On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not sure what that analogy means, Joel. I've re-read what I wrote and
> then read this latest passage of yours and I'm lost.
>
> So, I shall go and make some photos tomorrow with my E-3: some jpgs with
> gradation set to, say, Vivid, and some RAWs with the same setting, then some
> RAWs with Neutral. I'll then import them to Aperture and see if there is a
> difference.
Chris,
We are not communicating well because we begin with different
assumptions. Moose jumped in and clarified how the big third party
raw developers attempt to get to a neutral starting-point through
something like profiling. I can see now that you believe that
Aperture has achieved this kind of neutrality. (You may be right. I
don't know.)
I was contending that the most neutral rendering would be one in which
the raw converter worked off the camera's own settings, a la the
manufacturer's apparent intentions.
Perhaps that clarifies our problems in communication?
However, I cannot fathom your intentions for the morrow because
"gradation" as I know it does not have a "vivid" setting, and doing
raws with neutral must simply be an Aperture thing. (???)
But I shall not fret, as I will be joining friends Paul and Ken for
some winter shooting tomorrow and hope to get some more, ho hum, eagle
photos. Good luck with your investigations and let us know the
outcome please.
Ciao for now,
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|