![]() It's often been the case then, when I don't expect an image to become a large print, that I prefer to actually apply post processing directly onto the JPEG instead of RAW, at the expense of some pixel level sharpness and color fidelity. ![]() It's funny because while Olympus is known to underexpose and then pull up the image to protect the highlights(which works admittedly well), I notice the benefits of the Olympus engine primarily in the shadow and midtone parts of the image, where Olympus seems to extract a lot more detail. Rather, there have just been too many times where I open a RAW and jpeg side by side in LR and all the slider pulling in the world doesn't seem to best Olympus' interpretation of tones. Note that I'm not concerning myself too much with color I do prefer Olympus' jpeg colors to Adobe's interpretation, but that is largely irrelevant as I use a variety of custom presets and alterations to VSCO filters on both RAW and JPEG. However, when it comes to reproducing subtle tones and gradations, Oly seems to win over RAWs supposedly better headroom. I don't mean this in the sense of sharpness and resolution LR is obviously vastly superior at producing the sharpest possible images and better overall at noise reduction. Since getting my OM-D, I seem to frequently arrive at a problem: the JPEGs often seem to extract better detail from the camera than Lightroom in RAW. Rather, it is a serious inquiry about the ability of the Olympus engine to extract detail out of an image. This post is not intended to start a flame war on the overall merits of shooting RAW vs jpeg.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |