Golgotha, Reservoir Hole, In Live Composite Mode

[andrewmcleod]

You miss the point dear Pedro. I do not like excessive editing. A - cus I am a lazy old sod and B - cus it is often not naturalistic in the final edit . I could have put Micky Mouse on the climb and you in a polkadot dress but where does it all end?  Look at some cave photo work. Totally artificial . Yes perfect in every way but truly is the cave really like that ?Is life like that ?. Look at any fashion shoot. Totally beyond reason with the obsession with perfection. I aim for the moment and an upload or two here and on Facebook. Certainly not in " Vogue ".

Speed is a valid reason for not using the RAW image as it takes a bit longer to sort out, but it being 'artificial' isn't one of them.

In JPG mode the camera takes the 'real' image it has taken (the RAW image) and then processes it in myriad ways - adjusting for the shape of the lens, the response of the sensor, doing an automatic white balance and contrast adjustment. The JPG image is far more processed than the RAW image, which is much more, well, raw...
The camera is not the eye, and never will be, so the image can never be how it really looks anyway. Eyes (and the brain) do their own processing anyway, adjusting for the colour of lighting in a way that the camera's white balance mimics but doesn't perfectly reproduce. And that's before you think about the finished product - print or image? Stick your photo on the forum, and it will look slightly different on everyone's different monitors unless they have spent an awful amount of money on colour calibration...

The choice of how 'real' to make the image look is up to the editor; you can make it look natural (by making the necessary adjustments) or otherwise.

That said I really need to work out how to use my TG4's raw images on Linux in a sensible way; tried a while ago and didn't get there!

 

[maxb727]

My apologies mrodoc - thanks for cementing them in.

It's Maxine - I told Martin during HE I think, as it happened just before then. Our leader did warn us, we hammered them in and I was being super careful, but the one I was on came out at just the wrong moment. I was fine, but it could have been a different story if my friend hadn't caught me.

Impressive section of cave

 

[mrodoc]

You miss the point dear Pedro. I do not like excessive editing. A - cus I am a lazy old sod and B - cus it is often not naturalistic in the final edit . I could have put Micky Mouse on the climb and you in a polkadot dress but where does it all end?  Look at some cave photo work. Totally artificial . Yes perfect in every way but truly is the cave really like that ?Is life like that ?. Look at any fashion shoot. Totally beyond reason with the obsession with perfection. I aim for the moment and an upload or two here and on Facebook. Certainly not in " Vogue ".

Speed is a valid reason for not using the RAW image as it takes a bit longer to sort out, but it being 'artificial' isn't one of them.

In JPG mode the camera takes the 'real' image it has taken (the RAW image) and then processes it in myriad ways - adjusting for the shape of the lens, the response of the sensor, doing an automatic white balance and contrast adjustment. The JPG image is far more processed than the RAW image, which is much more, well, raw...
The camera is not the eye, and never will be, so the image can never be how it really looks anyway. Eyes (and the brain) do their own processing anyway, adjusting for the colour of lighting in a way that the camera's white balance mimics but doesn't perfectly reproduce. And that's before you think about the finished product - print or image? Stick your photo on the forum, and it will look slightly different on everyone's different monitors unless they have spent an awful amount of money on colour calibration...

The choice of how 'real' to make the image look is up to the editor; you can make it look natural (by making the necessary adjustments) or otherwise.

That said I really need to work out how to use my TG4's raw images on Linux in a sensible way; tried a while ago and didn't get there!
Thanks for explaining it to him Andrew!

 

[The Old Ruminator]

A little bit here from an online blog.

What is Olympus Live Composite mode?

Another issue often encountered when making long exposures with moving elements such as starscapes, fireworks, traffic trails and painting with light, is that some areas burn out well before you?ve got the movement that you want.

Olympus addressed this problem with the introduction of Live Composite mode with the OM-D E-M10. Subsequent cameras including the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II, OM-D E-M5 II and OM-D E-M10 II also have Live Composite mode.

In Live Composite mode the camera shoots a series of images continuously with the same exposure time.

The camera combines all the images together into a single composite, however, only the first image is used to record the ambient exposure of the background or foreground. After that, only the brighter pixels in any following images are used.

This means that while the sky or an illuminated building won?t change, the bright lights from traffic will be written onto the composite image.

As the camera uses the electronic shutter there?s only the briefest interval between shots and moving lights appear as a continuous streak.

As with Live Bulb and Live Time mode, you can watch the image build up on the camera screen and close the shutter when you?re happy with the exposure. Exposures can be up to 3 hours in total and the screen refreshes every time a new image is captured.

    Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II review

Olympus Live Composite vs Live Time mode

The difference between Live Composite and Live Time mode is that in Live Time (and Live Bulb) mode the camera takes one single long exposure. In Live Composite mode the camera makes a series of exposures with a set time of between 0.5 and 60 seconds.

At the end of the exposure the camera composites the images using the first exposure and the brighter parts of any following images to create a single picture. It?s like using the ?Lighten? Blend mode to merge stacked images in Photoshop.


I really should not get involved in photo asthetics as its really all down to personal taste. I dont like anything that looks too posed or manipulated. The latter can involve too much editing making the scene look far better than it ever does in " reality ". Of course RAW will allow more options in editing then maybe the temptation is to go a little too far. There I am at it again. Basically I would like to see more cavers take photos and share them with others. I remember the old dive training acronym KISS -- "Keep it Simple Stupid" ! Making cave photography look easy is more help than getting bogged down in technicalities. You don't really need to know how LCM works you just need to know how to use it.

 

[mrodoc]

I think this is down as HDR imaging on my OMD e-m1. High Dynamic Range.

 

[The Old Ruminator]

Ooo. Missed this one of the kindly Mr O'Doc. Same trip. LCM.

He is part way up the Herbert's Attic climb cementing in the stemples.