On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 4:00 AM Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I'm not saying it doesn't matter to me, but I am not really interested or
> > concerned about flowers with this shade and density of yellow.
>
> I'm confused, as you have linked to examples that are, to my eye, much the
> same, the yellow Irises, for example.
>
Intended to illustrate a range of disappointment in translucence. I don't
find most yellows attractive, particularly against a green background.
That's my peculiar brain. I enjoy the sheer yellow of daffodils and irises
however, if that explains it. I do very much enjoy the yellow flower that
you posted which kicked this discussion off. But I probably wouldn't have
gotten started on it myself.
More peculiar brain stuff -- I spend a lot of time looking at various
purple flowers and pondering why each of my cameras do purple differently.
I think I enjoy Canon the best, but with purple I enjoy them all -- even
the ometimes false attempts that vere to blue, etc. Yellow mixed in with
blues and purples -- great! Yellow mixed in with reds, pretty much OK.
Yellow on greens, hate it.
>
> I corresponded a lot about this on Jim's flower pix. He had a tendency to
> post red flowers with big areas of
> detail-less, slightly off color, where the red channel had clipped. He got
> a lot better . . .
>
I remember this well. I remember concluding that I think I see red
differently from you. In certain light I want a bit of wall-smacking red.
However, I consider this a lot more carefully than I used to, mostly out of
fear of the Red Police. It's somewhat like specular highlights in a BW
print. The difference between life and death of the photo in some cases.
Turning on gamut warning I find helpful sometimes to dial reds back a bit.
If I can't print it, I hate to become wedded to it.
>
> >>
> > To get the results you desire, do you need to shoot the subject at -2 EV,
>
> Clarity of person referred to may be necessary here. You ask "do you need
> to shoot the subject at -2 EV," Well, yes "I"
> need to, because that's how I have worked out to get the results I desire.
>
That's how I mean "you," as in "Moose." I'm asking about your practice if
it were universalized.
>
> I suspect there are other approaches that may work as well or better. In
> my limited tries, I haven't found a better way.
>
> > or can you dial back the ORF exp comp in OM Workplace to get the same
> effective starting-point?
>
> Again "I" could, I suppose, but I won't, so I don't know the answer. I
> shoot Oly, Panny and Sony cameras, and the
> occasional iThingie Raw shot. I use one work flow for all, else there lies
> madness. I use the LR catalog to keep track
> of it all and for initial exposure adjustments, then PS for all further
> editing.
>
I understand. The reason I ask is that if I, meaning me Joel, can do the
same thing in OMW, I can experiment with my back catalog. Generally I just
use OMW to look at the raw file, breathe a sigh of relief at how much
better it looks than in Faststone, and export it to PS.
> I did install OM Workspace, and made sure it worked, but haven't used it.
> All the prior Oly converters were terrible at
> recovering highlights. I guess that may be true here, but it doesn't
> matter to me.
>
> In theory, whether one may do that to the same effect would depend on
> whether exposure comp. in Workspace affects the
> conversion or is applied after conversion. Should be easy enough to test.
>
Yes, but wouldn't you have already drawn some conclusion about this when
you determined that Olympus software doesn't recover highlights to your
satisfaction? My hypothesis is that OMW converts one way and other
converters another. OMW is the "metaphysically correct" version if you
want Olympus' intention for their cameras; the bedrock truth is "machine
code" alone.
> This iris has plenty of detail:
> > http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=23812
> > To me the Mean Mr. Mustard color gives the impression that the petal is
> > thicker and more opaque than it is.
> >
> > This iris seems a little better to me at suggesting translucence that is
> > natural to irises:
> > http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=23814
>
> I think that is mostly a function of the shadow from behind on the lower
> left petal. Which brings me to the idea that
> what really shows translucency is actual changes to brightness coming
> through the petals. One may think of certain
> flowers as translucent from prior knowledge/experience, but it's not going
> to come through in photos without actual
> evidence.
>
> I think this shot shows lots of translucency.
> <
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Olympus_List/Posts&image=_4050041fp.jpg
> >
>
> Here, it seems to me that what does the trick is actual shadows on the
> back of the petals showing through. The trick may
> be composing so there is some of that?
>
I think you're just saying you need light coming through the petal to get
translucency, which is true if tautological. I want the petals to appear
sheer in the photo where they are sheer in actuality -- the impression of
light the same in both. It may be that my mind is postulating detail that
is not there or expecting to find detail that is not really there. I just
sort of feel that some level of saturation beyond "natural" in that mode is
not helping. Probably shooting at .7 EV is not right in this instance, and
bracketing is going to be necessary.
>
> > I should also ask you what picture mode you use for starters. I'm
> assuming
> > it's "Natural", not that it matters so much in raw.
>
> I don't think it matters at all in LR/ACR. I am presented there with a
> choice of profiles. I use the default, "Adobe
> Color". Again, this helps when using multiple brands, as it tends to lower
> differences.
>
No, I don't think it matters outside of OMW, probably. I wonder what this
means for our hypothesis about converters (above)? Clearly there is an
intermediary level of code that is important to Olympus to make picture
type adjustments meaningful from camera menu to screen. They condition the
conversion in OMW but are not the conversion itself. Other converters do
the conversion itself and what conditions their conversion (analogous to
Olympus' picture settings) is their own secret sauce. That's just me
thinking like a medieval Schoolman, with little evidence. Do you think
this is very wide from the mark?
Thank you for engaging these topics. I've taken a lot of your time. I
enjoy it, but I'm sure it's a lot more interesting for me than for you.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
