Tariq Gibran wrote:
Well, digital is quite different then film with regard to a specific "look". It's certainly more flexible and malleable, which is obvious from the different "looks" specific raw processors give out of the box just as mentioned above. A lot of this is simply down to different custom color profiles and curves. If we leave the lens out of the equation (which certainly does impart a unique fingerprint/ look), the fact is that these looks from different cameras can be emulated quite easily by those who know what they are doing. That's not to say there is not a benefit from getting exactly what you like ooc without PP and profiling. That's what Fuji is counting on in fact - attracting users who prefer the look they offer with minimal fuss....Show more →
True, though from experience I think it's harder than you imply. That said, does anyone who buys a camera based on specs really go through the effort of manipulating all of their photos to look like the other camera who's output they prefer? I think not.
Assuming no lens lock and you actually like the Canon output, based on specs would you (not "you" personally, but general "you") buy a D800 over say the 5d mk III and plan to manipulate every one to look like the Canon? Does anyone really do that? Again, I think not.
Lot's of people say Fuji skintones are awesome, yet I see very few Nikon or Canon images manipulated to match. That would seem a no-brainer, and yet people rarely do.
The point I guess being, even if you can with effort manipulate every photo to match some other camera that you really like, if the average image from the camera you are going to buy doesn't float your boat it would seem silly to buy it. The fact that that isn't the primary consideration for most buyers (or reviewers) seems a little odd to me.
You don't need to manipulate every single photo individually the way you are suggesting at all. You just need to create one profile with the look you like (or many profiles for different looks to cover different subjects and situations).
If I want the look I'm used to seeing out of my old X100, I might create a profile for my NEX-7 which pushes the greens a bit towards yellow (saturate them a bit more as well), tweak the blues to favor more cyan than magenta (very noticeable in blue sky's from the X100 and X-Pro1 in my experience) and so on. I have done this actually as it's useful to match output for better comparison when tests are needed.
Many professionals do profile their Nikon's and Canons by the way so I'm not sure why you say it's not done.
boinkphoto wrote:
True, though from experience I think it's harder than you imply. That said, does anyone who buys a camera based on specs really go through the effort of manipulating all of their photos to look like the other camera who's output they prefer? I think not.
Assuming no lens lock and you actually like the Canon output, based on specs would you (not "you" personally, but general "you") buy a D800 over say the 5d mk III and plan to manipulate every one to look like the Canon? Does anyone really do that? Again, I think not.
Lot's of people say Fuji skintones are awesome, yet I see very few Nikon or Canon images manipulated to match. That would seem a no-brainer, and yet people rarely do.
The point I guess being, even if you can with effort manipulate every photo to match some other camera that you really like, if the average image from the camera you are going to buy doesn't float your boat it would seem silly to buy it. The fact that that isn't the primary consideration for most buyers (or reviewers) seems a little odd to me....Show more →
Most raw converters, through profiling, make files from most cameras look relatively similar. There may be subtle differences, but it usually just comes down to profiling. I don't manipulate my images to look like other cameras, but I do manipulate my images to my own specific look or "film," and it isn't all that difficult to switch between cameras, for me. The X-Pro1, being so different in design, could possibly make things more difficult for me, but I haven't played around with the raws enough to know.
boinkphoto wrote:
Assuming no lens lock and you actually like the Canon output, based on specs would you (not "you" personally, but general "you") buy a D800 over say the 5d mk III and plan to manipulate every one to look like the Canon? Does anyone really do that? Again, I think not.
...
The point I guess being, even if you can with effort manipulate every photo to match some other camera that you really like, if the average image from the camera you are going to buy doesn't float your boat it would seem silly to buy it. The fact that that isn't the primary consideration for most buyers (or reviewers) seems a little odd to me....Show more →
I am not totally sure I follow your logic - starting from scratch, there's a lot to consider when picking a platform:
I think in the digital age, "look" has been subordinated by the above criteria. Some of this is Douglas' reference to RAW conversion that neuters the files, but also the litany of software platforms (Topaz, Nik's Suite, Alien Skin, Photoshop for the more technically skilled) that more or less allows for a lot of latitude behind putting the photographer's vision into practice.
If you're saying that if you like a camera's output without a lot of effort, that's a great side-benefit, but I think it's a lot less important in the digital world than people make it out to be.
