For both images, I prefer the Olympus output, I gave a blind test to my wife
and she prefer the same. I think it is a matter of preference, monitor
calibration could be one of the reasons but with the latest LCD I don't see
it a big problem. My company's cheap 17" LCD just render very close to my
mid-range EIZO except less bright even at max setting. I even merge the four
images and printed on HP photo paper (with some brightness/contrast
adjustment), my wife gave me the same answer,
Since we are seeing quite differently, it is still a mystery.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Dapoz" <md@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>
>> Although they render differently but both are quite nice, I wouldn't say
>> C1
>> is much better in skin tone. Even without any sharpening, C1 start to
>> show
>> artifacts on the lip when viewing at 200%, very sad to see they just
>> spent
>> too little effort on E-1 (while they did very well for C*non RAW).
>
> Although both images are acceptable, I still find the Olympus version has
> too
> much red in the skintones. This becomes even more apparant with a fair
> skinned
> subject (as my family happens to be). Here's an example of what I mean.
>
> Olympus Viewer 1.3: RAW+0.5EV, camera white balance:
>
> http://olympus.dementia.org/misc/E-1/E-1_20050412_173846-Oly.jpg
>
> C1 1.7: RAW+0.55EV, camera white balance:
>
> http://olympus.dementia.org/misc/E-1/E-1_20050412_173846-C1.jpg
>
> The C1 version is much closer to the real-life colour than the Olympus
> one.
> Maybe C1 just has a better colour profile than Olympus does. I agree with
> you
> about the artifacts, C1 does have slightly more artifacts than Olympus but
> they are minimised if you use the "soft look" sharpening method.
> -mark
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
