The analog to digital trap, no... you can't run before you walk..

[mshchem]

To hell with Photoshop, I want to hear more about the Cats!

 

[wiltw]

Film and digital have one thing in common. You can make it as simple or as complicated as you want. Most film users set the camera on "AUTO" or whatever, and send the film someplace for processing and prints. For most digital camera users it's exactly the same, although the film is now a media card with files, instead of images in gelatin.

If you want to get more involved -- like processing your own film or files -- you can do it, of course -- and that can be as simple or as complicated as you want it to be. Then send off the film or files for printing. Still, pretty much no difference.

And if you want to do the printing yourself, that's another step -- just somewhat different if you have film or files -- but basically the same, except with one you can keep the lights ON.

RAW + postprocessing can save your butt at times with its wider adjustment range, but it's best to get the shot right in-camera, and take advantage of the ability to tweak the shot during post-processing simply to improve it (e.g. absolutely neutralize the color balance regardless of the light available; bring up the shadows and tone down the highlights in contrasty situations). Recognize digital for its advantages over film, and take advantage of that betterment.
I just wish digital were even remotely as soul-satisfying as printing an Ilfochrome print in the darkroom yourself!

 

[runswithsizzers]

I am all for trying to "get it right in the camera" but one thing that is very hard to do in-camera is local adjustments. That is, how to control selected areas of the scene that are relatively too dark or too bright? You can use a graduated neutral density filter to tame down a bright sky or a snowy foreground -- but other than that, you would have to mess with lighting and reflectors to bring up the shadows. Easy enough in a studio, but outside of a studio, can turn into a real chore.

Film shooters are able to help even out bright and dark areas in the darkroom by dodging and burning the print -- and digital shooters can do the same with most (but not all) post-processing software.

As demonstrated by the Croatian cat, trying to bring up darker areas using global adjustments like exposure and levels can blow out highlights. The ability to select certain areas of the frame for making local adjustments is a must-have tool that gets used on almost every digital photo I make.

 

[jl_nims]

I also disagree with the shoot under/over exposure crowd. Get it right in camera, don't shoot for the RAW. If the shot needs some tweaks fine. If I have to go full photoshop wizard on my photo I've missed the shot.

Couldn't agree more. Get it right in the camera.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Hypothetical question:
If dodging and/or burning is required to make a satisfactory darkroom print, did the photographer fail to get it right in the camera?

 

[gbroadbridge]

Instruction manual? I don't need no stinkin' manual

Shooting a Fuji X100VI my advice would be to dump RAW amd Capture One, and learn to use the image science Fuji built into the camera.

Yes, that means a big dive into the manual to learn how to use the camera properly, so that you get the image right in camera with no need to fart around later.

 

[MattKing]

Hypothetical question:
If dodging and/or burning is required to make a satisfactory darkroom print, did the photographer fail to get it right in the camera?

Depends.
However, a photographer who intentionally limits use of the tools available to them is making a particular choice.
The world that presents itself to us isn't flat and doesn't magically convert itself into a two dimensional image. We have to take steps to change what is in front of us into that form.
If I understand @Sean correctly, the equipment and software he is using offers many controls, and allows for a large number of what might be considered "pre-set" choices of those controls. Many of those choices are initially set at the factory based on assumptions that may or may not be the best for @Sean 's needs - but they can be changed!
He has embarked on a bit of a voyage - first understand what "pre-sets" are available, and then make sure that any such "pre-sets" are compatible with each other, and together, give a total result that meets his needs. Essentially, take steps to ensure that his "starting point" when he goes to finalize the results gets most images close to what he wants, and leaves him access to the adjustments necessary to get those results with the more difficult images.
With film and darkroom we do that by understanding how our films and development regimes work together. We then make choices wrt exposure and development, knowing that if we make the right choices, we can do even more afterwards during the printing stage in order to accomplish what we need. To draw the analogy, we choose a set of "pre-sets" among the choices available to us in film and developer and exposure and development, knowing that we can then further work with the intended results in the negatives, using the further tools available.
The biggest difference between analog and digital is that one can choose from many more options with digital.

 

[Sean]

To hell with Photoshop, I want to hear more about the Cats!

They're everywhere! We see around 30 every time we go for a walk. They're not feral either, very friendly and you can even get to know a few of them and they seem to get to know you as well.

"Croatian street cats are a familiar and beloved sight, especially along the Adriatic coast, where they nap in sun-soaked alleys and harbors. Locals and café owners often look after them with food and water, giving these cats a semi-feral but well-cared-for place in everyday street life."

 

[Sean]

Shooting a Fuji X100VI my advice would be to dump RAW amd Capture One, and learn to use the image science Fuji built into the camera.

Yes, that means a big dive into the manual to learn how to use the camera properly, so that you get the image right in camera with no need to fart around later.

Capture One has partnered with Fuji (apparently the best RAW support for Fuji files but I have never fully investigated that), the other aspect of the partnership is that Capture One includes Fuji's camera profiles, so you can apply these to your RAW files if needed:

 

[gbroadbridge]

Capture One has partnered with Fuji (apparently the best RAW support for Fuji files but I have never fully investigated that), the other aspect of the partnership is that Capture One includes Fuji's camera profiles, so you can apply these to your RAW files if needed:

I understand that - I've been shooting Fuji for years.

Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
Some people like fiddling around in front of computers and Fuji understand that and licensed their LUT's to Adobe, C1 and DxO.

However those LUT's do not do the same job as the internal processing - they cannot.
Easily proven by comparing a JPEG direct from the camera with the output of LR or C1 using their simulations - they are markedly different.

The Fujifilm intent is that the camera is a tool that stands alone

 

[Sean]

I understand that - I've been shooting Fuji for years.

Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
Some people like fiddling around in front of computers and Fuji understand that and licensed their LUT's to Adobe, C1 and DxO.

However those LUT's do not do the same job as the internal processing - they cannot.
Easily proven by comparing a JPEG direct from the camera with the output of LR or C1 using their simulations - they are markedly different.

The Fujifilm intent is that the camera is a tool that stands alone

I've heard this, that it can only get close. So, I am curious how you shoot. Do you shoot RAW + JPG? Do you shoot multiple Fuji profiles or have you settled on your own "recipe"? Thanks

 

[Sean]

I understand that - I've been shooting Fuji for years.

Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
Some people like fiddling around in front of computers and Fuji understand that and licensed their LUT's to Adobe, C1 and DxO.

However those LUT's do not do the same job as the internal processing - they cannot.
Easily proven by comparing a JPEG direct from the camera with the output of LR or C1 using their simulations - they are markedly different.

The Fujifilm intent is that the camera is a tool that stands alone

"another editing app to consider is Fujifilm X Raw Studio. It’s a bit clunky as it requires you to have the camera connected to your computer when you uses it, and is a limited compared to other software, but it actually does all the processing on the camera, so you’ll get a straight out of camera equivalent quality, with the benefit of editing after the fact. Can save as many custom film sims as you want too!"

Any thoughts on this app? It seems to allow running through the images on camera. Would this be the best of both worlds? Or do you find settling on a simulation thus seeing the simulation in the EVF gives you the best idea of what you'll get on the tail end vs. trying to achieve this after the fact? I tend to have an idea of the style I want with street photography. I tend to gravitate towards a more grungey blade runner eyed look than straight photography. So maybe my best option is to start with a fuji in camera sim, + some tweaks to that sim. Now as I preview live shooting I get more of a real time shooting process. I do see many in the fuji space "my best recipe" and some are a bit too much, often very yellow. Anyway, this is giving me a lot to ponder and I think if I can get 80-90% of what I want in camera, then I will not need to obsess in post.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I've heard this, that it can only get close. So, I am curious how you shoot. Do you shoot RAW + JPG? Do you shoot multiple Fuji profiles or have you settled on your own "recipe"? Thanks

I treat the built in Film Simulations the same way I treat a film backs on my MF camera. I have one 1 colour and 1 B&W (Acros) that I like and swap between them. I've tweaked them slightly from standard.

I'm definitely not into 'recipes' and in the same vein I don't go around trying every real film product out there either.

99.9% of the time JPEG only especially if travelling or casual photography.

If I'm trying to photograph a difficult sunset or indoor low light, I'll switch to RAW only (no JPG) knowing that I can do in camera processing later to see if it'll work. If it doesn't work using in camera processing only then I'll fire up DxO photolab and fiddle with the RAW file. It's really quite rare with the later Fuji cameras (after X-Pro2).

It takes a while to get the hang of all the in camera processing options - one of the reasons why some folks prefer raw but I find it saves time and effort in the long run. Forces you to commit to a look/feel when you take the shot, as well.

 

[koraks]

Forces you to commit to a look/feel when you take the shot, as well.

That's an advantage...?

 

[Sean]

That's an advantage...?

True, even more to think about

 

[gbroadbridge]

That's an advantage...?

Yes, I like the photograph to reflect what I saw and felt at the time, not how I imagine it looked when I attempt to remember days later.
That's a plus.

Having said that - if you make all the in camera adjustments and shoot jpeg+raw you can alter reality later if you feel the urge.
Never been my thing. KISS principle.

 

[koraks]

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. I see a photograph as an object and a 'reality' in itself. It can be derived from a literal reality - but I guess I don't take that reality too literal to begin with, given how totally different it's perceived (even by a single person, over time).
Also, if a photo is to convey what or how I feel about a scene, I find that a literal representation virtually never cuts it. Photons and the laws of physics may affect how I feel about a scene, but they do not in principle encode that feeling. That would be a reversal of cause and effect and ignore the many confounding variables affecting one's feelings. So the argument that a literal capture being representative of the feelings of the moment is alien and inexplicable to me.
I also find it counterintuitive that a limited number of presets would somehow accurately capture the infinite gamut of feelings or sensations I might have in response to an infinitely varied number of scenes and lighting conditions.

 

[Cholentpot]

I am all for trying to "get it right in the camera" but one thing that is very hard to do in-camera is local adjustments. That is, how to control selected areas of the scene that are relatively too dark or too bright? You can use a graduated neutral density filter to tame down a bright sky or a snowy foreground -- but other than that, you would have to mess with lighting and reflectors to bring up the shadows. Easy enough in a studio, but outside of a studio, can turn into a real chore.

Film shooters are able to help even out bright and dark areas in the darkroom by dodging and burning the print -- and digital shooters can do the same with most (but not all) post-processing software.

As demonstrated by the Croatian cat, trying to bring up darker areas using global adjustments like exposure and levels can blow out highlights. The ability to select certain areas of the frame for making local adjustments is a must-have tool that gets used on almost every digital photo I make.

Shooting RAW allows you to adjust in post. Modern digital cameras have enough leeway to recover highlights and shadows. We've been there for over a decade. There's a difference between tweaking the white balance, bringing up the shadows and taming the highlights vs going ISO free or ETTR. The former is basic digital photography work the latter is moving into photoshop creations.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Hypothetical question:
If dodging and/or burning is required to make a satisfactory darkroom print, did the photographer fail to get it right in the camera?

Film (and digital) have limitations that often make capturing the full range of exposure completely in one camera shot. That's not a failure with the photographer, even the best. But I agree we should at least take care when taking the shot to get the best start of a great picture. You can't get blood from a turnip.

 

[runswithsizzers]

There's a difference between tweaking the white balance, bringing up the shadows and taming the highlights vs going ISO free or ETTR. The former is basic digital photography work the latter is moving into photoshop creations.

In my mind, there is little difference between an analog photographer trying to "expose for the shadows and print for the highlights" and a digital photographer trying to "expose to the right" (ETTR). Both are strategies aimed at practicing the craft of photography in a way that minimizes the limitations of the media they are working with.

Not sure how your reply relates to what I said in my post. You say, "the latter is moving into Photoshop creations" as if that is a bad thing. There are some extreme cases, where I might agree with the idea that "Photoshop creations" should be avoided. But my post was about local adjustments (dodging and burning), not about extreme cases of Photoshop manipulation.
---

It's kinda funny how skilled darkroom printers are respected, even revered by the photographic community -- but those who are skilled in digital postprocessing are more likely to be reviled, as if they are suspected of being up to something devious or unsavory.

 

[Sean]

Ok today I built out some "recipies" that leverage the internal fujifilm color science. I built up 5 that suit my style/mood based on what scenes I tend to gravitate towards. The JPG result has been quite surprising. Here is one from a couple hours ago, just a couple blocks from here. I want to reshoot it as I was in a mad rush to get home with Lisa and bags of groceries. But, this is straight jpg no further tweaking of any kind in Capture One. It is pretty much there for me but I'll go back and fix a few composition issues.

A quick screen of jpg & raw

For me the cooler tone brings out a somber edge to it and gives it a black and white vibe but with subtle colorations. I'll experiment with a few more options reshooting it, maybe even go b&w.

I'm very similar to Koraks where ultra-reality/accuracy is not a big driver for me.

So in conclusion for today's activity I am feeling like I am a solid step beyond floundering and can potentially have an array of in camera options that get me 70% there or even 100% in some cases. This might allow me to focus more on image taking vs. image editing, as long hours of tweaking RAW images might be the ultimate method, but diminishing returns for my creativity and motivation (not to mention being time poor).

 

[Cholentpot]

In my mind, there is little difference between an analog photographer trying to "expose for the shadows and print for the highlights" and a digital photographer trying to "expose to the right" (ETTR). Both are strategies aimed at practicing the craft of photography in a way that minimizes the limitations of the media they are working with.

Not sure how your reply relates to what I said in my post. You say, "the latter is moving into Photoshop creations" as if that is a bad thing. There are some extreme cases, where I might agree with the idea that "Photoshop creations" should be avoided. But my post was about local adjustments (dodging and burning), not about extreme cases of Photoshop manipulation.
---

It's kinda funny how skilled darkroom printers are respected, even revered by the photographic community -- but those who are skilled in digital postprocessing are more likely to be reviled, as if they are suspected of being up to something devious or unsavory.

It's a personal opinion, if you want to go ham on a photo and work on it for days that's fine. For me, I shoot, tweak and done. I don't have the mental fortitude to spend my time tweaking every bit out of a photo be it film or digital. The subject matters more than the sliders. I understand for many its not like that. More power to them.

 

[koraks]

It is pretty much there for me

I think it's lovely; it's moody and subdued without going flat. Color-wise I really dig what's going on, too, with the emphasized cool/slightly-warm split on the wall.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

It's a personal opinion, if you want to go ham on a photo and work on it for days that's fine. For me, I shoot, tweak and done. I don't have the mental fortitude to spend my time tweaking every bit out of a photo be it film or digital. The subject matters more than the sliders. I understand for many its not like that. More power to them.

There is lots of room in the photography pool. It's like meeting someone who says they're a painter. Are they a house painter? Sign painter? Train car tagger? Surrealist? Realist? Abstract artist? Run & gun street photography is well suited to in camera adjustments, where images end up relating to each other across many scenarios.

My photos invariably stray from what was there, so don't use in camera tweaks at all beyond shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. RAW photos in my world are rough sketches, where what I felt is best brought out after the fact and some semblance of balance can be found.

No one way is better than any other. The most important bit is about 6 inches behind the camera.

 

[wiltw]

Hypothetical question:
If dodging and/or burning is required to make a satisfactory darkroom print, did the photographer fail to get it right in the camera?

I don't think that "get it right in camera" goes at all counter to the subsequent process of getting around fundamental limitations (that come with film or digital, regarding recording of the original scene) during subsequent darkroom or postprocessing work.
"Get it right", IMHO, merely is to get exposure and composition optimized at the shutter press, rather than reliance upon film exposure latitude per se...the difference between the precision of exposure of color transparency film vs. the forgivingness of color neg. I stated earlier, postprocessing (or darkroom manipulations) take advantage of the ability to tweak the shot...simply to improve it.
Even the full process embodied in the Zone System exposure+development, if you think about it, is to improve upon the ability of the film to capture the scene, via compression or expansion of the scene contrast range into the capabilies of the film+paper.
Even the bracketing of exposures during shooting is an inherent attempt to 'get it right'...in either the exposure bracketing, or the multiframe rapid sequence to capture the peak of action or best expression on the face.