On 6/15/2014 8:10 AM, Chris Trask wrote:
I'm still afraid there's a HUGE misunderstanding Chris.
Look carefully here :
http://www.olympusamerica.com/crm/oneoffpages/ask_oly/crm_e_ask_oly_07_07.asp
I've been trying for the start to explain that you don't need to carry glass
filters if you shoot raw/ORF and post process from there.
Your PC/MAC and post-processing software are so much more powerful than the
poor chip on board any
camera.
This being said, I'm running short of arguments as you seem to be willing to
stick with settings of no value for what you want to achieve I'm afraid.
Tell it like it is, brother!
Alright already! I'll take a look at that.
Okay, I finally got my morning backlog taken care of and I've looked at
this page. I pretty much understood most of this, but there is still some
ambiguity as to the matter of the emulated colour filters.
Any ambiguity exists in your mind, because you don't understand what a RAW file is. (Although AG argues that this is not
entirely true of Canon RAW files, it is useful to understand the basic principle. Certain electronic NR techniques can
only work at the individual junction level of the hardware.)
RAW files are meant to be the unprocessed sensor data. Individual pixel values are still for R, G or B, before Bayer
interpolation (for all but exotic sensors) into individual RGB values for each pixel, data is linear, not yet gamma
adjusted, and so on.
This allows one to take advantage of later changes in conversion software, user skill and/or user intentions. Once RAW
files are converted to JPEG, TIFF, etc., data is lost, and one may never go back if the original RAW file is not available.
This may not be important to you. I always shoot in RAW and save the RAW files. This has turned out to be wise, from my
viewpoint, as both software and my skills and taste have changed. I have gone back, reconverted and reedited some
favorites from years ago, often with far superior results.
The question remains as to if they are applied when you shoot the photo
Given this nature of RAW files, you should be able to see that an effect like
B&W conversion cannot be part of a RAW file.
or if they are applied when doing the RAW to JPEG conversion.
Actually, those are two separate things. They are indeed muddled together in LR, Viewer 3 and many other apps that both
convert from RAW, which does not, in itself, convert to B&W, AND edit that converted data.
Working with RAW data, one may do multiple versions, for example, color and
different 'filtered' monochrome conversions.
My earlier experiments when shooting in JPEG B&W gave me the impression that
they were NOT being applied at that level.
Correct, and with any luck, you now know why.
Didact Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|