The flatness remained even after I discarded my highlight and shadow
recovery. But I'm discovering there are other confounding factors. I
was doing my conversions in Camera Raw but viewing the final results in
BreezeBrowser. I noticed today that the same image looks different when
viewed in the different apps. I've got to figure that one out first. I
may have to give up BreezeBrowser and go to Bridge to get the same color
rendition throughout.
Chuck Norcutt
On 7/19/2013 8:59 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> I have mentioned many times here I prefer Olympus Viewer to other conversion
> engines. The different may be small (actually sometimes rather big) but it
> is there and Olympus always do better to my eyes.
>
> There is cost for highlight and shadow recovery, it usually make the image
> flat. When it is overly done, it shift the viewer's concentration from the
> subjects.
>
> BTW, you should try Viewer 3, it remember your RAW adjustment setttings.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> My wife recently asked me to take some photos of two of our grandkids in
>> their baseball uniforms and make some 8x10 prints. I used a T-32 for
>> fill light under outdoor shade and was pleased when viewing the results
>> under BreezeBrowser. But, since I was shooting both raw and a 5MP JPEG
>> what BreezeBrowser was actually showing me in a slideshow preview was
>> the JPEG image produced by the camera.
>>
>> The JPEGs looked pretty good but I decided to do a little bit of work
>> from the raw files to see if I could pull the highlights down slightly
>> and also boost the shadow fill slightly plus another tweak or two. When
>> I was finished I patted myself on the back for a job well done... until
>> I did a direct comparison with the JPEGs from the camera. My PS raw
>> conversions looked a little flat by comparison.
>>
>> To make a long story shorter (because I did several conversions with
>> different parameters) I ultimately chose the "as shot" raw file
>> conversion from Oly Viewer 2 as the best image. Doing an as shot
>> conversion in PS/Camera Raw still resulted in a rather flat looking
>> image relative to the Oly Viewer 2 result. Although the camera had been
>> set for "normal" contrast, etc. it was clear there was at least more
>> saturation involved from the Olympus side. So I produced another Camera
>> Raw conversion, this time with a 10% saturation boost. That pretty much
>> fixed most of the picture (trees, grass, clothing, etc) but skin tones
>> were decidedly gray looking relative to the Oly effort. At that point I
>> noticed that the histogram of the converted image showed significant
>> black point and possibly shadow fill not done by the Camera Raw
>> conversion.
>>
>> Anyhow, I am totally mystified about how to reproduce those very nice
>> skin tones in Camera Raw. I would hate to think I need to abandon
>> Camera Raw for Viewer 2. It did a very nice job on an as-shot
>> conversion but I very much dislike using the thing. Advice???
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|