Film Vs Digital (not the usual question)

Started Sep 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 2,216
Re: "straight out the camera, no PP"

cmc1 wrote:

Ron Poelman wrote:

cmc1 wrote:

It's great to see "straight out the camera, no PP" on posted images

Is really meaningless, every camera does this job differently.
All that means is the designers got their way (on that shot).
There is an ocean of alternatives for shots that don't look
over-processed, just as there is for those that do.

Not sure I agree with that? I know that digital cameras have different processor and jpeg engines but with a decent DLSR I could shoot a very over/under exposed image, not straight,nor in complete focus, get home and rectify the lot in PS within an hour.

Not so sure you'd take that approach with a film camera. A decent photographer [film or digital] would make sure all the above was correct before taking the shot.

to put it another way is digital making lazy photographers of us?

Extensive retouching & post-processing was done in the film days - it just took more effort.  Look up Bert Hardy (famous photojournalist) well-known for his "special soup" developer that he swore could extract a printable negative from heavily under-exposed film.  Check out the psychedelic Beatles photos by Richard Avedon - processed or what?. From Hollywood retouched movie star portraits through unsharp masking to solarised Surrealist images by Man Ray and Lee Miller, it's been done since the early days of photography.  Digital photography has just given us better tools. The only thing that is "straight OOC" from a digital camera would be a big file of binary data...


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow