Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 16, 2008, 4:34 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,533
Default

Hi Guys and Gals

Took the replacement E3 and myself into a proper studio on Friday and had a 2 hour shoot with a very talented model. I had begun to think with the furst E3 body that the F2 didn;t have the same pop or detail it has on the E1 and that on the newer body maybe it wasn't that much better than my 14-54ZD. The results from the shoot using both lenses quickly changed that - the F2 on this E3 body seems just as razor sharp and even more detail grabbing than before, and really shows up the difference between it and the 14-54ZD. Its amazing what a dud camera body can make you think!

In the studio - I was advised to use Adobe RGB as the colour space, WB set to flash,ISO 100, [email protected] 160s - I was shooting RAW, SAF and single AF point. High Key setup as it was my first time in a studio. E3 in the studio was excellent - with both lenses. AF was very fast and accurate, eps the F2. As far as I can tell no front pics are OOF or front focused. The only problem that the E3 had was with the WB - all the pics have a slight tint to them even though the background was white paper. Also found that smugmug dosent like ARGB files - so now double the work !

I'm still working through the pics - 200+, most of them are crap, but a few are ok, and I'm just going to post just a couple. I've had to fix the WB in PP but other than that there is only 50% USM applied and thats it.

1. "L"



2. "L" - converted into B&W





Cheers

HarjTT

:O :?


HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 16, 2008, 8:05 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,554
Default

......terrific Harj

From the two pics shown I can imagine the good time you had at the studio. I am curious about the ARGB setting when what you've always done has been super good for color, E1 or E3

Anyway I am glad for you that your day went well.... good deal!
_________
boBBrennan
boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 4:47 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

pgmCoder wrote:
Quote:
......terrific Harj

From the two pics shown I can imagine the good time you had at the studio. I am curious about the ARGB setting when what you've always done has been super good for color, E1 or E3

Anyway I am glad for you that your day went well.... good deal!
_________
boBBrennan
I second that, Harj!

And I'm also curious as to what the reasoning was, behind the advice you received. The fact that aRGB is better, is generally regarded as an urban legend like alligators living in the sewer system.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 5:43 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hey Harj,

WOW!

(I'm referring to the IQ but the model is nice too.......)

zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2008, 5:45 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,533
Default

Hi Bob, Ted

The only reason that he gave was the larger colour gamut and that all pro print labs would be using it . Personally, I'm more than happy with sRGB and read that sRGB gave better skin tones. I've had to double mywork flow for this - one set of files for a pro printer and the other for smugmug is a pain. Those two shots were -sRGB I think the only way I'll know is to get the files printed and then compare. Steve, Jim - being the "gods" of the forums - what's your expert advice ?

i still need to work out why the WB when set to flash - shows white as R:227, G:215 and B:212. Ok, its easy to fix but its a darn pain to have to do taht with every image.

Cheers

Harj




HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2008, 2:16 AM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you're using PhotoShop, I would recommend having all your RAW files processed in Kodak Pro-Photo colorspace...it's already built into Photoshop & has a much larger color gamut than Adobes and it's given me the best prints I've ever seen!

I have 13x19 posters all over my office & they have excellent colors, contrast, plus are tack-sharp too. The only thing to remember is to change your Web images back to standard RGB before posting them.


  Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2008, 9:55 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,533
Default

Hi Kalypso

Thanks for the tip! I've been through a few pics and I've noticed one or two odd shots from teh 35-100F2 thet are nto as sharp as the others (I think thats more to do with me) but here's another one of L - just a head and shoulder shot.

1. L - RAW, converted to Jpeg using CS3 and the only PP is 50% USM - and some cloning to fix some text on her contacts but thats it.




Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 AM.