My camera is the best camera :-) except when it's not.
If you shoot B&W, you can skip to the bottom and look at some photos.
Hit rate versus color...
At 7/2/2021 11:37 AM, Ken wrote:
>Well, I must say that you've gone and done it, Wayne. You are
>"triggering" me. HOW DARE YOU!!!
>
>:)
Well, you are the exception to the general photographic public. I
figured it would cause some reaction. I mistakenly gave my E-1 away
to the wrong person. Stupid mistake. But I never fell in love with that
camera. I think I was still in mourning the demise of the OM system
that the E-1 just felt so alien. I had better luck with the C5050Z.
>Honestly, when it comes to "color science" of the cameras, it really
>is a mixed bag. As I've yabbered on and on and on and on and on and on
>and on... regarding the E-1, I'll say that the straight-out-of-camera
>raw files require nearly no adjustments to get where I like my colors
>and contrast. The response curve of the E-1 is certainly not as linear
>as most camera files and the dithering noise masks a world of sins.
>For portraiture, it's a situation where I can pull the raw files into
>LR, select the Adobe Portrait profile (it de-yellows the skin), make a
>minor tweek to the exposure and contrast and that's it. Literally,
>that's it. All other adjustments are purely for aesthetic purposes and
>artistic intent.The E-1 sensor (as is the E-300, but not so much the
>E-400) is tuned for the "ideal mid-tone".
>
>However, that same color science and native response curve that makes
>portraiture so perfect makes some things really awesome, and other
>things nearly impossible to work with. I've got many files that I
>still have no clue how to process to get the look I'm seeking.
>
>On the opposite end of the technology spectrum is my Sony A7ii.
>Portraiture is actually VERY good with the camera, but the curves that
>need to be applied and base effort required to even get in the
>neighborhood of an E-1 file is mind-boggling. The end result isn't
>bad, in fact, it can be quite good and can exceed the minimally edited
>E-1 file. The only problem is that without having a guide image or
>understanding of the E-1 profile, it is nearly impossible to "SEE" the
>colors when working with the Sony files. I now have some standard
>moves I make to get in the neighborhood.
When I start messing with the sliders, it is like mixing too many
paint colors to get the right color, it all tends toward brown mush.
I don't have your skill level. But I do know how to move the clarity slider.
I only ever see your exceptional results. So it is hard for me to really
understand all the difficulties you are describing. I learn from the mush.
>What I've seen with the Nikon files is a variation of the Sony filles.
>The end results can be mind-boggling good. The Nikon files generally
>have no bad habits that have to be fought. If you have a really good
>profile, the results are really good. That's why everybody and their
>drooling dogs sell profiles for Nikons.
I'm a cat person. That must explain my reaction. Although one of my
cats does drool on occasion.
>I'm avoiding talking about Canon files. Canon users are just delusional.
>
>AG Schnozz
I was a happy delusional Canon user. As I have said, the 5D was
such a relief to me after the E-1. The 5D just worked, it focused well,
it was fast, and it worked in low light, plus the lenses were good with IS.
Color, I can't really say that the E-1 was any better. But then I tended
to shoot in lower light where the E-1 was the complete opposite of
why I liked an OM4t.
I bought the E-1 in summer of 2004 and switch to 5D a year later.
I just looked through my ORF files and nothing really stands out that
much compared to 2005-2006 with the 5D. Both my creativity and results
jumped significantly with the 5D. There is the exceptional E-1 photo now
and then. Just viewing the images in Faststone, unprocessed I don't see
any E-1 that that stands out. A lot of focus errors, dim exposures...
There is a lot to be said about a camera that performs versus one you
struggle with. And did I mention, I don't drool, except on my Voigtlander
110mm.
Here is 5D with only camera raw auto, Canon 24-105/4. December 2006.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zbSyfSEoePNkvy1D7
One of my favorite cats who died too young.
The E-1 probably would have required flash. And it would have missed focus.
And the 24-105/4 had IS. What good is great color under limited use cases?
Here is another 5D image, jpeg processed a long time ago.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m12d9A1RcYyhLXRPA
I see nothing here that an E-1 shot would be so much better at.
I was going to show some E-1 images but not much stands out. My E-1 hit
rate was quite low in comparison.
I would love to see an image comparison were the E-1 is so much
superior to an A7ii for instance. I need a Moose demo.
I tend to go with my success rate on images versus post processing.
I have yet to really see where there is a problem in post if I got the
other things right, like exposure, focus, iso, motion ...
Oly Abandoner - WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|