OM-D & PEN Images
/forum/topic/1127925/130

1       2       3              130      
131
       132              273       274       end

robert829
Registered: Apr 30, 2011
Total Posts: 537
Country: United States

I like ^^^ it a lot juju very nice shot here.



robert829
Registered: Apr 30, 2011
Total Posts: 537
Country: United States

Some random shots..



bobbytan
Registered: Feb 03, 2004
Total Posts: 7581
Country: United States

Shot these 2 days ago with the 60 macro, hand-held.



Nate A.
Registered: Jun 21, 2012
Total Posts: 249
Country: United States

owyhee wrote:
NateA,
Great image! Did you use any filters or do any light painting in the foreground? Really great!

Thanks. No light painting but I did use a 4 stop filter.



bobbytan
Registered: Feb 03, 2004
Total Posts: 7581
Country: United States

Beautiful image. Nice work!


juju1958 wrote:
A re working of a landscape originally processed in sepia and B+W. It worked but do quite like the colours.

75mm 4 portrait stitch. Large version on Flickr.



bobbytan
Registered: Feb 03, 2004
Total Posts: 7581
Country: United States

A couple hand-held flower shots from the botanic gardens with the 60 macro lens.



robert829
Registered: Apr 30, 2011
Total Posts: 537
Country: United States

Bobby stop posting 60mm macro shots before i get one



bmwrider75
Registered: Feb 09, 2008
Total Posts: 336
Country: Canada

Beautiful macro shots!



bobbytan
Registered: Feb 03, 2004
Total Posts: 7581
Country: United States

If I don't you may procrastinate and eventually change your mind!

Get the LH-49 sliding hood too - this is the best Olympus hood by far!

robert829 wrote:
Bobby stop posting 60mm macro shots before i get one



bobbytan
Registered: Feb 03, 2004
Total Posts: 7581
Country: United States

Thanks!

bmwrider75 wrote:
Beautiful macro shots!



sangdabom73
Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Total Posts: 359
Country: United States

Thanks guys for the compliments!!!
I'm still trying to figure out how to handle this camera and lenses. The pp is especially difficult for me. It just seems like I cant post process raw files right way so that I can get the good colors like jpeg straight out of the camera. It seems to me that jpeg from the camera looks much much better than my pped raw files....
I wish there are camera/color profiles in LR.

Let me know if you know any good way of pp OM-D raw files.

Here are few with Panasonic 25mm, mostly straight out of camera jpeg



















juju1958
Registered: Apr 27, 2009
Total Posts: 775
Country: United Kingdom

Robert, Bobby smashing images seriously good and thanks.

Sandabom, first and second for me are great from a good set.
I think any post processing is practice. I have tried presets for my other cameras but to be honest have always found them wanting. A preset will only give a rough guide and often no where near suitable for the raw you have taken. I do prefer to keep my own presets from images that have come out well, but even then they will not be good enough for shots taken from another day with different light and subject. I am by far very not very good at post processing but always work from raw, I do know I have learnt a lot from where I started but it has taken time. I read a lot online, watch videos and gives things a try and eventually methods sink in and you pick up and use whats suits your own ideas of the particular scene or subject.
One tip maybe if shooting in raw is to switch of all things such as sharpening, noise reduction, in the OM-D switch of warm colours, try neutral (maybe natural ) in short get a falt and image as you can with no exaggeration of the elements. You then have all the basic as possible exposure information, you are then able to put your own mark on it. It is always slightly more difficult to alter what the camera manipulates. An example is, if you have warm colours set, you have to work back before going forward.
I am of course talking about Adobe as your software. Where as if warm colours are off, it is much easier
to get warm colour then to eliminate them in Adobe.

Hope some of this makes some sense and I am sure everyone of us has our own idea and methods and many wont agree with what I do. Practice is the only way to find ones own work method there are no sort cuts.

One from a while ago.

.
ABSTRACT by JuliandeCourcy, on Flickr



mawz
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Total Posts: 8305
Country: Canada

Robert: Love those Blue Sky & simple colour shots!
Julian: Great twine shot.


Spring is Here by Mawz, on Flickr
m.Zuiko 12-50



bobbytan
Registered: Feb 03, 2004
Total Posts: 7581
Country: United States

If I am not wrong, the picture mode and settings in your camera only applies to JPEG files and does not have an effect on your RAW files. If you don't like to spend time editing/processing your images, shooting in JPEG mode is the way to go as you can dial-in or fine-tune your preferences for color saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc in-camera. But you can do so much more with your RAW files if you are willing to spend some time tweaking your images in post.

BTW, I love the DOF control and crop/reframing of this shot. Good job!

juju1958 wrote:
Robert, Bobby smashing images seriously good and thanks.

Sandabom, first and second for me are great from a good set.
I think any post processing is practice. I have tried presets for my other cameras but to be honest have always found them wanting. A preset will only give a rough guide and often no where near suitable for the raw you have taken. I do prefer to keep my own presets from images that have come out well, but even then they will not be good enough for shots taken from another day with different light and subject. I am by far very not very good at post processing but always work from raw, I do know I have learnt a lot from where I started but it has taken time. I read a lot online, watch videos and gives things a try and eventually methods sink in and you pick up and use whats suits your own ideas of the particular scene or subject.
One tip maybe if shooting in raw is to switch of all things such as sharpening, noise reduction, in the OM-D switch of warm colours, try neutral (maybe natural ) in short get a falt and image as you can with no exaggeration of the elements. You then have all the basic as possible exposure information, you are then able to put your own mark on it. It is always slightly more difficult to alter what the camera manipulates. An example is, if you have warm colours set, you have to work back before going forward.
I am of course talking about Adobe as your software. Where as if warm colours are off, it is much easier
to get warm colour then to eliminate them in Adobe.

Hope some of this makes some sense and I am sure everyone of us has our own idea and methods and many wont agree with what I do. Practice is the only way to find ones own work method there are no sort cuts.

One from a while ago.

.
ABSTRACT by JuliandeCourcy, on Flickr



sangdabom73
Registered: Apr 23, 2010
Total Posts: 359
Country: United States

Bobby and Juju, thanks for your comments.
I think I need to explain little more. I'd been using 5d2 + zeiss glasses and some canon glasses and been using adobe photoshop and lightroom. I switched to LR not too long ago and I love using it. It is just what I need without whole bunch of other stuffs in PS. When I use LR to pp my 5d2 raw files, everything that I see is just so much closer to what the real world looks like than raw files from om-d. I'm talking about contrast, overall feel of the image and especially the colors.
I'm not really new to digital image processing and consider myself as intermediate level amateur photographer. However, when I get raw files from om-d to LR, the images are just way too flat and ugly and it takes whole lot more effort to bring them to the level where I want them to be.
Maybe adobe doesn't import raw files as they should be or simply raw files from om-d is so much different than 5d2 and I just need to get used to it?
Last night, I found an interesting reading about importing raw files from om-d by using Olympus Viewer to tiff files and pp from there. It does look like OV is doing so much better job than Adobe. Check it out.
http://www.mu-43.com/f74/olympus-viewer-2-vs-lightroom-4-a-39682/



Nate A.
Registered: Jun 21, 2012
Total Posts: 249
Country: United States

robert829 wrote:
Bobby stop posting 60mm macro shots before i get one

I agree.



juju1958
Registered: Apr 27, 2009
Total Posts: 775
Country: United Kingdom

Bobby yes correct about raw in adobe. I new when writing and in a hurry as about to go out I would make incoherent statements, I aught to have learnt by know.

Yet as I see , when Olympus viewer is used Raw files do take on certain settings and are affected, by such settings as warm colors, which is a part of the WB settings, sharpening and noise reduction.
For instance if I set sharpening at +2 in camera and shoot raw, then import into Olympus viewer, In the raw developer time line with the pointer on the file, the information shows sharpening +2. Now if I go to alter this through the setting in the raw menu developer it is set to Zero and it does not alter what the file menu is saying. This is odd as the menu reads nil, yet the files info reading +2. does this refer to the embedded jpeg? Except when you render the raw file into a Jpeg and then alter the sharpening to -2 and can see visibly it has done so, the file info still reads +2 for the Raw.
Now I made a huge presumption and thought adobe would do something similar,but it appears it does it's own thing. Anyway I always seem to get something that resembles a photo most of the time and that is what matters. It is also something I have minimal insight into, and am aware a little knowledge or incomplete knowledge is a guess, if not a complete mess. But thanks for pointing that out. .

sangdabom73 i get, sorry. I also have the 5DMK2. The opposite has happened to me. I have left it on the shelf for a long time. On using the 5D again recently I had become so used to the Olympus files that I found the Canons hard to use. It took a short while to get back into their characteristics.






bobbytan
Registered: Feb 03, 2004
Total Posts: 7581
Country: United States

I've used Lightroom for a couple of years or so and find it so much easier to navigate and use. I shoot only RAW and I import the files as DNG as they are a little smaller in size.

I too have been shooting with the 5D II since it's release into the market, and my work flow in LR4 has always been roughly the same ... meaning I do not see a whole lot of difference between the 5D II files and the OM-D files. I cannot say that one is better than the other. I don't understand the problem you are having with the OM-D RAW files. I am not having a harder time with the OM-D files - they are just as easy to work with in LR4.

Having said that ... I just remembered that initially I did have a problem with the OM-D files in that it was generally under-exposing by about 1 stop. The images look very good/perfect on the LCD but when viewed in LR they look dark/under-exposed. Rather than ship my OM-D off to Olympus for them to check on the problem I am now over-exposing my images by up to 1 stop ... and this is the easiest thing to do on the fly. So I am now routinely checking the exposure/histogram and dialing-in some over-exposure, as needed.

sangdabom73 wrote:
Bobby and Juju, thanks for your comments.
I think I need to explain little more. I'd been using 5d2 + zeiss glasses and some canon glasses and been using adobe photoshop and lightroom. I switched to LR not too long ago and I love using it. It is just what I need without whole bunch of other stuffs in PS. When I use LR to pp my 5d2 raw files, everything that I see is just so much closer to what the real world looks like than raw files from om-d. I'm talking about contrast, overall feel of the image and especially the colors.
I'm not really new to digital image processing and consider myself as intermediate level amateur photographer. However, when I get raw files from om-d to LR, the images are just way too flat and ugly and it takes whole lot more effort to bring them to the level where I want them to be.
Maybe adobe doesn't import raw files as they should be or simply raw files from om-d is so much different than 5d2 and I just need to get used to it?
Last night, I found an interesting reading about importing raw files from om-d by using Olympus Viewer to tiff files and pp from there. It does look like OV is doing so much better job than Adobe. Check it out.
http://www.mu-43.com/f74/olympus-viewer-2-vs-lightroom-4-a-39682/



charley51
Registered: Mar 16, 2013
Total Posts: 6
Country: Philippines

mawz wrote:
Robert: Love those Blue Sky & simple colour shots!
Julian: Great twine shot.


Spring is Here by Mawz, on Flickr
m.Zuiko 12-50

! Nice shot on 12-50
Btw juju lol i tought you were grillin some asparagus there



michael49
Registered: Jun 09, 2006
Total Posts: 5450
Country: United States

juju1958 wrote:
....
One from a while ago.
..


Love this one.



1       2       3              130      
131
       132              273       274       end