I don't have much complain about the Photo Desk...
Actually, many people who uses the program consider it as a "blessing', because it brings out the true Kodak colors....and it has several picture styles that are very convenient....
Furthermore, there is a plug-in for CS4 where it can open and edit Kodak files that were converted by Photo Desk without damaging the Kodak colors....
So, if I need any more post processing, I can always do it with CS4.....
In any case, thank you, and I will look out for it as well....
Paul Yi wrote:
Okay...I took another picture, this time with a same shutter speed.
Again, I upsized the Kodak to that of Canon.
Canon first, and then Kodak.
I hope this one is a little better comparison......
Not sure why you seem to be having WB problems on the SLR/c in daylight Are you using auto WB or setting it manually? The AWB on my SLR/c works better outdoors in normal light than the AWB of my Canon 5DII.
Have you learned how to use the WB picker on the SLR/c? The grey column in the pic would work perfectly
Paul Yi wrote:
I tried it this morning, and I realized that this type of test has to be don with tripod...
But, despite of its unscientific method being used, I'd like to share, because I found them to be quite different (Notice that I did not use the term better or worse).
First one is 5D II, and the second one is Kodak SLR/c, both original and the crop.
I've used ISO160 and f/5.6 for both shots, but somehow the 5DII came out with a stop faster shutter speed, 1/1250 sec vs 1/640 sec.
I think it was due to smallest spot metering of the 5D MkII.
I think that you picking an overexposed area for the SLR/c to compare to the Canon tells me what you already have made up your mind for? You could have just as easily taken a properly exposed area (of the same file) from the SLR/c and compared it to the underexposed area of the Canon file What would it have cost to take another shot with the SLR/c at the same shutter speed? Or how about taking both cameras using their default metering and AWB?
BTW, whatever lens was used - it doesn't look very sharp and it's CA interferes with the SLR/c's resolution. Were these shot in RAW? What converter was used for conversion? You do know the SLR/c is meant for RAW and not internal JPG's? Also, it is easy to recover highlits in the SLR/c without data loss - not so on my Canon 5DII. Looks like you SLR/c file needs some of that highlight recovery (due to your manual mode use?)
I did take the Kodak picture Raw, and converted with Photo Desk.
The lens used was N85/1.4 at f/5.6 and at ISO 160.
The first set of test shots, I think, had camera shake.
I thought the second set came out pretty good....
Anyway, I think the subject chosen was not appropriate for showing the benefit of using Kodak SLR/c....and my poor skill added to that.....
I think Kodak excels in showing transparent color and natural skin tones...
At least that's what I saw in many sample pictures I've seen from experienced users.
If you scroll down the link below, you'll see some good examples of what this camera is capable of....(following the picture showing purple CA or fringing....).
Paul Yi wrote:
I have to say that I prefer the color transparency from the Kodak ....
Sure you do. And that's understandable. The Kodak produces great files under the right conditions, and it's a camera you really like (and I did, too).
But to suggest that the Kodak's level of quality is only obtainable with the Kodak is to stretch things a bit. It just ain't so. I could post any number of pics from any number of cameras that I think you'd be hard-pressed to imagine weren't from a Kodak SLR.
Thanks Paul Yi for doing this side by side comparison testing. It is not easy to do and there are a lot of factors to consider which affect the image, like raw converter, amount of sharpening, etc.
I think that you both enjoy the colors coming straight out of the Kodak and the clarity of the image vs. the Canon which has less vibrant colors coming out of the camera. Resolution wise the 5d2 seems to have the advantage from Paul's shot above. What is interesting is if someone can show that with the right post-processing you can match pretty close the color and clarity of the Kodak shot.Maybe if Paul could produce two comparison RAW shots of a scene with lots of color and detail, we could then have different people try to post-process the Canon shot to see if you can match the Kodak shot.
The other interesting option is of course the Sony A900/850 which has the more vibrant color and the higher 24MP resolution sensor.
For what it's worth, I had concluded that RAW Developer did the best job of extracting the most detail and the best color out of Kodak RAW files. I continue to use RAW Developer for certain files.
veroman wrote:
Sure you do. And that's understandable. The Kodak produces great files under the right conditions, and it's a camera you really like (and I did, too).
But to suggest that the Kodak's level of quality is only obtainable with the Kodak is to stretch things a bit. It just ain't so. I could post any number of pics from any number of cameras that I think you'd be hard-pressed to imagine weren't from a Kodak SLR.
Anyway, enjoy your SLR/c. It's a great tool ....
- Steve
Steve, I think you own a 5D? I have the 5DII and it is no match for the Kodak's colors - even in post processing.
And this is the pic I took before the tree/fern shot on my first serious day with the SLR/c (Tamron 28-75). ISO6 30sec exposure - I love this feature of the SLR/c and wish my Canon had it: http://www.imaginenature.com/audio/FL2C0548small.jpg
Are you using auto WB or setting it manually? The AWB on my SLR/c works better outdoors in normal light than the AWB of my Canon 5DII. 
What would it have cost to take another shot with the SLR/c at the same shutter speed? Or how about taking both cameras using their default metering and AWB? 