Parameter Specs on a Canon xxD model to match Portra?

[marlboro_smith]

Does anyone know the parameter specs that would tend to match Kodak Portra film

on my Canon 20D?

[phule]

You're looking to produce JPG files in-camera to match Portra?

[William Michael]

I believe I understand the rationale of the question.

 

 

Even though you use the phrase `tend to` in your question, I believe there is no answer even to `tend to match`

 

 

I have been playing at the question of `JPEG direct out of camera` for about two years: most specifically attempting to `match` (my visions of) VPSIII and TRI X.

 

 

The two (main) problems I keep coming up against is (stated without the detailed technical analysis), the different latitudes and tonal ranges, of the two mediums.

 

 

Because of these problems I encountered, recently my thinking done an about face and I am adopting a new practical approach, addressing this question:

 

 

What digital `film` of those available, will I choose, for these types of scenes, lighting and other selected conditions?

 

 

In other words, I am not attempting to match anything, but rather sorting through a new range of `films`, from which I can choose for specific tasks.

 

 

My initial methodology is using a two dimensional matrix.

 

 

Primary Lighting:

 

 

Flash; Sunlight; FlashFillSunlight; Open Shade; IndoorAmbientWindow; IndoorAmbientIncandescent; MercuryVapour; TungstenSetLights.

 

 

Primary Subjects:

 

 

SkinPortraitC; SkinPortraitBW; SkinSportC; SkinSportBW; ProductC

 

 

I am about four months into this new task and I have found two new problem variants apropos placing the results in the form of a two dimensional matrix: ISO and my 5D.

 

There are variances with both.

 

The 5D is addressed by making a separate matrix for it (from the 20D).

 

I am still pondering the ISO issue and for each camera.

 

Good luck with your quest.

 

WW

[marlboro_smith]

Hmmmm.......

 

Thanks, William. You've brought up a full array of issues I had not pondered. The most particular is your noted variation in the 5D(or my 20D) itself, and the changes in the ISO. I would not have expected those but now that you note them, it is quite obvious.

 

Since all my indoor portraits are done with umbrella bounce flash, that would be the one I am trying to match to both my own recollection of VPS3(like you) and to the actual photographs of same, at least initially.

 

You are right that this may simply be an impossible task, at this time. VPS3 was a mature technology, and digital imaging is still in toddlerhood, at least in regard to stable-the-same-across-the-board image quality.

 

Kind regards,

 

Eric

[phule]

There is no real reason to force yourself to use in-camera parameters for matching a "look" for your images. In fact, I would argue that that sort of approach would be the worst of all worlds, if your required output is not time-sensitive.

 

Creating a set of parameters for your RAW processing engine of choice would be a far better solution and would allow not only the most control but would give you better results.

 

For example, you can apply a specific set of presets in Adobe Lightroom (my development tool of choice) to vast numbers of images. This would be a tremendously powerful solution once you have worked out what those parameters should be (based on test prints, etc).

[William Michael]

> that sort of approach would be the worst of all worlds, if your required output is not time-sensitive.

 

Creating a set of parameters for your RAW processing engine of choice would be a far better solution and would allow not only the most control but would give you better results. [. . . ] you can apply a specific set of presets in Adobe Lightroom (my development tool of choice) to vast numbers of images. This would be a tremendously powerful solution once you have worked out what those parameters should be <

 

Rob:

 

Yes.

 

 

(And I thought you were thinking `What the Heck?) when I read your first comment . . .

 

:)

 

These facts were recognized and noted by me, well before I began my quest.

 

I am mastering Adobe CS3, and I think it is wonderful: a whole new world into a new darkroom.

 

Speaking only for myself: my `JPEG direct out of the camera` is more an `academic` task (can`t find the correct word really, because it is not really academic, more a sideline `hobby`).

 

It came about when I began reading Photo.net (around 2000) and noticed the escalating numbers of JPEG vs. RAW debates, especially on the Wedding Forum.

 

Having made most of my livelihood from W & P studios, but selling up everything before going digital, I was intrigued . . . the rest is history: I learnt the new medium and am happily popping of two or three Weddings a month on contract for the owners of my old studio, shooting RAW of course, (well actually RAW + JPEG) . . . the more data for the experiment the better!

 

One of my other passions is sport, and I am involved in a couple of associations, one is Swimming, and with regards to:

 

`if your required output is not time-sensitive.`

 

I do not think that this is actually correct: I have built a rapport with a guy who covers many swimming & athletic meets and prints onsite. His set up is amazing and he can turn 10 x 8 within about 3 to 5 minutes, if required (continuously, all day).

 

He has the whole workflow on presets and just shoots RAW.

 

Really the only `actual` application I can envisage for JPEG direct (in regards to workflow), is for surveillance operations and the like: but that would certainly be radio or cable TX in any case.

 

Hope that explains my reasons a bit clearer, and I quite understand if you think I am bit whacky!

 

:)

 

WW

[William Michael]

> VPS3 was a mature technology, and digital imaging is still in toddlerhood, at least in regard to stable-the-same-across-the-board image quality. <

 

Eric:

 

I do not think these two facts are relevant in the equation.

 

It is simply that we are using two different mediums.

 

The development stages (of either) is of no respect.

 

Their TR&D paths are quite different and contained within: forces, guidelines and rationales: two quite distinct paths will be trod, entirely.

 

WW

[phule]

[[(And I thought you were thinking `What the Heck?) when I read your first comment . . . ]]

 

Not at all! I just wanted to clarify the original question. :)

[William Michael]

I was being light hearted with the comment Rob, a few of my friends look at me strangely when we discuss this idea . . .

 

No offence was meant to you, or to Eric or to the question itself.

 

Just clarifying that point.

 

Cheers

[marlboro_smith]

Guys,

 

I also have an another reason for asking the question. At the moment, and for at least a year or so, I do not have the computing power to do the full digital manipulation to handle RAW images. I simply cannot run the modifications using a 2002 model Powerbook 800. Hence my stopgap thoughts of in-camera modification.

 

I can use raw, I just can't currently manipulate the images except going out for a cup of coffee while the computer plods along trying to do the modification.

 

Thanks for your help.

 

ERIC

[User_4136860]

The reason why Kodak still manufacture Portra, is because many pros. still shoot it because it's so good for social photography, you can't have it both ways' you can't shoot digital ,and have the property s of film ,the answer is simple ,get yourself a film camera.