Digital Color

Below are two photographs made within minutes of each other, the first is Kodak Portra 400 the second is with a Nikon D850.

I prefer the Portra shot. Having said that, you can create your own profile or LUT and make them look exactly the same. The caveat is that they both would have to be within a safe limit. Even then, it's not so cut-and-dry, especially for moving pictures.

Now, if I had to shoot a subject intended to be enlarged and framed in a gallery or what not, I'd choose film. Collectors tend to prefer film, to the best of my knowledge. Personally I don't think I would buy a print made from a digital file - I wouldn't even buy a digital print made from a film frame, unless it was a Lambda print or something similar. The next best thing for collectors is digital medium format.

"I wouldn't even buy a digital print made from a film frame, unless it was a Lambda print or something similar. The next best thing for collectors is digital medium format" Karim.

Collector prefer film.

Also rare coins, artefacts, limited editions or anything they can turn a coin with.. What the monkeys has that to do with photography or Art?

Everything really, Sad but true.

Cannot remember maybe film or digital.

Do all RAW images look that way before being processed?

To say a Raw file has a look is the same as saying a musical score has a sound.

Portra colors have a painterly quality that I cannot achieve with digital (yes, I know there are tools and plug-in that are designed to do this but I don't care to go that far).

It's only a short step.

A simple hue rotation and slight 'exposure' increase goes a long way toward matching the digital reds and greens to the Portra shot.

I took the liberty of doing this to the D850 shot:

I just used the editor on my smartphone, and it was a few seconds work.

On my phone screen it now looks very similar to the Portra shot. (OK the sky colour's different, but I could have fixed that with a more sophisticated image editor).

However, I'll just re-iterate what I said earlier.

If a pleasing representation or reproduction from film can be made and shown digitally, then there's obviously no inherent restriction or characteristic of the digital process that's displeasing. Because both images are now being represented by digital data, and being displayed in the same colour space - sRGB or otherwise.

All the images being compared on this forum, or anywhere else online, have undergone digital transformation. No matter what their origin. Doesn't this say something? Or everything!?

Perhaps I didn't choose my words carefully enough nor provide enough background. I am well versed in color management, and have a fully color-managed workflow. I profile and calibrate my monitors regularly. My printers are also profiled. What I should have been more clear about is my use of the phrase "unprocessed RAW". I didn't mean before initial RAW conversion (of which Rodeo_Joe gives a most excellent demonstration) but rather the next step of image editing. Apologies for the bad choice of words. I've attached an image converted to JPEG and sRGB. The colors just seem hyper-real to me. It was shot on a Sony a99.[ATTACH=full]1352363[/ATTACH]

Since you converted that image, which is outstanding by the way, is it possible that some filter is set that you're not catching. It also looks like you lightened his face as I would have expected with the strong light that the face would be in more shade and perhaps that touch up if done could shift densities/hues as well that you're perceiving.

It doesn’t make sense. It’s a myth you’ve bought into. You, and not the medium, are most likely the party responsible for the look of your photos and simply aren’t crafting your photos to get the look you want.

I agree with the statement of too real. Are you not aware of the 'soap opera' look of video. Where everything looks too sharp and detailed and appear to be in the same room with you on a bigger monitor? The same goes for UHD quality stills. In video, we actually use settings of DF or NDF to 'smooth' out the edges. Or change recording speeds. Alan perceives and doesn't like the edges and rather prefers the film look. Today's digital cameras have detail settings one can use to blend the edges more, thus giving the impression of film. It depends on the photographer whether she is going for the realism pop out effect, or the filmy softer look.

It's not a myth. Digital is computer software and sensors recording more than the eye can process and we tend to see it as too crisp more or less for the lack of a better description.

I think this website in general would be more frictionless and amicable if people would respond to the post content instead of confronting the author on why they posted or adding extra personal comments. That is never conductive in forums. We have enough antagonistic terrorism going on in the streets right now to be sitting here defending everything one posts.

Stay safe.

I think this website in general would be more frictionless and amicable if people would respond to the post content instead of confronting the author on why they posted or adding extra personal comments.

I think this website operates well when it’s left to the moderators to moderate and the members to say what they want within the bounds of the guidelines set forth in the terms of agreement.