Digital - the lure of 'vivid' setting ...

[dee]

I use jpeg as a snap shooter ...
Just curious - Just once in a while , I am seduced by the lure of old oversaturated Kodak slides to create that look from the vivid settings on the 2008 CCD sensor of the Sony A290/A390. Especially in evening light .
I can set each differently .
[ similar settings on a non CCD don't seem to create the same effect ]
I guess that I am trying to capture that oversaturated quality of those late 50s/60s slide shows which so captivated an ASD kid .
I guess that most use raw , so it is immaterial , but am I alone in this ?
dee

 

[peterm1]

I usually do the opposite if shooting in jpgs. I like to make sure that the contrast and color is low which gives me more latitude if I do decide to post process them a bit. Usually I shoot RAW though and occasionally I shoot in RAW plus JPG fine if I think lighting etc will allow shooting in jpg. That way I have the jpgs to use where I expect them to produce good results but also have the RAWs as backup for any difficult exposures in that series.

But yes, now and then I shoot in vivid setting. Most of my images on Flickr I play with color, saturation and contrast as I like the the work of Saul Leiter who used highly saturated color. My "look" is not exactly like that but has a look of its own that I try for - dramatic and theatrical. But that is added in post not in camera.

 

[ray*j*gun]

I have never gotten the various sensor types straight in my mind so my comments may be obvious to those here who are expert in digi matters.

I never have to worry about over saturation on my M8 even when I shoot max settings in JPEG. Although I use the M8 for B&W usually. If I go to the Fuji X100 I can easily get the old time Kodachrome look. But using my Nikon D610 I can blow away even the old Kodachrome look. There are time when I love to shoot that way but more often I just shoot RAW.

 

[Dogman]

There's "oversaturated" and there's "oversaturated". I like bright colors, especially the primaries. It's a look I fell in love with long ago when Kodachrome and Technicolor were the standards. But most Vivid settings on cameras make the colors look "polluted" for lack of a better word. Lots of orange in the reds, yellow in the greens, etc. More "Fuji" than "Kodak", if that is a fair comparison. I've never been able to get a look approaching Kodachrome from a digital file straight out of the camera. I can get highly saturated JPEG colors but none of them look as clean as a well executed Kodachrome slide.

That said, I'm not a fan of the oversaturated, high contrast, gaudy colors that have become so popular. I bounce around from shooting Raw + JPEG to Raw only but I never use the Vivid color settings on the cameras. I've played around with the various camera calibration settings in Lightroom when processing Raw files just to see how the image would look using out-of-camera settings yet I mostly use Adobe Standard just because it's a good starting point and a good balance.

But I print on matte papers exclusively. Those papers tend to mute colors and contrast quite a bit so I have to give the files a hefty punch in saturation, vibrancy and contrast to get the prints to a level of the bright colors I like even before adjusting the file for matte paper printing. Sometimes the image looks terribly oversaturated on the screen but it prints well on paper.

 

[Bill Clark]

Any reason not to use RAW capture?

To me, RAW is like using film with the processing done with a computer and program like Photoshop rather than darkroom. JPEG in camera is like using a Polaroid.

 

[shawn]

Any reason not to use RAW capture?

To me, RAW is like using film with the processing done with a computer and program like Photoshop rather than darkroom. JPEG in camera is like using a Polaroid.

I would say JPEG is like shooting reversal film.

Shawn

 

[dee]

Interesting ,
I have difficulty with trying to use a raw converter , I have tried , but I am not into computers really .
My life has been designing , drawing and watercolour visuals - until computers [ with help from a breakdown ] killed my career .
I can get that jpeg is like shooting polaroid/reversal 'cos there is no going back !
The M8 does not do vivid , because it is not supposed to , and the Fuji X-Pro 1 creates strange colours on Velvia !!
It's just that , sometimes , i like to indulge the Sony to allow a less natural look , but it feels odd to do it somehow when I should be aiming for a natural result .

dee

 

[willie_901]

dee,

The X-Pro 1 supports in-camera raw conversion. One can generate as many different JPEG renderings they desire in-camera without using a computer at all. And... it is possible to save your in-camera JPEG development parameters as in-camera presets.

This is described in the manual. Also you could Google "X-Pro1 in camera raw conversion" for additional information and guidance.

 

[dee]

Thanks wile 901 - I shall try that with the X-Pro .

 

[Big Ursus]

Over the last year, I've used the "vivid" setting in my X-T1 for the .jpegs I've printed for most of the pictures I've mailed in my postcard project. I love lurid & gaudy! But, I think I'll switch to "Acronis" in my X-T2, for the last mailing.

 

[MikeMGB]

I would say JPEG is like shooting reversal film.

Shawn

I agree. I shoot black and white film and colour jpeg, to me the fun is getting the result I want in camera. I have used the vivid setting on rare occasions but generally find the colours to be too over the top.

I do make a lot of use of the in-camera pre-sets to get the result I want.