Red Dotless Moose wrote:
> I've never used Silver Efex, but I imagine it has a way to adjust the mix of
> colors that go into the B&W result, as does PS. I believe that it was in an
> AG post here that I first read about problem with very clear skin on young
> white kids. The red of their blood shows through. While sometimes a problem
> in color, which can be reduced in post, it's apparently a regular problem
> going back deep into film days. The solution with B&W film was a filter. I
> don't know what, but I know AG has posted about it.
Yes, I certainly have written about this and have found that it is
possible to come close to the same effect with digital, but it isn't
quite exactly the same. My reference was Ilford Delta 400 with an
orange filter. This specific combination is like Miracle Whip (TM) for
teenage skin. Depending on the camera, I can get close, but not
exactly the same. The Panasonic DMC-L1 does pretty well in this
regard.
> I'd be interested to see what the M/MM would have produced here. Other than
> Sadie's skin, the B&W tonalities aren't bad, but somehow seem to me less
> smooth, sophisticated, something or other, than the Monochromes. Maybe the
> midpoint and the slope around it are different? Maybe the demosaicing losses
> something compared to pure luminance sensing, although I've seen some
> glorious conversions on occasion.
Without seeing more, it is hard to tell, but I do think I agree. This
new camera's sensor seems so very Kodak-like. I am curious if it has
issues with near-IR contamination, like the Kodak DSLRs and the
Olympus E-1 had. Oh, and the M8.
> C'mon, get up off the floor and get a hold of yourself. :-) I can't always
> fill in where your actual experience and expertise should be paying
> attention.
Don't worry, I'm able to resist for the moment.
> I wish Leica well and rejoice for those of their lovers who will find the SL
> fabulous, but it's not for me.
That's perfectly OK. As you have said before, not all cameras are
meant for each and every one of us. What is good for you, may not be
for another person and what is good for another person may not be good
for you. The Red Dot cameras are not to your liking, and that's
perfectly OK. I have a love/hate relationship with rangefinder
cameras, but have a distinct love of full-frame 35mm format Zuikos
that are in need of a digital back worthy of the lenses.
> I wonder if folks at Sony are dancing thanks to Leica for making the various
> A7 bodies look like bargains. :-D
I don't think so. While a rising tide lifts all boats, Sony has been
enjoying having the EVF full-frame world to themselves. As has been
proven for the past decade, spending up to $8000 on a full-frame 35mm
digital camera has not been an issue with the number of Canon, Nikon
and Leica bodies sold so far in that price range. This is not a new
pricing structure or out of line.
My issue with the Sony A7... series is that they are still
"incomplete". Each iteration gets us closer to top-grade, but each one
is still hampered in some specific technical way that keeps them from
being totally satisfying. This is especially true in regards to using
them with legacy wide-angle lenses. The image-quality is excellent,
but not quite there. The "measurables" seem great, but in actual
practice, they are lacking. I get a kick out of the reviews for the A7
series. The superlatives roll off the fingers of the reviewers, but
the moment they get their hands on the latest version, the
comparatives and how awful the previous version was is revealed. Once
Sony actually gets the pixel-level image detail to not look like a
cell-phone image, I'll be excited.
Yet, it is still all relative. I'm still using a 5MP Olympus E-1.
--
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/
|