I think he/she who wields the tool is the creator of quality. I think
there are far more differences in our skill levels and vision than in
the tools themselves. Give me Michaelangelo's hammers and chisels and
I'll not produce a masterpiece of sculpture.
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/10/2013 3:25 PM, bob benson wrote:
> Let's ignore work-flow and library/directory/storage considerations for the
> moment: I am very interested in list-member experience and opinion on the
> qualitative effect various software has on final images. (Most reviews
> comparing software like elements and lightroom emphasize workflow and
> library and image management comparisons, not whether, for example, the
> sharpening or contrast/color tools are "better" from an output
> perspective.)
>
> Context: I do larger gallery-style prints, abstracts and landscapes
> primarily. I realize the notion of "quality" or "better" is something of
> a personal matter, though sharpness, contrast, color rendition, etc. are
> examples of factors I would like to take into account.
>
> Question: let's consider the "quality" effect software has on a specific
> image. Assume I begin with a single (OK) RAW and an (OK) JPEG image from,
> say, an EM1. By OK I mean the exercise is not primarily to rescue a not-OK
> image. If I took the same image through alternative software (per below),
> what would your experience and opinions suggest would produce the "better"
> result? Assume the outcome is to be a 16x20 or 20x24 or even a 24x36
> print. Again, let's ignore workflow issues.
>
> You'll note I'm not discussing PS. Also I'm not really concerned about the
> availability layer-based tools, which I think of as process not engine
> related. I'm interested in differences in the basic engines. Or are the
> engines the same, only the (workflow) packaging and layering is different?
>
> Some possibilities. The "using" would be sharpening, color rendition,
> contrast, B/W conversion, and so forth.
>
> 1. Starting with RAW, using either elements or lightroom ... would the
> image result be discernibly different? In what area?
> 2. Starting with JPEG, using either elements or lightroom ... would the
> image result be discernibly different? In what area?
> 3. Considering the elements or lightroom choices, would starting with a
> RAW vs. JPEG image result be discernibly different?
> 4. Would using Viewer 3 for RAW, then either elements or lightroom, make a
> discernible difference?
>
> 5. Would you add another software choice that would in fact be discernibly
> different? (Not PS though.) For example, would you use a separate
> sharpening tool, or a separate perspective tool, and expect discernibly
> different results?
> 6. Would you expect either choice to be discernibly different from using
> basic tools like Picasa?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bob Benson
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|