Switched to Adobe RGB instead of SRGB.....wanted to see how it looks here

[LightSpeed666]

Just a simple test snapshot
ISO 640 on a micro 4/3 sensor.
Not bad.

 

[The_Traveler]

You converted to sRGB when you saved as jpeg so whatever nuance was there isn't visible now.
Note that the white petals seem to be mostly blown out. You might have been better off to underexpose a bit to get detail in them.

 

[LightSpeed666]

You converted to sRGB when you saved as jpeg so whatever nuance was there isn't visible now.
Note that the white petals seem to be mostly blown out. You might have been better off to underexpose a bit to get detail in them.

True. Intentional over exposure. ev:0.7 I didn't think about that when I converted to jpg, but yep, you are correct.
Thank you.
LS6

 

[Derrel]

Agreed.. the whites are blown-out...if you shot in raw mode, you could probably " pull back" the exposure and recover the whites. Depending on your software, you could probably do "highlight recovery", and just target the highlight tones.

 

[K9Kirk]

Nice set. Sometimes when I've been at my monitor for too long I take a little "eye adjustment break" and when I come back my vision is usually better.
Sometimes if I drink alcohol on that break my vision is worse. Don't drink and edit.

 

[LightSpeed666]

Nice set. Sometimes when I've been at my monitor for too long I take a little "eye adjustment break" and when I come back my vision is usually better.
Sometimes if I drink alcohol on that break my vision is worse. Don't drink and edit.

Nah, these are just snap shots. You know, facebook junk. Since I'm limited on editing software, I had a problem finding something that will read Olympus .orf raw files.
I had used one called fastStone, but when you looked at the preview the file looked under exposed. And then when you opened the file the image was wayyy over exposed and I know that I nailed my exposure. So then I started thinking something was wrong with the camera.
So I suspected it was software related. I then Downloaded Olympus Workspace and sure enough, that was the problem. So then I had to go back and re-adjust all the cameras settings so I could figure out how the camera exposes-s.
So now I'm in the midst of figuring the camera. I need to figure out how it renders an image and its particular optimum settings.
I haven't posted anything here lately that wasn't just testing.......tho,,,,,,,the dragonflies, look pretty nice.
You can get Bokeh with a micro 4/3's easily. That complaint is overrated. The depth of field issue that full frame users like to squawk about, is misinterpreted.
The Micro 4/3's camera does indeed have a more extended depth of field........but they say that because it's a small sensor the f-stop is double that of a full frame.

In other words ; a micro 4/3's camera lens set to F/2.8 is equivalent to F/5.6. Compared to its big brother the larger full frame sensor which would be a true f/2.8, due to dimensions of sensor sizes.
That is not the case. While the full frame image sensor does indeed have a depth of field relative to F-stop 2.8, the Micro 4/3's sensor's depth of field is F-stop 5.6.
The Micro 4/3's camera is indeed running at f/2.8, with twice the depth of filed as the larger sensor.
The only thing that changes is the depth of field, which I have shown , can be easily compensated for. ( dragonfly pics)
I'm not, in any way , suggesting that Micro 4/3's is better or more efficient than all the nice camera's with full frame sensors.
I am well aware that the full frame sensor excels in low light due to its ability to capture more photons, with larger pixels/photosites.
Pixels density: The Pentax K1-MkII is a fantastic 36MP full frame camera. It would have to have over double the pixels to equal a Micro 4/3's pixel density.
What the Micro 4/3's gives up is low light , high ISO performance and a little dynamic range( which seems to be not that much) in exchange for detail, and in some cases sharpness.
Anytime you pack many pixels into a smaller sensor, the density increases dramatically
The larger sensor certainly gives the ability for larger prints.
So far, I'm impressed with this m43 system, even though I don't know how to use it to its capabilities.
Oh......yeah, you're right about editing. I'll drink to that! After a few drinks, I'll drink to anything!
LS6

 

[Derrel]

Depth of field behavior is really best divided into three shooting scenarios: macro, intermediate-range and longer- distance shooting situations, and also distances approaching the hyperfocal distance of a lens and sensor combination.

The idea of getting an out of focus background with a small sensor camera is quite easy at distances of less than 5 feet, but when the subject distance is out at 25 to 50 feet, the degree of background out of focus is greatly tilted toward the larger format cameras.

The idea that the depth of field comparison is overblown does not take into account actual photography of people at normal and accustomed distances, in normal and accustomed places like gymnasiums or churches or photo studios. If you want a shallow depth of field, an easy way to get it is to move up to a larger and larger film or sensor size. If on the other hand you want to be able to have deeper depth of field for whatever reason, then the smaller your sensor size and the shorter your corresponding focal length is, the easier it is to achieve deep depth of field, at least at moderate to longer range distances.

The smaller the capture area, the shorter the lens needed for a given picture angle. In the mid-to-late 1970s, Kodak invented a brand- new film format, the "Disc" format, so that they could create a fixed-focus camera which had incredible depth of field. It is not surprising that the picture area of the disc camera format is almost identical to most modern-day cell phone cameras, which give us incredibly deep depth of field with their typically 3mm to 4mm lenses.

For many years we struggled to get deep enough depth of field at moderate temperatures, and I actually think the micro four thirds format offers typical photographers a degree of depth of field that is actually quite useful for a lot of picture taking.

For people who really want blurry backgrounds at Portrait and outdoor and sports distances, the micro 4/3 format is disadvantageous and aps-c is not nearly as good as a 24 by 36 mm sensor for creatingbackground blur at tradtionsl distances with traditional lenses. I do think however that the blown-out background that one gets with a full frame camera and the 400 mm f /2.8 lens is in many cases overvalued, except for certain uses. I think most enthusiast photographers would rather have a smaller lens ,like a 200 mm f/4 that weighs 13 pounds less and costs $10,000 fewer dollars.

 

[Derrel]

The m4/3 format actually has one advantage that is seldom talked about, and that is the aspect ratio. I personally think that 4:3 is a fantastic aspect ratio for photos that are viewed on a computer screen, especially when the photos are shown as horizontal captures.

 

[LightSpeed666]

Depth of field behavior is really best divided into three shooting scenarios: macro, intermediate-range and longer- distance shooting situations, and also distances approaching the hyperfocal distance of a lens and sensor combination.

The idea of getting an out of focus background with a small sensor camera is quite easy at distances of less than 5 feet, but when the subject distance is out at 25 to 50 feet, the degree of background out of focus is greatly tilted toward the larger format cameras.

The idea that the depth of field comparison is overblown does not take into account actual photography of people at normal and accustomed distances, in normal and accustomed places like gymnasiums or churches or photo studios. If you want a shallow depth of field, an easy way to get it is to move up to a larger and larger film or sensor size. If on the other hand you want to be able to have deeper depth of field for whatever reason, then the smaller your sensor size and the shorter your corresponding focal length is, the easier it is to achieve deep depth of field, at least at moderate to longer range distances.

The smaller the capture area, the shorter the lens needed for a given picture angle. In the mid-to-late 1970s, Kodak invented a brand- new film format, the "Disc" format, so that they could create a fixed-focus camera which had incredible depth of field. It is not surprising that the picture area of the disc camera format is almost identical to most modern-day cell phone cameras, which give us incredibly deep depth of field with their typically 3mm to 4mm lenses.

For many years we struggled to get deep enough depth of field at moderate temperatures, and I actually think the micro four thirds format offers typical photographers a degree of depth of field that is actually quite useful for a lot of picture taking.

For people who really want blurry backgrounds at Portrait and outdoor and sports distances, the micro 4/3 format is disadvantageous and aps-c is not nearly as good as a 24 by 36 mm sensor for creatingbackground blur at tradtionsl distances with traditional lenses. I do think however that the blown-out background that one gets with a full frame camera and the 400 mm f /2.8 lens is in many cases overvalued, except for certain uses. I think most enthusiast photographers would rather have a smaller lens ,like a 200 mm f/4 that weighs 13 pounds less and costs $10,000 fewer dollars.

Well Read.
Really nice take on things.
This is how I learn.
Thank you.

 

[LightSpeed666]

Depth of field behavior is really best divided into three shooting scenarios: macro, intermediate-range and longer- distance shooting situations, and also distances approaching the hyperfocal distance of a lens and sensor combination.

The idea of getting an out of focus background with a small sensor camera is quite easy at distances of less than 5 feet, but when the subject distance is out at 25 to 50 feet, the degree of background out of focus is greatly tilted toward the larger format cameras.

The idea that the depth of field comparison is overblown does not take into account actual photography of people at normal and accustomed distances, in normal and accustomed places like gymnasiums or churches or photo studios. If you want a shallow depth of field, an easy way to get it is to move up to a larger and larger film or sensor size. If on the other hand you want to be able to have deeper depth of field for whatever reason, then the smaller your sensor size and the shorter your corresponding focal length is, the easier it is to achieve deep depth of field, at least at moderate to longer range distances.

The smaller the capture area, the shorter the lens needed for a given picture angle. In the mid-to-late 1970s, Kodak invented a brand- new film format, the "Disc" format, so that they could create a fixed-focus camera which had incredible depth of field. It is not surprising that the picture area of the disc camera format is almost identical to most modern-day cell phone cameras, which give us incredibly deep depth of field with their typically 3mm to 4mm lenses.

For many years we struggled to get deep enough depth of field at moderate temperatures, and I actually think the micro four thirds format offers typical photographers a degree of depth of field that is actually quite useful for a lot of picture taking.

For people who really want blurry backgrounds at Portrait and outdoor and sports distances, the micro 4/3 format is disadvantageous and aps-c is not nearly as good as a 24 by 36 mm sensor for creatingbackground blur at tradtionsl distances with traditional lenses. I do think however that the blown-out background that one gets with a full frame camera and the 400 mm f /2.8 lens is in many cases overvalued, except for certain uses. I think most enthusiast photographers would rather have a smaller lens ,like a 200 mm f/4 that weighs 13 pounds less and costs $10,000 fewer dollars.

Well Read.
Really nice take on things.
This is how I learn.
Thank you.

 

[gk fotografie]

Nice set. Sometimes when I've been at my monitor for too long I take a little "eye adjustment break" and when I come back my vision is usually better.
Sometimes if I drink alcohol on that break my vision is worse. Don't drink and edit.

Nah, these are just snap shots. You know, facebook junk. Since I'm limited on editing software, I had a problem finding something that will read Olympus .orf raw files.
I had used one called fastStone, but when you looked at the preview the file looked under exposed. And then when you opened the file the image was wayyy over exposed and I know that I nailed my exposure. So then I started thinking something was wrong with the camera.
So I suspected it was software related. I then Downloaded Olympus Workspace and sure enough, that was the problem. So then I had to go back and re-adjust all the cameras settings so I could figure out how the camera exposes-s.
So now I'm in the midst of figuring the camera. I need to figure out how it renders an image and its particular optimum settings.
I haven't posted anything here lately that wasn't just testing.......tho,,,,,,,the dragonflies, look pretty nice.
You can get Bokeh with a micro 4/3's easily. That complaint is overrated. The depth of field issue that full frame users like to squawk about, is misinterpreted.
The Micro 4/3's camera does indeed have a more extended depth of field........but they say that because it's a small sensor the f-stop is double that of a full frame.

In other words ; a micro 4/3's camera lens set to F/2.8 is equivalent to F/5.6. Compared to its big brother the larger full frame sensor which would be a true f/2.8, due to dimensions of sensor sizes.
That is not the case. While the full frame image sensor does indeed have a depth of field relative to F-stop 2.8, the Micro 4/3's sensor's depth of field is F-stop 5.6.
The Micro 4/3's camera is indeed running at f/2.8, with twice the depth of filed as the larger sensor.
The only thing that changes is the depth of field, which I have shown , can be easily compensated for. ( dragonfly pics)
I'm not, in any way , suggesting that Micro 4/3's is better or more efficient than all the nice camera's with full frame sensors.
I am well aware that the full frame sensor excels in low light due to its ability to capture more photons, with larger pixels/photosites.
Pixels density: The Pentax K1-MkII is a fantastic 36MP full frame camera. It would have to have over double the pixels to equal a Micro 4/3's pixel density.
What the Micro 4/3's gives up is low light , high ISO performance and a little dynamic range( which seems to be not that much) in exchange for detail, and in some cases sharpness.
Anytime you pack many pixels into a smaller sensor, the density increases dramatically
The larger sensor certainly gives the ability for larger prints.
So far, I'm impressed with this m43 system, even though I don't know how to use it to its capabilities.
Oh......yeah, you're right about editing. I'll drink to that! After a few drinks, I'll drink to anything!
LS6

You can also use the following programs to edit .orf files:

- Irfanview (free software)

- Gimp (free software, it's a bit like PS)

- Raw Therapee (free program, according to the information also suitable for .orf files)

- XnView (handy, free program for opening, editing and converting images)

- CorelDRAW Graphics Suite (not free, but cheap and good photo editing program)

 

[Original katomi]

Re post 6 have you looked at DNG software
Re drinking and editing
I learnt the hard way not to change passwords when I had a drink. Could never rem what I changed to

 

[The_Traveler]

As long as you are ok with comments.
The bright and out of focus flowers on the right only draw the viewers' eyes but with no purpose.
You've got a lot of greenery that really doesn't add any impact.

IMO, the photo would have more impact when cropped to remove other distractions and excess green.

 

[LightSpeed666]

Yeah. I agree. 100%.
These were just test snapshots. I just got this camera not long ago, and the lens finally came in so I could start using it.
These weren't really anything to write home to mom about. Just wanted to see the cameras image quality , exposure and whatnot.
But again, yes you are correct. Thank you for trying to help me. Hope you are well.
LS6

 

[Derrel]

I have been thinking about picking up a used m4/3 camera.