Thoughts on SOOC

On 3/3/2016 9:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 3, 2016, Neil wrote
(in article ):

On 3/2/2016 4:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Neil wrote
(in article ):

On 3/2/2016 12:30 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-02 16:41:29 +0000, said:

On 3/1/2016 11:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096
This notion has always puzzled me. Is not capturing the best
rendition
of a subject the important part of photography?

This is one of those questions that can only be given a ‘yes/no’
answer.
That can only be based on the intent of the photographer. Some of that
intent can be achieved SOOC with specific lens selection and exposure
settings. However, consider how simple today’s AE makes it to get
good
exposure values and no character to the image. Technical perfection
does
not necessarily make a great or memorable image.
How is an image without character a good exposure? ;-)

Unfortunately, there are images shot with perfect exposure values and zero
memorable, or inspirational qualities. One might say, a good exposure
wasted.
I regard exposure values as being an artistic parameter, and as such
it's only "good" if it enhances the image. For example, the same
negative can be rendered in a number of ways by using different grades
of print paper, e.g., the exposure values may all be proper, but the
image will appear differently on each print. So, e.v. becomes relative
to the intent of the photographer.

Correct. I learned in a wet darkroom where there were other variables other
than whatever you had done to produce the negative.


If so, whether one has to crop irrelevant content, adjust color and
tonality or any other manipulation to accomplish that end is just
part
of the overall process, as is whatever is 'SOOC'.

Much the creative work can be done in post. These days, with the
exception of good cropping there is also much that can be done SOOC,
but
the photographer needs to have a good idea of what they are doing,
magnificent accidents don't count.

IMO, the digital photographer needs to have a much more in-depth
understanding of their equipment than the film photographer. With
digital cameras, we are interacting with a "robot" making decisions
about how to render the image. So, many are taking far more shots of the
scene and then selecting the best outcome in post, ergo, magnificent
accidents might become the rule rather than the exception.

...and that is problematic when it comes to taking one’s photography to a
level beyond snapshot and the magnificent accident. The basic principles
still apply even if there is a CPU in the camera to help you.

The principles may apply, but when dealing with parameters that can
approach infinity, managing those principles becomes a matter of luck
rather than skill.

That is only true if you just roll the dice everytime you trip the shutter.
To produce consistent acceptable work you have to have a grounding in the
fundementals. Without that, every shot is going to be a random hope for the
magnificent accident and dependance on the camera CPU.

Well, we disagree about this. With film photography, one can buy their
film by the batch and determine the desired exposure by testing and
subsequent calibration. All of the other parameters, such as lens
characteristics are constants. With digital cameras there are far more
parameters than the photographer has access to. For one, the sensor's
color spectral sensitivity that varies with light level. Since the
firmware code compensates for these in ways that can't be known or
predicted (for legal reasons), one can only test within a limited scope
of environmental variables. The implications of this should be clear.

It's not always easy to know your robot!

Practice, practice, practice, and take the time to read up on
understanding,
and fine tuning your robot.

Unfortunately, "reading up" to know one's robot would require knowledge
of sensor physics, electronics, computer programming, access to the
camera's firmware code (which can change drastically with each
"upgrade"), and more. What many photographers have access to amounts to
little more than opinions from other photographers who also lack the
requisite knowledge.

Not necessarily, some research, practice and understanding of the process can
go a long way to producing good, and outstanding images consistantly. Don’t
undervalue the knowledge and capabilities of some of those “other
photographers�.

I don't think that I'm undervaluing their opinion. It simply recognizes
the number of variables that are beyond the ability of one to know,
whether due to formal education or corporate protection of the relevant
information (e.g. firmware code). What one can learn from practice is
limited and can change instantly on a firmware upgrade. BTDT.

--
Best regards,

Neil

On Mar 3, 2016, Neil wrote
(in article ):

On 3/3/2016 9:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 3, 2016, Neil wrote
(in article ):

On 3/2/2016 4:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Neil wrote
(in article ):

On 3/2/2016 12:30 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-02 16:41:29 +0000, said:

On 3/1/2016 11:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096
This notion has always puzzled me. Is not capturing the best
rendition
of a subject the important part of photography?

This is one of those questions that can only be given a
‘yes/no’
answer.
That can only be based on the intent of the photographer. Some of
that
intent can be achieved SOOC with specific lens selection and
exposure
settings. However, consider how simple today’s AE makes it to get
good
exposure values and no character to the image. Technical perfection
does
not necessarily make a great or memorable image.
How is an image without character a good exposure? ;-)

Unfortunately, there are images shot with perfect exposure values and
zero
memorable, or inspirational qualities. One might say, a good exposure
wasted.
I regard exposure values as being an artistic parameter, and as such
it's only "good" if it enhances the image. For example, the same
negative can be rendered in a number of ways by using different grades
of print paper, e.g., the exposure values may all be proper, but the
image will appear differently on each print. So, e.v. becomes relative
to the intent of the photographer.

Correct. I learned in a wet darkroom where there were other variables other
than whatever you had done to produce the negative.


If so, whether one has to crop irrelevant content, adjust color
and
tonality or any other manipulation to accomplish that end is just
part
of the overall process, as is whatever is 'SOOC'.

Much the creative work can be done in post. These days, with the
exception of good cropping there is also much that can be done
SOOC,
but
the photographer needs to have a good idea of what they are doing,
magnificent accidents don't count.

IMO, the digital photographer needs to have a much more in-depth
understanding of their equipment than the film photographer. With
digital cameras, we are interacting with a "robot" making decisions
about how to render the image. So, many are taking far more shots of
the
scene and then selecting the best outcome in post, ergo, magnificent
accidents might become the rule rather than the exception.

...and that is problematic when it comes to taking one’s photography
to
a
level beyond snapshot and the magnificent accident. The basic
principles
still apply even if there is a CPU in the camera to help you.
The principles may apply, but when dealing with parameters that can
approach infinity, managing those principles becomes a matter of luck
rather than skill.

That is only true if you just roll the dice everytime you trip the shutter.
To produce consistent acceptable work you have to have a grounding in the
fundementals. Without that, every shot is going to be a random hope for the
magnificent accident and dependance on the camera CPU.
Well, we disagree about this. With film photography, one can buy their
film by the batch and determine the desired exposure by testing and
subsequent calibration. All of the other parameters, such as lens
characteristics are constants. With digital cameras there are far more
parameters than the photographer has access to. For one, the sensor's
color spectral sensitivity that varies with light level. Since the
firmware code compensates for these in ways that can't be known or
predicted (for legal reasons), one can only test within a limited scope
of environmental variables. The implications of this should be clear.

Analog or digital, knowledge of how to make your camera work for you is
fundemental and essential. It is essential if you are going to achieve
specific and planned results, especially to expressany artistry, if that is
one of your goals. Moving beyond the Instamatic snapshot, or the CPU driven
digital snapshot, cannot be done without some groundwork by the head behind
the VF.

It's not always easy to know your robot!

Practice, practice, practice, and take the time to read up on
understanding,
and fine tuning your robot.

Unfortunately, "reading up" to know one's robot would require knowledge
of sensor physics, electronics, computer programming, access to the
camera's firmware code (which can change drastically with each
"upgrade"), and more. What many photographers have access to amounts to
little more than opinions from other photographers who also lack the
requisite knowledge.

Not necessarily, some research, practice and understanding of the process
can
go a long way to producing good, and outstanding images consistantly.
Don’t
undervalue the knowledge and capabilities of some of those “other
photographers�.
I don't think that I'm undervaluing their opinion. It simply recognizes
the number of variables that are beyond the ability of one to know,
whether due to formal education or corporate protection of the relevant
information (e.g. firmware code). What one can learn from practice is
limited and can change instantly on a firmware upgrade. BTDT.

So, I take the time to learn what it takes to drive my cameras. I don’t
need to know what goes in to making those features available to me, but I do
need to know how to use them to best effect. Otherwise, I might as well just
shoot JPEG only in a formula scene mode. I don’t do that.
I have just upgraded the firmwarre in my X-E2 and my X-E2v4.0 is a very
different camera now and I have had to understand how those added features
benefit me. If I don’t bother to learn I might as well not bother with the
firmware updates.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 3/2/2016 9:49 PM, Mort wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
Technical perfection does not necessarily make a great or memorable
image.


This is quite similar to classical music, where sometimes technical
perfection is lifeless and boring if not combined with feeling and
appropriate interpretation.

To paraphrase the great pianist Arthur Rubinstein, about a certain piano
recital:

I heard the notes,and I felt nothing.


That was a major issue with CD's when they first came out.


--
PeterN

On 3/3/2016 9:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Me wrote
(in article ):

On 03/03/2016 18:06, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In article2016030120421452705-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096
I shoot RAW+JPEG, then process the RAWs and compare the result with the
out of camera JPEG. Sometimes the processed RAW is better, sometimes the
out of camera JPEG. But please note that I have spent some time finding
the optimal out of camera JPEG settings.
For the most part I also shoot RAW+JPEG these days. However, to say that
one
is better than the other you have to consider that usually the RAW file is
going to need some degree of post processing before a true comparison can
be
made.
There is a place for both, especially when you need camera original JPEGs
for
immediate sharing, or for the pro/am PJ’s, submission to AP or Reuters.
The
RAW files will always give you a wider margin when it comes to PP, but many
times, as you stated, you can get great JPEGs SOOC. The important thing is
you know what settings you need to make with your camera to obtain JPEG
images you are satisfied with SOOC.

In this respect my Fujifilm X-E2 is far more flexible than my D300S, in
that
I can fine tune my JPEG captures with exposure push/pull, WB, NR, Highlight
tone, Shadow tone, Sharpening, Aspect Ratio, Film simulation (Provia,
Velvia,
Astia, Classic Chrome, Pro Neg Hi, Pro Neg Std, Monochrome,
Monochrome+Yellow
filter, Monochrome+Red filter, Monochrome+Green filter, and Sepia. It is
something else I am experimenting with, but I am no ready to abandon RAW,
it
meets my need to have something to tinker with.

Today there are a whole bunch of Fuji X shooters foregoing RAW and shooting
JPEG only, with a many of those choosing to get their files SOOC. I am not
one of those.
You could actually do the same (or at least most of it) with your
ancient D300. You could create your own picture controls using free
software on a (hopefully well calibrated) PC (or download those made by
others - including twee "velvia" or whatever film emulation you wanted),
name them, share them, and upload them to the camera and use them for
default jpeg rendering (including the preview embedded jpeg in the *.nef
file).
Personally, with both the D70 and D300S I explored those adjustments and they
are not particularly pleasing, or simple to implement. The best that could be
said is they are somewhat unpleasantly crude, and change the appearance of
the JPEG in-camera. Not even close to the Fuji X-System. I would rather shoot
RAW. Also as another personal note, I don’t particularly like the over
saturated Velvia or attempts to emmulate it.

The Fuji implementation for in-camera JPEG adjustment is a different animal
to that used by Nikon.
A glorious waste of time of course, as even if you could be bothered to
create a number of picture control profiles, you'd be wasting more time
menu diving selecting the appropriate picture control. If you're that
particular, then raw is the best option anyway.
For the D300S and the D70 agree completely, it is not worth the effort,
rather shoot RAW and be done with it. However, Fuji makes this less of a
kludge with their “Q� menu which provides 7 presets accessible without
menu diving.
When I bought my first "serious" digital camera (D70) I made the mistake
of reading Ken Rockwell's site, and took notice of his advice that
"shooting raw was stupid". Big mistake - I lost shots on a once in a
lifetime trip to moire (problem with that camera) and some to exposure
errors, both of which may have been fixable if I had the raw files.
Ken Rockwell is a huckster, entertainer who appears to spout wisdom, but
actually delivers BS wrapped in deception. He is not to be taken seriously.

You've just insulted all the fine hucksters.

On 3/3/2016 10:54 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 3/2/2016 9:49 PM, Mort wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
Technical perfection does not necessarily make a great or memorable
image.


This is quite similar to classical music, where sometimes technical
perfection is lifeless and boring if not combined with feeling and
appropriate interpretation.

To paraphrase the great pianist Arthur Rubinstein, about a certain piano
recital:

I heard the notes,and I felt nothing.


That was a major issue with CD's when they first came out.



I do recall that.

On Mar 3, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 3/3/2016 9:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Me wrote
(in article ):

On 03/03/2016 18:06, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In article2016030120421452705-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck
says...
Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096
I shoot RAW+JPEG, then process the RAWs and compare the result with
the
out of camera JPEG. Sometimes the processed RAW is better, sometimes
the
out of camera JPEG. But please note that I have spent some time
finding
the optimal out of camera JPEG settings.
For the most part I also shoot RAW+JPEG these days. However, to say
that
one
is better than the other you have to consider that usually the RAW file
is
going to need some degree of post processing before a true comparison
can
be
made.
There is a place for both, especially when you need camera original
JPEGs
for
immediate sharing, or for the pro/am PJ’s, submission to AP or
Reuters.
The
RAW files will always give you a wider margin when it comes to PP, but
many
times, as you stated, you can get great JPEGs SOOC. The important thing
is
you know what settings you need to make with your camera to obtain JPEG
images you are satisfied with SOOC.

In this respect my Fujifilm X-E2 is far more flexible than my D300S, in
that
I can fine tune my JPEG captures with exposure push/pull, WB, NR,
Highlight
tone, Shadow tone, Sharpening, Aspect Ratio, Film simulation (Provia,
Velvia,
Astia, Classic Chrome, Pro Neg Hi, Pro Neg Std, Monochrome,
Monochrome+Yellow
filter, Monochrome+Red filter, Monochrome+Green filter, and Sepia. It
is
something else I am experimenting with, but I am no ready to abandon
RAW,
it
meets my need to have something to tinker with.

Today there are a whole bunch of Fuji X shooters foregoing RAW and
shooting
JPEG only, with a many of those choosing to get their files SOOC. I am
not
one of those.
You could actually do the same (or at least most of it) with your
ancient D300. You could create your own picture controls using free
software on a (hopefully well calibrated) PC (or download those made by
others - including twee "velvia" or whatever film emulation you wanted),
name them, share them, and upload them to the camera and use them for
default jpeg rendering (including the preview embedded jpeg in the *.nef
file).
Personally, with both the D70 and D300S I explored those adjustments and
they
are not particularly pleasing, or simple to implement. The best that could
be
said is they are somewhat unpleasantly crude, and change the appearance of
the JPEG in-camera. Not even close to the Fuji X-System. I would rather
shoot
RAW. Also as another personal note, I don’t particularly like the over
saturated Velvia or attempts to emmulate it.

The Fuji implementation for in-camera JPEG adjustment is a different animal
to that used by Nikon.
A glorious waste of time of course, as even if you could be bothered to
create a number of picture control profiles, you'd be wasting more time
menu diving selecting the appropriate picture control. If you're that
particular, then raw is the best option anyway.
For the D300S and the D70 agree completely, it is not worth the effort,
rather shoot RAW and be done with it. However, Fuji makes this less of a
kludge with their “Q� menu which provides 7 presets accessible without
menu diving.
When I bought my first "serious" digital camera (D70) I made the mistake
of reading Ken Rockwell's site, and took notice of his advice that
"shooting raw was stupid". Big mistake - I lost shots on a once in a
lifetime trip to moire (problem with that camera) and some to exposure
errors, both of which may have been fixable if I had the raw files.
Ken Rockwell is a huckster, entertainer who appears to spout wisdom, but
actually delivers BS wrapped in deception. He is not to be taken seriously.
You've just insulted all the fine hucksters.

Just two, Rockwell and Trump.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 3/3/2016 10:27 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 3, 2016, Neil wrote
(much snipped)
[...] With film photography, one can buy their
film by the batch and determine the desired exposure by testing and
subsequent calibration. All of the other parameters, such as lens
characteristics are constants. With digital cameras there are far more
parameters than the photographer has access to. For one, the sensor's
color spectral sensitivity that varies with light level. Since the
firmware code compensates for these in ways that can't be known or
predicted (for legal reasons), one can only test within a limited scope
of environmental variables. The implications of this should be clear.

Analog or digital, knowledge of how to make your camera work for you is
fundemental and essential. It is essential if you are going to achieve
specific and planned results, especially to expressany artistry, if that is
one of your goals. Moving beyond the Instamatic snapshot, or the CPU driven
digital snapshot, cannot be done without some groundwork by the head behind
the VF.

Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

Of course, one should learn as much as possible about their tools before
going to work! The question is about how much is knowable. Using a few
examples, I've tried to explain (apparently not convincingly enough)
that complete control of all imaging parameters is not possible with
digital cameras. So, IMO, many acceptable shots fall under the
"magnificent accidents".

It's not always easy to know your robot!

Practice, practice, practice, and take the time to read up on
understanding,
and fine tuning your robot.

Unfortunately, "reading up" to know one's robot would require knowledge
of sensor physics, electronics, computer programming, access to the
camera's firmware code (which can change drastically with each
"upgrade"), and more. What many photographers have access to amounts to
little more than opinions from other photographers who also lack the
requisite knowledge.

Not necessarily, some research, practice and understanding of the process
can
go a long way to producing good, and outstanding images consistantly.
Don’t
undervalue the knowledge and capabilities of some of those “other
photographers�.

I don't think that I'm undervaluing their opinion. It simply recognizes
the number of variables that are beyond the ability of one to know,
whether due to formal education or corporate protection of the relevant
information (e.g. firmware code). What one can learn from practice is
limited and can change instantly on a firmware upgrade. BTDT.

So, I take the time to learn what it takes to drive my cameras. I don’t
need to know what goes in to making those features available to me, but I do
need to know how to use them to best effect. Otherwise, I might as well just
shoot JPEG only in a formula scene mode. I don’t do that.
I have just upgraded the firmwarre in my X-E2 and my X-E2v4.0 is a very
different camera now and I have had to understand how those added features
benefit me. If I don’t bother to learn I might as well not bother with the
firmware updates.

Presumably, we all spend time with our gear to learn how to get the most
out of it. That is a given. It's because of having to deal in depth with
these parameters that I'm cognizant of those that are inaccessible that
affect my control of the process.

--
Best regards,

Neil

In article , Neil
wrote:

[...] With film photography, one can buy their
film by the batch and determine the desired exposure by testing and
subsequent calibration. All of the other parameters, such as lens
characteristics are constants. With digital cameras there are far more
parameters than the photographer has access to. For one, the sensor's
color spectral sensitivity that varies with light level. Since the
firmware code compensates for these in ways that can't be known or
predicted (for legal reasons), one can only test within a limited scope
of environmental variables. The implications of this should be clear.

Analog or digital, knowledge of how to make your camera work for you is
fundemental and essential. It is essential if you are going to achieve
specific and planned results, especially to expressany artistry, if that is
one of your goals. Moving beyond the Instamatic snapshot, or the CPU driven
digital snapshot, cannot be done without some groundwork by the head behind
the VF.

Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

that's odd, because digital is more accurate than film ever was.

Of course, one should learn as much as possible about their tools before
going to work! The question is about how much is knowable. Using a few
examples, I've tried to explain (apparently not convincingly enough)
that complete control of all imaging parameters is not possible with
digital cameras. So, IMO, many acceptable shots fall under the
"magnificent accidents".

nonsense. there's nothing stopping anyone from having complete control
of what a digital camera can do.

On Mar 3, 2016, Neil wrote
(in article ):

On 3/3/2016 10:27 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 3, 2016, Neil wrote
(much snipped)
[...] With film photography, one can buy their
film by the batch and determine the desired exposure by testing and
subsequent calibration. All of the other parameters, such as lens
characteristics are constants. With digital cameras there are far more
parameters than the photographer has access to. For one, the sensor's
color spectral sensitivity that varies with light level. Since the
firmware code compensates for these in ways that can't be known or
predicted (for legal reasons), one can only test within a limited scope
of environmental variables. The implications of this should be clear.

Analog or digital, knowledge of how to make your camera work for you is
fundemental and essential. It is essential if you are going to achieve
specific and planned results, especially to expressany artistry, if that is
one of your goals. Moving beyond the Instamatic snapshot, or the CPU driven
digital snapshot, cannot be done without some groundwork by the head behind
the VF.
Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

If you are shooting where color accuracy and color matching under differing
lighting conditions are critical, you should be shooting WB, and color
reference and calibration shots. Without them you are shooting in the dark.

Of course, one should learn as much as possible about their tools before
going to work! The question is about how much is knowable. Using a few
examples, I've tried to explain (apparently not convincingly enough)
that complete control of all imaging parameters is not possible with
digital cameras. So, IMO, many acceptable shots fall under the
"magnificent accidents".

With my digital cameras I can go full manual if I choose. That way I can use
any creative combination within the parameters the lens will allow along with
my choice of ISO and shutter speed. All the bad shots are my fault and I can
take credit for the good ones. No magnificent accidents are likely, even
though it might be nice to have one come along every now and again.

....and with the latest firmware update for my X-E2 I have improved AF and
additional MF assist features with electronic split image, or peak focusing.
Also in terms of creative flexibility I now have (when needed) an electronic
shutter which will give me shutter speeds up to 1/32000 sec. A feature that
is great to have when using fast lenses wide open in bright light.


It's not always easy to know your robot!

Practice, practice, practice, and take the time to read up on
understanding,
and fine tuning your robot.

Unfortunately, "reading up" to know one's robot would require
knowledge
of sensor physics, electronics, computer programming, access to the
camera's firmware code (which can change drastically with each
"upgrade"), and more. What many photographers have access to amounts
to
little more than opinions from other photographers who also lack the
requisite knowledge.

Not necessarily, some research, practice and understanding of the
process
can
go a long way to producing good, and outstanding images consistantly.
Don’t
undervalue the knowledge and capabilities of some of those “other
photographers�.
I don't think that I'm undervaluing their opinion. It simply recognizes
the number of variables that are beyond the ability of one to know,
whether due to formal education or corporate protection of the relevant
information (e.g. firmware code). What one can learn from practice is
limited and can change instantly on a firmware upgrade. BTDT.

So, I take the time to learn what it takes to drive my cameras. I don’t
need to know what goes in to making those features available to me, but I
do
need to know how to use them to best effect. Otherwise, I might as well
just
shoot JPEG only in a formula scene mode. I don’t do that.
I have just upgraded the firmwarre in my X-E2 and my X-E2v4.0 is a very
different camera now and I have had to understand how those added features
benefit me. If I don’t bother to learn I might as well not bother with
the
firmware updates.
Presumably, we all spend time with our gear to learn how to get the most
out of it. That is a given. It's because of having to deal in depth with
these parameters that I'm cognizant of those that are inaccessible that
affect my control of the process.

So you don’t have any idea of what your camera manufacturer has done to get
the CPU to work. Just understand what they have delivered, and how to get the
camera to produce what you want, not what the auto settings imagine you want.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 3/3/2016 1:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 3, 2016, Neil wrote
(in article ):

On 3/3/2016 10:27 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 3, 2016, Neil wrote
(much snipped)
[...] With film photography, one can buy their
film by the batch and determine the desired exposure by testing and
subsequent calibration. All of the other parameters, such as lens
characteristics are constants. With digital cameras there are far more
parameters than the photographer has access to. For one, the sensor's
color spectral sensitivity that varies with light level. Since the
firmware code compensates for these in ways that can't be known or
predicted (for legal reasons), one can only test within a limited scope
of environmental variables. The implications of this should be clear.

Analog or digital, knowledge of how to make your camera work for you is
fundemental and essential. It is essential if you are going to achieve
specific and planned results, especially to expressany artistry, if that is
one of your goals. Moving beyond the Instamatic snapshot, or the CPU driven
digital snapshot, cannot be done without some groundwork by the head behind
the VF.

Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

If you are shooting where color accuracy and color matching under differing
lighting conditions are critical, you should be shooting WB, and color
reference and calibration shots. Without them you are shooting in the dark.

Of course. I don't always have control of the environment, and on
occasion auto WB is of no help. It's at those times that problems that
could be solved with film and filters are not so easy to solve with
digital.

[...]
So you don’t have any idea of what your camera manufacturer has done to get
the CPU to work. Just understand what they have delivered, and how to get the
camera to produce what you want, not what the auto settings imagine you want.

Just to be clear, I'm not referring to "auto settings" at all. They are
just another layer of the robot's interaction on top of whatever it is
one is trying to accomplish.

--
Best regards,

Neil