Re: What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
snegron7 wrote: 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.
And the backlash in 3..2..1...
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 doen’s 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?
Dec 19, 2025 at 12:30 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16951217 « What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture? »
