This is worthy of discussion. Maybe there should be a separate thread about Instagram (but I wonder if such a thread wouldn't lead to any insight). One can consider market share, popularity among young people, etc.
I looked into this question without doing hardcore research. My conclusion was that for image sharing, Instagram is as important as any social media service can be. What is the substitute? I am open to considering it may be TikTok. But looking at the question objectively, I found Instagram is king and the chance of being dethroned by TikTok is questionable.
I want to know the truth. Negative things are said about Instagram in these forums. I don't know if it's simply bias or a clean consideration of facts. If someone possesses a personal preference against Instagram, then that obviously matters too, but it's a separate question. Am I right?
tuomkok wrote:
Instagram is on decline, but when it was more popular (and with lead adds) I used to share travel pictures there when on the go. For me that was a reason to shoot jpg and then share via phone. Now that is forgotten as phones are so much better (and Instagram has lost its appeal).
Instagram is on decline, but when it was more popular (and with lead adds) I used to share travel pictures there when on the go. For me that was a reason to shoot jpg and then share via phone. Now that is forgotten as phones are so much better (and Instagram has lost its appeal).
I wasn’t thinking about social media, but rather about the film era, when retouching wasn’t meant for the average person. Or even more recently, about Fuji.
I’ve never used a digital Leica M, but I can’t imagine spending hours editing photos taken with that kind of camera: the moment itself matters.
Back to the topic—adjusting the white‑balance does bring an improvement, thank you very much.
To answer the OP's questions:
"What I don’t understand is why there is such a difference... I know each program applies its own conversion, but why such a discrepancy?"
This is because there is an infinite number of possible interpretations of the R-G-B data from a camera sensor. First, the demosaicing can be, and is done differently. Different color profiles can be applied subsequently, with different curves. Ultimately, the photographer makes creative adjustments to the colors, light, etc.
There is no single "standard" method of obtaining or producing jpegs from a camera. This is (partly, because the other component is composition) why photography can be art: one raw file processed by two of the better photographers can be expected to look significantly different, and none of the two renderings of the same scene can be called right or wrong. Thus, the goal is not to faithfully reproduce a scene or subject. The goal is to develop the images to realize your vision (to make others see what YOU see) and to create an emotional response (to make others feel how YOU feel about what you see).
"Is it possible to make the SOOC JPEG closer to the RAW conversion (any recipes)?"
The answer is no, for the reason stated above: there is an infinite number of creative ways of processing a raw file to jpeg. The camera can be programmed in a certain way, however it cannot be creative. What you are saying, in a way, is that you don't want to be creative because of the time it takes. I can commiserate with how you feel, because spending hours and hours while processing photos can be a torment (as other creative arts can also be). We can imagine some future cameras, in year 2100, where AI would make the creative decisions on a case-by-case basis. It is certainly possible that at some point in time the creative decisions made by AI shall become more impressive than the human creativity in renderind photos. I don't know how this shoud change photography. The art of composing and taking impressive images (the photographer's eye) shall still remain the human contribution.
tuxounet wrote:
I wasn’t thinking about social media, but rather about the film era, when retouching wasn’t meant for the average person. Or even more recently, about Fuji.
I’ve never used a digital Leica M, but I can’t imagine spending hours editing photos taken with that kind of camera: the moment itself matters.
Back to the topic—adjusting the white‑balance does bring an improvement, thank you very much.
Fuji film simulations carry film era heritage in their naming - and to a certain extent in rendering. However, when taken seriously all the other simulations except Provia (which is named as std.) have more or less false color. They work sometimes, often not. Anyone interested in skin tones is horrified
Sony raw files are very good in C1. Just import, maybe sharpen a little or adjust exposure, and you are in the ballpark. Does not take more time than jpg if you just quickly need produce a bunch of event pictures or similar. Lr works the same, but I find C1 raw converter default results better.
