David_Manning
Well-known
The X100's RAW files have such wide dynamic range, the files looked extremely flat, and I was having trouble getting a nice, snappy result in Aperture 3...but I imported them into Nik ColorEfex 3.0, and voila! They look really terrific!
Here's an example, run under the Kodak Portra 160VC filter (please don't judge on artistic character
)
Here's an example, run under the Kodak Portra 160VC filter (please don't judge on artistic character
)
kshapero
South Florida Man
Yes, I have found that the results from digital especially RAW have a lot to do with the software you use.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I like the fact that the raw files are a little flat because it gives a good baseline with room to go in an upward direction regarding contrast and vibrance etc.
Better this than the other way where you have an image that looks false and needs to be pulled back to reality.
The dynamic range, as you say, is impressive.
Better this than the other way where you have an image that looks false and needs to be pulled back to reality.
The dynamic range, as you say, is impressive.
peterm1
Veteran
The X100's RAW files have such wide dynamic range, the files looked extremely flat, and I was having trouble getting a nice, snappy result in Aperture 3...but I imported them into Nik ColorEfex 3.0, and voila! They look really terrific!
Here's an example, run under the Kodak Portra 160VC filter (please don't judge on artistic character
I really love Color Efex 3 which has some terrific filters. One I particularly like is the "tonal contrast" filter. This is a "local contrast" or "clarity" filter but it allows you to apply it selectively to highlights, mid-tones and dark-tones selectively. (Others I have seen can only apply this type of filter globally.) It is extraordinarily powerful in terms of its ability to pull detail out of images. But it has to be used with discretion as its easy to overdo.