DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

In my experience and the way things have been going, arguments are an infinite resource. We are never going to run out of them.

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

Here's an example of how they are not are analogous...

One big thing can do digitally that was very hard to do with film is color correction at more than one place along the dark/light range. Unless you were doing very complicated, time-consuming, and difficult masking, you could only color correct a film photographically processed (as opposed to digitally processed) image at one color point.

Color enlargers for printing have filter dials that would change the color mix, but these adjustments applied to the whole image. Getting the color balance right was laborious due to the turnaround time between trying a set of exposures and seeing the results. At best you could get the color right in one place of the color space, and the rest came out as it came out.

A common example was sunlight-balanced film used to take pictures under incandescent lighting. Corrected for sunlight, the whole image would look orange. You could pick a mid-gray spot somewhere and make it look gray, but then dark areas would have a bluish tinge.

Digital sensors are usually linear, so one correction for the lighting color actually works, and it's easy and normal to map the output image from the darkest to lightest area of the raw image.

Printing color negatives requires color correction or, as they say, post-processing. Do you think that means it is done to cover up the photographer's mistakes? Even with the color corrections and because of the limitations of color recording in film, it is still impossible to create "what you saw" and "get it right" when you snapped the shutter for a film photograph.

Thanks for reminding us that all color film prints are color corrected and, thus, post-processed.

David Taylor

Lol. True.

David Taylor

No. What I said was that for the majority, raw is a crutch.

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

Would you please be so kind as to provide some foundation for your numerous assertions? Many here are eager to learn from your supporting arguments.

Or, are you just expressing an unsupported opinion?

David Taylor

You quote "many" but I see no support for that opinion. So, no, I'm not being dragged into that rabbit hole. The majority will admit (to themselves) that they post process to try to save the day, or because someone on the internet told them they should.

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

You say "majority" but I see no support for that opinion. Tag, you're it.

David Taylor

Go look in the Gallery for evidence of those who should not be post processing.

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

Ah, love your approach of directing me to go find evidence to support your assertions: a classic technique of trolls, the uninformed, and the intellectually lazy.

Does there ever come a point in your communications where you actually read the information posted by others and then respond with actual, thoughtful, considered information of your own? Is your intent to provide trite, vapid comments or, perhaps, is it just your nature?

srt101fan

He's been spying on the "majority"; that's how he knows. Maybe he works for Google?

David Taylor

You're scared to admit the truth.

David Taylor

You would love to know.

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

Yet another unsupported assertion. At long last, have you nothing of substance to say?

David Taylor

You're hiding your ineptitude behind post processing.

tomad Loc: North Carolina

And for those who should be!