|
Lan11 Offline [X]
|
gdanmitchell wrote:
Q: "But that, of course, affects all files equally….."
Many people believe it, but each file responds differently to the proprietary algorithms in the raw converters. Usually deltas are subtle, but in case of more difficult files the differences can vary dramatically. For majority, after a while, the pp becomes the same routine. However, a new tool is well worth trying.
Q: "I know how to optimize the image files from my cropped sensor body and my full frame body, but the FF images will still print larger with better quality. (Which I will again emphasize, may be meaningless to quite a few photographers who don't print large or don't print at all.)"
Optimization means optimized result which may satisfy the user, but not necessarily produce the best result.
Q: "I remain unconvinced by the supposed differences among raw converters."
I wish I could help. Colors, gradations etc…… look differently to different people, but sharpening/noise is less controversial. I've no idea what others see on their monitors. Therefore presentations of any results is difficult, often impossible over the internet.
You may try sharpening comparison using Adobe products vs. other converters. You should easily see differences on the screen. In prints those differences depend on many factors and sometimes may be insignificant.
Q: "Frankly, if you know what you are doing….."
It assumes you know the best or optimum (whatever it means) method, but you cannot.
Each file is different (did you see identical histograms?), and converters have too many variables, combinations and permutations.
This is wishful thinking based on what the advertisers promised: "a digital camera will make a perfect photo every time", but reality is different, as usual :-( They also promised paperless society in the computer age.
If current pp gives you fine results then stick with it. I like to experiment.
surf monkey wrote:
Q: "The reveal shows very little without EXIF data. Can you share that as well?"
I assume you're interested in the Plate 1. EXIF: 45/1.8 @6.3, 1/1250, iso 200, 18.5m.
Q: "It's not surprising that 1,3 & 5 are crops. Those are the ones that I believed to have the most noise."
I'm not bothered by some noise. Noise can be reduced in those files, but all after cropping, were given identical pp treatment and naturally the biggest crops suffered most. Noise must show up when the original (Plate 1) 14.2 MB file is cropped to 3.55 MB and then posted as 594 kB jpg. In fact the result is surprisingly good.
Q: "The Panasonic long zoom, even if only web sizes, shows pretty well here."
It is an excellent lens, while 75/1,8 is too sharp yielding unpleasant results, to my eyes, as compared to 45/1.8 rendering.
|
Aug 31, 2013 at 04:29 PM |
| |
|
|