Camera :Selection :Processing

ReD

Hall of Famer
Camera :Selection :processing

Using an image from the Fuji F660EXR I just tried comparing colours and skin tones from 3 basic editors set at their optimum automatic values.
Nikon View 6 / Fuji Finepix editor / & Photoshop Elements 3 (told you they were basic)

What I found was that in colour images the Fuji Finepix editor was much more realistic & true to life. Both the Nikon View 6 & Photoshop elements exaggerated colours & were far less pleasing to my eyes. Surprising maybe as the Finepix editor is much maligned on other forums.

However when converting to Black & White the Photoshop Elements gave the better rendition with more contrast than the Finepix editor which had more even tones.

Of course you can tweak these images further to suit your tastes but it’s always best to get on the right path & reach an optimum quickly.

Which brings me to my main point of using images to select and whittle down on the next camera purchase. …

Now I have noted on various threads here that quite a few Nikon images (especially in Black & White) tend to be on the dark side particularly some of the Nikon V-1 images.
Whereas the images I’ve seen so far from the Nikon A do little for me (lacking a bit of zest).

The above comparison though has made me question whether I’m really assessing cameras on their true merits or if my opinion on a Camera’s worth is really being biased by the extra processing involved.

So if correct then for me it makes the business of selecting a new camera model even more irksome.
 
if you're judging cameras based on images made by others, the level of processing is always something to consider. Do you generally shoot raw or jpeg?
 
Can't help but develop an opinion especially from the mixed bunch of users & images we have here to draw from.

And yes Jpeg only. Not had a camera yet that will shoot RAW but I take the point. Thanks
 
If you are looking at images here, the particular individual's processing method will change what comes straight out of the camera. Might be best to look at the lacklustre shots which always come with the promo material put out by the relevant company. For a while, I just thought the photographers lacked any kind of talent, and whilst that may be true, its probably more about showing what the camera can do, rather than what the camera can do after the images have been processed to heck. Does any of that make sense?
 
totally & a clever point made

thanks

so may even be worth processing the samples to see what you get from them
 
Back
Top