Some E-500 pics on my travel

[ernie_ng81]

Hey guys,

Went Budapest, Vienna and Prague a week ago.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=192033

Here's some pics from the Budapest one.
Iv got too many pics so its gonna take awhile to get the other 2 places up.

Using a mixture of 17.5-45mm and 40-150mm lens

[OlyFlyer]

I don't know if it is the compression that is bad or something wrong with the pics. Do you have any idea why almost all pics which shows part of the skys have a kind of wave like circular pattern in it? I really hope it is the compression, anyway it is definitly not the sky. Do you take pictures in RAW or TIFF format?

Sorry for commenting even if you didn't ask for comments.

[ernie_ng81]

Originally Posted by OlyFlyer I don't know if it is the compression that is bad or something wrong with the pics. Do you have any idea why almost all pics which shows part of the skys have a kind of wave like circular pattern in it? I really hope it is the compression, anyway it is definitly not the sky. Do you take pictures in RAW or TIFF format? Sorry for commenting even if you didn't ask for comments.

Oh, comments are welcome.

And yeah, its the compression. probably did too much to make it smaller for posting. the originals are definitely not that bad.

And I take mine mostly in JPEG. Im not a real pro and not much need for me to play around with the pics. Only very few pics which I think I needa take in Raw then I will.

Thanks for the comments Olyflyer.

[OlyFlyer]

I am happy for you if it is only the compression.

I take all my pics in RAW, not because I am a pro but because that is the only format I call 'original as my old negatives'. JPEG is a format similar to kind of high quality Polaroid. The biggest advantage of RAW is the possibilities of fixing a pic that did not turned out to be as good as expected. Underexposed? Bad white balance? No problem, fix it easily later at computer time. You don't have to be a pro to handle that. The con is a few extra minutes computer time. Anyway, if you don't want to do anything, just click on convert format and a few minutes later you have all in JPEG. I agree, it is anyway an extra step, but I definitly think that this is the main reason to take pics with a digital SLR. I guess I have a different idea about photography. Studio pics that can easily be repeated can be taken directly in JPEG. Travel pics are are different and never repeatable. Conditions change even if you visit the same country and place twice. According to me these must be taken in RAW.

I am certainly not very happy about the Olympus Master software, as you can read it elsewhere. I was not happy from the start and am still not happy. The user interface is terrible, but the more I use it the more I get used to it. That is also one reason to constantly work with RAW. If you just occasionally take pics in RAW you never really get used to handling RAW format. I also tested Olympus Studio, that is definitly better, but unfortunatly not included with the E500 kit, we have to pay extra for it. Photoshop with the RAW plugin is the worst. Every picture has to be imported. Can not even manage to preview without importing each picture. Once it is imported Photoshop is very good, don't misunderstand me.

Sorry for my wordy comment.

[ernie_ng81]

yeah, i know that RAW format is much better, definitely but the conversion and editings take too long.

I dun really like the master software. takes too much time to do one photo and convert it.

Plus, I travel quite a bit and got not too much time to sit down for a long period editing tons of pics. And just for own use so pretty happy with it.

Well, your comments are fine anyway olyflyer.

[shchow]

Originally Posted by OlyFlyer I am happy for you if it is only the compression. I take all my pics in RAW, not because I am a pro but because that is the only format I call 'original as my old negatives'. JPEG is a format similar to kind of high quality Polaroid. The biggest advantage of RAW is the possibilities of fixing a pic that did not turned out to be as good as expected. Underexposed? Bad white balance? No problem, fix it easily later at computer time. You don't have to be a pro to handle that. The con is a few extra minutes computer time. Anyway, if you don't want to do anything, just click on convert format and a few minutes later you have all in JPEG. I agree, it is anyway an extra step, but I definitly think that this is the main reason to take pics with a digital SLR. I guess I have a different idea about photography. Studio pics that can easily be repeated can be taken directly in JPEG. Travel pics are are different and never repeatable. Conditions change even if you visit the same country and place twice. According to me these must be taken in RAW. I am certainly not very happy about the Olympus Master software, as you can read it elsewhere. I was not happy from the start and am still not happy. The user interface is terrible, but the more I use it the more I get used to it. That is also one reason to constantly work with RAW. If you just occasionally take pics in RAW you never really get used to handling RAW format. I also tested Olympus Studio, that is definitly better, but unfortunatly not included with the E500 kit, we have to pay extra for it. Photoshop with the RAW plugin is the worst. Every picture has to be imported. Can not even manage to preview without importing each picture. Once it is imported Photoshop is very good, don't misunderstand me. Sorry for my wordy comment.

OlyFlyer, i don't think you'll have to IMPORT the raw files in order to view it and edit in photoshop (adjust wb, exp, crop, tilt, etc). The Adobe Camera Raw (ACR, now version 3.3) plus the Adobe Bridge has provided a very very convenient and fast workflow for processing raw, especially in batch. So powerful and useful that i practically don't use the oly master/studio at all. Only time that i start the master and oly is when i want to compare the output of the softwares.

But, cost wise, Oly Master is definitely the way to go, although lack of good workflow mechanism.