Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Hijack...Re: New Portra pro film line from Koduck

Subject: [OM] Re: Hijack...Re: New Portra pro film line from Koduck
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:04:59 -0700
Hmm. Every time you write about your Fujis, I am tempted. I just  
there was more camera with the sensor, maybe a viewfinder. Your  
experience with the exposure and processing was informative.

I agree on the D-Lux 3. None of these tiny sensor, high MP cameras  
are going to be very useful.


Winsor
Long Beach, CA
USA


On Sep 27, 2006, at 6:12 PM, Moose wrote:

> Rob Harrison wrote:
>> Hearing this from you Walt (along with AG's ponderings about his  
>> next year)
>> helps me relax about my DSLR need frenzy. Thanks. My wife thanks  
>> you too!
>>
>> Now, about the *compact* digital...;-) Seems like there are plenty  
>> of those
>> out there to tide me over 'till Oly comes up with the E-3, or I  
>> can afford a
>> 5D. Thinking of them as "film with a lens attached" I've narrowed  
>> it down
>> to...
>>
>> - L*ica D-Lux 3 or P*nas*nic LX-2
>>
>  From the review of the LX-1:
> "If you feel a 'but' coming on, here it is. To release a camera so
> obviously aimed at the serious photographer, to add so many usable
> manual controls, to put a razor-sharp Leica lens on the front and then
> to drop in a chip / processor that is so noisy you can't use it above
> ISO 100 is quite simply unforgivable. It's like buying a Ferrari and
> discovering it maxes out at 55 mph."
>
> "You can tease some amazing results from the LX1 at low ISOs if you're
> prepared to do some work - specifically shooting in raw mode and
> tweaking the parameters in Adobe Camera Raw (forget the supplied
> software - it's worse than useless). At ISO 200 and 400 noise is a
> serious issue, and you certainly won't want to print very large, but
> again the inherent quality of the lens means there's plenty of detail,
> and if you're prepared to do some work yourself (either using noise
> reduction software or shooting raw), the results are just the right  
> side
> of acceptable.
>> AND
>>
>> - a F30 or F31fd.
>>
>  From the review of the F30:
> "On the downside the F30 is not as impressive on bright sunny days  
> as it
> is indoors or at night; sure, the sharpness and low noise are still
> there, but the tone curve often produces images that lack highlight or
> shadow detail, yet can look a bit flat. You'll get some amazing  
> results
> if you know your way around Photoshop (or similar), but I often  
> (though
> by no means always) found the 'out of camera' results slightly
> disappointing. Add to this the tendency to over expose and you've  
> got a
> camera that really needs to be used by someone who knows what they're
> doing to get the most out of it."
>
> ".... it is - in expert hands - capable of superb results in any  
> light."
>> Kinda like having a body loaded with Portra 160NC and another with  
>> 800.
>>
> Obviously, we don't know how the newer camera will perform, although
> evidence in at least the form of the recently released FZ50 and,  
> FX-01,
> is that Panasonic has been pursuing the mp race at the expense of  
> image
> quality. So UNLESS they change their ways with the LX-2, you have a
> camera that is incapable of quality high iso results AND requires  
> you to
> be "prepared to do some work - specifically shooting in raw mode and
> tweaking the parameters in Adobe Camera Raw" to get great iso 100  
> images.
>
> With the F30, you get by far the best high iso P&S performance and  
> still
> need to be prepared to do some work to "get some amazing results if  
> you
> know your way around Photoshop" in bright light.
> so both of them require more than simply pointing and shooting to get
> "amazing" results out of either camera in bright light.
>
> I wouldn't take the LX-2 seriously until I saw test results showing  
> that
> Panasonic has changed their ways and updated their Venus engine.
> Otherwise, you gain nothing, but complexity and cost, over simply  
> using
> an F30 and learning the, relatively simple, rules for bright light use
> and processing. Here is a piece of my lengthy post on that subject,
> starting with a quote from dpreview:
>
> -------------------------------------------------start of old post
> "On the downside the F30 is not as impressive on bright sunny days  
> as it
> is indoors or at night; sure, the sharpness and low noise are still
> there, but the tone curve often produces images that lack highlight or
> shadow detail, yet can look a bit flat. You'll get some amazing  
> results
> if you know your way around Photoshop (or similar), but I often  
> (though
> by no means always) found the 'out of camera' results slightly
> disappointing. Add to this the tendency to over expose and you've  
> got a
> camera that really needs to be used by someone who knows what they're
> doing to get the most out of it."
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> I agree here, too, both about the issue and the ability to "get some
> amazing results", if you know how. Perhaps, already used to the F10, I
> wasn't disappointed with the F30 in this area. Reading the details in
> the review, I think they are saying the same thing I have found. The
> F30, like the F10, easily blows out highlights, leaving little
> compressed detail to be recovered in post. On the other hand, it  
> mostly
> compresses shadows, rather than dropping them to black. That means  
> that
> shooting in any contrasty situation requires downward exposure
> compensation and/or use of spot metering to avoid blown highlights.
>
> With this particular camera, "expose to the right" is a formula for  
> lost
> highlights; better to underexpose, and reorganize the histogram later.
> Fortunately, with the F30, Fuji has added an EV comp button to the  
> back,
> making adjustment MUCH easier. I'm starting to routinely adjust it.The
> interesting thing about this, of course, is that it makes the  
> camera in
> effect faster.
>
> You can see what I'm talking about in some of the shots I posted a
> little bit ago. When I first shot "Aerie", I made two exposures a  
> couple
> of stops apart to later combine to cover the full rightness range of
> bright sun. The next day, I took another, differently framed shot  
> of it,
> and really underexposed it. When I started looking at the results, I
> started combining the light and dark shots. as I worked, I realized I
> could get everything from just the dark one. You can see both the  
> out of
> camera image and the processed one here
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/pages/DSCF1135a.htm>.  
> None of
> this would work if the camera didn't have such low noise, so the  
> shadows
> can be pulled up without the noise you would get with most P&Ss
>
> On the original image, I've superimposed it's histogram. Notice I
> underexposed more than I needed to, wasting some histogram room on  
> top.
> But see also how the shadow values are piled up high at the bottom,  
> but
> don't hit the end. Convert to 16 bit, play around a bit, and I get a
> nice range of all the brightness of the original scene arranged as I
> want it. I then tried the even more underexposed shot
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/pages/DSCF1140a.htm>.
>
> Two other shots in high contrast situations also have original,
> unprocessed roll-overs. In one, I nailed the exposure, with the
> highlights just touching the top of the histogram
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/pages/DSCF1191as.htm>. With
> the other, I lost some highlights, should have gone down another 1/3
> stop, at least. But it does show what can be done with a very high
> contrast subject in bringing up the shadows. For a display version, I
> would probably leave them down a little further for drama
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/pages/DSCF1194a.htm>.
> --------------------------------------------------------- end of  
> old post
>
> In response to my old post, Winsor wrote:
>
>     I think that is what has bothered me about that Fuji sensor. If  
> you
>     look at pix by average users on pbase.com they seem to alternate
>     between really nice low light shots and washed out looking  
> daylight
>     shots. To paraphrase that old Pepsodent commercial you'll wonder
>     where the RGB went. Maybe it is a specialized low light camera  
> unless
>     in the hands of someone like you who is willing to really learn  
> how
>     to use it and post process.
>
>
> I agree, except I don't think it s much work to learn how to use it in
> bright light, it's more or less "-2/3 EV and be there", although a
> little bracketing and training of one's eye can't hurt. Take a look at
> some other images in this gallery, taken in direct sunlight, several
> with high subject brightness range and/or specular reflections
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/>.
>
> As to post processing, most bright light shots need just the same  
> thing,
> so, as with the F10 before, I have made a PS action that does the  
> bright
> light compensation with one click. By doing it in a new layer, only  
> one,
> fairly strong, version is needed. The transparency of the compensation
> layer can then be adjusted to the desired level.
>> Under $1,000 for both, and both together weigh less and take up  
>> less space
>> than even a 400D.
> An F30 for $300 will probably do it all now. Although if you like your
> camera really handy, the fitted leather belt case for another $27 is
> really well designed and well made. Then if you can't work out bright
> light shooting, and the LX-2 turns out to be a real improvement  
> over the
> LX-1, you can get it later.
>
> As CH has clearly demonstrated, the F30 above iso 400 isn't  
> competitive
> with DSLRs, although 800 is amazingly good, but it's tiny, weighs  
> almost
> nothing and costs $300.
>
>> I did a similar thing with film cameras on our
>> motorcycle-riding honeymoon. I took a Ric*h GR-1v (28mm/f2.8)  
>> loaded with
>> Reala, a L*ica Minilux Zoom (35-70mm f3.5-5.6 I think) with  
>> Superia 400, and
>> a Holga with Tri-X. All fit in the tank bag.
>>
> It's not quite the same thing with digital. But hey, with the new Oly
> list retro movement to film, you could go back to toting three film
> cameras with different films in them. :-)
>
> Moose
>
> ==============================================
> 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>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz