>>4253224>poor SMI is why pics from newer cameras require boosting saturation and vibrance Have you ever even tried comparing old and new cameras within a brand, or comparing a sooc RAW to the subject photographed at the time it was photographed? I have, using a calibrated monitor, and insuring that histograms were equal across cameras. That last part is critical because sensors vary from their stated ISO sensitivity, and exposure affects contrast and saturation. I've carefully done those tests and there is no truth to your statement.
People bump saturation and vibrance because they like the results. Bumping those parameters decreases accuracy, but people like it, which tells you all you need to know about the importance of 5 point variations in SMI. In 20 years of shooting I have not found a need to use more saturation or vibrance as I've upgraded cameras. How much I use varies with subject, sometimes adding a little, sometimes a lot, and sometimes taking it away.
>And it looks unnatural because it's an extrapolation of scarce data. Modern cameras provably have greater color depth, more data, and can handle larger RAW manipulations.
>Meanwhile you take a photo of people next to a sunset with a proper CFA and you get natural looking people without making the sunset dull. Old cameras struggled to do this without fill flash or reflectors because they didn't have the DR for it. New cameras do, but you're still better off using some fill flash or reflectors, and you definitely want to ETTR. Then you have a conflict between the people and the sunset because we tend to like saturated sunsets, but not saturated people (Velvia vs Portra). You can mask off areas but you don't want to go crazy or it will look like they stood in front of a painting. This dilemma has nothing to do with the CFA, nor can it be solved by the CFA. And it varies sunset to sunset. If the sky is right (clouds, fog, etc.) the foreground and background will balance. But that's luck, not the CFA.
