Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

Yes!
Loved Cibachrome but 2-3 hours in almost darkness bad fumes to get couple of decent printa much more per print than digitally

Bill_de Loc: US

When I started with Cibachrome, the day it was released, I got the processing tube. The only time in the dark was paper, to easel, to tube. I got 2 kits that day and printed my portfolio for my photography final that night. I fell in love with Cibachrome that day.

---

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

You remember well It was much easier with tube than Kodak processor
Still have my Spiratone tube , I think did not use water bath just adjusted time to temperature in room
Bad fumes were when dumping a liquid into bicarbonate in the light
Learned that I could use green filter in Kodak light
Main problem was contrast build up with contrasty Kodachrome slides Never tried self masking Ilfochrome
My enlarger used Spiratone gelatin filters , no duchroic
Now scan on Vuescan with shaped curve to control contrast

Erp1938

I enjoyed your video, the pictures look natural instead of color enhanced.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

I like the natural look and generally I try to be pretty conservative about adjusting colors. But I did learn something useful while editing these Yellowstone pictures. As is my usual practice, I edit the pictures I think I will use in Topaz Studio, but while editing this particular set I happened to turn on the auto-white balance there and I found that most of the time it did (IMHO) a better job than I could with manual adjustments. I think in the future that will be an addition to my standard work flow.

rlscholl Loc: California

👍

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yup. I found auto WB works almost all the time in my camera, so that's where I leave it.
I'll tweak in post if I desire. (Notice I didn't say "if necessary".)

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

Auto WB and raw here.
Raw doesn't care about WB.
Auto WB takes care of the raw embedded preview.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Oops, I failed to mention I utilize RAW also.
The camera doesn't care, but "auto" is what is displayed in the editor settings for DPP, it may be a skosh different than daylight, shade, cloudy, etc. "Auto" may utilize a different number value in °K than what is used by those three presets.

My old bridge camera only does JPEG, so I may adjust WB on the fly with that camera.

RedAdmiral Loc: Humboldt County, California

Since most of my photography is live insects the subjects are seldom completely cooperative so I expect to do some post processing. At least some cropping, so the image will be there, and I might as well do a bit of tweaking. Consequently I might as well shoot in Raw.

hrblaine

>Now, if you are constantly over or underexposing your photo's by a LOT....

When I was shooting dance back in the day, I usually underexposed because I liked the look. I often shot at 1/125 or 1/250 to stop movement (that would usually stop anything but a fast moving hand or foot, even a run or a jump, esp the 1/250) plus I wanted some depth of field so I usually shot at 5.6 or 8 if memory serves, sometimes but seldom 3.5. Stage lighting, of course, some light, some dark. If it was really dark, I would sometimes go to 3.5. Harry

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

Just to be clear, I was talking about an automatic white balance done by Topaz Studio. It seems to do a better job than my camera does and I just discovered this by accident.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

My mistake. I didn't catch that. I thought you were talking about setting it in the camera.

gwilliams6

For what my clients and media services need, I shoot raw+jpeg to separate cards in my dual-card Sony cameras.

I can turn around the jpegs right away and immediately upload to news services and for broadcast. Then I take the raw edit and work on them for the final best quality files to turn in and/or print for the clients and to archive myself.

Everyone has different needs, and I agree the best cameras today have excellent internal processors and you can get very good quality jpegs that most are happy with. For me the jpegs are a redundant file in case anything goes wrong with my card of raw files. Hey it does happen in the life and long career of a professional.

But also the fact is that you will never truly know the ultimate image quality that your camera's sensor and lenses can produce if you never shoot raw. Jpegs by their very nature are in-camera processed and compressed files that throw away much image data and dynamic range in order to save file size.

Cheers and use what file formats work best for your needs.

https://www.facebook.com/GSWilliamsPhotography

https://www.facebook.com/groups/3048747915213474