Re: CM rant
Re: CM rant
- Subject: Re: CM rant
- From: "Mark Segal" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:42:28 -0400
John,
Yes, if you increase contrast in ACR or in Photoshop, it is accompanied with a moderate saturation boost - done on purpose; when you see the results of not doing it that way, it becomes painfully obvious why Adobe settled on what they settled on. Anyone who doesn't like it has numerous ways of dialling it back. All this is laid-out in my two articles on Luminous-Landscape. As for the "look' of film - what "look" - there are umpteen film "looks". Do you want the Agfacolor look? the Fuji look? the Kodachrome look? The Ektachrome look? And why do we want any film look anyhow? We can get the exact look WE want in digital photography. It's so liberating. Why hark back to the shackles of the cellulose era? You can simulate just about any look you want in a converter like ACR. It's just a matter of your choice of settings. To say one converter makes images look one way and another another just means you need to tweak settings in one, the other or both. These tools are pretty agnostic. What you get largely depends on what you want and how good you are at getting it.
Cheers,
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Rodney
To: John W Lund ; email@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: CM rant
On 6/3/08 1:22 PM, "John W Lund" wrote:
> -- well, on this one I'm not so sure. Despite his rather broad assertions
> (remember the claim that he'd "worked out all the math" in ACR?), I think
> there's a germ of truth in there. Something about ACR's rendering does seem
> to tend to add "pop" to color & take it away from the "look" of film - as
> opposed to say, Raw Developer, for example.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
| References: | |
| | >Re: CM rant (From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>) |