Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I`ve found the Auto WB of Olympus camera`s to be very good, as far back as the E1 and far better than my previous Canon DSLR`s.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
When I had Canon, I shot all RAW and processed in DPP. I have tried several other programs for processing RAW, and I just don't get it, it seems like such a waste of time when I get exactly what I want from jpeg. However, I agree with Doug; if it was something earthshaking, I might use RAW + JPEG for archiving purposes. I have to consult 123di to check out a workflow for LR.
Quote: But, when I think about it, I use my Nikon D800 for "serious" photography and my OM-D for "fun". That being so, I probably could get away with shooting Jpeg in the OM-D
Camera manufacturers have really upped the game with Jpegs in recent years, there getting better and better, most are usable in place of raw, unless the lighting is awkward or high ISO`s have been used.
There is no doubt that what you say is correct, especially for "snapshots". Which is why I said that I could probably get away with Jpegs most of the time with the OM-D as I use it for "fun".
But, for serious photography, I "want" all the data that my sensor can give me - 45Mb in the case of a D800 Raw file. I say "want" rather than "need" because I used to think I was OK with the 16Mb of data from a D3s Raw file. All that data really comes into its own when getting deep into creative post-exposure processing or working at the limits of a camera's capabilities - areas such as you mention like low light, high ISO, tight cropping, extreme HDRs, etc.
I have shown this example on ePz before - but here is the middle exposure of a 9-exposure HDR set (1EV intervals). As you can see, both the highlights and the shadows are completely useless:
and here is the HDR made from the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th exposures:
I don't think that I could have achieved that result if I had shot the originals in Jpeg rather than Raw. (Ignore the slightly different cropping of the finished photo.)
LF, I agree re: when to use RAW vs JPG (and that's a good example you show).
My surprise was how much better (lower noise, better detail) the EM-5 high ISO jpgs were than anything I was able to get from the RAW file I shot at the same time.
For the bulk of my work I shall be sticking to RAW however, if only because that's my "Comfort Blanket"
Years ago I was dubious of the merits of RAW. The software then was not all that user-friendly. But these days, I have to say it takes me less time to process a RAW file than a JPEG.
This particularly noticeable when I shoot JPEG with my sub-compact or (rarely) camera phone. In the time it takes me to get just one JPEG looking right, I could process half a dozen RAWs and get them to finality.
On a separate subject, I've just received the Olympus lens-hood for my 60mm macro, its expensive at £49.99 but I reckon its worth it. Its a very well engineered piece of kit that clicks on like a pieece of fine engineeering then slides up and down the barrel so that you can attach the macro-flash when needed without removing it. Packs very neatly into my bag too, because of that .
Can you reverse-mount the hood, Brian?
You don't need to CB, that's what is so nice about it. The hood slides down the body of the lens (leaving the focus limit switch exposed - clever people! ). Its similar to the way the more expensive canon L lens hoods do.
CB, you asked if I would post a portrait of the yound lady behind those lovely eyes I used to show how the 60mm macro worked as a portrait lens. She has now given me permisson to post so here is the shot from which the eyes were taken
That is a super portrait, Brian - I assume she was pleased with it?
The 60mm macro is a very sharp lens, of course (some say a tad sharper than the 45mm/f1.8), so I assume you used your PS technique referred to some pages ago - which I must bookmark for future reference?
Thanks CB, yep, some negative clarity in this case together with some positive Shadows adjustment to lighten the hair (in LR4.2)
Yes, she was pleased with them (phew! )
Very good portrait, Brian.
Re. the RAW/JPEG discussion, just to clarify my position: I was shooting RAW+JPEG on my Canon EOS 5D, so when I got the OM-D E-M5 I started doing the same. When I was going to be at an airshow all day in September, I decided to switch to RAW-only, mostly to save space on the SD card (unnecessarily), and have been using that setting ever since. I have no plans to stop shooting RAW in the E-M5, but I might re-enable +JPEG, simply because the JPEG is probably adequate most of the time, but I still want the RAW file in case I want to do any significant post-processing and because I see it as the digital equivalent of a film negative and so best kept.
Brian, she's gorgeous, and you've done her full credit, imo. Love that portrait.
LF, that's a great example of your explanation.
Cute looking little things Denny, from your local "Zoo" or native to the area?
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
1st March 2014 - 31st March 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View March's Photo Month Calendar