I was talking with a fellow photographer last evening and we were discussing how he had his camera set up. He was also complaining that the camera wasn't producing images with the contrast or color saturation that he wanted. When I asked if he shot RAW or jpeg, he said "jpeg". Why then, I asked, don't you adjust the shot parameters to increase contrast and color saturation? Because, he said, "that would be cheating."

After much further discussion, we agreed that setting up the camera to produce images that reflect the way you see your subject is not "cheating". It's part of the art of photography.

In the olden days of film (yeah, I actually remember most of it), we used to select the type of film we used not just based on the conditions but also on the type of image we wanted to create. There was a particular look to Kodachrome 25 (ask Paul Simon) and a different but equally unique look to Ektachrome 160. Yes there were differences in grain but there were differences in contrast, edge sharpness and saturation of particular colors in the palette that were important to the subject matter we were photographing.

These days, we tend to think that what comes out of the sensor is what we're forced to live with. While that may be important for photojournalists, it is not an issue for the photographer as artist. I find it ironic that folks that will not hesitate to use HDR in post-processing, won't dial up the color/sharpness/contrast of their cameras to achieve similar effects. Strange.

Today's cameras provide us with the ability to tailor our images to the subject matter we're shooting. My 30D gives me several "picture styles" -- each of which can be individually adjusted -- for different shooting experiences. So, I've dialed up a Kodachrome look; an Ektachrome look; a Velvia look; etc. I'm wondering how many of you do something similar to recreate that film look in today's images.

Jim