At 07:39 PM 4/26/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>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
I think both sets of examples are "hard cases." C.H.'s lady looks a bit
better with the warmth and color. Suites both her and the venue. Babies,
especially Caucasian ones, are already plenty warm and pink already.
The jury's still out, gentlemen.
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
