Quote:

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



Jim,

Of course this type of question brings out an old duffer like me. I agree with Thedra that having used film and the darkroom, I do feel that it adds an insight to PP. I also agree with Tony that I would never never never NEVER go back. When I think about all the hassle that film was, I wonder now how I stayed in photography.

I agree with you whole heartedly that the image the camera captures is just the starting point and it is the photograpers option/responsibility to use it to create an image according to his/her vision. I think all great photographers have ascribed to this philosophy and it is their individual interpretations that has made them great. It is also the reason I only shoot RAW. Ansel Adams' book the "Negative" is dedicated to the premise that the camera captures the image using the technology of that camera, and then it is up to the photographer to transform that negative into an image based on there vision and abilities. Although it is "positive", I feel the RAW file is the same as the black and white negative. One of the revelations to me early in my photography came from reading the Negative and realizing that there was no single perfect image from a negative, but many different images that could be produced according to the vision of the photographer. I remember in some of my early darkroom classes, an exercise for the class was to take the same negative and print it according to your own vision. It was amazing to see the differences in the prints that the class came up with. I know for me personally, there are many times I go back to the original RAW file and play with it when I learn new techniques and/or new technologies arise. My chief regret these days it that when I first got into digital, I shot everything in jpg and for those images I have much less latitude to manipulate those images now.

I was a big Kodachrome fan in my film days, but I have to say that with digital I don't really go for a film look. Now I just go for the look that I like. As an aside, when I coverted many of my old kodachrome slides to digital with a film scanner, I was really disappointed because of the native high contrast of that film which gave very little shadow detail. My Ektachrome and Kodacolor negatives gave much better conversions. Interesting how things change. I would never go for a Kodachrome look in digital.

I guess I've gone enough here. Thanks for asking the question and getting me thinking about this.

Geo

Some of my best
http://www.lamsonweb.com/Galleries/Photography
http://lamson.zenfolio.com/