produced another Camera
> Raw conversion, this time with a 10% saturation boost. That pretty much
> fixed most of the picture (trees, grass, clothing, etc) but skin tones
> were decidedly gray looking relative to the Oly effort. At that point I
> noticed that the histogram of the converted image showed significant
> black point and possibly shadow fill not done by the Camera Raw
> conversion.
>
> Anyhow, I am totally mystified about how to reproduce those very nice
> skin tones in Camera Raw. I would hate to think I need to abandon
> Camera Raw for Viewer 2. It did a very nice job on an as-shot
> conversion but I very much dislike using the thing. Advice???
>
> Chuck Norcutt
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|