> Really enjoyed the pics on your hike.
Thank you!
> However you used a phrase today that I'd never before associated with you
> ...."Tone Down" ... I had to look to see whether this was really you.
Sorry about that. My account got hacked.
There is actually something to my statement, though. Let's consider
the "Capo dei capi" of digital cameras in regards to color and
contrast - the Olympus E-1. Most camera RAW files are pretty lifeless
and flat. Their job is to store the straight, unadulterated
analog-to-digital conversion as faithfully as possible so the images
can be remapped to whatever style the photographer chooses. The
"in-camera JPEG" is just one such canned interpretation of the RAW
file information. What is unusual about the E-1 is the sensor and A-D
process is tuned to capture as much color information as possible,
sacrificing dynamic range to accomplish it. This is a combination of
color filter technology in the sensor itself, and the voltage bias
applied during capture. Because the E-1's CCD A-D process sacrifices
dynamic range for color depth, the images tend to be more punchy and
contrasty than other cameras. I'm NOT talking about fully converted
output files, either, I'm talking about the RAW data file. The
midtones have a steeper slope than other cameras.
When I open up an E-1 image in Lightroom (Adobe currently has the best
E-1 converter available today), the amount of contrast and color
settings required to create a "normal" image (generic, pleasing
picture of a daylight landscape, for example), is minimal with the
E-1. Texture, Clarity, and Dehaze require a maximum of about +5 before
the image goes nuclear. An equivalent Canon 6D image requires settings
in the +15 to +25 range just to match an E-1 image set to zeros.
Further color saturation enhancement is either low-single digit
adjustments or even negative adjustments. Canon images require heavy
manipulation to match an E-1 with neutral settings. I mention the
Canon, for my comparative, because it's the most egregious example of
all cameras and films I've ever used.
Maybe it is just Adobe's converter that has some magic applied?
Possible, but only to a certain extent. An E-1 RAW file opened up in
highly generic converters show a different response curve than other
cameras.
Through the magic of RAW converters, we can remap almost any image to
match another camera image, except for the specific optical traits of
the sensor and filter-stack itself. And that's another area where the
E-1 is highly unique. The E-1's CCD literally sees the world
differently than other cameras. It's one of the few cameras that can
actually reproduce the colors of an African Violet. It "sees" into
both the near-IR and near-UV spectrum and maps the colors relatively
appropriately. And, unfortunately, that is a double-edged sword, as
the E-1 will give magenta colored blacks without batting an eye.
So, let's compare to the other two Kodak CCD stable mates: E-300 and
E-400. I haven't quite gotten a handle on the E-300 - it is similar to
the E-1, however, it appears to have a slightly different near-UV
response. The magenta blacks remain. The E-300 is slightly more
"Canon-like" in the yellows. In all honesty, I'd say the E-300
produced the more usable picture in more situations than the E-1, but
because of the yellow mismatch, it seems to lack a slight bit of image
roundness. The E-400 has a really aggressive IR cut filter and fully
addresses the magenta blacks. The yellows appear to be closer to the
E-1, but the oranges and reds are skewed slightly, which is either a
result of the IR cut filter or the optical response of the blue-green
spectrum.
In almost every case, the primary culprit between cameras is how the
blue-green spectrum is mapped.
I believe what makes the E-1 unique (as well as some other cameras
from the early 2000s, is that more emphasis was placed on the sensor,
filter stack, and A-D process to keep the image data as close to ideal
as possible, where now, the emphasis is on capturing the maximum
amount of information and then process it to desired results later.
Which is better? My experience with the Sony A7 Mk2 says that both
methods are valid and can be acceptable. The difference is that with
the E-1, you don't have to guess what the colors might be like, as the
images will slap you upside the head with the colors. With "modern"
cameras, you really have no point of reference unless it's an Olympus
camera and you use RAW+JPEG as the in-camera engine does a pretty
reasonable job of presenting the color science designed by Olympus and
Kodak about 20 years ago. Because of the sensor and A-D design, the
images required far less processing or bit-bending, than modern
cameras. Modern cameras have far more bits to bend than the E-1, so
the end results CAN be similar. The E-1's sensor and A-D design
maximized what a whole lot fewer bits can do.
AK (my eyes, my eyes) 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/
|