On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, C.H.Ling wrote:
>
> Although they render differently but both are quite nice, I wouldn't say C1
> is much better in skin tone. Even without any sharpening, C1 start to show
> artifacts on the lip when viewing at 200%, very sad to see they just spent
> too little effort on E-1 (while they did very well for C*non RAW).
Although both images are acceptable, I still find the Olympus version has too
much red in the skintones. This becomes even more apparant with a fair skinned
subject (as my family happens to be). Here's an example of what I mean.
Olympus Viewer 1.3: RAW+0.5EV, camera white balance:
http://olympus.dementia.org/misc/E-1/E-1_20050412_173846-Oly.jpg
C1 1.7: RAW+0.55EV, camera white balance:
http://olympus.dementia.org/misc/E-1/E-1_20050412_173846-C1.jpg
The C1 version is much closer to the real-life colour than the Olympus one.
Maybe C1 just has a better colour profile than Olympus does. I agree with you
about the artifacts, C1 does have slightly more artifacts than Olympus but
they are minimised if you use the "soft look" sharpening method.
-mark
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
