p.7 #1 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
chiron wrote:
The article you link to is well-done and quite helpful for advancing in post-processing. Good job!
I do think that postprocessing is a critical step in making an image one's own. Although photographers like Salgado and Cartier-Bresson did not do their own printing, they had fabulous craftsmen making the prints who gave them what they wanted.
Thanks for taking the time to read it — not everyone does that!
You are right about photographers like HCB and Saldago who collaborated with skillful printers (and film post-processors) in their work. Others did (and do) their own post, with perhaps Ansel Adams being best known to his extensive and skillful post processing.
The thing that connects them is that all three, and others like them, did not regard the creation of a photograph as being just what is down with the camera — they understood that the capture was the material to n tbe refined and interpreted in that post-production phase.
Dan
Aug 07, 2025 at 09:19 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.7 #2 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gyoung143 wrote:
You had no choice of contrast grade in colour printing, that in any case is part of the total artifice that is black and white. But you certainly could shade, dodge and burn when printing, which is what this about.
Gerry
There's pretty much no way youre getting that image on a single color slide, though, and if you shot for magazines and other print you probably used slides, especially nature photography. Print film printed in a mini lab probably couldn't do it, either
Hardly anyone had a color darkroom but even if you did i think you had pretty limited options as far as contrast. You could use pin registered backs and sandwich slides but I'd guess less than 1% of photographers did that.
Aug 07, 2025 at 12:52 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.7 #3 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
I remember reading about a national geographic photographer who had 100k+ images in his library. The vast majority, maybe all, almost certainly slides so basically no pp
p.7 #4 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Shooting slides was what ultimately led me to the Leica M line. The ability to see beyond the frame-lines absolutely allowed me to compose better since what we shot was what we got. I suspect this is what most like about optical RF style finders, being able to see around the image border while composing.
But fast forward a few years when the all-around zooms started to get very good, I found I could do similar with them, zooming in or out to what I saw as the best composition.
For me, primes and foot-zooming on an SLR or EVF are still somewhat hit or miss, but the saving grace is croppability after the fact with today's higher resolution digital.
p.7 #5 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
AmbientMike wrote:
There's pretty much no way youre getting that image on a single color slide, though, and if you shot for magazines and other print you probably used slides, especially nature photography. Print film printed in a mini lab probably couldn't do it, either
Hardly anyone had a color darkroom but even if you did i think you had pretty limited options as far as contrast. You could use pin registered backs and sandwich slides but I'd guess less than 1% of photographers did that.
Colour slide film was much better than negatives at coping with wide brightness range (Note, not to be confused with contrast) as it was viewed by transmitted light, not reflected but required very accurate exposure for best results, and was much sharper until C41. Reproduction in magazines was by colour separation plate making, an art in itself that NO photographer would have the skill to do. Home printing wasn't easily possible with internegs and unsharp masks, but then first came direct reversal paper and then, the real breakthrough, Cibachrome. A wonderful process, comparatively simple and very high quality. You could easily do it at home, and I did it at work several years. I still have some prints made well over 40 years ago from personal stuff, they spent 20 years on my office wall without fading.
No, a lot of people didn't do it, but professionally it was done by specialists, minilab prints were only for snapshot stuff, but if you wanted something special a lab would do hand prints, for a price.
p.7 #6 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
AmbientMike wrote:
I remember reading about a national geographic photographer who had 100k+ images in his library. The vast majority, maybe all, almost certainly slides so basically no pp
I've got close to 11k of my own personal work on transparency films, shooting slides from 1963 until 2012 when I went digital. Still have some film in the freezer for when I get withdrawl symptoms. Then I put down the Xpro2 and pick up the M3, or the FM2.
Gerry
Aug 07, 2025 at 03:01 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.7 #7 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gyoung143 wrote:
Colour slide film was much better than negatives at coping with wide brightness range (Note, not to be confused with contrast) as it was viewed by transmitted light, not reflected but required very accurate exposure for best results, and was much sharper until C41. Reproduction in magazines was by colour separation plate making, an art in itself that NO photographer would have the skill to do. Home printing wasn't easily possible with internegs and unsharp masks, but then first came direct reversal paper and then, the real breakthrough, Cibachrome. A wonderful process, comparatively simple and very high quality. You could easily do it at home, and I did it at work several years. I still have some prints made well over 40 years ago from personal stuff, they spent 20 years on my office wall without fading.
No, a lot of people didn't do it, but professionally it was done by specialists, minilab prints were only for snapshot stuff, but if you wanted something special a lab would do hand prints, for a price.
It seemed like everyone had a machine, drug store, mall or pro lab, to process print film, but you had to find someone actually paying attention and doing a good job.
Projected slides probably tough to beat even today. Good luck beating projected chromes, print film seemed more able to handle high contrast scenes, not sure how much actually made it to the paper though, definitely shot a lot more in Golden Hour or cloudy days than daylight, which tended to be tough sledding.
The magazines may have been able to do some pp on the slides, especially once the computers got powerful enough, but I just sent them in, when I tried that, no pp
p.7 #8 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Today's high resolution digital files present with stunning effect when using a modern, high quality digital projector. We would have died for this level of quality back in the days of the Kodak Carousel projector and old-school screens.
For those who don't know (or who have forgotten), photographers shooting slides relied on a range of attached filters to deal with challenging light that we handle in post today. When you look at images shot with slide film from back in the day, especially landscape images, you can often see in the images the effects of things like GND filters.
Long ago I was a pretty big fan of Galen Rowell's photography. In terms of the expressive quality of the work, some of his photographs are among my personal favorites. (A big favorite is his photograph of galloping horses in front of the mountains of Patagonia.) But if you ever have the opportunity to look closely at prints — which I used to do regularly at the now-closed Rowell Gallery in Bishop, California — you may be shocked at what a look at the larger prints reveals about the limits of the technology of that era.
p.7 #9 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
In 2012 I had been using a 'hybrid' system for a few years, shooting on Kodachrome or Provis, and scanning with Nikon Coolscan. Then I did a simple 'test' same shot on a Leica M6 and 35mm Summicron versus my Nikon D7000 with a Tamron 17-50 2.8. The Nikon 14 bit 16mpx image had more detail than the 24bit 24mpx scan of the Provia slide.
Never used film for serious stuff after that.
p.7 #10 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gyoung143 wrote:
In 2012 I had been using a 'hybrid' system for a few years, shooting on Kodachrome or Provis, and scanning with Nikon Coolscan. Then I did a simple 'test' same shot on a Leica M6 and 35mm Summicron versus my Nikon D7000 with a Tamron 17-50 2.8. The Nikon 14 bit 16mpx image had more detail than the 24bit 24mpx scan of the Provia slide.
Never used film for serious stuff after that.
Gerry
I think that many of us whose roots were in the film era had an experience like that at some point in the first 10-12 years of the “digital era.”
I used my first digital camera back in the mid-1990s with Apple’s QuickTake camera. It was remarkable for the time, but its image quality was clearly deficient by comparison to film. Late in the 1990s I continued the experiment with a little Olympus digital camera that was a sort of fancy point and shoot — better, but still not as good as film. I felt that digital was getting good enough to take a slightly more serious look in the first few years of the 2000s, and I got a Canon APS-C DSLR and two (inexpensive) lenses to put it through its paces. Things were looking more interesting — though still crude by today’s standards — so I got the 5D when it first came out… and I haven’t looked back since then.
A friend had been a long-time (and rather successful) LF landscape photographer for years, and early on he started comparing his film results with what he could get from early digital MF backs. At first the results were mixed, but within a few years his careful testing persuaded him to move to a (very expensive!) Phase One back system, and he never looked back. (He wrote a series of article for Luminous Landscape about his testing and decisions.)
p.7 #11 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think that many of us whose roots were in the film era had an experience like that at some point in the first 10-12 years of the “digital era.”
I used my first digital camera back in the mid-1990s with Apple’s QuickTake camera. It was remarkable for the time, but its image quality was clearly deficient by comparison to film. Late in the 1990s I continued the experiment with a little Olympus digital camera that was a sort of fancy point and shoot — better, but still not as good as film. I felt that digital was getting good enough to take a slightly more serious look in the first few years of the 2000s, and I got a Canon APS-C DSLR and two (inexpensive) lenses to put it through its paces. Things were looking more interesting — though still crude by today’s standards — so I got the 5D when it first came out… and I haven’t looked back since then.
A friend had been a long-time (and rather successful) LF landscape photographer for years, and early on he started comparing his film results with what he could get from early digital MF backs. At first the results were mixed, but within a few years his careful testing persuaded him to move to a (very expensive!) Phase One back system, and he never looked back. (He wrote a series of article for Luminous Landscape about his testing and decisions.)...Show more →
Started digital with an IXUS - and wasn't really happy. Next was a Minolate DiMage7 (or so). 2MP, if I am not mistaken. Slow like hell. But the IQ holds up to todays standards (minus the MP count :-) )
p.7 #12 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
I started with a Panasonic G1, mainly family stuff, it soon became obvious it was far better than high iso film, so I swopped that for the Nikon D7000 to use my film slr lenses, for sport etc. Then I did the comparison. You have to look hard, an A3 print will show less detail and some 'grain' from a film scan compared to the Nikon but you needed to look closely, or do 100% mag on the monitor. But the prints from film via scanning still look really good at normal distances, and the post processing available in Photoshop then coped with the high brightness range of the transparency, making better prints using a photo Epson printer from the slides than Cibachrome even.
Gerry
Aug 08, 2025 at 10:51 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.7 #13 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Most film pro photography, the vast majority, involved color slides, and no pp. So if people are interested in film sims, no editing, that's mostly how professional photography used to be done.
Sure you could edit slides to some degree, especially for printing, but not many seemed to be doing that, and I'm not sure it would have been a good idea if you wanted to get published. You chose lighting very carefully, sent film in to be processed, and got what you got.
p.7 #14 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
AmbientMike wrote:
Most film pro photography, the vast majority, involved color slides, and no pp. So if people are interested in film sims, no editing, that's mostly how professional photography used to be done.
Sure you could edit slides to some degree, especially for printing, but not many seemed to be doing that, and I'm not sure it would have been a good idea if you wanted to get published. You chose lighting very carefully, sent film in to be processed, and got what you got.
Only a small proportion of pro work would be done on colour transparency films, usually that for repro. Almost all that I did was on medium and large format negative stock. Most clients wanted prints.
Gerry
Aug 08, 2025 at 03:27 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.7 #15 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Portraits and weddings probably print film, a lot of pro stuff involved chromes, though. If you looked at a magazine, that's mostly or all chromes
p.7 #17 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
chez wrote:
Why handicap oneself now as you are not stuck to “got what you got”. Processing raws to achieve the look you want is very powerful and liberating.
Only if you have good taste and good post prodessing skills. IMO, too many photographers shoot RAW as a badge of honour, thinking they are being creative and producing great work, only to produce the same oversaturated, over sharpened, hyper detailed, HDR look as everyone else.
p.7 #18 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Geoff D F wrote:
Only if you have good taste and good post prodessing skills. IMO, too many photographers shoot RAW as a badge of honour, thinking they are being creative and producing great work, only to produce the same oversaturated, over sharpened, hyper detailed, HDR look as everyone else.
Everyone has their look. Some like highly saturated ( Velvia anyone? ) and some like a more subtle image. I don’t judge other’s visions…if I don’t like it, I’ll just move on.
p.7 #19 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
Geoff D F wrote:
Only if you have good taste and good post prodessing skills. IMO, too many photographers shoot RAW as a badge of honour, thinking they are being creative and producing great work, only to produce the same oversaturated, over sharpened, hyper detailed, HDR look as everyone else.
You are correct that some post-process raw (or, heck, jpg) files in ways that seem over saturated, over sharpened, hyper detailed (do you mean something other than over-sharpened by that?), HDR look, and however else you want to characterize them .
But that’s not a critique of shooting raw or post-processing — it is a critique of questionable or poor post-processing skills and judgement. It is the equivalent of going to a really awful restaurant staffed by an incompetent chef with poor taste and little skill and concluding that the techniques of good cooking are bunk and that microwave dinners are actually better.
Again, a whole lot (most, I’d wager) of the best photography you see is the result of fine “capture” skills and a lot of careful and sophisticated post-processing. You just aren’t aware of that because it is done skillfully, tastefully, and appropriately… and not in the service of turning all of the dials to 11 but instead in service of creating beautiful, impressive work.
If that’s what you aspire to create photographically, I think it is worth spending as much time on developing post-capture skills as on developing the skils of “capture.” They go hand in hand.
For my part, I know a whole lot of photographers who shoot raw exclusively or virtually 100% so… and not one of them fits your characterization.
Yeah, it is a bit awkward for me to come down on the same side of an issue as chez and the opposite side from you. But on this matter he is correct. I’m not going to deny that.
p.7 #20 · Why am I using the X-Pro3 more than the a7cR????
gdanmitchell wrote:
You are correct that some post-process raw (or, heck, jpg) files in ways that seem over saturated, over sharpened, hyper detailed (do you mean something other than over-sharpened by that?), HDR look, and however else you want to characterize them .
But that’s not a critique of shooting raw or post-processing — it is a critique of questionable or poor post-processing skills and judgement. It is the equivalent of going to a really awful restaurant staffed by an incompetent chef with poor taste and little skill and concluding that the techniques of good cooking are bunk and that microwave dinners are actually better.
Again, a whole lot (most, I’d wager) of the best photography you see is the result of fine “capture” skills and a lot of careful and sophisticated post-processing. You just aren’t aware of that because it is done skillfully, tastefully, and appropriately… and not in the service of turning all of the dials to 11 but instead in service of creating beautiful, impressive work.
If that’s what you aspire to create photographically, I think it is worth spending as much time on developing post-capture skills as on developing the skils of “capture.” They go hand in hand.
For my part, I know a whole lot of photographers who shoot raw exclusively or virtually 100% so… and not one of them fits your characterization.
Yeah, it is a bit awkward for me to come down on the same side of an issue as chez and the opposite side from you. But on this matter he is correct. I’m not going to deny that....Show more →
In the spirit of of looking at things from at things from different angles, I think this is skewed in the direction of producing "landscape" or "fine art" photographs. Which each have definitions that can vary for various reasons. And I am certianly in the habit of shooting raw for my current purposes so I don't wholly disagree with the viewpoints you are expressing. But I also have certain photographs made on old Kodak instant cameras of people and places that are not of very great quality technically but are priceless in terms of value to me. The same can be said of very early jpeg images I have when I first dabbled in digital photograpy. I tend to think there's a miscontruence here in terms of what people value in photography, for most people it's people photography and a technically imperfect image of a loved one may be the most valued image of all; even if it was made on a cheap camera, in jpeg or a smartphone.
Another way of saying what I'm trying to say is that technically imperfect images may considered to very valuable. And that photography itself is valuable by it's existence.
