Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Comparing OM to E-3 - Part I

Subject: [OM] Re: Comparing OM to E-3 - Part I
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
I think Bob's premise is actually pretty good. Not everybody is looking for the 
"ultimate" image 100% of the time. Even I don't bother.  Take last weekend as 
an example.  I photographed an event and actually used my E-1 in JPEG HQ mode.  
Why?  Because the end use was nothing over 8x10 and the users of the images 
(clients?) wanted JPEGs in that size.  Sweet--I just shot the JPEGs in-camera 
and came up with 1.5MB image files that I could quickly throw onto a memory 
stick and and to them.

When shooting family stuff, birthday parties of the girls, etc., I'm almost 
always in JPEG mode.  Tastes great, less filling.  These are snapshots and 
photoalbum things, not works of art.  But once in a while I'll be shooting 
something that screams "enlargement".  Ok, so I quickly change storage modes to 
RAW or RAW+JPEG, shoot and then go back to JPEG only.  No problem, whatsoever.

My only issue with Bob's testing parameters is that I think he's going a bit 
low-quality on his file settings and sizes. I'd up those settings a level or 
size, but otherwise it's quite alright.

Just to put things into perspective, in the case of the Olympus E-1, you have 
to REALLY try to see any difference IN PRINT between RAW, SHQ and HQ modes.  
There will be certain textures or subjects which will cause troubles, but only 
when pushed to the limits.  This, however, is not for critical work, but for 
the 99% rule, it does very very well.

Which is better?  Digital or film?  Depends.  When comparing "tangibles", 
digital stomps film.  However, there are still intangible aspects of film which 
make it not only viable but desirable for certain applications. My OM-4T has 
really opened up new photographic opportunities for me.  Could I do the same 
thing with digital?  Sure, but maybe not in the same way or with the same 
result.

I've been working hard, lately, at some high-quality scans of 35mm images shot 
over the past 20 years.  Man, I'm a good photographer!  (ahem)  Anyway, I've 
been scanning some 'chromes with the V-ED using Vuescan.  I'm doing up to FIVE 
passes.  Is that necessary for all images?  Hardly.  Get real.  I'm only doing 
this to this extent because these select images are "portfolio grade" AND I am 
intending on reissuing prints up to 20x30" or so.  Yes, I'm pulling out the 
stops on these.  But nearly all images get single-pass scanning with some 
automatic adjustments going on.  I'd slice my wrists if I had to do five pass 
scanning on every image.

(BTW, why five-pass?  Because the extra passes help define the shape of the 
grain.)

AG


      

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz