Well for a start they are much easier to work with in Lightroom, and they sharpen better with none of the water colour effect of the Fuji images. What are the images like compared to the Fuji X-T1? So I took the plunge and bought the E-M5 Mk II and the 12-40mm Pro lens and so far I’ve been very happy with it. I had used micro four thirds cameras in the past but the required level of quality (subjective word used) was not there for me, but the OM-D range takes it up another notch from my previous experiences with the format. I was getting ready for the inevitable discussions about how you can’t create landscape images with anything less than a full frame SLR, but to my surprise I found Dimitri using the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk II. Sure if I had pots of money I’d have two systems, one for travelling and one for when I don’t have to walk ten miles, butI don’t, so one system has to cover both for the foreseeable future.Įarlier this year I joined professional photographer, and editor of Landscape Photography Magazine, Dimitri Vasileiou on a workshop. It’s much easier to walk and travel with because it’s not just the camera that is smaller, it’s the lenses (to a degree), the filters and tripod can also be smaller. Well, I loved the smaller size and weight of the Fuji and Olympus. Why didn’t I just go back to a Full Frame SLR? I also didn’t like the experience with some of the other convertors. The whole process became a bit tedious to say the least. If signifficantly better, submit again.Compare to Lightroom developed version.Take rejected images and process in a different RAW convertor.Some images are accepted but quite a few get rejected because of detail/sharpness/overuse etc.Export and upload to stock image library.Keywords and meta data using Lightroom.My typical workflow would go something like this. I had no such issues with my Canon full frame so it’s not bad technique on my part. However, I shoot a lot of stock, and as such every images is inspected by the agencies at 100%, which means A fair amount of rejection due to the fine detail looking like a water colour. Now I will say, that if you print images they come out just fine and you can’t really see evidence of the water colour effect. I’ve tried all manner of well known (and not so well known) RAW converters over the years, but I’ve never been 100% happy with the results and the workflow specifically. I’m a Lightroom user and I always found the fine detail to be a bit smudged for my liking (the now famous water colour effect). The Fuji X series cameras are really great and I like them a lot as cameras, but the post processing challengers have really worn me down over the three years I’ve shot with them. This was taken from here (in the comments section): let me say that this is not a technical review full of test charts and low-light comparisons, just my own feelings and observations while shooting landscapes with these two cameras. For those that use a primarily Lightroom based workflow the new product(s) should be more convenient and have a much lower learning curve than a more full featured RAW processor like Iridient Developer anyway." Initial product(s) on Windows won’t be the full Iridient Developer application, but the most critical processing elements will be there. I hoped to have a public beta in Jan-Feb, I’m now aiming for March-April. The good news is I’ve made major progress on the Windows (and Linux) ports of much of my RAW processing pipeline in the past couple months. Iridient is a very small company (just myself) and my development experience has mostly been on Mac and Unix systems so it’s slower progress on Windows than I’d like I’ve made attempts to hire outside consulting help for Windows over the years, but no success so far finding someone with skill set and other traits I’d like… "Indeed, many, many requests for Windows support. Strait from Brian Griffith (author of Iridient Developer):
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |