Hi Moose,
I guess it was just a rant. I gave up on Adobe several years ago,
because they s__ewed me when I bought their software with my last
computer. Yes, the editing software I use gives me RAW that is raw,
and, when necessary, I use PTLens to overcome the optical shortcomings.
But, I think, for an old codger like me, an old, well-designed lens just
better suits me. I don't want to be fed pablum just because "they"
think it is good for me.
Thanks. I am enjoying the new lens.
Maybe when I get these stitches out of my scalp, I will find more to
smile about. :-(
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 8/30/2016 10:48 PM, Moose wrote:
On 8/30/2016 9:55 AM, Jim Nichols wrote:
It seems we are all being driven across the line, from photographer
to digital scientist. It appears to me that Fuji is simplifying its
lens optical designs, and turning to firmware to finish the job.
After buying and using the Fujinon 35/2.0, which I found needed a lot
of distortion correction
I assume you realize that you only see the distortion because you are
using a RAW converter that does not use the lens provided data to
correct distortion as part of the conversion.
The makers' intents are to make it all transparent to the user. If you
use the camera provided converter or the various versions of Adobe,the
correction is automatically applied, and you never see the distortion.
So no, they aren't trying to make you go "from photographer to digital
scientist" You've made that choice by the RAW converter you use. You
can also un-make it by using PTLens, but that requires either a
converter-editor than uses PS plug-ins or an extra software step.
, I opted for a proven Leica-R design when buying a 90. So far, it
appears to be a great acquisition.
I'm glad you are enjoying it.
Rectilinear Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|