>
> Agree. As an emotional stakeholder in Olympus, it is very irritating
> to discover they have drawn conclusions about RAW capture without even
> using the manufacturer's software, which makes a big difference. But
> the information, when it can be sifted from that kind of disregard, is
> very useful for sure.
>
That's right. I'm appalled that the reviewers have decided that the "lowest
common denominator" (ACR) is the end-all and be-all for image-quality out of
a digital camera. Isn't that like saying "We're going to test all cameras
with this Soligar lens because it's available in all mounts"? And then
grousing because the cameras have CA.
I am absolutely no fan of ACR (and/or Lightroom) for Olympus files. The
Adobe profiles are just plain off for most of the ORF files. What these
reviewers are doing is saying "The E-xx sucks" but won't accept that Adobe
has a faulty profile! The camera manufacturers spend huge amounts of money
in R&D to get the profiles perfect in their cameras and raw converters, and
Adobe comes along and takes FOUR PICTURES OF A COLOR CHART AND AVERAGES THE
RESULTS TOGETHER!!!!
Yes, I'm shouting. Do we actually realize the significance of that? Adobe
took FOUR pictures of a stinking color chart folks. That's it. The entire
profile is built from that! Only when something is blatently wrong will
they go back and fix, adjust or take more pictures.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|