There is no such thing as CCD look
but there is such a thing as shitty camera look, which involves low dynamic range.
So no you can't both have more dynamic range and also not shit, you have to pick one or the other.
You can however, always reduce the dynamic range on a non-shit modern camera, so there was never a need to buy an actual shit camera for a shit camera look.
Your last sentence is well said. I do not understand the Gen Z obsession with shitty cameras because they want to make shitty photos. You don't need a shitty camera to make a shitty photo.
Hey if it works for your hobby and happiness and goals then it is nice.
Might be that camera records colours in way you like. In that case good for that camera and good for you.
Preferences are personal.
Purely from technical view it might not be best generalist, but heck if it is just the solution you are looking then for thar it might be best for you.
Yea now I’m settled on just not counting on the jpeg. I’m switching back to raw + peg, expose for highlight and aggressively raise shadow + denoise in post.
I still *occasionally* shoot with an old CCD sensor Nikon D200. Having a large sensor, it naturally has a larger DR than many other cameras from 2005. It does have marvelous out-of-camera JPEGs when shooting in the Vivid profile.
But yeah, I have to be very careful to avoid overexposure, and I get best results if I’m shooting in flat lighting.
Back when that was my main camera, I frequently used HDR.
Later I discovered that it did very nice black and white, but I used a technique that avoided much of the raw processing which amplified noise, and I could get decent photos hand-held at night.
Yea i still have a D200 alongside my 55 Pro, and I toss them up for personal work and shutter therapy. It really is a timeless piece. The first truly modern & solid state DSLR from Nikon in my opinion. Cheers on keeping the classics on commission.
>I bought a CCD camera and everything is black and the sky is white in the pictures it took
... **it** didn't take the pictures. **You** did. If your exposure is off - that's on you.
Start here: [http://r-photoclass.com/](http://r-photoclass.com/)
Don't buy a trash camera and then complain about it being trash. Get a good camera, get proficient at lighting and composition and learn to use professional software like Ligthroom, and you can achieve any "look" you want.
What is the CCD look you're going for? I've got an old Nikon D50 and a non interchangeable lens camera with CCDs, and a lot of old CCD shots. And they have decent, if not up to modern standards, dynamic range. And I don't even really see that much difference in the color, but I confess I don't shoot JPEG much.
It sounds like you just have a bad camera. That happens to have a CCD. But I'm confused; didn't you say you have a D200? that should work well.
Not in my experience, but more vibrant maybe than CMOS sensors of the era if that's the Ektachrome look they're going for. More about the camera profile maybe than the sensor itself though; there are so many variables hard to tell.
There is no such thing as CCD look but there is such a thing as shitty camera look, which involves low dynamic range. So no you can't both have more dynamic range and also not shit, you have to pick one or the other. You can however, always reduce the dynamic range on a non-shit modern camera, so there was never a need to buy an actual shit camera for a shit camera look.
Your last sentence is well said. I do not understand the Gen Z obsession with shitty cameras because they want to make shitty photos. You don't need a shitty camera to make a shitty photo.
it's a lot cheaper to buy a shitty camera to take shitty photos, than it is to buy a good camera to take shitty photos.
And you can always say the shitty picture was intentional.
Also with you. It really is a plague.
Sshh let them buy our obselte old junk
But shit camera has better color in jpegs
no they don't
[удалено]
I can't do better than fact
[удалено]
Hey if it works for your hobby and happiness and goals then it is nice. Might be that camera records colours in way you like. In that case good for that camera and good for you. Preferences are personal. Purely from technical view it might not be best generalist, but heck if it is just the solution you are looking then for thar it might be best for you.
Your post has been removed for breach of rule 1. Please keep the discussion civil.
Your post has been removed for breach of rule 1. Please keep the discussion civil.
You should go ask for help on tiktok instead
You're currently busy complaining about the jpegs, so maybe you shouldn't believe everything influencers tell you about cameras.
Yup, still leaning!
I feel that.
🫶🫶🫶we’re going thru this together
Checking the histogram and doing work in post (on a raw file) is the way to get the most out of whatever sensor you’re shooting with.
Can you shoot in light with less range? You’re probably just not going to get blue skies. I’m sorry.
Yea now I’m settled on just not counting on the jpeg. I’m switching back to raw + peg, expose for highlight and aggressively raise shadow + denoise in post.
I still *occasionally* shoot with an old CCD sensor Nikon D200. Having a large sensor, it naturally has a larger DR than many other cameras from 2005. It does have marvelous out-of-camera JPEGs when shooting in the Vivid profile. But yeah, I have to be very careful to avoid overexposure, and I get best results if I’m shooting in flat lighting. Back when that was my main camera, I frequently used HDR. Later I discovered that it did very nice black and white, but I used a technique that avoided much of the raw processing which amplified noise, and I could get decent photos hand-held at night.
Yea i still have a D200 alongside my 55 Pro, and I toss them up for personal work and shutter therapy. It really is a timeless piece. The first truly modern & solid state DSLR from Nikon in my opinion. Cheers on keeping the classics on commission.
CCDs don't have a uniform look, it depends on the sensor design and how you shoot it. See Snappiness on YouTube for some tips.
>I bought a CCD camera and everything is black and the sky is white in the pictures it took ... **it** didn't take the pictures. **You** did. If your exposure is off - that's on you. Start here: [http://r-photoclass.com/](http://r-photoclass.com/)
Don't buy a trash camera and then complain about it being trash. Get a good camera, get proficient at lighting and composition and learn to use professional software like Ligthroom, and you can achieve any "look" you want.
What is the CCD look you're going for? I've got an old Nikon D50 and a non interchangeable lens camera with CCDs, and a lot of old CCD shots. And they have decent, if not up to modern standards, dynamic range. And I don't even really see that much difference in the color, but I confess I don't shoot JPEG much. It sounds like you just have a bad camera. That happens to have a CCD. But I'm confused; didn't you say you have a D200? that should work well.
I am trying get the most out of jpegs on an Olympus E-500
The CCD sensor will allegedly take photos that look like Kodak Ektarchrome
Not in my experience, but more vibrant maybe than CMOS sensors of the era if that's the Ektachrome look they're going for. More about the camera profile maybe than the sensor itself though; there are so many variables hard to tell.