Old Montana Barn

[lovelife65]

It can be a camera setting. Look in the camera menu for different looks. For my Nikon I can choose for flat,standard,neutral and vivid. Beside some other monochrome.

George

Thanks George, there is the option to use a very vibrant simulation called Velvia.
It's often recommended for landscapes, yet I prefer the softer Astia. Probably similar concepts to yours of course :0
Part of the problem with these vibrant green landscapes, is they often do look unnatural, even if it's what they appear to the naked eye.

[DanK]

Thanks George, there is the option to use a very vibrant simulation called Velvia.
It's often recommended for landscapes, yet I prefer the softer Astia. Probably similar concepts to yours of course :0
Part of the problem with these vibrant green landscapes, is they often do look unnatural, even if it's what they appear to the naked eye.

I the the two of your are talking about different things. George seems to be talking about the picture styles in camera menus. These affect the jpegs produced by the camera and, if you are shooting raw and using the manufacturer's raw conversion software, may determine the software's initial rendering of the image. Sharon, you seem to be discussing film emulation options in some software.

Your wrote:

I did nothing with the saturation of the photo, rarely do I touch that in post processing.

My guess is that the film emulation option you selected substantially increased saturation.

I rarely use film emulation in a final image, although I sometimes play with the emulations while processing in Silver Efex. The reason is the same reason I don't use the camera's picture styles: the impose a processing recipe that was worked out with no reference to the image in question. In the case of film emulation, some of what is being emulated wasn't even intentional, but rather reflects limitations and side effects of the physical medium and chemical processing. For example, I don't know this for a fact, but I really doubt that the increased graininess of Tri-X relative to slower Kodak films was one of the developers' goals, and I know for a fact that when many of us pushed the film to 800 in processing, the additional grain was often unwanted.

So all in all, I would rather muddle my way through figuring out my own processing, even though I am not always able to get quite what I want.

[lovelife65]

I didn't raw convert, but did use Fuji's film simulation in camera. It's what automatically is rendered for the jpegs.
My camera doesn't have the little pictures, it just shoots manual, and has options for using auto ISO, shutter or aperture on the dials

I the the two of your are talking about different things. George seems to be talking about the picture styles in camera menus. These affect the jpegs produced by the camera and, if you are shooting raw and using the manufacturer's raw conversion software, may determine the software's initial rendering of the image. Sharon, you seem to be discussing film emulation options in some software.

Your wrote:



My guess is that the film emulation option you selected substantially increased saturation.

I rarely use film emulation in a final image, although I sometimes play with the emulations while processing in Silver Efex. The reason is the same reason I don't use the camera's picture styles: the impose a processing recipe that was worked out with no reference to the image in question. In the case of film emulation, some of what is being emulated wasn't even intentional, but rather reflects limitations and side effects of the physical medium and chemical processing. For example, I don't know this for a fact, but I really doubt that the increased graininess of Tri-X relative to slower Kodak films was one of the developers' goals, and I know for a fact that when many of us pushed the film to 800 in processing, the additional grain was often unwanted.

So all in all, I would rather muddle my way through figuring out my own processing, even though I am not always able to get quite what I want.