... about reading/comparing Specs, reviews, ISO performance comparison and megapixels.
I’m sorry, I’ve heard too many atrocities in digital photography statements today based on read stuff, stuff on the net to really stand and do nothing. This blog entry can get a bit technical so I’m sorry if I lose you in the process. I will include pictured examples when I have time. Right now I just want to rant my ass off.
First of all, the file isn’t the same!
Worrying about the tech wiz is one thing but getting your shots the way you want them is another, especially when you post-process them. It starts with the photo file! After trying MANY brands, I can surely attest that native color rendering differs from one brand to another and so does the behavior of the photo file that goes into post-processing.
Back in the film days (I never truly shot film by the way, but I’ve asked the advice of many of my photography colleagues), many films came from many photography brands like Ilford, Kodak, Fujifilm, etc… and they were all different in terms of colors, contrast, white balance and darkroom developing behavior. Such a thing stands true today with the digital photography. Lets vulgarize.
Say: A digital camera is made of a lens, a photo sensor and a color processor.
In many cases today, when you take a picture using a digital camera, the job of a photo sensor is the same: to record what they see through different light and temperature readings that go through the lens. The color processor later analyzes the recorded data and produces a photo file.
A Photo file (also called an image file) is a file that has been produced by the digital camera (or a digital still making device). This file is usually turned (processed) into a picture or a photograph (when printed).
The most common types of photo files are the JPG file and the RAW file. The JPG file is a universal image file pre-processed by the camera. As such, many devices or programs can open it. In this case, a JPG file is more likely a picture file. The RAW is a photo file made from all the recorded information of the photo sensor. A RAW file is not a picture file yet as it needs to be processed by the user using a RAW editor.
Now the thing that differentiates the photo files from one brand to another is the color processor. Each brand designs its own processor to behave, interpret and usually match what the user sees through the production of a photo file composed of mainly two variables: colors influenced by the white balance and contrasts influenced by the dynamic range (sorry to throw 4 specific photography terms on you readers ><). The white balance (measured in Kelvin values) is one defining variable that determines what temperature the colors of a scene have: it is warmer when the colors lean towards the yellow color and colder when the colors lean towards the blue color. The dynamic range is another variable that determines the tones of gray from the whitest part of the shot to the darkest part. It influences the contrast. Thus, each brand interprets those variables in a unique way. For each ISO sensitivity value, the color processor’s work can be evaluated on a technical level by comparing the noise performance and the dynamic range among many other technical things machines can measure (see DXOMARK). Yet the appreciation of the photo file’s visual result and behavior through post-processing is purely subjective to the photographer. As such, when a photographer likes the rendering of a certain brand or has built his solid workload around it, it is very difficult to make him change his mind. The native colors of a file become part of what defines the photography of the artist, because he’s processing with the colors he wants right from the start. It’s like painting or drawing on a certain type of canvas/paper; the behavior of the material differs from one brand to another (even if they are the same specified, those material might come from different places… right?) Seriously, in the case of someone looking for his/her first digital camera, instead of comparing camera specs, AF performance, ISO performance, megapixels, blablabla and reading some reviews on some website, people should compare what colors those machines produce before getting it. Technically speaking, dSLRs of today have light gathering capabilities that run circles around the human eye especially when you pair an f/1.4 lens and a ISO 3200 capable camera…
Now back to me, it is very difficult for me to accept one brand’s superiority in image quality over the other mainly because I like what photo file my current camera (the Nikon D90 and well… Nikon dSLR in general) gives me when it comes to processing those amazing colors you see in my photography. This is one of the main reasons why many appreciate my style and I like it that way. I find that the technical comparisons and the mostly non-biased (à la dpreview) reviews made on sensor and camera performance only show half of what cameras are capable. The other half is the whole feel of it when I take my shots, get the colors, I want and process my shots into the vision I like and this, my friends, can’t be replaced by technology (nor does talent). Most of all reviews are made to sell shit, duh!
Right now I still need to get used to the Fuji F70EXR’s photo file, because it differs so much from what I was used to on my Lumix FX35 while being technically better. Yes shooting at ISO800 is freakin’ hot but colors occasionally not!
OMG I just wrote 700 words on my first part! Am I done? NO!
read part two
read part three
2 comments:
Here i must agree with you all the way. I to know for a fact what is difference between Canon and Nikon color processing.
All Canons give a bit duller photos right out, especially if you use RAW. Nikons have much richer colors, and have always had better dynamic range.
It can't be helped with dynamic range, just because it's a sensor characteristic, and not the processor, but you can simply say to Lightroom what to do with newly imported photos, and add some blacks to it. That will fix the dull colors, and a bit weaker blacks, at some expense to dynamic range, but not much.
I would like to say that good photos are not doe camera, but they are the photographers work.
thx for giving your opinion on that. :)
Post a Comment