Being One with the OM-D EM-1

Preamble

Although I'm quite used to the Olympus line of E-series cameras, each time I buy into a new model (usually several years in-between), I'm pleasantly surprised with the modern conveniences and technology improvements give me.

This time, it's the OM-D E-M1 - the top of the line Olympus. I've not ever had a top of the line Olympus - I was too late to appreciate the E-1, the E-3 felt old, the E-5 I dreamed about but could not afford. There was no E-2 or E-4.

Two things I really like - the feature of having a creative Photo Studio within the camera, in the field. I shoot both raw and JPEG - I prefer the immediacy of the JPEG and I like the Olympus JPEG signature - warm, yellow friendly, nice blues in the skies, highish in contrast, fairly reliable automatic White Balance. I like having the raw for tough shots or shots that need creative post processing.

The Photo Studio

Olympus has been evolving their Photo Studio idea with a strength of purpose. 

One feature I like, is the ability to tailor the gamma transformation curve (a.k.a. The Curve) with several degrees of Highlight and Shadow Adjustment.  This feature first saw the light in the OM-D E-M5 and it has been implemented in all subsequent PEN and OM-D models. It's definitely available on the lowest model E-PM2 (although it took a non owner on G+ to tip me off).

The new feature, first implemented on the E-M1 is the Color Creator - it has been subsequently implemented on the E-M10, E-P5). 

Using the features

Note:

These adjustments only affect the standalone JPEG and/or the embedded JPEG in the raw file. The raw file will contain metadata about the adjustments you have chosen so that you can run Olympus Viewer software on the computer to cancel or further adjust.

This is a pink rose on a cold, overcast Melbourne winter's day. Yes, the highlights have a soft pink hue, but that empathic vibe, to me, complements the rose.

My +David Washington moment - the browns are anemic without some Color Creator warming.

You could throw more light on these leaves, to darken the background. Or you could post process a vignette and darken the background. Or just use the Shadows Curve Adjustment in the Camera.

 In closing

My early experiences with the combination of Color Creator and Shadows / Highlights Adjustment are simply that - early experiences. On the E-M1, there buttons and dials to access these two features without making Magnify and Depth of Field Preview difficult.

The amount of adjustment can be more dramatic or more subtle - there is a fair amount of control for most tastes.

A wet Sunday and reflecting on technical RAW image quality

Here's a response I posted on at a DPR forum:

Question

I was looking at the reviews on dpr and wanted to know about RAW image quality.  All other things being equal is RAW image quality the most important?  I mean isn't that the "real" picture?

Response

The most important, in no real rank sequence are:

• The shooter - at least 80% of the picture. I have repeatedly seen Grumpy Old Conservatives (sometimes I am one of them) proclaim that gear A is so bad that it could not be used for activity X and then wait a few months, look around and voila, some unknown person on the other side of the internet produces an image which is spectacular.
• The ability of the shooter and camera to get exposure "right". Some people rely on the camera a lot, others rely on themselves a lot. Those who rely on the camera need the exposure to be "just right"
• The ability of the shooter and the camera to get the focus "right". Again some people rely a lot on the camera, others are more tolerant
• For their needs, some shooters rely on the in-camera JPEG engine to get it right. They have no patience or persistence to sit at the computer and process data, their skill is in the field - composing, choosing the "decisive moment" - you can get gear that is technically perfect (i.e. 99% better digital quality vs 80% digital quality) but the image sucks because the shooter is a dud and gets composition, focus, exposure, depth of field or the moment, wrong.
• RAW quality is technical quality - in order to render on the screen, a human or a program has to initially preset the choice of gamma transformation curve, colour saturation, sharpening, aberration correction, perspective correction. Any image you see on the screen that is recognisable to a human, has been rendered with these rendering parameters - the rendering is not about technical perfection it is about visual choice - the two do not have to be equal.
• The RAW quality is the sensor and image processing pipeline quality - if you pick a camera which does not have the lens you want to use or the lens quality that you want, then the image could suck.

JPEG Browsing / Viewing - PhotoMesa

I noticed I had Photomesa 3.1.2 installed from some time ago and gave it a spin. It's good for reviewing photos - the difference between it and something like Picasa is the seamless zoomable interface. Pity that it has weak knees (it's a .Net 2.0 app) and just dies when it has too many photos to thumbnail or when you get frenetic with zooming. It seems clean enough to install and uninstall, given it's .Net behaviour. Development activity seems to have tailed off.

The Stages of a modern Photographer

Tongue in cheek

Stage 0: Which camera gives me the best IQ? Guys! Recommend me a camera! Anybody?

Stage 0.1: I'm serious, which camera gives me the best IQ, cut out the BS about the skill of the photographer.

Stage 0.2: I'm gonna buy a D3 or a 1D, your camera sucks. (See attached sample lab photos of paperclips shot with a D3 / 1D vs your crummy camera.)

Stage 0.3: Why does everything look blurry? What does DOF mean?

Stage 0.4: Why is everything so white (or black?). What do you mean the camera doesn't fix things if I set the dial to "M"?

Stage 0.5: What doesn't the AF work properly when I point it at the shaggy black dog or the black cat? Should I send the lens in for a repair or the lens and the body?

Stage 0.7: But I want both the shadow and the sun - this camera can't be any good, it's only got 15 stops of Dynamic Range. Why do people's faces come out so dark?

Stage 0.8: Here's a photo of back of my dog, squirrel, kid - why can't they stay still? Why doesn't IS work?

Stage 0.9: Should I use or not use a UV filter? What other filters do you recommend?

Stage 0.99: And what filter should I use or should I just Photoshop it?

Stage 1: Why waste time shooting RAW? JPEG is lovely!

Stage 1.1: Aah, wasted all this time shooting JPEG. RAW rocks!

Stage 1.2: Help! My prints come out too dark! What do you mean I have to spend more money on a spider? What's a helicopter and a spider got to do with this?

Stage 1.3: RAW sucks! You know how much time I'm spending on the computer?

Stage 1.4: APS-C sucks. Go full frame! And don't let me get started on Four Thirds. Just look at the achievable low light high ISO noise and the MTFs.

To be continued...

Related articles by Zemanta

• XDepth Raw works as both JPEG and RAW

JPEG Quality

From time to time, Kodak digital camera owners query why or how much JPEG compression is set by Kodak in the Full Auto mode of the Point and Shoot cameras. Invariably, I point them to Mediachance's JPEG Quality Estimator, which reads a JPEG file and figures out how much compression was used. It's a useful tool.