p.3 #3 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
grandmas wrote:
I think there are camera settings you can set for your own preferences. The sharpness, contrast, etc can be changed, at least on my camera and all previous ones I have had. I've only had Canon, but I am sure it would be the same for all brands.
Indeed, there are. In many cases you are not stuck with the default camera post-processing settings, but you can adjust them to some extent.
- - -
EB-1 wrote:
40D and 5D had rather limited jpeg processing. Particularly at high ISO Canon was bad for NR and lacking detail back then.
EBH
I never used the 40D, but I used the 5D a lot. It was an excellent camera in its day and it could produce good image quality, but it had its limitations compared to later cameras. Indeed, later cameras became much more capable at higher ISOs. I was loathe to raise the ISO much above 100 or 200 on the 5D, and only occasionally would use 400. Of course, with today’s more capable NR tools I could rescue some of those old shots with too much noise… if we kept original raw files and not just camera jpgs.
p.3 #4 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Thanks for all the replies
I think my OP is misunderstood, partly because I still don’t fully understand the digital processes myself - hell of a admission, but there we are 🤣👍🏻
In my youth I simply put a roll of film into my humble compact, went out and recorded what captured my eye. Totally oblivious to the chemical reactions taking place therin and thereafter.
Ignorance is blissful
I’ve come along way since then
I’d like to go back ( if it’s possible)
Shooting film in 2025 is totally out of the question - the costs involved today are crazy
Plus I enjoy auto iso
I’d like to recreate that same blissful ignorance I had back then. Maybe fit a silly low card that only allows 40 shots with the exception I can delete the shots I mistook
So
What would you say are the most simplistic settings on a dslr
My thoughts are:-
Low capacity SD card
I’ll try to stick selecting own iso values rather than auto iso
AWB - actually no I’ll set my own
Turn all in camera correction off
Select centre spot AF only
Select 1 shot
If opting for JPEG’s do I select natural or faithfull??
Once card is full - swap out and take to kiosk for enprints
Your views and advice please
Edit:
I’ve read many say the original canon 5d 12.8mp can be used this way even shooting RAW ?? The way I read it, it made out you could use / print the RAWs straight off??
Does anyone agree with this ??
My reason for this post is I no longer believe what I see is what “I” took. My cameras have way too much say and I think I’ll be shocked and mortified by the results I get without all the so-called help. But for me I’m losing sight of what photography is all about. I’m now so bloody lazy and so bloody reliant on this auto help I need to give myself a wake up call… I suspect it will be sobering to say the least 😳
Edit II :-
I still have my old 5d and 40d
Maybe that’s where I should start
I have booked off the 11 days prior to works Christmas shutdown so 11 days just for me and then 11 days with family as they’re off over Christmas too. I’m trying to organise myself ready for my 11 days solo. ...Show more →
Against my better judgement but perhaps because I'm utterly bored this evening, I'll wade into this:
Suggestion for "...organise myself ready for my 11 days solo."
Pick any camera you want...DSLR, MILC...any camera brand of the many that you own will do. I'd suggest you pick your revered EOS M since you have expressed your preference to it. I'm going to speak in Canon terms since that is the brand I'm most familiar with.
Put it in manual mode
If you pick a recent enough camera, go ahead and set it to M+auto-iso. Keep in mind this is a fairly recent capability. e.g. the EOS M-series has it. As I recall the EOS 5D did not.
Set it to manual focus, center-spot if you want,
Set it to single-shot.
Do not use AWB.
SHOOT JPG ONLY. note: as stated above, there is no way to not have a computer involved. In-camera JPG conversion is the way to stay "Totally oblivious..." to the digital camera equivalent to "...the chemical reactions taking place therin and thereafter"
Pick a "Picture Style". I'd suggest the most neutral setting to minimize the risk of over-saturation/over sharpening
Once you've done this, the camera is no longer making any decisions for you with the exception the "picture style"s contrast/saturation/sharpness settings and auto-ISO if you've set that.
Now you can spend your 11 days shooting like it was a film camera. The pictures that come out will be entirely your own.
Do not view you pictures on your computer. Cull them on the camera. Pull the card and take it down to the kiosk to print.
Use those 11 days to verify that the picture style is satisfactory in terms of contrast/saturation/sharpness. At least in Canon cameras, those characteristics can be customized for each Picture Style to meet your tastes.
I do think that at least at first, you WILL "be shocked and mortified by the results I get without all the so-called help".
Suggestions:
Think back to your film camera days. What film did you use that gave you the most pleasing saturation/contrast results. That may help you pick Picture Style.
p.3 #6 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
I sometimes think of picking up a 5D with a 50mm 1.4 and just going out with it, I used that combo for many years of pro event work nevermind fun. It would certainly be cheap enough. Then I switched to a Sony A7r with manual 50mm adapted lens with a B&W preset. That was pretty basic and bare bones setup also. A lot of fun.
p.3 #8 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
As per title
I seem to be drowning in so much post edited work.
I hanker after the real thing
What do you propose is the purest form of digital image capture without the need or reliance of computers.
Is it JPEG sooc
Or is it RAW converted to JPEG in camera.
I’ve had a gutful of super sharp super saturated nonsense. I can’t afford to go back to film… way to costly these days
Any advice?
I'm sure my opinion will be unpopular as usual, but imo, JPEG is the closest you can get to the purest form of shooting.
Others have mentioned that when you shoot JPEG's, the camera does the processing for you. The reality is this was not much different from shooting film. Having shot film myslef for several decades, I have firsthand knowledge of this. Why do you think there were so many different film types, sometimes even within the same brand?
Even today some folks like emulating the "Kodachrome look" or the "Velvia look", etc.
I recently bought a Sony A7iv, and I'm still trying to figure it out. From the few weeks I've owned it, I've come to the conclusion that I have no choice but to shoot RAW+JPEG, and adjust ISO prior to each shot that I take (it defaults to ISO 800 at every shooting mode despite me having set shutter speed parameters and shooting in Auto ISO). Not loving the extra work I have to do to simply snap a picture, not to mention editing in Photoshop to try to get a decent picture. Probably going to sell it if I can't find a way to make it as easy to shoot as my A7c, R6II or OM-5. I'm sure I'll get flamed for daring to mention this. Whatever.
Bottom line is find a camera that is not as labor intensive as my A7iv; one that lets you get decent JPEGS sooc. They do exist. So far I'm happy with the JPEG results sooc that I get from my A7c, R6II and OM-5.
p.3 #9 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
snegron7 wrote:
I'm sure my opinion will be unpopular as usual, but imo, JPEG is the closest you can get to the purest form of shooting.
Others have mentioned that when you shoot JPEG's, the camera does the processing for you. The reality is this was not much different from shooting film. Having shot film myslef for several decades, I have firsthand knowledge of this. Why do you think there were so many different film types, sometimes even within the same brand?
Even today some folks like emulating the "Kodachrome look" or the "Velvia look", etc.
I recently bought a Sony A7iv, and I'm still trying to figure it out. From the few weeks I've owned it, I've come to the conclusion that I have no choice but to shoot RAW+JPEG, and adjust ISO prior to each shot that I take (it defaults to ISO 800 at every shooting mode despite me having set shutter speed parameters and shooting in Auto ISO). Not loving the extra work I have to do to simply snap a picture, not to mention editing in Photoshop to try to get a decent picture. Probably going to sell it if I can't find a way to make it as easy to shoot as my A7c, R6II or OM-5. I'm sure I'll get flamed for daring to mention this. Whatever.
Bottom line is find a camera that is not as labor intensive as my A7iv; one that lets you get decent JPEGS sooc. They do exist. So far I'm happy with the JPEG results sooc that I get from my A7c, R6II and OM-5.
I’d argue that shooting raw is more like shooting film. LIke film, raw retains all of the image information captured at the time of exposure. Like film, it is not a final product, but a starting point. Like film you can just let your system do automated conversion (like dropping it off at the drug store) or do whatever level of processing you prefer. LIke film, with raw the final result does not emerge straight from the camera, but instead requires at least minimal additional steps before you see the final image. Like film, raw gives you a starting point for whatever “darkroom” work you intend to do.
As to “purest” form of photography, I have no idea. Glass plates in a pinhole camera?
