Do you have the 5050 set a default or custom?
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Lawrence
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:21 PM
To: 'olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [OM] Some Olympus c5050z pictures
> Chris Barker [mailto:ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> I like most of those images Marc, and the mono/part-mono
> treatment is very effective. I particularly like the
> yellow flowers at the feet of the statue. The file
> sizes seem to be fine for viewing quickly enough.
I tried to keep the files under 100KB. The curious side of
me wonders why the relatively simple shot of sandstone
was so difficult to drag under that limit with jpeg
compression (frequent big changes from pixel-to-pixel?).
As mentioned, I was worried about that mono/part-mono
effect being cliche...which it still possibly is, but
I don't mind it :-)
> But monochrome does not seem as attractive to me if I
> know it was not carefully exposed and shot in monochrome
> (I know that is an old-fashioned view ;-)).
Perhaps, but it is a view I share in some significant ways.
All of the shots that appear in mono' were "pre-visualised"
in mono' except for the pigeon shots (which might be telling me
something :-) ). They were taken in colour, however,
partly because I like options, and partly because taking
them in colour gives the opportunity to adjust different
tones based on the colour (sort of like red and green
filters).
BUT...
For what it's worth, although I don't process "real"
black and white prints/film, I still prefer the use of Kodak
Black and White C41 process film, and resultant prints,
from my OM1 and 50/1.4 over the c5050z. Next time, I'm
tempted to carry both cameras (I'm looking for the smallest
bumbag that holds both).
Some of this "old fashioned view" may even be all in our
heads, but that's where I "pre-visualise" my images, so
I'm okay with that ;-)
> But my prejudice apart, the camera seems to
> work very well - I see no colour fringing for instance.
Until recently I had not noticed this (which possibly counts
for little in light of my...ahem...critical eye), but now
have a look in the bottom left of this shot:
http://www.geocities.com/montsnmags/qvb2.jpg
Hmm, could be some there <g> Much better to reframe the shot:
http://www.geocities.com/montsnmags/qvb.jpg
> What is the maximum ISO you can use with the 5050 and
> avoid excessive noise, in your experience?
As Daniel pointed out, the ISO available is 64-400 (and
"auto" within that range, but I haven't used that). As
to your question, well, I try to avoid 400 as I find on
the monitor they appear quite noisy. However, saying that,
the couple of ISO 400 prints I have printed off don't reflect
that aversion, at least at a measly 5"x7". If I need to
use ISO 400, I try to recall that Neat Image is a very good
software tool! :-)
Cheers
Marc
Sydney, Oz
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|
