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...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes: grievously neglected.
My style with M8/8.2 is different from my slide style.
Cheers,
R.
My style with M8/8.2 is different from my slide style.
Cheers,
R.
aniMal
Well-known
Hmm... Got me thinking now, what is my style with the M8 compared to M2/4/6 years ago? Not really different, apart from having adjusted what I look for in a subject to the looks that I get from the M8.
I get a feeling off the top of my head that it is something akin to old Ektachrome - which I have not been shooting extensively though.
Would perhaps be an interesting test - different slide films side by side with the M8...
I get a feeling off the top of my head that it is something akin to old Ektachrome - which I have not been shooting extensively though.
Would perhaps be an interesting test - different slide films side by side with the M8...
edodo
Well-known
Digital photography is not that old you know. Canon planned it (and concurrents) from the 90s when they designed the eos serie. So digital is still in its teenage, colour you get from a digital is rather crude as it is just a lot of electronics giving you the invariable coulour you are able to see. You can get all sort of rendering with it but you are the one who modifies, changes, arrange at your will. Film doesn't let you choose that, you have to choose the film instead!
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I think you have a misunderstanding. The data off the sensor is just data. RAW converters these days tend to hide that from the user, but the RAW converters available at the beginning made it pretty clear that everything had to do with how you managed that data in software. Yes, various sensor technologies have some effect on the data that goes to the RAW converter, but an insignificant amount compared to the software.
Regardless of the camera, there is no magic wand. To get really good color (whatever your definition of that means) you have to get really serious and learn how to manage the entire workflow from recording the image, to working with the RAW converter, to color management, input sharpening and finally output sharpening. There are a lot of details and a big learning curve to understand every detail in the process, but it's the only way to get outstanding results from digital.
Regardless of the camera, there is no magic wand. To get really good color (whatever your definition of that means) you have to get really serious and learn how to manage the entire workflow from recording the image, to working with the RAW converter, to color management, input sharpening and finally output sharpening. There are a lot of details and a big learning curve to understand every detail in the process, but it's the only way to get outstanding results from digital.
aniMal
Well-known
Yes indeed - but then there was a whole range of films to choose from before! OK, it was limited to those films, but the focus on having to choose one seemed greater.
Unless the big ones in digital put a lid on it development-wise, I should think that the range of possible colours will be extended for digital as time passes. But having the technology does not help it the awareness is lost, is what I think to myself.
There are so many things that are going on in the hardware, the analog/digital parts of the camera even before anything reaches the RAW-file on the card. These aspects really seem neglected, and as far as I can understand this is not possible to rectify with any calibration.
Am I right about this? If a given colour is important for a subject, and that colour is just one among millions... If the sensor is not able to record it, it will HAVE to be recorded as another colour... And whatever one does do in post processing, this exact colour will be rendered as something slightly or grossly different.
To me it looks like the sensor technology of the M8 has taken into consideration the need to render pastels and light colours in a good way - something that has been the hallmark of Leica before, with the optics. That is the impression I remember getting from my first slides with Leica M - the ability to render neutral, light and pastel colours...
I wonder, is this policy from Leica? And if so, how many have actually recognized it as a main feature of the M8?
Unless the big ones in digital put a lid on it development-wise, I should think that the range of possible colours will be extended for digital as time passes. But having the technology does not help it the awareness is lost, is what I think to myself.
There are so many things that are going on in the hardware, the analog/digital parts of the camera even before anything reaches the RAW-file on the card. These aspects really seem neglected, and as far as I can understand this is not possible to rectify with any calibration.
Am I right about this? If a given colour is important for a subject, and that colour is just one among millions... If the sensor is not able to record it, it will HAVE to be recorded as another colour... And whatever one does do in post processing, this exact colour will be rendered as something slightly or grossly different.
To me it looks like the sensor technology of the M8 has taken into consideration the need to render pastels and light colours in a good way - something that has been the hallmark of Leica before, with the optics. That is the impression I remember getting from my first slides with Leica M - the ability to render neutral, light and pastel colours...
I wonder, is this policy from Leica? And if so, how many have actually recognized it as a main feature of the M8?
Morca007
Matt
Given the ease and flexibility of digital colour post-processing, I hardly think it matters.
aniMal
Well-known
Exactly - that is the mentality! But is it really possible to get good colour from PP alone? Is it not possible that one can do everything in Photoshop, but often it will be a more artificial rendering of reality?
No photography is a totally unbiased representation of reality, but it does not hurt knowing how the gear we use affects the images we get...?
No photography is a totally unbiased representation of reality, but it does not hurt knowing how the gear we use affects the images we get...?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Kodachrome gave an artificial rendering of reality. Velvia gives an artificial rendering of reality. Photos don't represent reality.
From reading your post, I think you are arguing that there is some magic in an M8 sensor that makes it superior to the sensors in other digital cameras. Post processing has far more effect on the way an image looks - its color rendition, sharpness, etc. - for a sensor of comparable resolution than the sensor itself, in my experience.
From reading your post, I think you are arguing that there is some magic in an M8 sensor that makes it superior to the sensors in other digital cameras. Post processing has far more effect on the way an image looks - its color rendition, sharpness, etc. - for a sensor of comparable resolution than the sensor itself, in my experience.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Doesn't the photographer (a) adapt his/her work to what's available and (b) use whatever tricks are available to bend the process closer to his/her vision?
I often desaturate quite a bit for a faded, nostalgic look but I may also use 'hot' colours in the right place: my 2009 Arles report contains examples of both, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/arles 2009.html
I loved the look I got 'out of the box' with Fuji RF/RFP (I liked it much better than Kodachrome) but although I can't easily duplicate that digitally I can get other effects I like as much.
Cheers,
R.
I often desaturate quite a bit for a faded, nostalgic look but I may also use 'hot' colours in the right place: my 2009 Arles report contains examples of both, http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/arles 2009.html
I loved the look I got 'out of the box' with Fuji RF/RFP (I liked it much better than Kodachrome) but although I can't easily duplicate that digitally I can get other effects I like as much.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I agree, Roger. Photographers should realize their own vision. The whole purity in photography argument seems odd to me. Heck, I even went through a week when I actually liked GAF 500. 
But the modern argument about the purity of digital data seems really off the wall.
But the modern argument about the purity of digital data seems really off the wall.Sparrow
Veteran
I agree, Roger. Photographers should realize their own vision. The whole purity in photography argument seems odd to me. Heck, I even went through a week when I actually liked GAF 500.
Loved that stuff at the time, GAF 500 that is, still got many slides in remarkably good condition, sadly lost some to fungus while in storage how far did you push the GAF? iirc they would push it 2