On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 3:45 AM Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
> <
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Olympus_List/Posts&image=2022-04-05%2017-01-14%20%28B%2CRadius8%2CSmoothing4%29cr.jpg
> >
>
Lovely!
> 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.
>
Vaguely remember. I try to keep track of what kinds of statements
represent love of our own peculiarities and which correspond with objective
fact. Most things I read get classified among the former. That doesn't
nullify them, it just moves them to hypothesis status (for me -- something
to check out later).
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
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Nichols/Sunday_Rosebud.htm>.
>
> > 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. 😉
>
Yes, if I speak for the list. I remember one person commenting, after I
had to walk the plank for a red flower post, that he avoids those subjects
now. That seems a shame, but not your fault for expressing an opinion.
> 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.
> <
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Olympus_List/Posts&image=_B003507cr.jpg
> >
>
> 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'm not following. I'm not seeing how your photo illustration is not
"straight." From your photo, I get a very satisfying feeling of light,
which is "accurate" enough for me. Often your "straight" photos, which are
accurate to your vision, don't feel right to me in terms of that feeling of
light. Indoors I generally conclude that it is artificial light and it
doesn't concern me so much, but natural light shots need to feel "natural"
to me.
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.
>
I'm a bit short at the moment. :)
> 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 like.
>
> > the bedrock truth is "machine code" alone.
>
> Well, uh, I gotta disagree here. Read this.
> <
> https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/09/why-iso-isnt-iso.html
> >
> And this. <
> https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html
> >
>
> 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.
>
Part of the reason for the quotation marks ("metaphysically correct" and
"machine code") is to suggest that I was using these phrases as analogies,
or at least not literally. "Metaphysically correct" corresponds to what
the camera manufacturer decides to do to make the best-looking photograph,
and their converter lets you see it, based on your in-camera selected
settings, without veil or cloud. That's all I meant. "Machine code"
would correspond with the characteristics of the sensor.
Ctein seems to prefer ACR as his raw converter. That's fine. Unless ACR
is essentially exactly the same as OM Workplace as converter, it cannot be
exactly what Olympus set forth as the tool to interpret its raw files. It
might be better. You might like it better. But it's not Olympus' tool.
I've always found subtle differences in the past, so I'm happy to continue
to use it.
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,
My point.
>
> firmware and OMW. But that doesn't make it "correct" in any sense beyond
> that.
>
It might not be your choice, but it's "correct" if you want what Olympus
puts up for the purpose for raw conversion. This is not really a debatable
point. It's more like a definition.
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
> truth". 🙁😁
>
I don't disagree with these statements. They just slightly sidestep the
issue I was pondering, which had to do with OMW's apparent change in its
way of dealing with saturation and some of the issues I'm having with
yellows.
On that point and based on some recent experiments, I think the way I will
proceed for a while is to continue to shoot with exp. com. at -.7 EV and
then bracket in .7 EV increments if I shoot 3 or .3 increments if I shoot
5. So far shooting these subjects at -2 EV doesn't produce subjects which
I can adjust to look right, and the backgrounds, which are usually green,
look pretty bad to me.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
I wasn't inferring anything about your practice! I was still opining about
the level of saturation that seems to characterize OMW's "natural" picture
mode!
> > 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.
>
Well, no. But that's OK.
> 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?
> <
> https://sammlungenonline.albertina.at/cc/imageproxy.ashx?server=localhost&port=16001&filename=images/8832.JPG>
> and
> enjoy exploring the metaphysics of things.😁
>
Expands my mental picture of Moosedom! I assume under the gown are striped
socks.
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.
>
I feel the same way. Thanks for your time. I enjoyed reading the Ctein
articles again. Remembered the ISO one but not the one on RAW.
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/
|
