In the photo press, the “designed for digital” discussion has tended to focus on lens design from the perspective of correcting for issues that are unique to digital sensors. For instance, image sensors, and the filters in front of image sensors, have a tendency to reflect some light back to the lens. To counter this, new coatings have been developed for the filters and the rear lens elements. This kind of innovation is certainly significant, but to think that “designed for digital” ends with new multi-coatings only hints at the real potential of a digital system.

It’s a simple rule: The exposure has to be correct. That’s it. Period. If the exposure is off, no amount of postproduction Photoshop wizardry will bring it back. Of course, we’ve all heard about the power of a RAW file and how you can massage the RAW processing to fix exposure problems, but really, the whole “fix it down the line” way of thinking is a fallacy. Now, I’m sure someone will read this and shake their head as they think back to an image that was “saved” through RAW processing, but to that I simply say, think of how much better it could have been if you didn’t have to save it.

Do you use Adobe RGB? Is sRGB a pro format? Should pros really start using ColorMatch RGB? Or is there some other new color space permutation that will give even better results? The problem with this discussion on color space is that it assumes the digital camera has captured the correct colors in the first place and that all you need is the right color space to get the most from those colors. Digital cameras don’t quite work that way, unfortunately.

When I finish a portrait photo shoot, all of the images are in a state that I consider not ready for sharing. At this stage, I’m only willing to show thumbnails to the client for reviewing composition and the general look. Before a full-sized image goes out for review, I give the photo some basic polish, or toning.