Joel Wilcox wrote:
>Oops. Wasn't finished.
>
>Also like iron4025
>
>
Thanks, I like that one a lot too. A nice, but pretty ordinary, picture
of a cabbage becomes something really beautiful at a more detailed
level. Of course, that falls in with my natural tendency toward tele and
macro shots.
>Generally, no noticable noise at 800 ASA, but perhaps that was cleaned
>up? Somehow I don't think you would purchase a camera that didn't
>deal with noise from the outset.
>
>
Right you are! Noise is just as it came from the camera. That doesn't
mean noise reduction isn't being applied of course. This one does a
really good job of low noise with minimal effect on image quality
through iso 800. At 1600, detail starts to suffer, although it wouldn't
be very apparent except at full pixel resolution. How much is a real
improvement in small sensor noise and how much is better reduction
algorithms is not clear, but I think most is in the sensor.
>The light and color seems a little "off" throughout most of the cloister
>shots.
>
Partly rookie mistake with a new camera and menus, partly really
difficult lighting. I left WB on sunlight inside the cloisters, I must
have thought I had it on Auto - DOH! I don't know how auto WB would have
worked, although it seems to be pretty good elsewhere. Lighting was a
very complex mixture of window light and various kinds of incandescent
lighting, and different for every subject. Some balanced up nicely to my
eyes with a bit of simple 82 series filter. A couple had real white or
neutral bits that I could balance from. Others just baffled me so far.
The result is no consistency.
>Probably just the difficult circumstances, possibly white balance issues, and
>maybe AdobeRGB too. All images look better
>in PS than in the browser.
>
>
Camera only does sRGB. On my screen, they look very similar in Firefox
as in PS, although a black vs. neutral gray background does have a
visual effect.
>Most images, including my favorites, look like they would improve with some
>PP, or more PP, especially in terms of color balance and contrast.
>
>
PP? Not sure what you mean. PS? Virtually all of them have had some
local contrast adjustment and many have had brightness, contrast, shadow
and/or curves adjustments. I admit to color balance issues, not my
strongest point anyway, and very difficult lighting. For example, I know
that the stone in the background of Clois1001 was gray. On the other
hand, if I make it really gray, some of the colors of the figures get
very strange. So I went with a compromise where the stone is too warm,
but the figures look close to my memory of them. I know the black face
wasn't a weird blue, which is what it becomes with gray stone. In a
couple of shots with blank backgrounds, I simply replaced the background
mottled by changing lighting with something sampled from one part of the
background and made it all even.
As to brightness and contrast, those are to my taste on my monitor. Any
particular ones where you would change it?
>I have no idea what camera. Not a Lumix I'll wager, but I haven't a clue.
>
>
Not a Lumix. Lumix noise at higher isos is much greater. As with Bill's
suggestion, by the time a camera is that big, I'll just carry a DSLR.
For me, the break point seems to be pocket/belt pouchable vs. strap/bag.
The next break for me is where the camera/kit just gets too heavy to
carry comfortably for long
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|