"Ah-Olympus"!

[Razr]

The E510 in full battle gear, doing what Olympus/Zuiko lenses do best: get the shot.

http://www.nwpphotoforum.com/ubbthre...y510Review.php

This guy is a 40 year Olympus user and has produced in this report photos which deserve the word: stunning.

The next time someone has something negative to say about Olympus-4//3rds, point them to his page.

Enjoy!

[Rooz]

the first shot is pretty nice, the last shot is fantastic. everything else in between ranges from nothing special to pretty ordinary. eg: both of the first macro shots are overexposed and the tiger cubs faces are OOF, very ordinary contrast in the next three. the lorikeet one is not very sharp and the colours are dull. the eagle is an ok shot, not that sharp or impressive as a shining light example of olympus.

i'm talkign about these in context of your OP. big difference between shots posted to share amongst forum friends and posting photos as a "showcase" of a system. i dont really know why you linked to that page to show off olympus. there are much better examples on flickr.

[Ken.]

Very nice. It doesn't look like the pics have color space tags. The parrot should "pop" when viewed with Safari. It's hard to judge photos in a browser since the sRGB tags are ignored in most browsers.

This is going to get important the next few months. Safari is a color managed browser and Firefox 3 will be, too, when it's released as a final. Essentially, these browsers will match your image editors for color fidelity. I have no idea what IE8 will do (I'm using Mac's - no IE). I'm guessing Opera will be on board with color management quickly.

Bottom line, make sure the sRGB tags are with your images in whatever editor you're using if you intend to toss images onto the web.

[Razr]

(SNIP)both of the first macro shots are overexposed and the tiger cubs faces are OOF,

Photographer's choice, not mine.

very ordinary contrast in the next three. the lorikeet one is not very sharp and the colours are dull. the eagle is an ok shot, not that sharp or impressive as a shining light example of olympus.

Obviously we are looking at different pages. I am not the photographer so perhaps you might tell him.

i'm talkign about these in context of your OP. big difference between shots posted to share amongst forum friends and posting photos as a "showcase" of a system.

His "showcase" is one of a few considered to be worthy on that site.
The images are better of course than what you say.

that i dont really know why you linked to that page to show off olympus. there are much better examples on flickr.

I have no idea why you chose to critique the page to me. If you didn't like those shots, you will not like these: http://www.nwpphotoforum.com/ubbthre.../jpoole_e3.php from the same site: 25 pound dogs at 35mph, in sparkling color and tack sharp: this time the E3.
Perhaps they will meet with your approval?

[Razr]

Very nice. It doesn't look like the pics have color space tags. The parrot should "pop" when viewed with Safari. It's hard to judge photos in a browser since the sRGB tags are ignored in most browsers.

Precisely. Browser preferences are personal. Furthermore, we all know the same image in different browsers in side by side displays will look "different", again, according to the software and chosen browser.

(SNIP)Bottom line, make sure the sRGB tags are with your images in whatever editor you're using if you intend to toss images onto the web.

"Make sure"? Not my images nor my page hence I have no control over how the photographer "tossed" the images onto the web nor any use (or not) of your suggested programs.
Besides, I posted the URL, not the images.

[Rooz]

I have no idea why you chose to critique the page to me.

well cos you said this...

The next time someone has something negative to say about Olympus-4/3rds, point them to his page..

which indicates to me that you think 4/3rds fans should refer to the page you linked to as some kind of showcase for what 4/3rds is capable of. well, sorry, but the shots dont show off the system at all.

the other page you linked to was much more impressive. some great shots in there.

[Ken.]

True, browser preferences are a personal preference. There's no harm in saying "best viewed with" and qualifying why. This will be more important if you are proofing images with a client.

Of course, we have no control over whether or not their monitors are calibrated. I'd like to think anyone I'm dealing with within rock-skipping distance of the word professional has a calibrated monitor - not some 10 year old uncalibrated CRT. It's kind of pointless to have thousands of dollars worth a photo gear and skip on a calibrator.

The greater point was that there will no longer be a reason to say "oh, it just looks different in a browser".

I don't judge anyone's images on the web except for composition and even then I'm generous about it. I wasn't there, I didn't stage the shot and my ideas about composition, I can guarantee you, are different than most. I'm tired of the "thirds rule". Enough of the rules. Life doesn't present perfect photo ops except in a studio. Go for it, take the shot, make magic happen.

[Honest Gaza]

the first shot is pretty nice, the last shot is fantastic. everything else in between ranges from nothing special to pretty ordinary. eg: both of the first macro shots are overexposed and the tiger cubs faces are OOF, very ordinary contrast in the next three. the lorikeet one is not very sharp and the colours are dull. the eagle is an ok shot, not that sharp or impressive as a shining light example of olympus.

i'm talkign about these in context of your OP. big difference between shots posted to share amongst forum friends and posting photos as a "showcase" of a system. i dont really know why you linked to that page to show off olympus. there are much better examples on flickr.

Geez Rooz....bad day at the office ?

I viewed the shots and didn't find them "offensive".

[Rooz]

i didnt find them offensive either. i didnt find them particualrly inspirational either though. as i said in my post, this critique is in context of this supposedley being a showcase of what oly can do. if i was to believe that was the best oly could produce, (which obviously it isnt), i certainly wouldnt buy one. would you ?