On 1/9/2011 10:41 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> I walked in these gardens in Cambridge today; it was a sunny day, albeit
> chilly with a low sun and I took my E-3 and G-12. I set my E-3 to record
> both RAW and jpg (I normally use RAW only) and was rather pleased with the
> results. In Aperture the jpg files need little or no adjustment, whereas the
> RAW files look a little flat and require more adjustment to make them look
> good on my monitor.
That's actually what's supposed to happen, unless you are using the Oly
software that applies the same setting from the
camera that it used to make the JPEG. When you use Aperture, Lightroom, PS,
etc., they don't make use of the camera
settings in the same way.
> I did this because I have read that the E-5 does a good job with jpgs and I
> wondered what my E-3 would be like in these lighting conditions. All I did
> was adjust the Exposure slightly and add Definition (LCE, I think). I should
> be interested in anyone's thought on the matter; there's a selection (5) here:
>
> http://threeshoes-photo.blogspot.com/
I like all but the HDR. Maybe there's something wrong with my eyes, but HDR
images almost always look both overdone and
underdone at the same time to me. Here, the process has done terrible things to
the sky, way over darkening it moving
toward the top, while adding a strong, light halo along the skyline. In the
meantime, it's flattened contrast and local
contrast so as to make the foreground look like it was not shot in low sun.
Shouldn't the scene look more like this?
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Barker/BotanicalGardenHDR.htm>
I couldn't entirely get rid of the halo and the top of the sky is
understaurated, but at least the plants catching the
low sun have the proper glow and so on . . .
No HDR Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|