On 3/17/2015 7:51 AM, Bob Benson wrote:
What has been your experience / preference with the sharpness and contrast
settings, for generally landscape . does +1 sound about right?
For those of us who shoot RAW, that is a meaningless question. None of my digicams has ever had any of those settings
changed from whatever came from the factory.
The truth, wisdom, whatever, of this has been shown to me again with the Panny ZS40 pocketable superzoom. I can always
get a better final result from the RAW files than it creates in JPEGs.* An amazing camera, that wouldn't do what I want
from it without RAW files.
True as far as I can recall even of the couple of P&Ss that didn't do RAW. As pure and un-messed with as possible, then
go to 16 bit and bend the pixels my way with the best tools in post. Fortunately, my pocket cams of the last few years
have all shot RAW.
Purity of Essence Moose
* OK, sure, it must be true that the JPEG is occasionally as good, but why
would I bother looking for those few instances?
And I suppose Oly JPEGs are more likely to be first rate than others? Or is that only once they are obsolete? In any
case Oly Viewer is supposed to reproduce whatever magical look would have been in the JPEG that I might want and I'm not
competent to create.
Not to say that OMD JPEGs can't be great. I do shoot both, but have yet to find
the JPEG better.
I did post in the last week a downsized E-M5II JPEG, with no processing other than resharpening after downsampling.
Perfect light for the subject, perfect rendition by the camera, ACR doesn't do E-M5II ORFs yet and I didn't feel like
messing with Viewer.
--
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/
|