aniMal
Well-known
Since I got back into photography for real in 2007, I have had to learn all the digital stuff almost from scratch. I kind of missed the years when digital was winning ground, and came almost straight from scanned or copied film into working with digital 100%.
There is much said in a philosophical way about how a photograph renders the real world. From the onset of photography itself, there is a tremendous amount of work and research that has gone into getting films that reproduces the outside world in a truthful way. And of course there has been a lot of engineering needed to get to where the digital cameras are now.
However, I feel that the awareness of how a camera renders colours is far less now than back in the age of film. I remember all the discussion one would have with other photographers or sales people on how a given film renders highlights, or what tint it would give in the shadows. It was also normal to get one, or a few favourites, that would tie in with the style one had. Or to use everything freely, from project to project.
One of the reasons that the focus is not so much on how a digital chip renders colours, is obviously photoshop and its likes. It is so simple to change some settings, and get a totally different result.
But, is this yet one area of handicraft where the easy way out also makes you lose some abilities?
I do not consider myself a luddite, although it might look like it. It is just that since I started shooting digital, I find that there is such a huge difference in how the cameras I have used so far renders colours. And I am not thinking about after conversion, I am thinking of how a given chip captures colours before applying any settings in RAW conversion!
Why do I consider this important? Quite simply that it has a heavy bearing on the result - and that I think some opportunities are easily missed.
The M8 is so far the best camera I have used in this respect, for a while I processed everything with the settings zeroed, just to see what I got into photoshop directly from the chip. And often it makes a really nice starting-point, and to boot I get a real feel for how the M8 "film" renders colours.
Now I really want to check out a Sigma SD-14, simply because what I can see from it on the net looks fascinating in terms of colour. That is a totally different technology, and an idea that I find very intriguing in a philosophical way... I just wonder; the fact that each pixel captures R, G and B in one go, is that akin to a 3CCD video camera? How does it compare to film? Or my M8?
Thats it for now, but I can see that this is something that I will enjoy digging into, and learning about in the future...
There is much said in a philosophical way about how a photograph renders the real world. From the onset of photography itself, there is a tremendous amount of work and research that has gone into getting films that reproduces the outside world in a truthful way. And of course there has been a lot of engineering needed to get to where the digital cameras are now.
However, I feel that the awareness of how a camera renders colours is far less now than back in the age of film. I remember all the discussion one would have with other photographers or sales people on how a given film renders highlights, or what tint it would give in the shadows. It was also normal to get one, or a few favourites, that would tie in with the style one had. Or to use everything freely, from project to project.
One of the reasons that the focus is not so much on how a digital chip renders colours, is obviously photoshop and its likes. It is so simple to change some settings, and get a totally different result.
But, is this yet one area of handicraft where the easy way out also makes you lose some abilities?
I do not consider myself a luddite, although it might look like it. It is just that since I started shooting digital, I find that there is such a huge difference in how the cameras I have used so far renders colours. And I am not thinking about after conversion, I am thinking of how a given chip captures colours before applying any settings in RAW conversion!
Why do I consider this important? Quite simply that it has a heavy bearing on the result - and that I think some opportunities are easily missed.
The M8 is so far the best camera I have used in this respect, for a while I processed everything with the settings zeroed, just to see what I got into photoshop directly from the chip. And often it makes a really nice starting-point, and to boot I get a real feel for how the M8 "film" renders colours.
Now I really want to check out a Sigma SD-14, simply because what I can see from it on the net looks fascinating in terms of colour. That is a totally different technology, and an idea that I find very intriguing in a philosophical way... I just wonder; the fact that each pixel captures R, G and B in one go, is that akin to a 3CCD video camera? How does it compare to film? Or my M8?
Thats it for now, but I can see that this is something that I will enjoy digging into, and learning about in the future...
