![]() On my old 15” MacBook Pro, which was one of the first retina displays, using one of the scaled modes was noticeably blurry. The scaling has come a long way since the first retina displays, though. To make it easier to switch on the fly I use a little utility called One Switch, which comes as part of the Setapp bundle. Again, it’s so unusual you are taken aback the first time you do it. Oh, and when you change resolutions, the change is instant with no blackout. I much prefer this, and it definitely looks better, but I can pop back to a higher scaled option if I need the real estate. It actually started to give me a headache, so I ended up dropping it one notch to what is actually the 2X native resolution of the LCD panel. The one annoying thing is that the default resolution on the 13” is scaled, even though it tells you it’s the “default” resolution for the display. This isn’t really a Mac-specific thing, but rather the fact that I had been used to older systems. Images and video look amazing on this screen, and it’s not a particularly high-level or quality screen. For example, wide gamut displays and Retina display technology has come a long way. The other thing that it made me realise, was how far behind the technology curve I was. It’s such a different experience, it almost doesn’t feel like using a Mac. And while processing and benchmarks may paint an impressive picture, what doesn’t come across in the numbers is the overall responsiveness. Overall Impressionsįirst of all, everything you read is true. As my laptop was also old (2012 MacBook Pro) and I needed to replace that, I decided to take the plunge and embrace the future with an M1 MacBook Pro. The newest operating system I could use was macOS 10.14 Mojave and there were starting to be applications that just wouldn’t run on it. My main workstation was an ageing 2012 Mac Pro, which despite its age was working perfectly for why I needed. I don’t know.I’ve been working of a pretty old computer for some time now. Maybe others have had different experiences than I. ![]() Also, I’ve come to the conclusion that, while Adobe’s presets are much more diverse, they aren’t more accurate in my use cases and are also less malleable than PhotoLab’s generic color renderings. I think this is the strength of DxO’s rendering engine. Now my positive feedback: I find that DxO’s generic renderings can produce truer-to-life colors than the out-of-camera JPEGs. ![]() I use the camera JPEG for reference, but don’t try to match its colors exactly. Even then there can be inconsistency from one photo to another - so I now simply start with a generic rendering and make minor color tweaks as needed. I find I can always get closer to the camera rendering I want with manual adjustments, especially since the new HSL tool was introduced. I’ve never seen it do what it’s advertised to do. I’ve played with these settings extensively for fun, but IMO this might be PhotoLab’s worst feature. ![]() Selecting an Olympus rendering for a Panasonic RAW image or even a different Olympus RAW file produces results that deviate even further from the authentic out-of-camera JPEG colors, to the point that they look awful. This is even when using the same camera body that the rendering matches. The Olympus camera renderings are way off when compared with the corresponding out-of-camera JPEG color renderings. ![]() There are only renderings for a couple of the Olympus OM-D bodies in PhotoLab. I’ve used various Olympus and Panasonic cameras. In my experience, PhotoLab’s Color Rendering adjustment is completely useless for this purpose and always has been. This is what the PhotoLab user guide says. My very limited understanding of this feature is that it allows matching of color rendering from different camera bodies. Is this just something to be used subjectively, or is there an objective reason for choosing a specific camera body rendering? If I create a preset with a chosen rendering, will all the images using that preset look similar, or will the sensor differences have a greater influence? In an ideal world I would like to have very similar rendering from all my Canon bodies (edit: I also have an M5). All the other profiles are also available for selection, some “better”, some “worse” - for example the Leica ones are more contrasty, the Nikon ones less so. This isn’t a major problem as I process to taste, but if for example I select the 1DXmk2/5Dmk4 profile, it “improves”. I find the 90D images, converted in DXO PL4, have more muted colors and less contrast on the same subjects with the same lens. I only shoot RAW, with neutral picture style selected (I know DXO PL doesn’t use the picture style). I’ve recently noticed a measurable difference in color rendering between my current three Canon bodies - EOS R, 5D4, and 90D. Hi - long term user of DXO from OP6 through to PL4. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |