Olympus low pricing; Never again?

wrote:

In message ,
Stacey wrote:

And here is the same RAW file, one converted with ACR, the other with ORC
both with all settings at default, giving the image +.5 stop exposure
increase only with no adjustments in PS other than downsampling and saving
as jpeg. Do they look the same to you?

No, they don't. Without seeing the original scene and lighting, I don't
know which one is more accurate.

The OCR is very close to what I saw. If the ARC was as good, why would I buy
software that doesn't produce better results? I've tried tweaking the
WB/color settings in ACR and never could get the same results color wise I
got with OCR. I'm sure the same is true with any RAW converter as they each
are going to have their own look.
--

Stacey

Brian Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...
And here is the same RAW file, one converted with ACR, the other with
ORC both with all settings at default, giving the image +.5 stop
exposure increase only with no adjustments in PS other than downsampling
and saving as jpeg. Do they look the same to you?

No, they don't. Without seeing the original scene and lighting, I don't
know which one is more accurate.

All Stacey has done is show that (drumroll)... ACR and the Olympus RAW
software have a different default conversion. Amazing! Who would have
thought?


Actually they have a "different conversion" no matter how much tweaking you
do. Image that different conversion software would have different
conversions.
--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:


With a bunch of trial and error (sometimes has to be done for every print)
you might be able to get close with zero color managment and no it's not
trusting color to microsoft, it's trusting color to the person who's making
the profiles for the output devices. I found if you hardware calibrate the
monitor, have someone like Cathy's profiles make a custom profile for your
printer/paper, it's spot on every time. That's the right way to deal with
balancing the color on a system, not by hopeing, turning off color
managment and/or adjusting the monitor to the output.

You are one sad puppy, Stacey.
If you actually had a clue yourself, you might find an audience for your
beliefs... And that's all they are; Your beliefs.

--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!

Stacey wrote:
A whole lot of unqualified rubbish which I deleted.
---------------
Stacey...
My chemical print system cost over $200,000. It accepts sRGB as it's
preferred colour profile. I could change that to Adobe RGB or wide Gamut
RGB but if I did, about 80% of my custom printing would not match my
client's files. Can you guess it's brand and what it's reputation says
it's best at doing?

If you use a Canon printer, you have never made a wide gamut print.
Worse, if you give the output to your clients ...you are in no way shape
of form, providing them with prints of durable colour. Canon provide
printer drivers a blind person could get correct colour with. They just
can't make it stay that way for very long once it's in the wild.

Skip clearly chooses to adopt a Professional Photographers "best
practice" and have his client's work printed on silver Halide paper
instead of risk claims for compensation when one of his wedding albums
turns a strange shade of magenta.

Before you start getting into a debate on colour calibration, understand
the process. More importantly, understand it's application. I used to
think some of your B&W shots were well thought out. Your standing a
photographer is not enhanced by arguing about pie in the sky, globally
available colour calibration... It has never and will never exist.


--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!

Brian Baird wrote:

And here is the same RAW file, one converted with ACR, the other with ORC
both with all settings at default, giving the image +.5 stop exposure
increase only with no adjustments in PS other than downsampling and saving
as jpeg. Do they look the same to you?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/ACR.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/ORC.jpg


Photoshop has a lower default contrast in ACR. Try setting it to +50.
Then they'll probably look a lot closer.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Which, given your
reasoning skills, isn't too out of the ordinary.

One very real problem which has existed ever since colour film, is how
different developers, effect the colour of a photograph. Nothing has
changed with digital RAW images. What we have now that was never
possible with film, is more chances to develop the image again and again
until we discover the process we are most comfortable with.

Stacey is right about the Oly software and ACR. ACR does some
considerable modification to many things quite differently than the
Olympus software. I have often tried to successfully develop Olympus
images with ACR, eventually giving up and asking for the Oly software to
get the image out.

ACR doesn't get a lot right by default. Raw Shooter at zero exposure
compensation will develop a canon image correctly exposed while ACR
needs constant tinkering with exposure values to stay constant. There
are much better RAW file developers out there than Adobe's.
--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!

Pixby wrote:

Stacey wrote:


With a bunch of trial and error (sometimes has to be done for every
print) you might be able to get close with zero color managment and no
it's not trusting color to microsoft, it's trusting color to the person
who's making the profiles for the output devices. I found if you hardware
calibrate the monitor, have someone like Cathy's profiles make a custom
profile for your printer/paper, it's spot on every time. That's the right
way to deal with balancing the color on a system, not by hopeing, turning
off color managment and/or adjusting the monitor to the output.

You are one sad puppy, Stacey.
If you actually had a clue yourself,

LOL, so your solution to problems arsing from using the wrong printer
profile is to turn off color management?

you might find an audience for your
beliefs... And that's all they are; Your beliefs.


Yea, I guess I'm the only one who has a printer profile for each type of
paper used?

--

Stacey

Pixby wrote:

Stacey wrote:
A whole lot of unqualified rubbish which I deleted.
---------------
Stacey...
My chemical print system cost over $200,000. It accepts sRGB as it's
preferred colour profile. I could change that to Adobe RGB or wide Gamut
RGB but if I did, about 80% of my custom printing would not match my
client's files.

So what? You've dumbed down your printer to deal with people like Skip who
are clueless about color management. I'm sure most labs use sRGB because of
this. Doesn't mean the quality is better because you've crippled the
printer.


If you use a Canon printer, you have never made a wide gamut print.

Interesting that when soft proofing an aRGB image using a custom profile
made for my specific printer/paper I rarely see out of gamut colors but
it's VERY comon to see colors that are out of gamut for my monitor profile
and/or sRGB. So how how exactly am I not using the wider space of aRGB.

BTW check out the PDF I posted for Skip, it clearly shows the printer can
deal with colors outside sRGB quite well, hence the reason they developed
profile to use aRGB with that printer.

Worse, if you give the output to your clients ...you are in no way shape
of form, providing them with prints of durable colour. Canon provide
printer drivers a blind person could get correct colour with.

The driver is OK (if you RTFM), the profiles aren't good at all. It's not
rocket science to have a custom profile made and only costs $40. Anyone who
thinks the default profile included with a canon printer produces a good
color match -could- turn off color managment and never see the difference!



Skip clearly chooses to adopt a Professional Photographers "best
practice" and have his client's work printed on silver Halide paper
instead of risk claims for compensation when one of his wedding albums
turns a strange shade of magenta.



No problem using silver printing instead of inkjet. I've yet to see this
fading people talk about but I'm not laying my prints out in the sun
either. What Skip has done is editing his images to fit ONE uncalibrated
output device which isn't a good idea. And what you've done is dumbed down
your printer to fit with people who can't be bothered to learn color
management. Doesn't make either one of them right or the best way to do
this.

--

Stacey

In article , says...
All Stacey has done is show that (drumroll)... ACR and the Olympus RAW
software have a different default conversion. Amazing! Who would have
thought?

Actually they have a "different conversion" no matter how much tweaking you
do. Image that different conversion software would have different
conversions.

Well, no ****ing duh. But the biggest difference is the contrast
between those two photos. I'm sure on the pixel level and histograms
we'd see more differences, but they would be slight compared to the
photo as a whole.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird