I guess you would be called a "lurker", then hey Phil??
Sometimes its the non-technical insight that really jumpstarts a discussion and can motivate some of us to take photographs we wouldn't have thought of. And, you have been a great help to me and I am certain, others, with your near-encyclopedic knowledge of the "locations" in Vermont. So thanks.
Being stuck with a right-side brain (albeit empty
), I'll comment on the "filter" and "mode" issues:
Digital and Film are VERY different "animals." With a filter on the camera lens, what we are doing is altering the "qualilty" of the light that is hitting the film or digital sensor. In my own view, the only such filter that makes a real difference anymore is a polarizer, because of the way it works.
With film, the problem was that once you exposed it, you pretty much lived with the result from development, depending on the characteristics of the film and the development process.
With digital, (including, to some extent, digital scans from film), we can "manipulate" (kind of an "loaded" term in some forums) the image in terms of the color and quality of light, in ways we just couldn't easily do with film (even in a skilled darkroom environment).
A digital photo (technically "capture" from a camera sensor) is "zeros" and "ones" at it root. Some kind of software has to take these "bits and bytes" and convert it to colors and graphics we can see and make sense of. There are numerous file formats which are the "finished product," the most common of which--in consumer cameras--is JPEG. It has some significant "shortfalls" which would be good for another discussion, but in all has become the accepted and perhaps best for the use format for P&S cameras (and indeed, many professional photogs, using "professional" level cameras shoot in jpeg).
What WE do with the digital file to "make it look better" or to make it look like we want it to look, is commonly called "Post Processing."
All digital cameras have the ability to do some post processing and virtually all consumer P&S cameras do some post-processing. When you set your camera setting, for example to "sharper" the camera is doing a post-processing step (essentially, it is being a computer). Arguably (again, good for another topic) you can always do a better job of sharpening in good post-processing software in your computer. But most consumers don't want that. They want it to be like their former film cameras. They take the shot and take the disk to Walmart and get prints and disk. So, the cameras have to be able to process the digital file to get a reasonable result. Likewise, "vivid" settings is simply a color boost which is done in the software.
"Modes" (whew. Finally!
) are nothing more than a "post-processing" setting in the camera, in most cases (they may also adjust shutter speeds and focusing, etc.) -- but for example like the "underwater mode." Don't get me wrong. I think Phil's suggestion to try these settings is RIGHT ON! What you have is a pretty powerful artistic tool in your hands, with no downside (you aren't "wasting" film and processing costs). Do experiment.
Software "filters" are really the same thing. Photoshop, Elements and other programs give you the ability to tweak, change, and adjust colors in a digital photo in a myriad of ways. You can create your own filter. With the downloaded filters, someone has done that for you. Sometimes thats good, but sometimes its not.
Jpeg has some baggage with it that I'll call "destructive editing." Some of the things you do to a photo (including the photo filters) will break a photo down to the point it just doesn't look good anymore. BE SURE to work on a COPY of your original file with this stuff. Every time you make a change and save that to the jpeg file, it breaks down a little more.
O.k. Thats long enough
.
). This is particularly true with clear blue skies where the PZ can turn them almost black. It can also create vignetting or uneven color across the sky.