What can and can't be done with m4/3 RAW files

[s_grins]

For some, it appears that the visual image and its achievement is essentially irrelevant, for them it's simply about technical arguments about gear and debates about semantics.

 

[zxaar]

The issue is that people can be very dismissive of what m4/3 can deliver, always citing things like lack of DR etc. And this is always demonstrated by using images from another format. There's no point in doing so unless one can produce the same scene, taken at the same time with both formats.

I'm attempting to demonstrate to m4/3 users, not to those who use other brands, what they can get from their cameras if their immediate results don't look all that good. Many new users especially, can have the perception that when a shot doesn't work out, it's the camera that's at fault, because people keep saying m4/3 isn't good enough.

Phone cameras as well can produce excellent results in the right conditions and they are getting better all the time. In fact, there's probably more effort going into camera phone technology than any other camera technology at the moment. But that's not the point.

 

[OzRay]

For some, it appears that the visual image and its achievement is essentially irrelevant, for them it's simply about technical arguments about gear and debates about semantics.

 

[s_grins]

For some, it appears that the visual image and its achievement is essentially irrelevant, for them it's simply about technical arguments about gear and debates about semantics.

 

[OzRay]

The issue is that people can be very dismissive of what m4/3 can deliver, always citing things like lack of DR etc. And this is always demonstrated by using images from another format. There's no point in doing so unless one can produce the same scene, taken at the same time with both formats.

I'm attempting to demonstrate to m4/3 users, not to those who use other brands, what they can get from their cameras if their immediate results don't look all that good. Many new users especially, can have the perception that when a shot doesn't work out, it's the camera that's at fault, because people keep saying m4/3 isn't good enough.

Phone cameras as well can produce excellent results in the right conditions and they are getting better all the time. In fact, there's probably more effort going into camera phone technology than any other camera technology at the moment. But that's not the point.

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/

The problem is that you created this thread on a false premise. No-one attacked m4/3's in the other thread, in fact it was the complete opposite, with inaccurate statements made about another system.

So now you understand the problem with this forum. If you reply back you will be argued with ad infinitum. OP also took it to heart to start a thread and worse is he still does not have that high dynamic range image to show. No where near what you showed in other thread.

This was something I rightfully rebutted, using images. So if it's ok to demonstrate what m4/3's can do why isn't it ok to similarly prove otherwise for other cameras when people comment incorrectly? FWIW I use several different brands and will happily and truthfully point out the strengths and weaknesses of any of them.

--
"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act".
George Orwell.
http://bit.ly/1BIquIF

--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

I never said that anyone was attacking m4/3, merely that they were introducing sensor capability comparisons in a topic not devoted to sensor capability comparisons. That discussion was about sensor formats and their relevance in today's world.

Unfortunately, it's clear after scouring through 1000s of photographs, that even with the lowly E-1, can't find that sort of extreme HDR result to post. The worst that I can find are what I've posted. It must be something about the sensors.

But regardless, it's informative as to what modern software can draw from even very old digital files and that's what prompted me to start this thread (as I said in the introduction). The reference to the other post was a lead-in explaining what also prompted me to start the thread.

But it's telling that all of those who have been enraged by my thread, have nothing visual to show for their efforts. It's like food critics arguing about food, but never delivering what they think is outstanding.

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/

 

[PhotOptimist]

After pp it looks outstanding.

I enjoy such images very much.

 

[OzRay]

I would not comment if the header was something like this:

"This is what RAW can do for your photography"

 

[papillon_65]

The issue is that people can be very dismissive of what m4/3 can deliver, always citing things like lack of DR etc. And this is always demonstrated by using images from another format. There's no point in doing so unless one can produce the same scene, taken at the same time with both formats.

I'm attempting to demonstrate to m4/3 users, not to those who use other brands, what they can get from their cameras if their immediate results don't look all that good. Many new users especially, can have the perception that when a shot doesn't work out, it's the camera that's at fault, because people keep saying m4/3 isn't good enough.

Phone cameras as well can produce excellent results in the right conditions and they are getting better all the time. In fact, there's probably more effort going into camera phone technology than any other camera technology at the moment. But that's not the point.

 

[PhotOptimist]

I saw your pp skill in:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Especially the second image!

 

[Guy Parsons]

After pp it looks outstanding.

Yup, that's waht post processing every image is for.

I enjoy such images very much.

It's a familiar scene type to me, so I like it.

As for the OP, I took the top image, the default jpeg, and played with it in PaintShop Pro X7 and could get quite close to the second image. The sky I could not quite get there but the ground came up OK. (On another computer so not to be seen right now).

Of interest of course would be to see the default jpeg from the camera, or the Olympus Viewer 3 jpeg "as taken" to start with a true reference jpeg and not with some Adobe (was it?) idea of what it should look like at default.

In Pen 12MP days the shadows were the problem so I used to ETTR and often sacrifice highlights, even in the raw file, to get some good stuff out of the shadows.

Now in Pen 16MP days the shadows come back nicely so deliberate under-exposure by 1 or 2 stops is no problem to bring back sensible shadows and get great highlights.

So I found the Oly 12MP sensor (E-PL1 and E-P3) to be a dog, hard to get good results from when the dynamic range required was wide. The Oly 16MP sensors in the E-PL5 and E-P5 for me are just lovely to play with. Mostly DxO for me, but use OV3 for a reference jpeg at times and also use Corel AfterShot 2 Lite (freebie when I upgraded PSP) for really fast results for batches for a quick checkout of what to do next.

One quick and dirty but extremely good image improver is the AthenTech Perfectly Clear plugin I got as a freebie with PSP X4 or X5 (?). That has been copied across to the 32 bit version of PSP X7 and works a treat to quite often dramatically improve what I thought was already a good image. Quite a few surprises when playing with that plugin. There seems to be a watered down non-adjustable version of it in AfterShot 2 Lite.

As for the image, I like those vast Aussie road scenes, lots of that sort of scenery the other day on my way back to Sydney from my daughter's out west, but all bitumen roads now. Huge valley floor scenes available from high viewpoints. I must take the time to stop and soak a few into my camera one day.

Regards...... Guy

 

[photohounds]

Thank you for your most thoughtful reply. This post was produced and presented exclusively in order to provide 'you' with an opportunity to vent your spleen about the m4/3 system.

The m4/3 system will continue to provide entertainment, excitement and challenges exclusively to 'you' in order that you can get your 'jolly rocks off'.

In other news, mud brick building advocates are seeking to change the name of their long held product name 'adobe', as it doesn't appear in Google searches, other than around page 100 or so.

--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/

Hear, hear .. take pictures, don't squabble ..

OT, except as entertainment for your detractor.
Nipping around with an OMD (5 I think) using 12/2 45/1.8, 75/1.8 hand held.
vs. Tripod bound dinosaurs .. guess who sold pictures?

Gallery ..

Examples ...

VERY murky light...

Taking pictures, not waffling ..







--
Isn't it a marketing man's dream that measurebators demand sharp lenses and THEN complain if > 95% of an image is not OOF?
I recovered from equivalence disease when I went from FULL frame (6x7cm) to MINIATURE format (35mm).
Decades later ... Cynical MARKETING MEN now call Miniature 35mm: "full (marketing) frame", and the easily fooled now pretend it is "full" and everything else is "empty". FMF Fools ..
.
Customers want results, not "format psychobabble".
.
General Pics:

photohounds

Keen on photography since youth. Built a darkroom. Shoot for quality pro results over a range of styles. Also keen on music (I shoot a bit of live) and freedom for all people. I can travel - your shout :)

photohounds.smugmug.com

Oly and other .. Gear test samples - even RB-67 shots!:

Gear tests

Gear test samples Mostly Olympus. Mamiya, Panasonic

photohounds.smugmug.com

How DO OMDs cope with dim-light action and smoke?
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Performing-arts - and at the longer end

Zuiko 40-150 f2.8 PRO - photohounds

A few test snaps of or WITH this super lens and its Teleconverter

photohounds.smugmug.com

.

 

[Pete_CSCS]

…when you do the RAW conversion.

I am not sure whether you should regard all the 43/m43 sensors as the same though, was this still a Kodak sensor or had Olympus moved on to Panasonic sensors by that time?

The E-330 was the first four thirds DSLR to use a Panasonic sensor (Announced Sep 26, 2005) but Oly went back to the Kodak sensor one more time with the E-400 (Announced Sep 14, 2006) before sticking with their partner Panasonic all the way to the E-M5.

The E-400 was the first Oly 4/3rds cam with a 10 mp sensor and wasn't sold worldwide which explains why to this day, I've never seen one. :-(

Another thing -- just as there have been improvements to RAW converters, let's not forget the improvements in in-camera processing to JPEG. Olympus was ahead of Panasonic in this respect and understandably -- they had been tutored at Kodak's knee and whatever other failings Kodak had, they sure knew how to make a sensor and to convert it in-camera to JPEG. I neverused the E-x cameras, but I was familiar with Kodak's good JPEG work with the Kodak P880 camera.

BUT -- Olympus (and Panasonic) have moved on from there and do an even better job now.

Am I rationalizing like mad here to avoid your conclusion that I could make my pix look better if I shot RAW? JUST POSSIBLY!!!

But I believe I am doing more -- I believe today's OOC JPEGs are a lot better than they used to be and on balance, I can safely keep shooting JPEG, doing a bit of tweaking in PP and suffering the occasional loss of a pic because of mistakes in exposure, etc.

--
Geoffrey Heard
Down and out in Rabaul in the South Pacific
http://rabaulpng.com/we-are-all-traveling-throug/i-waited-51-years-for-tavur.html

--
'When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at
his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it.
Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two,
and I know it was not that blow that did it,
but all that had gone before.'
-- Jacob Riis (1849 - 1914)

Stay Well,
Pete K.

 

[TN Args]

It's quite amusing to note that the majority of my most vocal critics ....

Goodness me, mate, I would be seriously concerned about my own behaviour if I had so many critics that I was able to isolate the most vocal of them, then able to slice down and analyse the majority of that particular subset.

Your behaviour is poor in many ways towards anyone who disagrees with your claims -- even attacking people who may agree with your major premise but want to improve your demonstration.

And if this feedback is coming from me, you must know it's seriously bad LOL.

 

[TN Args]

It's a m4/3 forum, the intent is to keep the discussion to the 4/3 sensor system (m4/3 and 4/3 cameras since both are active systems).

Don't you even know which forum is for which cameras?

Four Thirds Cameras and their images => Olympus SLR Talk forum

Micro Four Thirds Cameras => Micro Four Thirds Talk forum

So,.....

You put this thread in the Micro Four Thirds Talk forum, and

You titled it "with m4/3 raw files", and

In the very first post you wrote "It's about what you can extract from a m4/3 raw file", and

You used a Four Thirds camera file (wrong forum, wrong thread, wrong technology, wrong everything, largely negating the very point that you wanted to raise and discuss), and then

You ruthlessly attacked, denigrated, snidely and smugly dismissed, and repetitively misrepresented, anyone who so much as wanted to help make this thread achieve what you wanted it to achieve, but better, and

You eventually followed up with an m43 example, hooray, but then came another Four Thirds example, proving that you want to conduct lessons but don't want to learn, and

In the end, you poisoned your own thread. I'm saddened, because I'm an m43 champion these days, and like what you set out to achieve, but strongly dislike the gigantic attitude problem. And coming from me, that says something 'cos I'm no angel.

And that's that.

 

[OzRay]

It's quite amusing to note that the majority of my most vocal critics ....

Goodness me, mate, I would be seriously concerned about my own behaviour if I had so many critics that I was able to isolate the most vocal of them, then able to slice down and analyse the majority of that particular subset.

Your behaviour is poor in many ways towards anyone who disagrees with your claims -- even attacking people who may agree with your major premise but want to improve your demonstration.

And if this feedback is coming from me, you must know it's seriously bad LOL.

 

[OzRay]

To follow on, we've had a lot of rain our way and one of our valleys turns into a veritable continuous lake (another story) as the water from the hills flows down. So this morning I drove south so that I could take shots of the lakes that form after the rains. One day I'll have to get to know the local farmers, so that I can get better access to better locations.

Anyway, the first shot here is directly into the sun and more or less how the camera saw it, and how it appeared in my RAW converter. The second shot is more or less how I saw it and with some processing to suit how I felt about the scene. I should also note that this isn't a shot of one of the lakes (in case it's pointed out), it's part of the river that causes the lakes to form (an important part of the story).





--
Thoughts, Musings, Ideas and Images from South Gippsland
http://australianimage.com.au/wordpress/

 

[Steve2015]

As Doge would say: Such drama. Wow.

Wow, what a drama queen, the only drama, insults and abuse is coming from you.
You haven't added anything constructive to the thread, all you've done is jump on the bandwagaon and gone out of your way to derrail the thread.
Grow up!

It's clearly obvious most are turining it into a personal battle.

 

[Fri13]

And what does different bayonet make difference when format is same?

When images can be edited well with a old sensor, then a newer generation sensor can give more possibilities.

 

[Dunsun]

Common mistake with m4/3 is that they are not as good as Full Frame in dynamic range,

No really no. I own both systems. Sony A7 + Olympus E-P5. And yes the dynamic range is the only one difference that makes a huge advantage for landscape photography.

Anyway I like shooting my m43 camera more: It's faster, has many features and I much prefer it's color output (even in RAW).

Cheers

 

[Martin Ocando]

I've spent the last hour of my life (and my vacations) reading threads which complain about the thread, instead of the actual subject of the thread. This has to stop. People, stay in topic, please.

Ozray intent to depict what a RAW image can be improved with PP, is valid, and is well withing topic relevance to the forum. Might not be a true m43 image, the sample he provided, but other threads discussing similar topics have been started using images from other manufacturers, even iPhones, so please add to the thread instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.