> Nice to learn I'm not alone ... at different levels of mastering the
> variables, but not alone.
I go back and revisit photos quite often. Not only does technology
improve, but so does technique. As I learn a new trick, I think about
how that might apply to something I've already done and do a
reinterpretation of it. You've seen some of those efforts just in the
Isle Royale sunset photos.
They aren't necessarily "better", but they are "different".
And to this point, what we find is that the second version is usually
the preferred version--unless you present the second one to somebody
first and then the original. With the original, we may still have
"meaning" to the interpretation. Meaning and memory. The follow up
version has less emotional attachment. From a technical perspective,
the second version is usually better, but from an artistic
perspective, the first version is usually better.
Another factor has to do with the converter and how some of the
sliders work. I've gotten interpretations of some images from Raw
Shooter that I've never been able to see or recreate with any other
converter.
I'm now firmly planted in paying the Monthly Adobe Tax, and while
there are certain advantages, I'm reminded that the ACR engine is
positively second rate when it comes to Olympus and Panasonic files.
While the workflow management is tops, the actual conversion itself
really does kinda suck. But since it's the "industry standard", we've
come to accept that "sucky conversion" is the "correct conversion".
Frankly, it's not even all that good at Canon files, but with Canon
files, it's really hard to tell which is worst--the CMOS sensor or the
converter. At least with Canon files, you get profiles.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|