On 6/21/2022 12:34 PM, DZDub wrote:
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.
Not really. 😁 😛 But I think taste requires no explanation. I apply some modicum of taste in my choice of subjects,
but it has little place in my tech work.
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.
And there you get into my own taste and emotions. I first bought one of these hybrid yellow Calla Lilies as a Costco
impulse purchase. I think Calla Lily flowers are one of nature's most perfect shapes. And in a gorgeous yellow - OH MY.
I don't know if white Calla Lilies are native, but they do grow wild in parts of coastal Calif.. We have a hearty bunch
in the back yard that were here when I moved in and have survived many indignities and vagaries in my 41 years here. So,
of course, I shot one on my fourth day of shooting the OM-1.
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.
You may recall that I broke down and tried the color magic of the E-1, as well as the two other Kodak CCD sensors in the
E-300 and E-400. Shooting flowers in a range of lilac, purple, etc. they and the E-M5 II all did the colors differently,
and the differences weren't particularly subtle, either. All shot with the same lens, tripod, light, etc.
I think it's all about the UV, differences in overall filtering, exact characteristics of the micro filters over the
sensor, perhaps even UV sensitivity of the sensor itself.
Pre AK AG made a big deal of this, using E-1 shots of a deep purple African
Violet to illustrate.
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.
I do, too, but I want the color to be good and want some textural detail. Here's an example I did for Jim. Red channel
had been blocked, then pulled down, leading to the spike. Some tonal detail could be recreated/recovered, some not
However, I consider this a lot more carefully than I used to, mostly out of
fear of the Red Police.
O Goodie, I've been of some small service to the eyes of the list. 😉
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.
I'm happy to eliminate tonal detail, in the service of art. This JPEG doesn't do justice to the lovely print on my wall.
But when doing a "straight" photo of red, orange, yellow flowers, I prefer accuracy. I guess I see it as analogous to
drawing/painting, the basic skills need to be there. Look at early Picasso. The man could draw!
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
Sure, but not with the currently named version, OM Workspace. I don't want to
My hypothesis is that OMW converts one way and other converters another.
They are all different. I like the default color in LR/ACR. DxO Photolab has better lens distortion solutions and their
Raw NR is occasionally better than Topaz. But I don't like their color. I have used their Raw NR, read Tiff into PS and
used Match Color from the ACR conversion to get the color alright.
Now - of course - I'd need to do a paid update to work on OM-1 files.
OMW is the "metaphysically correct" version if you
want Olympus' intention for their cameras;
The question then is "Do I?" Their camera, now my tool, to make the images I
the bedrock truth is "machine code" alone.
Well, uh, I gotta disagree here. Read this.
From the second: "Readers must take it as a given that camera manufacturers set camera ISOs to make what they consider
the best-looking photograph. ISOs are not fixed by the sensor characteristics."
Substitute "colors" for "ISOs" in the above, and it's also true. Remember, demosaicing a Bayer array interprets two of
the color channels for each pixel from nearby sensels. The algorithm that does that determines what colors we get.
None of what we see in a converted file is "metaphysically correct", because the Raw data is not definitive. One could
say that an OMW conversion is the purest version of the photographic vision of the folks who designed the camera,
firmware and OMW. But that doesn't make it "correct" in any sense beyond that.
One could argue that Oly/OM Systems is a relatively small "shop". Adobe is a really big shop, with some of the deepest
experts in the field. Their demosaicing may easily be better, i.e. more like the color of the original subject. And/or,
it may simply reflect the different color tastes of a different set of image experts.
To say that one is more "metaphysically correct" is a personal value judgement, not a testable fact. Ain't no "bedrock
This iris has plenty of detail:
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:
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
I think this shot shows lots of translucency.
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.
And yet, if the subject viewed directly looks translucent, and the photo does not, The search for ways to overcome that
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
I'm not talking about, nor using, increased saturation in my efforts. In fact, I've tried lowered saturation and white
masking in mid tones, to see if I could get that delicate sense of translucence. Not so far.
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
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
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?
I hope I answered this, with help from Ctein, above.
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.
I've enjoyed it too. I'm a mystic, under one of my hats, perhaps this one?
enjoy exploring the metaphysics of things.😁
Then, there's the act of trying to explicate things I think I have straight in my head. Turns out that's not always so,
and doing the writing improves my grasp.
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/