TAKO. INTERNET SEIT 1996.
Olympus-OM

[OM] Re: E-1 discussion

Subject: [OM] Re: E-1 discussion
From: "Sharp Consulting" <jsharp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:29:16 -0500
I purchased a Nikon D100 recently and have decided that once I get accustomed 
to the Nikon way of doing things vs. the OM way I'm used to, I think I'll be 
fine.

>From what I've seen so far with my D100 and the 990 I had before that, initial 
>white balance is *everything* when shooting a digital. If you can set it for 
>the light you're shooting in you can get "good" color. If you can't because of 
>the situation or the scene, the results will be spotty and require work in 
>photoshop.

Then again, you have to decide what you're trying to accomplish. Just a 
pleasing photgraph, or one that is both pleasing and true to the original 
scene. Not a lot different than picking the right film for the subject you're 
shooting.

Here's a couple of examples of what happens by allowing the camera to set it's 
own white balance -

http://home.illicom.net/users/jsharp/personalphotos/DSC_00136X9.jpg

http://home.illicom.net/users/jsharp/personalphotos/DSC_00286X9.jpg

Same sky, same camera, same ambient light on the tree ( my pole light ) and 
taken  within 10 minutes of each other. Notice the driveway color. Neither one 
is all that accurate and this may or may not be pleasing to the viewer. It's 
not a huge deal on these abstract things, it's a problem if you're shooting 
people or something else where you require accurate color ...



---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Jez.Cunningham@xxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Date:  Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:52:43 +0200

>
>
>I've been following this thread with great interest.  I'm close to going
>digital and deciding between an E-1 and a D70.  (Assuming I can't wait for
>an E(n+1) !  (Of course the OM4 stays...)
>
>It started to get a bit hot, but Joe Gwinn concluded:
>>At the end of the day, we want
>>to know which technical issues really matter, and how does the story
>>change for different kinds of subjects, and for various photographers.
>
>Well said joe!  I think we can all agree to that.
>
>My particular wish is to produce prints without having to tweak the colours
>- I have some colour-blindness so I want to be able to turn out a print
>that my wife won't criticise, however it looks to my crooked vision.  The
>test prints I have downloaded from the web or received on CD from other
>enabling list members have been printable directly, likewise those out of
>my P&Sdigi.  But the experiences you're all reporting (I know you're trying
>to screw the last ounce out of the camera) scare me a bit.  Even I can see
>a distinct difference between the two versions of CH's flower - on this
>laptop LCD I prefer the 'neutral' one (fwiw).
>
>Maybe I should switch to B&W film...
>
>thanks - and keep up the search for the Holy Grail (the audiophiles have a
>similar quest... do they sell magic dots for cameras?)
>Jez
>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
>
 

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>