Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Syrian Children

Subject: Re: [OM] Syrian Children
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:20:27 +0800
Moose, you are right on the non alterable RAW. My workflow for RAW conversion may be a little different from yours. I always refer to the original JPEG when making adjustment to make sure the image won't go too far then switch between the original JPEG and my own adjustment to see which I like better. Of course sometimes I will make bigger adjustment which depends on the type of images. For portrait I will keep the adjustment minimal.

A straight camera output to me is no HDR and normal contrast, most camera manufacturer will no do other strange things on image settings.

In most cases, I only do exposure, color temperature, curve. The rest are compensate for lens and image sensor fault. Such as distortion, vignetting, chroma, defringe and noise reduction etc.

Excessive sharpen, clarity and HDR are commonly seen and which I try to avoid.

C.H.Ling


On 17/06/15 6:14, Moose wrote:
On 6/14/2017 8:06 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
When you generate the final output (jpeg or tiff) from RAW with
Lightroom, there are lots of non manufacture default adjustment included.

Tina is right, the original is unaltered. You are right, the changes
made in LR are saved in the output. They are also saved by LR as a
'recipe', so next time the Raw file is opened, it will look as it was
when last open.

All the noise about non-destructive editing is meaningless when working
from Raw files. No one writes back into the original Raw format. It's
not possible, as the Raw formats don't have the capability to store
alterations to the Raw data. So - NO - converter/editor destructively
edits Raw files.

For me an untouched output image is the JPEG embedded inside the RAW
or the JPEG directly from the camera when you shoot RAW+JPEG.

I've never looked at it that way. There are lots of camera settings that
change the JPEG outputs. You don't change any of them, so that's the
"untouched" output? I would say it is "touched" by the preferences of
the maker.

Canon's DPP, Oly's Viewer and SilkyPix for Panny all do a pretty good
job of reproducing the appearance of their JPEGs. Viewer seems to be
particularly good at this. Not a surprise, as I assume they use the same
calculations as used by the firmware to make JPEGs.

However, I've never liked their results as well as ACR's defaults.
Adobe, of course, aims to make Raw conversion from all cameras look much
the same. As it happens, I like their preferences better than those of
the manufacturers whose cameras I've used, but I can imagine others
disliking them. DxO Pro's defaults make Oly and Panny images look pretty
bad to my taste. It has some things that work better than ACR or my
plug-ins, but then I have to adjust color, contrast, tonalities, etc.
far more than with ACR.

I have gone so far as to process for distortion, noise and/or,
aberrations, output TIFF, load TIFF and Raw into PS, then use Match
Color to make the image look much closer to my preferences. Then, from a
base I understand, I can make further adjustments.

Flowing Work 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