Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Photo Critique' started by AndyH44, Jul 22, 2018.
Both JPEGs SOOC. Which looks better to you?
Definitely the bottom for only one reason. Much better definition in the clouds. Otherwise, they are pretty much equal to my eye.
at the size they are on my screen, they are nearly identical....except as Sue mentioned...a touch of detail in the clouds that is blown out in the top one.
The sky color in the 2nd one is more pleasing to my eye.
However, the 1st might have a more accurate rendering of the actual sky color.
I like a bit ‘creamy’ look of the top one.
I prefer the second one, it seems a bit more contrasty and has better colour saturation
Bottom image has better color, more detail, and the clouds are not blown out.
Option 3 - which lies between 1 and 2. Cloud detail is blown in #1, but #2 is a bit "crunchy" to my eye.
Nobody asked, but the images are from 2 different camera brands; Olympus & Fuji. When printed 4x6 on my Pixma 9120, I was surprised at how little difference there was.
Please define "crunchy". Couldn't find a setting for that in my cameras' menus!
Crunchy = too much contrast.
What were the settings? It does not appear that we are comparing like for like.
1/1250; f5.6; Vivid; sharpness +1; Contrast +1; NR Auto; NF Off
1/950; f5.6; Velvia; sharpness +1; NR -1
Surely that's just the Fuji settings? TTBOMK Olympus does not have a Velvia mode.
A fairer test would be to start from the respective raw files and apply the same degree of processing to each. There are so many variables at work here...
Top is Oly settings...
Bottom is, well, I think you can figure that one!
Sorry, but PP is not what I do. SOOC is my thing.
OK, so this isn't a meaningful comparison.
It is to me!
No, I'm sorry. I'm not being awkward, simply factual. You are comparing apples and bathplugs. There are a myriad variables that come into play, even down to the gamma settings of our individual monitors. It's a waste of time to "compare" without a meaningful baseline. It's like me seeing you under the California sun then a couple of weeks seeing you under fluorescent light and saying you look a bit peaky now...
Disagree completely. First of all this was a comparison of SOOC JPEGs not molested by any post processing. The setting are typical of what I choose to use for each camera; not at all what you think may be correct. I merely asked "which looks better" and didn't ask for a dissertation of how to set my cameras, or how to create images for PP molesting. Pretty simple to understand for most.
BTW - There was NO "option 3". You're wrong again!
I have to disagree, Bill. He's not asking which camera is "better" and then asking us to judge based on SOOC jpegs with random settings.
He's asking which one is "better" as an SOOC jpeg. That question may be meaningless to YOU since you would use the raw files anyways. But it is meaningful for one that values SOOC jpeg to know which is preferred by most.
Let's take the old saying you can't compare apples to oranges. That's absurd....of course you can. I almost always prefer the apples....unless it is one of those vile green ones.
I prefer the bottom one (Fuji), but you could probably change the Olympus settings to pull back the highlights a bit more and add a tad of saturation and then they would look very similar.
Full size files might show more.
Yeah, I've been tweaking the Oly settings to see if I can come close to what Fuji gives, but still not satisfied. Good light gives reasonably similar results, but low/poor light and the Oly really suffers.
What is amazing though is how an "ancient" Oly E-PL7 with a 17mm f2.8 lens can create decent images, even compared to the X-T1 with a 23 f1.4 lens! The Oly combo cost me much less than the used X-T1 alone!
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.