Fun with the Olympus OMD

[Godfrey]

PLEASE limit the size of photos you post to something near 1200 pixels on the long edge. The forum software is going to resize them to 1200 pixels anyway, but first it downloads the whole enormous image file, which takes a good while and consumes bandwidth needlessly.

Thx
G

 

[Maggie O]

With the 12mm:


Trendwood Park, February 24, 2015 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

PLEASE limit the size of photos you post to something near 1200 pixels on the long edge. The forum software is going to resize them to 1200 pixels anyway, but first it downloads the whole enormous image file, which takes a good while and consumes bandwidth needlessly.

Thx
G

OK, I'm sometimes guilty of this. I have replaced my 18,000 Pixels wide pano a few posts below with a shrunk version for web display, 2400 pixels wide. I considered making the display image 1200 pixels wide but that looked so pathetic on my home display that I couldn't bring myself to do it. The 2400 also looks better on screen when it comes up reduced a further 1/4 in the web display.

I'm pretty sure that it is not the forum that is doing extra work when we post a big image. My server has to send it to everyone who links, and then each of us runs an applet on our own computer to perform the reduction to 1200 pixels. But the applet does a pretty decent job, better than I was getting using the tool provided in Apple's Preview. Maybe not as good as if I prepared both large and small versions in CaptureOne, but then I would have both copies clogging things up. Grrr. I recall Jono also complaining about the headaches of shrinking before sharing in his workflow.

scott

 

[Knorp]

OK, I'm sometimes guilty of this. I have replaced my 18,000 Pixels wide pano a few posts below with a shrunk version for web display, 2400 pixels wide. I considered making the display image 1200 pixels wide but that looked so pathetic on my home display that I couldn't bring myself to do it. The 2400 also looks better on screen when it comes up reduced a further 1/4 in the web display.

I'm pretty sure that it is not the forum that is doing extra work when we post a big image. My server has to send it to everyone who links, and then each of us runs an applet on our own computer to perform the reduction to 1200 pixels. But the applet does a pretty decent job, better than I was getting using the tool provided in Apple's Preview. Maybe not as good as if I prepared both large and small versions in CaptureOne, but then I would have both copies clogging things up. Grrr. I recall Jono also complaining about the headaches of shrinking before sharing in his workflow.

scott

Hi there Scott,

Indeed, it's the forum's software that's enforcing the downscaling to 1200 pixels.
So, be nice to us poor sods and have your images limited to 1200 pixels and <1MB ... :salute:

All the best.

 

[scho]

First walkabout with the E-M5II and 12-40. Trails at the park were snowed in so had to walk the roads. First shot I've seen so far with moire (look at railing on building at end of road in original). I will shoot this scene again when I have my tripod with me and use HR mode to see if it stlll generates moire (probably not).



Lake is still frozen over for about 6 miles up from the south end. Getting tired of looking at snow and ice everywhere.



Stopped at the supermarket on the way home from the park and this group of pan handling ducks were waiting for hand outs by the market entrance. Business was a little too slow for them at the park with all of the snow.

 

[Godfrey]

OK, I'm sometimes guilty of this. I have replaced my 18,000 Pixels wide pano a few posts below with a shrunk version for web display, 2400 pixels wide. I considered making the display image 1200 pixels wide but that looked so pathetic on my home display that I couldn't bring myself to do it. The 2400 also looks better on screen when it comes up reduced a further 1/4 in the web display.

I'm pretty sure that it is not the forum that is doing extra work when we post a big image. My server has to send it to everyone who links, and then each of us runs an applet on our own computer to perform the reduction to 1200 pixels. But the applet does a pretty decent job, better than I was getting using the tool provided in Apple's Preview. Maybe not as good as if I prepared both large and small versions in CaptureOne, but then I would have both copies clogging things up. Grrr. I recall Jono also complaining about the headaches of shrinking before sharing in his workflow.

scott

When I have something that only really works in a larger size than 1200 pixels across, I post the photo sized to 1200 pixels with an embedded link to a larger version (stored on some other server) that opens in its own window.

That way I'm not clogging the download of an image thread with overly large photos and those that want to see the image presented well have the opportunity to do so at their leisure.

It makes a huge difference to performance when I'm poking about the forums from my iPad on a cellular network, for instance.

G

 

[scho]

When I have something that only really works in a larger size than 1200 pixels across, I post the photo sized to 1200 pixels with an embedded link to a larger version (stored on some other server) that opens in its own window.

That way I'm not clogging the download of an image thread with overly large photos and those that want to see the image presented well have the opportunity to do so at their leisure.

It makes a huge difference to performance when I'm poking about the forums from my iPad on a cellular network, for instance.

G

+1 I also use this method.

 

[jonoslack]

So - We Went to Crufts

It was a real good run out with the E-M5ii - of course the E-M1 might have been a better bet in the circumstances, but the new baby did a fine job.

Most of the shots were boring ring shots, but these are some favorites

These are all with the 40-150 (I think)

Jenni and Sooty (best young dog)

Radka and Suzie (3rd best bitch)

Blue

Gasti - best dog - runner up best of breed

Blue - runner up best bitch

​

I shot ORF+jpg - but these were all processed from jpg (easier right now)

The camera did really well in disgusting lighting and very fast moving action (these dogs are FAAAAAST!)

 

[scho]

Two images shot with the E-M5II+75mm f/1.8 in HR mode. ORF files imported into PS with the Olympus HR plugin with default settings, exported as 16 bit tif files to LR, default NIK raw pre-sharpening (50% adaptive), and exported as full size jpegs to Flickr. No elective processing modifications through the workflow except cropping image #2 to 1:1 format. Click images for 64 MP originals.

"Emergence"

Both live and dead objects are once again visible as the snowpack slowly melts away.
​

 

[Thorkil]

Hi Carl
Thank you for telling your workflow!
Thorkil

 

[scho]

Hi Carl
Thank you for telling your workflow!
Thorkil

You are welcome Thorkil. So far I am finding that the ORF files require only minimal post processing compared to my Sony A7R raws.

 

[Thorkil]

You are welcome Thorkil. So far I am finding that the ORF files require only minimal post processing compared to my Sony A7R raws.

Good to hear Carl, while I'm divided between a E-M5II or a A7II (and I haven't been buying cameras for at least two years now ). I don't have to print big, and foremost it might be a matter of how easygoing the camera will be to me and the pp. too. I'm too impatient to investigate a lot of time, finding details in the hard- and software (C1 will have to do with me). What I think I hear is that the Oly then might be the way to go(?), and effective IBIS might also be a growing positive issue by the Oly as long as one don't get younger by time. And size, weight and price are comfortable down compared to A7 (and then I might save a bit of money for what might be my weak spot: the RX1R...but perhaps the demand for steady fingers here will be too high)
thorkil

 

[scho]

Taughannock Falls in the process of thawing out. The huge ice dome has not completely disintegrated yet and it is about 100 ft high. Shot in HR mode with the E-M5II and 75mm f/1.8. Click image for a 50% reduction of the original.

Hell Frozen Over

 

[jonoslack]

Hi There - apologies if you've seen these, but I thought they were worth posting on the OMD thread.
We've been skiing this week - I found the E-M5ii with the 14-150 Zuiko to be a perfect travelling companion.

Here are three of early examples

Inside Out

Back to Front

Outside In​

 

[scho]

A couple of shots taken near Ithaca Falls with the E-M5II in HR mode. ORF files processed through the Oly HR plugin in CS6 and tif files downsized 50% before exporting to Flickr as jpegs.

Terrible lighting with the falls half shaded. 75mm f/1.8



A literal hole in the wall. 12-40 at 35mm.

 

[scho]

Same two files from post above processed in Irident and exported as 9000x12000 pixel tifs. I think that these work better.

 

[scho]

I was recently advised that "f/8 and be there" is a no-no in m43 land, so I've been exploring alternatives for greater DOF. Here are three focus stack examples using HR (40 MP) source images exported from Irident to Helicon Focus for stacking and then exported to Flickr as 27 MP jpegs. The architectural (Farmers Market stalls) and landscape (Steamboat Landing) were derived from three 40 MP images each using selected focus points across the scene. The still life (Onions) used four images selected from near to far in the scene. All were shot at f/5.6 so not a great challenge in this experiment to achieve reasonable DOF, even w/o stacking. Note that I did not apply any post processing corrections in LR prior to exporting the files to Flickr.

Farmers Market



Steamboat Landing



Onions

 

[mazor]

like the lighting on the onion basket. Well illuminated product photography!

 

[scho]

like the lighting on the onion basket. Well illuminated product photography!

Thanks Mazor. Just overhead recessed lighting with some vignetting added.

 

[Elderly]

A glimpse of this morning's partial eclipse here in the cloudy south of the U.K.