Re: CM rant
Re: CM rant
- Subject: Re: CM rant
- From: John W Lund <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:10:50 -0700
Hi Mark,
Yes, agreed (and enjoyed your essays in LL, BTW). A large part of this comes
down to which rendering choices ("look") are preferred. Who's to say digital
captures should look like film scans, anyway? (I almost added this to my
original post - in 10 years, how many people will even remember what film
looked like?)
BTW, I would much rather use the raw converter to create whatever "look" I
want in the image. Remember when Kodak seemed to want ICC profiles to supply
the "look" of various film stocks? That seemed like a bad idea to me, as did
the idea of using profiles to "color correct" images (no, I'm not
referencing Dan M's "false profile" schtick).
These tools can be made fairly "agnostic," as you say. For myself, I find
some things are done more effectively in LightRoom, others in RD, so I keep
both on hand. Sometimes I do wish Adobe had bought Iridient as well as
PixMantic, though.
;-)
Regards,
John
JWL Images
Emeryville
On 6/3/08 1:42 PM, "Mark Segal" <email@hidden> wrote:
> 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 <mailto:email@hidden>
>>
>> To: John W Lund <mailto:email@hidden> ;
>> 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: "Mark Segal" <email@hidden>) |