On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> http://gallery.me.com/zuiko#100053&view=grid&bgcolor=black&sel=6
>
> The settings in sequence are NATURAL/NORMAL, VIVID/NORMAL, NATURAL/LOW KEY.
> So that is a change in Picture Mode and Gradation while shooting ORF. I
> then imported them to Aperture, named them and exported them to the MobileMe
> album above.
>
> There seems to be no change with the different settings. I have left the JPG
> images off to save confusion, but the changes are obvious in the JPGs -- as
> you would have expected.
Thanks Chris. I suppose there must be roughly three concerns in
building a developer: color, exposure, and then doodads. I would
consider sharpening, CA correction, gradation, etc. to be doodads.
Aperture, ACR, etc., pick up some of the more universal doodads, skip
others, and add their own. Aside from platform considerations, what
goes in to picking a developer is your confidence in color handling,
the type of doodads you like and how they work, and your satisfaction
with the workmanship of the programmers -- roughly speaking, its
"usability."
So, gradation -- which was the item that kicked off this discussion --
must be wholly a Studio2 doodad. Also, I would assume that "Gradation
- Normal" probably means that no alterations have been applied. Those
alterations, by the way, appear to be curves adjustments. I messed
with them a little bit last night and the effect is to move pixels
around in the histogram. Another way to express this is in terms of
Levels: if it changes the levels adjustment, the effect is more in a
change in the gamma slider more than to the points. The oblique
settings in Gradations are sometimes pleasing, but more often not --
to me. So I just leave it at normal, though occasionally in raw
development I experiment just to see what the effect might look like.
The change is usually too great for my taste, but it often gives me a
notion about what I might do with the image to a lesser degree when I
have moved it along to Photoshop.
I shall be less judgmental in reading Dpreview reviews as they appear
to use ACR and PhaseOne to get some independent insight into a
camera's engine based upon profiled calibration by those third parties
that would provide some sort of additional information about the
characteristics of the processor. Whether these processors get the
best out of the camera I don't know. It reminds me that with just
about everything there are those who subscribe to a manufacturer's
recommendations and those who like to tinker. I'm a bit of a
tinkerer, but I don't think in the case of color that I have the
equipment, not to mention the brains, to better Olympus' judgment
about its own cameras. Similarly, those who champion this or that
developer tell me only about themselves and what they value (nothing
wrong with that) but nothing about how well their Developer du Jour is
really doing. As the differences among monitors and/or printers is
probably so profound as to obscure all comparisons anyway, I can't
fault anyone for just working with a program he or she enjoys and
finds useful.
Just for fun one day I might take my C7000 and attempt to profile it
myself for raw development using Vuescan. But not today!
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/
|