Peter Bendheim
Senior Member
Thanks so much for your comments.
In Photoshop, dodge and burn a bit, adjust curves (which brings out some color), USM (and you can do a lot of USM), ADD in noise, save as a TIFF and done.
Peter Bendheim
http://www.peterbendheim.com
Yes. I do shoot RAW. But when the file opens on Digital Photo Professional which is my software of choice for RAW conversion, I have not had to increase or decrease the saturation setting, If anything, the PP has been quite minimal. So, this is the workflow - open in DPP, usually marginally adjust exposure (and usually minusing it by between 0.3 and 0.6), check the sharpness, adjust for shadow and highlights (usually for highlights) then open in Photoshop.Clearly the G1X is great for high ISO, sharpness and resolution. But you also say that "The colour ... is simply wonderful". Since you shoot RAW, isn't the color a matter of PP rather than something inherent in the camera (or am I missing something?).
In Photoshop, dodge and burn a bit, adjust curves (which brings out some color), USM (and you can do a lot of USM), ADD in noise, save as a TIFF and done.
I think it has a very film like feel to it, I like deep shadows, etc. When I use the NEX5, by comparison, images looks as if they were taken with a digital camera. The images seem buttery and smooth.When you say "The .. quality of the images from it is simply wonderful" are you referring to factors other than high ISO, sharpness and resolution (since sharpness and resolution are quite good in G/S as well)?
No, you have to watch for that, I find myself underexposing by a third of a stop and not adjusting contrast until Photoshop, where I can do a quick mask on areas in danger of blown highlights. But the odd blown highlight is OK - film and my eyes - did it all the time.Dynamic range, for example, does not seem to be superior, unfortunately, at least according to bench tests.
No, if its well printed by someone on good paper (matte) and not at the supermarket and your monitor is calibrated it will be fine!Do you see a bigger difference hands-on and in priints than in the posted images we are all looking at, which would explain why I don't see it?
I think the bokeh, the low light, etc, and the DSLR-look of the images. I'm not trying to categorise the camera, but I dont want someone viewing the images to say this was done on a pint and shoot and this on a DSLR. The camera result should be transparent to the viewer!Bottom line: What is it that you feel distinguishes this camera so clearly from the G/S cameras (of course with the good light/low ISO caveat)?
--Thanks for your input.
--
John TF
Peter Bendheim
http://www.peterbendheim.com