my proposal:
deepPrime XD
Interesting changes, can you say in words what you did, and why? Just curious. It’s always interesting to see my pictures again through other people’s eyes.
I thought that maybe I was the only person in this forum to have fond memories of “what was”, compared to all the “latest and greatest”.
I just read this fascinating (to me) article on older vs. newer cameras:
For a while now, every time I want to dig out one of my older cameras and enjoy using it again, reasons are posted for why that is a silly thing to do. I usually (grudgingly) go along, and put the old camera back in its grav… er, home.
Large format film is very expensive.
Film itself feels “expensive”.
And there are all the reasons why digital is now where it’s at.
- I know I’m just now getting to feel fully at home with my Nikon D780.
- Then I find some of my older photos, 1980’s and 1990’s, and think "so, what was wrong with this?
I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, but the article I just linked to summarizes things very well:
"In the end, it might well be true that the best camera really is the one you have on you, but for some the best camera is the one that bridges the gulf between personal feeling and external expression. "
My guess is more than 75%. The reason for that is that I guess for most people the Color Wheel is the most obvious tool to use for color grading and adjustment of saturation.
As an artist, I can appreciate everything you wrote, and why. I guess most people in this forum want to CREATE beautiful images.
My point of view, is that I want to CAPTURE what I SEE, and share it with others. Most of the time, if I SAW it, I want to have it IN my photo.
[quote]
The problem with that stance is that an optical viewfinder in some light conditions is unable to show what the sensor will be able to capture and as Mark says there are problems with some lenses that really will distort your images if handled unskillful. In cases like those many photographs will use the key stoning tools that are soooo good in Photolab to correct problems like that. I darkness you don’t see a shit in an OVF but an EVF can help a lot because unlike an OVF the EVF always give you a preview of how your image will look even before you have taken it with the setting you happen to have done on your camera. In worst case an OVF is just completely dark - that´s really all there is to see in that but you have said no to mirrorless and that is your choice. [/quote]
Mark also lifted the possibility in Photolab to lift the shadows for example. Personally, I almost always lower the high lights too in order (if possible) to increase detail in those parts of the pictures. Nowadays lenses are far more contrasty than before - especially zoom-lenses. Using Fine Contrast really can make wonders and I know even Joanna is a big fan of Fine Contrast and of using film emulations in order to get a nice fine grain in B&W-images and many photographers love to convert their images to B&W and that is really far from what we see. [/quote]
I’m a lousy example of what PhotoLab should do. I mostly just do NOT want it to mess up my photographs, and I realize that by the time I get done editing, much of the time, I shouldn’t even call them photographs. Nowadays I look at images, and make them look “better” (big mistake, not to do so any more!!!), and export them. I would be happiest if what I saw on my screen matched what I thought I saw on my camera viewfinder.
[quote]
As I said earlier - it will be just a wet dream of yours to be able to catch what you see in your OVF of your DSLR, because if you screwed up your camera will record something very diffrent from what you saw. That privilege is only possible to get if you use an EVF.
Why is messing up the pictures your only alternative Mike? If you are not satisfied with your postprosessing skills just make a virtual copy and go ahead. Not satisfied with your job just reset it and try again.[/quote]
My guess is more than 75%. The reason for that is that I guess for most people the Color Wheel is the most obvious tool to use for color grading and adjustment of saturation.
As an artist, I can appreciate everything you wrote, and why. I guess most people in this forum want to CREATE beautiful images.
My point of view, is that I want to CAPTURE what I SEE, and share it with others. Most of the time, if I SAW it, I want to have it IN my photo.
[quote]
The problem with that stance is that an optical viewfinder in some light conditions is unable to show what the sensor will be able to capture and as Mark says there are problems with some lenses that really will distort your images if handled unskillful. In cases like those many photographs will use the key stoning tools that are soooo good in Photolab to correct problems like that. I darkness you don’t see a shit in an OVF but an EVF can help a lot because unlike an OVF the EVF always give you a preview of how your image will look even before you have taken it with the setting you happen to have done on your camera. In worst case an OVF is just completely dark - that´s really all there is to see in that but you have said no to mirrorless and that is your choice. [/quote]
Mark also lifted the possibility in Photolab to lift the shadows for example. Personally, I almost always lower the high lights too in order (if possible) to increase detail in those parts of the pictures. Nowadays lenses are far more contrasty than before - especially zoom-lenses. Using Fine Contrast really can make wonders and I know even Joanna is a big fan of Fine Contrast and of using film emulations in order to get a nice fine grain in B&W-images and many photographers love to convert their images to B&W and that is really far from what we see. [/quote]
I’m a lousy example of what PhotoLab should do. I mostly just do NOT want it to mess up my photographs, and I realize that by the time I get done editing, much of the time, I shouldn’t even call them photographs. Nowadays I look at images, and make them look “better” (big mistake, not to do so any more!!!), and export them. I would be happiest if what I saw on my screen matched what I thought I saw on my camera viewfinder.
[quote]
As I said earlier - it will be just a wet dream of yours to be able to catch what you see in your OVF of your DSLR, because if you screwed up your camera will record something very diffrent from what you saw. That privilege is only possible to get if you use an EVF.
Why is messing up the pictures your only alternative Mike? If you are not satisfied with your postprosessing skills just make a virtual copy and go ahead. Not satisfied with your job just reset it and try again.[/quote]
Sorry Mike for this confusion because this post was written moths ago and was stopped for control of DXO - it happens me from time to time. I tried to delete them but could not of some reason and finally DXO decided to release them and the they ended up at the end of the flow instead on the place they ought to have been placed in.
If DXO decides to halt a post I think they have to be far more responsive than they often are. These delays just cause confusion.
I too have a post here “waiting approval”. Maybe this year. It’s a “nothing” post.
Last thought - I don’t consider my photos from the 1950’s through today junk becauseI didn’t use (have) an EVF, and just used the old fashioned ways.
For me, what I might gain from being able to see the final image in my viewfinder is outweighed by seeing the scene with my own eyes.
My post that is waiting for approval here? I’m tempted to delete it, and re-post it. There is noting even slightly controversial in it. Maybe we all get posts “awaiting approval” at random, and it was just my turn.
I totally agree - my post waiting for approval is a “nothing post”. I should just mail it to you, and then delete it.
Should we have an open discussion thread here in the ‘chat’ section about the benefits and deficiencies, of different format cameras? Everything we posted up above will gradually vanish in this thread, almost 2,000 responses. Maybe I never should have fed it, and just let it go alway on its own. …which means I should stop posting anything more, in this thread. I wish I had the power to “close” it.
I don’t think that is a good idea. If you want to start a discussion about that I think it is by far better to create a new tread.
I have seen several iterations of treads like that through the years so I’m not at all that interested to participate really. I don’t think very much new will come out of that.
And even better, to ignore it, and NOT create a replacement. The forum is going better than ever, and the threads are reasonably organized, and most posts now have a “topic”.
Bye…
Agreed 1000%. When I think I’m “finished” editing an image, now I make a VC and try out some of my other ideas. I’ve got one image “in the bank”, and if the VC image is not at least as good, I ignore it and go back to the good version.
I guess this is a selling point for mirrorless cameras, as the viewfinder in neither my D780 nor my Leica shows that kind of detail, but with the Leica and Visoflex, I get to see what the camera is about to capture.
I realize that now - never thought much about it, or used the Color Wheel in the past. Now it’s a very handy tool for adjusting color. I haven’t yet used it to change a car or bicycle to a different color, but that capability is there when/if I find a use for it.
I need to read up on, or watch the videos, on how to get the best use out of the PL Color Wheel tool.
The above reply was posted many weeks ago. DxO needed to approve it, and they just did. Please ignore it.
I wish DxO has listed the posting time as weeks ago, not 14 hours ago, as I’m writing this.
There is one “off-color” word; maybe that’s why it was held up?
Dunno.
From DxO as a message:
Hello,
This is an automated message from DxO Forums to let you know that your post was approved.
I see you give a lot of good information here, but I don’t believe you are right regarding color space and RAW files.
As I have understood it, the RAW file is exactly the same whatever color space the camera is set to. It’s supposed to be what the sensor record, color space only come into the equation when converting the RAW file into a normal file format like JPG, TIFF or whatever format.
(I have my camera set to aRGB, but that’s just because I used to also take JPG files together with my RAW files some years ago.)
For me the camera records the image in an input color space, defined by the color filter array. During the conversion the eyes goes output oriented.
But I think she means for the jpg. However I hate the phrase “more information”.
George
A RAW file i supposed to be what the sensor records. Color Space should only come into the equation when interpreting the RAW file, that means converting it to an image file format like JPG or other.
More information only means that the process will give you a wider range of colors when camera or software interpret the RAW file. In that way you get more color information in your file.
But in front of that sensor there’s a color filter array. Thet filter is sensitive for some kind of color red green and blue. That determines the input color space. It’s only of value for the converter.
George
Infact there isn’t any “color” in a rawfile.
Only equivilance of charges of a sensorwell.
A pixel is basicly 4 wells in bayer array. Which has block everything except green or everything except red, or everything except blue light which charge a well to a certain load due exposure time and amount of that lightwave present in your framing.
Four charges of r,g,b,g (a group) which is converted when demosiaced to RGB channels for 1 pixel. In order to balance this is there a Whitepoint and blackpoint added and a WhiteBalance calculated. In order to have this numbers in a way your original image is reviewed they use a colorprofile and thus colorspace.
Inside the camera there is a rudimentair raw to jpeg/tiff in some cases and some does DNG, converter which you can set in two colorspaces for joeg and tiff sRGB and AdobeRGB. The DNG i don’t know that’s dslr area i believe.
So in principle every raw to RGB converter produces/can produce an other image in way of color and brightnes due calculation differences wile they uses the same colorspace as “livingroom” for the preview/end file.
I shoot jpg plus raw for fast viewing purposes and the onboard panorama feature which only produces jpegs. There for i have my camera set on AdobeRGB so i have a little bit more wiggleroom.
I throw away the oocjpegs after processing the rawfiles which has the same number so i have no problem using the “wrong” colorspace in camera for http usage.
If we talk about a (output)color space we mean the possibility of an output device to produce signals within a range of wavelength.
If I talk about an input color space I mean the sensitivity for the combination of CFA and sensor to register the appearance of certain wavelength.
I don’t know if the used colors of that CFA array, red green and blue, are defined in the exif or are standardized in some way.
George
That is what I learned to accept. All things being equal, the raw file should be independent of which camera was used to create the file. That would imply that if one took the same photo from multiple cameras, the color detail would be the same from each image, but I doubt that is the case.
To interpret the image captured by the camera, all the necessary information would presumably be stored within the “raw” image and any other relevant information included in the file, including the small “jpg” preview image. Not sure if this is really true. I’m also not sure that if the resulting image was opened in multiple computers running different software, how similar the on-screen images would be prior to doing any editing.