Ken, nice again. Looking forward to Kodak CCD images from Alaska.
Your email prompted me to see if I had any such images with the E-1.
I shot with the E-1 in 2004-2005 before I switched to the 5D.
I recall how much I liked the 5D view finder over to the E-1's
tunnel vision, but at least it is optical.
Here are some photos I never processed from the E-1.
I used adobe color space in the E-1. Images were processed with ACR
default or auto. You have a point about minimal need for adjustments.
Many of the shots were with the 50-200 ZD.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/oQeHH86atZpokZnE9
My color IQ is average, not genius like Ken's, so I can't say how my sonie,
of today, would compare. For the most part, I prefer the lower level of
frustration and having more latitude with a camera.
I'm curious which color space you're using and whether that makes
a difference with the E-1? Comparing to some 5D shots from that time
period, I can't say that the E-1 was better than the 5D. I recall if I
did not nail the E-1 exposure, it could be way off. For me, and most of my
photography, the 5D was a better camera in use. Although the 50-200
was a nice lens to work with on the E-1.
Are you sure that you like the E-1 so much, simply because it feels
more like shooting film?
WayneS
At 4/16/2020 03:52 PM, Ken wrote:
>http://zone-10.com/d1/node/342
>
>The Olympus E-1 has an absolutely wonderful Kodak CCD sensor that has
>three major flaws: Not enough pixels, noisy pixels, and supposed lack
>of dynamic range. However, in fairness, the noisy pixels are generally
>not an issue if you can shoot at base-ISO. The lack of dynamic range
>is sometimes a challenge, but usually not a problem because the images
>require less bending in the computer to achieve desired output. But
>the lack of pixels is definitely a weakness and forces a restriction
>on maximum print sizes and cropping.
>
>But the colors, oh, the colors! And the mid-tone contrasts. The
>typical digital camera has a much flatter response curve and requires
>more gain adjustment to form the desired output curve. The E-1 raw
>images have a much steeper response cure and a significant "toe" in
>the shadows. Not really any shoulder, but the toe is major. Because of
>this, as well as a more intense color profile, it requires less
>bit-bending and saturation to be added later in the process. The E-1's
>Kodak CCD sensor is effectively closer to the final output and
>requires less computational adjustment later on.
>
>When it comes to color saturation, most cameras allow for the images
>to be "saturated" through the edit process, but rarely are those
>saturated colors "rich colors". It's similar to cooking where butter
>can provide a richness in flavor that a vegetable oil cannot.
>
>I revisited some images taken back in 2005 on a trip to Michigan's
>Upper Peninsula with Joel Wilcox. I've converted and edited these
>images many different ways through the years, but I wanted to take
>another stab at them with my current visual aesthetic. All were
>processed in the latest/greatest version of Adobe CC (Lightroom
>Classic) and are solely done with global adjustments. No spot editing,
>no edge corrections, no gradients, etc. While an argument can be made
>that these are all turned up to 11, they do make me smile right now
>and the interpretation is very different than previous versions.
>
>In all honesty, the actual slider adjustments in Lightroom are about
>half of what I usually do with Canon or Panasonic files.
>
>Are there major flaws to these photos? Yes. But these were
>quick-and-dirty conversions with less than five minutes effort. Final
>versions take more time and effort to see how the adjustments hold up
>to scrutiny.
>
>I think it may be safe to say that 2020 will be the year of the Kodak
>CCD for me.
>
>AG Schnozz
>--
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|