Ho Hum... More pics from an Olympus E300

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Douglas..., Oct 13, 2005.

  1. Douglas...

    Douglas... Guest

    IF anyone is interested... I did preliminary scout for a Wedding shoot
    at the Rain forest gardens near Cleveland (Qld)today. I thought I'd use
    one of the E300s I bought for Santa shoots, although I'll still use a
    Nikon for the real thing and film for the portraits.
    www.auspics.com/rainforest will get you there. Just click the photo
    properties to see the EXIF data. I left it intact.

    All of these photos are hand held. This one:
    http://www.auspics.com/rainforest/running_water is at 1/8th of second!
    Let my breath out now :) Surprising how easy it is on movement when the
    mirror swings sideways instead of vertically. I used my elbow on my knee
    as a means to steady the camera.

    These were all taken with the 14-45 kit lens that came with these $950
    cameras. Well... Judge for yourselves if the quality is to your liking.
    Personally I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the Kodak sensor's ability
    to contain detail in the highlights. I had to under expose some of these
    shots by as much as 2 stops to get detail in the highlights. I suppose I
    should be grateful that there is 3 stops of usable tolerance either
    side. Not bad, a 6 stop width but you can't get that in the picture.

    I used the shadow highlights tool in Photoshop to lift the shadows.
    Maybe I got about 8 stops of exposure from white to black, that way.
    Perhaps the "ED" pro lenses would produce better images but these cost
    more than the camera with a kit lens.

    Anyway, I'd say for anyone getting into DSLRs, these cameras would be a
    good grounding. For sure you'd learn to appreciate how to conserve the
    contrast range of many digitals! I really don't think these 8 megapixel
    sensors are equal to Panasonic's 5 megapixel sensor. All the same, they
    are a nice camera. Well and truly the equal of a 350D Canon.
     
    Douglas..., Oct 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Douglas...

    Mike Warren Guest

    Hi Douglas,
    Did you do anything to the white balance on those pics? On my
    monitor they all have a cyan cast. This, I'm sure has no bearing
    on the camera but rather a setting or possible calibration problem.
    (probably at my end since my calibration is manual)

    I downloaded one (glade.sized.jpg) and found a colour balance
    adjustment of about +18 on the cyan-red sliders in PS makes it
    much more natural on my monitor. (it is now deleted from my
    hard drive).

    Is it just me?

    -Mike
     
    Mike Warren, Oct 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Douglas...

    Adam F Guest

    Nope like that for me too - reminds me of my minolta glass with fuji superia
    when I forgot the warming filter.


    //Adam F
     
    Adam F, Oct 13, 2005
    #3
  4. Douglas...

    Poxy Guest

    Nope, they all look a bit cold.
     
    Poxy, Oct 13, 2005
    #4
  5. Douglas...

    Jasen Guest

    Yep, me too.
     
    Jasen, Oct 13, 2005
    #5
  6. Douglas...

    Douglas... Guest

    I don't know Mike. I think it is the camera. I am having major white
    balance problems with all the Olympic images shot outside with 3
    different E300s so it's not just one camera. I used the inbuilt flash on
    that shot to get the deep shadow lit. I also had a "Hoya" circular
    polarizer on the lens although I wouldn't expect anything other than a
    couple of points and extended exposure from that.

    I put it down to my system being set for Nikon/Canon stuff but it may be
    something to do with the Kodak sensors in these cameras or that I have
    them set to use Adobe RGB instead of sRGB. The day was slightly overcast
    with plenty of sunlight. Maybe 6000k - 6200K.

    The RAW images say 4000K in Photoshop and if I try to "daylight" them to
    5500K they take on a very yellow tinge. In RawShooter - which is far
    less informative than ACR, the images have totally craped out in the
    white balance/colour balance area and I don't seem able to recover them
    in Photoshop.

    Maybe the Olympus RAW developer will do better. I'm trying to find time
    to do that today. Unfortunately these Olympus pics are a hobby thing and
    I don't have all that much time to play with them.

    I'm also puzzled about the 5300K "normal" white balance of these
    cameras. I posted the pics thinking someone might pick it up and make a
    suggestion. On the subject of images and copyright... If you post an
    image on the Internet, someone somewhere will download it.

    That's not an issue. It's when someone downloads it and then proceeds to
    pass it off as their own or use it to try and discredit you, where the
    copyright issue lies with me.

    I don't now and I never have had a problem with people such as yourself,
    downloading images of mine. I did after all post them in the knowledge
    someone would. This is why you only ever see my commercial work on
    walls, not the Internet.
     
    Douglas..., Oct 13, 2005
    #6
  7. Douglas...

    Douglas... Guest

    It's all clear now.
    I used Adobe Camera RAW (Photoshop CS) to develop the Olympus (ORF)files
    and couldn't make the white balance adjustments based on my Kelvin meter
    (light measurement) ACR said 4000K, my light meter said 5800K and ACR
    seemed to want to put colours where they should not have been. All quite
    the opposite to what ACR does with Canon and Nikon files.

    So I loaded up "Olympus Master" and use that to develop the RAW files
    and it has a totally different way of working. Much more better! So It's
    not the camera but the software used to develop the images. I'll change
    the gallery around in a while.
     
    Douglas..., Oct 13, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.