I totally agree with you, Ken. If I didn't started with Olympus DC, I would
be happy with the Canon. When I discovered problems with a RAW converter I
went to another, I also need to go back and re-adjust thousands of images.
But even with the same converter problem can still happen, a couple of weeks
ago when I was copying some negatives, I discovered a big problem with the
"Faithful" mode in Canon DPP which was the setting I used for all Canon
images. I tried a lots of different adjustments and found "Neutral" mode
gives much lesser problem and at the same time it gives better skin tone
to regular images (another big job is required but I'm a little tired).
There were lots of such reworks required in my digital years, the Nikon LS10
in early 1990 was too poor when compared with the LS2000 I purchased in late
1990. Later, sawtooth problem due to mechanical vibration was found in
LS2000 I need to re-scan the images with 4x mode. The poor resolution
problem of LS2000 was vastly improved with the LS4000 I purchaed later but
then there was the flare problem...
With the RAW converter, I use Capture One in the early age, the workflow was
much better than Olympus Master. Very soon, maze pattern was found in the
red color of E-1 images, I need to go back to Olympus Master. Later Capture
One solved the problem and I continued with it, in 2009 I found it gave
another problem, that was the magenta shift of shadow area of 5D II images,
I totally gave up.
I found the RAW converter from camera manufacturers are more consistent. As
to the question Wayne asked about RAW for ORFs, without a side to side
comparison I feel there is nothing change in conversion quality starting
from 2004, there were just more features with the new converters. The major
one to me are RAW adjustment setting is remembered and the curve tool which
was only available with Olympus Studio.
I admire the people who are easily happy with things. I always not happy
with my equipments and tools.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I've taken a similar approach to my photography. Granted, we've gone
entirely different directions, but I'm a hack at this, while you are
actually halfway decent. Yet, what you are doing is taking the Amish
approach to this. You don't miss what you never had.
I can be VERY pleased with my BOSE speakers and enjoy the sound from
them a lot. Until I listen to a set of really nice reference monitors.
I'm reminded of "Bench Bob" and his medium-format digital backs,
Leicas and his Canons. Looking through his on-line images, I could
figure out what camera was used for almost all of the images. Without
a comparative, the Canons produced excellent results. But when
compared to the Leica and MFDB images, they appeared off. No amount of
calibration would make them look like anything different. I think that
CH Ling would agree.
Ken
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|