C.H.Ling wrote:
> As always, I like to proof with samples, just download the Bibble 4.7,
> shot with E-300 and DZ50/2, camera default, no sharpening:
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/Bibble.jpg
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/olympus.jpg
>
> I don't think they are the same,
Certainly not the same.
> it is even not easy to PS the Bibble one to get the same like Olympus RAW.
Not hard to get the flowers to match, but then small differences in
other elements remain. Just a quick application of Color Match to a
selection of the same part of one of the flowers in each example. Of
course, I know your eyes are more color sensitive than mine, so what
seems an infinitesimal difference to me may be too much for you
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Violets.htm>.
> My wife and young son both immediately identified the Olympus one has more
> accurate color (compared with the actual subject).
>
A larger question for me is how important perfectly accurate color is to
me. I only ask the question because the vast majority of things I
photograph are not later available at all, let alone in the identical
light is which they were shot, for comparison with the screen or printed
image.
I've been playing around with the WhiBal. It certainly provides a way to
assure very accurate color, certainly much closer than the difference in
your examples, with any RAW process. Using it or something similar,
accurate color should be easy whenever it's important.
On the other hand, when I went out Thursday and shot over 140 RAW
images, I left the WhiBal home. I knew that my camera and ACR would do
quite a creditable job on the kind of things I would be shooting and
that any subtle differences would never be noticed because subject and
image would never meet.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
