foto16 wrote: gyoung143 wrote:
Beats me why people want to wallow in the problems of the past. I spent decades regretting the idiosyncratic colour rendering of films. Good riddance to all that, forget the limitations, take the raw out of camera and create your own look to your photos, you have control in post processing we could only dream of in film days
Gerry
For serious photography, one needs a certain level of consistency in appearance, including the color palette. Can't imagine a published series in the magazine or a portfolio of work published or online consisting of 4 of "Summer of 1976 recipe," 5 of "Riviera Azure," 3 of "Reala Moon," etc. It ruins the consistency in look and will look so unprofessional.
I've been to a few of the major photography museums and galleries here in NYC, and I've looked through many anthologies and photo books from famous and noteworthy photographers. Unless we're talking about a specific photographer in a specific period of time, rarely has consistency of color been a running theme in their work. Indeed, in the days of film color consistency would be mostly based on the type of film used, and even then it was common for well-known photographers to experiment with different film stocks (Fuji's film simulations were modeled on their film stocks), different color treatments and different ways of lighting, composition, and subject matter.
Moreover, I follow a number of well-known photographers today and, with the exception of landscape photographers, rarely does their work have a consistent color treatment. It varies entirely with the subject matter, the setting, the lighting conditions, and the story the photographer is trying to tell.
I agree with you that for some people, a consistent color palette may be a preference (it's a preference for me, actually), but it's far from necessary to be a "serious" photographer (I'm not even sure what that means).
May 15, 2024 at 04:25 PM
Previous versions of mdude85's message #16548187 « The next Fuji APSC camera is X-T50 »
