Kodak don't no nuthin 'bout color imaging

Images from the Kodak DC2x0 are oversaturated. I sure hope that Nikon or Olympus teaches Kodak a thing or to about how to do there color in the images from their cameras. It took Dial soap to show Ivory how to make hand soap that would clean your hands and Ford motor sure couldn't tune their car engine so they'd run right 'til Mazda came along and showed em how.

On a more serious note, I would like to ask if it would be too much to give credit where credit is due. Nikon could teach Kodak people a thing or two about what camera features best serve camera buffs and I would expect that Kodak would be recognized for their many decades in developing color imaging products [and if my memory serves me right, Kodak developed the first CCD imager in it's laboratory - If someone knows the early history of CCD imaging please do set me straight].

This little 'tirade' was provoked because I still see the statement that images from most Kodak models are oversaturated. I really don't think so, and If I were to speculate as to why the images are viewed as oversaturated, it would be the well known phenomenon of 'conditioning' - which in brief means that the more you are exposed to a particular stimulus, the more you 'get used to it' and accept it as normal. So many of the images of recent well known models have such quite muted colors that it is not hard to see why that conditioning has taken place.

Fred H.

Want to hear something funny? I registered http://www.eastmankodakcompany.com yesterday. Couldn't believe it wasn't registered already. What might the chances of putting up NON-COMMERCIAL content on that sight that might be at times critical of Kodak and their cameras and I not get sued over it? I have no complaint with Kodak or any other camera company just thinking of providing a non-commercial forum for camera enthusiasts.

If anyone is interested in helping me setup and maintain http://www.eastmankodakcompany.com that might benefit amateur and professional photographers alike, send an email to the above address.

Please note that I'm not into ax grinding and the like so I'm not interested in bashing Kodak or anyone else. But I think it would be a great place to promote and help get the message across to most camera companies the thoughts of their customers or potential customers regarding their current product line or what they might want in a future camera. Or just a place for photographers to shoot the breeze as it were and show their photography.

TIA

Tony

Fred H. said:

Images from the Kodak DC2x0 are oversaturated. I sure hope that Nikon or
Olympus teaches Kodak a thing or to about how to do there color in the
images from their cameras. It took Dial soap to show Ivory how to make
hand soap that would clean your hands and Ford motor sure couldn't tune
their car engine so they'd run right 'til Mazda came along and showed em
how.

On a more serious note, I would like to ask if it would be too much to
give credit where credit is due. Nikon could teach Kodak people a thing
or two about what camera features best serve camera buffs and I would
expect that Kodak would be recognized for their many decades in
developing color imaging products [and if my memory serves me right,
Kodak developed the first CCD imager in it's laboratory - If someone
knows the early history of CCD imaging please do set me straight].

This little 'tirade' was provoked because I still see the statement that
images from most Kodak models are oversaturated. I really don't think so,
and If I were to speculate as to why the images are viewed as
oversaturated, it would be the well known phenomenon of 'conditioning' -
which in brief means that the more you are exposed to a particular
stimulus, the more you 'get used to it' and accept it as normal. So many
of the images of recent well known models have such quite muted colors
that it is not hard to see why that conditioning has taken place.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Tony said:

Want to hear something funny? I registered http://www.eastmankodakcompany.com
yesterday. Couldn't believe it wasn't registered already. What might the
chances of putting up NON-COMMERCIAL content on that sight that might be
at times critical of Kodak and their cameras and I not get sued over it?

Click to expand...

Be careful. Possibly, you could be sued for trademark infringement.

Any attorneys present?

Hugo
http://www.hugomartinez.com

How do you figure? There won't be any copyrighted material on the site but rather just a place for photobugs and photographers alike to post and exchange ideas. But I see where you might have some questions.

Hugo Martinez said:

Tony said:

Want to hear something funny? I registered http://www.eastmankodakcompany.com
yesterday. Couldn't believe it wasn't registered already. What might the
chances of putting up NON-COMMERCIAL content on that sight that might be
at times critical of Kodak and their cameras and I not get sued over it?

Click to expand...

Be careful. Possibly, you could be sued for trademark infringement.

Any attorneys present?

Hugo
http://www.hugomartinez.com

Click to expand...

Without Fred, life itself would seem impossible.

Among professional photographers it is widely believed that the chroma knobs at Kodak are turned up to 11. I didn't invent that. And it doesn't even refer to digital imaging. These people are talking about film and print paper.

Given that the corporate culture of Kodak is both renowned and reviled for this practice, if you were Kodak considering digital cameras for the masses, would you be tweaking your products to look technically correct or beautifully colorful? By implication Kodak is NOT in the business of making things look exact; they are in the business of making images feel good.

I've seen images of the same bright colorful flower posted here shot on a Kodak 2x0 and Nikon 950 side by side, within moments and the guy putting them out was saying SEE?! (For all I know it could have been Fred.)

Well, when push comes to shove I mix my metaphors and test the waters. (which are generally thinner than blood, but that's another story...)

I could make the Nikon flower look exactly like the Kodak one but when I tried to go the other direction the detail in the Kodak flower just wasn't there to make it look like the original Nikon shot. Why?

TOO MUCH %$#@& ! CHROMA.

Once an image has the chroma punched beyond a threshold, it isn't coming back, folks. You can take it to B&W but the overchroma'd parts won't give you back the original luminance values you would have gotten from a true panchromatic shot. Relatively nearby brightness values are overpowered by the color value punching the color up and flattening the RGB values of the dominant hue while surpressing the values of the counter-hue (to make it stand out).

So why do all these consumers buy the Kodak version? We live in a society that spends $100 billion on drugs and you wonder why consumers buy the prettier-than-reality version?

Get me another beer!

-iNova

Fred H. said:

Images from the Kodak DC2x0 are oversaturated. I sure hope that Nikon or
Olympus teaches Kodak a thing or to about how to do there color in the
images from their cameras. It took Dial soap to show Ivory how to make
hand soap that would clean your hands and Ford motor sure couldn't tune
their car engine so they'd run right 'til Mazda came along and showed em
how.

On a more serious note, I would like to ask if it would be too much to
give credit where credit is due. Nikon could teach Kodak people a thing
or two about what camera features best serve camera buffs and I would
expect that Kodak would be recognized for their many decades in
developing color imaging products [and if my memory serves me right,
Kodak developed the first CCD imager in it's laboratory - If someone
knows the early history of CCD imaging please do set me straight].

This little 'tirade' was provoked because I still see the statement that
images from most Kodak models are oversaturated. I really don't think so,
and If I were to speculate as to why the images are viewed as
oversaturated, it would be the well known phenomenon of 'conditioning' -
which in brief means that the more you are exposed to a particular
stimulus, the more you 'get used to it' and accept it as normal. So many
of the images of recent well known models have such quite muted colors
that it is not hard to see why that conditioning has taken place.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Well said!

I have over 1000 photos I took with the DC260 and DC265 and no amount of "sharpening" in Photoshop or anhy other program will bring back the detail. Everything looks fuzzy - but brilliantly colorful! Even better than the real thing. As I've mentioned before, the photos look like those "computer enhanced" images from Nasa where they show exploding stars ro cmets in beautiful colors. They don't really look like that, but they make wonderful screensavers and generate lots of "oooh"s and "aaaah"s. I just wish there was some way to turn it off. Apparently Kodak is following the Apple principle of "Don't worry about those things - we'll do everything for you!".

Sometimes I wwant to drive a stick, okay?

We all know how long it has taken Kodak to offer a "raw" format on their consumer cameras. Wanna guess how long it will be before they offer that kind of manual control? I'm guessing they don't have the technical expertise to do it. That's why it's only offered on the high end cameras -- because someone else already did it for them! They still think of the DC series as a consumer point-and-shoot product line.

• Derek W.

Peter iNova said:

Among professional photographers it is widely believed that the chroma
knobs at Kodak are turned up to 11. I didn't invent that. And it
doesn't even refer to digital imaging. These people are talking about
film and print paper.

Given that the corporate culture of Kodak is both renowned and reviled
for this practice, if you were Kodak considering digital cameras for the
masses, would you be tweaking your products to look technically correct
or beautifully colorful? By implication Kodak is NOT in the business of
making things look exact; they are in the business of making images feel
good.

I've seen images of the same bright colorful flower posted here shot on a
Kodak 2x0 and Nikon 950 side by side, within moments and the guy putting
them out was saying SEE?! (For all I know it could have been Fred.)

Well, when push comes to shove I mix my metaphors and test the waters.
(which are generally thinner than blood, but that's another story...)

I could make the Nikon flower look exactly like the Kodak one but when I
tried to go the other direction the detail in the Kodak flower just
wasn't there to make it look like the original Nikon shot. Why?

TOO MUCH %$#@& ! CHROMA.

Once an image has the chroma punched beyond a threshold, it isn't coming
back, folks. You can take it to B&W but the overchroma'd parts won't
give you back the original luminance values you would have gotten from a
true panchromatic shot. Relatively nearby brightness values are
overpowered by the color value punching the color up and flattening the
RGB values of the dominant hue while surpressing the values of the
counter-hue (to make it stand out).

So why do all these consumers buy the Kodak version? We live in a
society that spends $100 billion on drugs and you wonder why consumers
buy the prettier-than-reality version?

Get me another beer!

-iNova

Fred H. said:

Images from the Kodak DC2x0 are oversaturated. I sure hope that Nikon or
Olympus teaches Kodak a thing or to about how to do there color in the
images from their cameras. It took Dial soap to show Ivory how to make
hand soap that would clean your hands and Ford motor sure couldn't tune
their car engine so they'd run right 'til Mazda came along and showed em
how.

On a more serious note, I would like to ask if it would be too much to
give credit where credit is due. Nikon could teach Kodak people a thing
or two about what camera features best serve camera buffs and I would
expect that Kodak would be recognized for their many decades in
developing color imaging products [and if my memory serves me right,
Kodak developed the first CCD imager in it's laboratory - If someone
knows the early history of CCD imaging please do set me straight].

This little 'tirade' was provoked because I still see the statement that
images from most Kodak models are oversaturated. I really don't think so,
and If I were to speculate as to why the images are viewed as
oversaturated, it would be the well known phenomenon of 'conditioning' -
which in brief means that the more you are exposed to a particular
stimulus, the more you 'get used to it' and accept it as normal. So many
of the images of recent well known models have such quite muted colors
that it is not hard to see why that conditioning has taken place.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Peter iNova said:

Given that the corporate culture of Kodak is both renowned and reviled
for this practice, if you were Kodak considering digital cameras for the
masses, would you be tweaking your products to look technically correct
or beautifully colorful? By implication Kodak is NOT in the business of
making things look exact; they are in the business of making images feel
good.

Click to expand...

Peter:

Maybe you can help me. I'm searching for a four letter word that starts with 'S' and ends with 'B' and connotes elitism. I understand that we, the great unwashed masses are titillated by those 'pumped' up colors while the cognizenti know just what images really should look like. And I am glad you know what Kodak is in business for but then I don't quite understand why they try to sell their cameras to professionals.

Fred H.

We can all get Canon too! After all, they provided the EOS 2000 to Kodak to build the DCS-520.

Sometimes I think we all go a little too far with looking at the "blue fringe" effect and "detail" in shadow. Unless it's really bad, it doesn't bother me. Most clients purchasing wedding photos done by a pro, are not looking at the fact that their daughter jannie's freckle in the shadow of her left ear can't be made out on the framed portrait on their mantel. I suppose an FBI agent would be very angry if someone with a Kodak 520 managed to get a shot off with the camera of an assassin and the detail in the shadow wasn't sufficient to allow positive identification. I feel if the Kodak couldn't do it then the Nikon would have the same problem in that last scenario.

Initially, the camera replaced painters as recorders of history. That's why painters went into the abstract and impressionist areas. Todays worst cameras will record an event more accurately than the most skilled painter of 100 years ago. I'd still rather have a painting done by a Currier and Ive's artist than a photo of a particular place. Either the Kodak Pros or the Nikon Pros will do the job they were intended for. They will also do it well enough to get paid!

Fred H. said:

Images from the Kodak DC2x0 are oversaturated. I sure hope that Nikon or
Olympus teaches Kodak a thing or to about how to do there color in the
images from their cameras. It took Dial soap to show Ivory how to make
hand soap that would clean your hands and Ford motor sure couldn't tune
their car engine so they'd run right 'til Mazda came along and showed em
how.

On a more serious note, I would like to ask if it would be too much to
give credit where credit is due. Nikon could teach Kodak people a thing
or two about what camera features best serve camera buffs and I would
expect that Kodak would be recognized for their many decades in
developing color imaging products [and if my memory serves me right,
Kodak developed the first CCD imager in it's laboratory - If someone
knows the early history of CCD imaging please do set me straight].

This little 'tirade' was provoked because I still see the statement that
images from most Kodak models are oversaturated. I really don't think so,
and If I were to speculate as to why the images are viewed as
oversaturated, it would be the well known phenomenon of 'conditioning' -
which in brief means that the more you are exposed to a particular
stimulus, the more you 'get used to it' and accept it as normal. So many
of the images of recent well known models have such quite muted colors
that it is not hard to see why that conditioning has taken place.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Fred H. said:

Peter iNova said:

Given that the corporate culture of Kodak is both renowned and reviled
for this practice, if you were Kodak considering digital cameras for the
masses, would you be tweaking your products to look technically correct
or beautifully colorful? By implication Kodak is NOT in the business of
making things look exact; they are in the business of making images feel
good.

Click to expand...

Peter:

Maybe you can help me. I'm searching for a four letter word that starts
with 'S' and ends with 'B' and connotes elitism. I understand that we,
the great unwashed masses are titillated by those 'pumped' up colors
while the cognizenti know just what images really should look like. And I
am glad you know what Kodak is in business for but then I don't quite
understand why they try to sell their cameras to professionals.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Fred. You have crossed the line of decency. Good bye.

-iNova

The only "professional" cameras marketed by Kodak are made by Nikon or Canon. Kodak has never (at least in my lifetime) really been in the pro market except with regards to film. But even there the brilliant Kodachrome was sold mostly to consumers while the more realistic Ektachrome was targeted at pros. I shot kodakchrome for years and loved it. Nothing came close for my purposes (which was to project slides and bore family and friends), that is until the later Ektachromes, but that doesn't mean it was the right film for everyone.

There's nothing wrong with tailoring products for the mass market. It's just that there's also nothing wrong with tailoring products for the pro or prosumer market, and you seem to be implying that there is. You buy the camera that pleases you and I'll buy the camera that pleases me, and we'll both be happy.

The only reason anyone here is nitpiking at Kodak is because you're nitpiking at Nikon (and by implication, those of us stupid enough to buy their POS cameras. It's fine to point out the weaknesses of a particular camera, we all do it, and it's informative and instructive, but enough of the crusading, ok. Let's get on with checking out what wonderful new cameras are arriving, and with learning new tips and tricks about the ones we already have.

Don

Fred H. said:

I understand that we,
the great unwashed masses are titillated by those 'pumped' up colors
while the cognizenti know just what images really should look like. And I
am glad you know what Kodak is in business for but then I don't quite
understand why they try to sell their cameras to professionals.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Don:

Since I have some respect for you, I will at least considerably tone down my 'crusade', but I still would like all those who may bother to read this that one of the main reasons that I have gone through this is that I have a thing about what I see as smug arrogance, and when I first started visiting this site, I read a great deal of comments that could only be taken as smugness. I can't remember which particular person it was who made the comment that something like 99.7% of people would say that the Nikon images would be adjudged excellent, but I just could not let it go by. If I have done nothing else I hope that I have gotten Nikon (and I am not afraid to say that many of these are out and out snobs) and Olympus devotees to tone down their own comments down.

One other thing, I was hoping that I could get someone to say (as I did that Kodak may have their strength in one area (image quality) while Nikon may be strong in another area (features) and was a little disappointed that at least a grudging admission was not forthcoming.

Fred H.

Why would anyone "admit" that Kodak's image quality is better when it obviously isn't. THe numerous posts by readers have indicated that Kodak's oversaturation appeals mostly to those with limited cranial capacity (a sloping forehead comes to mind). Perhaps the lack of "support" for Kodak is also due to those people's inability to use a computer for anything other than AOL or Email (Apple users come to mind) or for drawing pretty colorful pictures in one of the simple bit-mapped draw programs that come with all PC's.

For what it's worth, the Nikon products certainly have their share of faults (as pointed out by Mr. Dvorak) as well. I wouldn't expect the D1 (or any camera at thsi point) to produce "flawless" photos, but thanks to software upgrades, some of those "faults" can be changed (which Mr. Dvorak failed to recognize).

Kodak has consistently produced substandard products with respect to cameras themsleves and as another post-er pointed out, their "pro" cameras are all based on Nikon and Canon, since Kodak has never produced a camera anywhere near the quality of the others.

Nikon's strengths are in optics, features, quality, and reputation. Kodak strengths are ..... uhmm .... well, their pictures are REALLY, REALLY colorful! Oh, and they also have USB connectivity (may be a moot point, since many people are just using CF readers now anyway).

• Brad W.

Fred H. said:

Don:

Since I have some respect for you, I will at least considerably tone down
my 'crusade', but I still would like all those who may bother to read
this that one of the main reasons that I have gone through this is that I
have a thing about what I see as smug arrogance, and when I first
started visiting this site, I read a great deal of comments that could
only be taken as smugness. I can't remember which particular person it
was who made the comment that something like 99.7% of people would say
that the Nikon images would be adjudged excellent, but I just could not
let it go by. If I have done nothing else I hope that I have gotten Nikon
(and I am not afraid to say that many of these are out and out snobs) and
Olympus devotees to tone down their own comments down.

One other thing, I was hoping that I could get someone to say (as I did
that Kodak may have their strength in one area (image quality) while
Nikon may be strong in another area (features) and was a little
disappointed that at least a grudging admission was not forthcoming.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Robert said:

We can all get Canon too! After all, they provided the EOS 2000 to Kodak
to build the DCS-520.

Click to expand...

Robert:

If you will read the review of the Kodak DCS520 at this site, you will find out that the only thing that Kodak used from the Canon EOS camera was the body. All the imaging 'stuff' is Kodaks. Therefore Canon is not in the picture as far as my comment about Kodak selling to professionals is concerned.

Fred H.

Don Lashier said:

The only "professional" cameras marketed by Kodak are made by Nikon or
Canon. Kodak has never (at least in my lifetime) really been in the pro
market except with regards to film

Click to expand...

Don: just another comment - Kodak uses only the bodies from Nikon and Canon for its DCS520 and DCS620 but the 'digital back' (imaging guts) is all Kodak. Comment still applys.

Fred H.

Fred H. said:

Don Lashier said:

The only "professional" cameras marketed by Kodak are made by Nikon or
Canon. Kodak has never (at least in my lifetime) really been in the pro
market except with regards to film

Click to expand...

Don: just another comment - Kodak uses only the bodies from Nikon and
Canon for its DCS520 and DCS620 but the 'digital back' (imaging guts) is
all Kodak. Comment still applys.

Click to expand...

And who makes the lenses, and the CCDs? But you're right, Kodak has certainly been a leader in putting together professional level solutions for digital imaging, and if you look at the images from these cameras I don't think you'll see the same "look" as those from their consumer cameras. Kodak knows how to do it right, and they also know what sells in the mass market.

Don

Fred, You ought to wander over to "www.dcresource.com" where the discussion is more balanced and certainly more courteous and professional. I favor Kodaks because of their superior color to my eye but recognize that no one sees color the same way. I post my best in my office and there is no agreement on which is the best. Everyone sees something different. But, some are courteous about expressing their oppinions, some are not.

Fred H. said:

Peter iNova said:

Given that the corporate culture of Kodak is both renowned and reviled
for this practice, if you were Kodak considering digital cameras for the
masses, would you be tweaking your products to look technically correct
or beautifully colorful? By implication Kodak is NOT in the business of
making things look exact; they are in the business of making images feel
good.

Click to expand...

Peter:

Maybe you can help me. I'm searching for a four letter word that starts
with 'S' and ends with 'B' and connotes elitism.
Fred H.

Click to expand...

Now let's look at the technical implication of these contrasting observations. One is based on a history of sensory mismatches by a leading supplier of photographic tools and seeks to express a consensus of the photographic community when confronted with that mismatch. The other seeks to ruin the authority of the individual that pointed it out by painting him as a snob.

Which of these two authors are you going to turn to when you need to know anything that counts? Which deserves to be engaged in discussion? Which seeks cussion? Which one will lead you into an opening of your mind and which one represents a mind closed around an opinion that will have no movement?

Now, which one has named its own closed mindedness? Is it not elitist to have a mind that does not wish to learn? "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts," was a big joke around my dinner table growing up.

There is a legal term from ancient Rome that delineates a form of arguement that is used in place of having any substance to put forward. Argumentum ad hominum. It means to "attack the man" instead of the issue. It is a very low level of non-logic that can't be useful in technical appraisals of anything. That's why politicians get science wrong so often.

I would urge all who read and post here to let this example guide us towards a more productive activity: enlightenment, help and encouragement. There are a minority who think this is the right place to bash. I think it is not.

-iNova

Don:

I could be wrong, but I believe that Kodak makes the CCD chip itself. I am fairly certain that they have been a big player in the development of the CCD imaging technology.

I took a close look at the images from the DCS520 and DCS620 and can honestly say that I cannot detect a significant difference in color intensities between those and the DC280. If I were cornered, I would have to say that images of the 620 were slightly less intense than the 520, but I might also attribute that to the particular scenes chosen.

Fred H.

Member said:

Kodak has consistently produced substandard products with respect to
cameras themsleves and as another post-er pointed out, their "pro"
cameras are all based on Nikon and Canon, since Kodak has never produced
a camera anywhere near the quality of the others.

Click to expand...

Well Gee Brad, this fellow who just may have limited cranial capacity says you are wrong about Canon and Nikon somehow making the cameras for Kodak. If you will go to the reviews of the Kodak DCS520 and DCS620 at this site, you will find out that the only part of the professional digital cameras that Kodak sells are the bodies made by those companies. The digital back ('imaging guts' to those of us who can't grasp complex stuff) is made by Kodak. I would make sure that you get your facts straight before you start throwing around barbs.

Fred H.

Hello Fred! I have a sarcastic sense of humor. My post was merely meant to be humurous. Precisely, it was an attempt to bring a halt to the ongoing Ford Chevy debate. It seems to go on ad infinitum.

If a professional photojournalist were to read this forum, that pro would immediately burst into a fit of uncontrollable laughter. Tears would be flowing out of his or hers eyes! They'd be laughing all the way to the bank with the money they were paid for their work with their Kodak 520 or Nikon E3 or whatever. The "dumb" consumer would purchase the copy of Newsweek, or Time or Life purely based on the content of the photo on the respective magazines cover! And, guess what! That "dumb" consumer wouldn't be able to tell you what camera took the photo. In addition, many digital photo competitions have been won with every camera imaginable.

There's an old saying: "It's time to s* t or get off the pot"!

Fred H. said:

Robert said:

We can all get Canon too! After all, they provided the EOS 2000 to Kodak
to build the DCS-520.

Click to expand...

Robert:

If you will read the review of the Kodak DCS520 at this site, you will
find out that the only thing that Kodak used from the Canon EOS camera
was the body. All the imaging 'stuff' is Kodaks. Therefore Canon is not
in the picture as far as my comment about Kodak selling to professionals
is concerned.

Fred H.

Click to expand...