Get it right in camera or fix it in post?

[Village Idiot]

I used to be a big proponent of getting it right in camera and while I still believe in most circumstances, it’s easier to shoot a photo correctly and do less post I’ve now got a different view on this with the new amazing DR of the newest generations of cameras.

This has come up because of another thread on another forum where a photographer accused people of taking a photo and fixing it in post of being lazy and saying all photos like that end up tone mapped and look like garbage anyways.

With cameras that can cleanly pull details from shadows within 4 or 5 stops of being under exposed, you have the ability to shoot a high dynamic range scene such as a person under sunny skies and fix it so that you’re not just getting a silhouette. Well, why not use strobes? This is a possibility but the other issue with that is that the equipment and the end result. Often times if the DR is too great, you’ll need a massive amount of strobe power or else you’ll still end up with a mostly underexposed scene other than your subject. The lighting can also be uneven depending on your availability to equipment. The other issue is the amount of gear and the time needed. Sometimes you have the time and ability to lug around strobes and battery power but other times if you’re shooting an event, you don’t have that luxury. A camera with a higher usable dynamic range lets you take a properly exposed sky and bring up the shadows of everything else in post to have a beautiful photo with everything properly exposed. According to some purist, this may be wrong, but I say use what tools you have to provide the best photo possible. Check out two of the examples I found in the below links.

What’s everyone’s thoughts on this point of view?

Examples:
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2949/15415572896_71ca78e586_c.jpg
http://www.slrlounge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/32-Nikon-D810-Review-Images.jpg

P.S., I love my new D750 if you can’t tell.

 

[runnah]

Looks to me in those examples that you are getting it right in camera. You exposed for the sky knowing that your camera could pull that much detail back in the shadows. By doing so you have a nicely exposed sky and subjects.

Knowing what your camera can do is very important.

As for the haters? Well I put them in the same category as those to say they only shoo tin manula mode, use natural light, only shoot raw/jpeg etc...morons.

 

[goooner]

I'm pretty new to photo editing, but I say use what you have to create the photo you envisioned when taking the photograph. The DR on the D750 is the main reason I want to switch to FF, and Nikon...

 

[Village Idiot]

Looks to me in those examples that you are getting it right in camera. You exposed for the sky knowing that your camera could pull that much detail back in the shadows. be doing so you have a nicely exposed sky and subjects.

Knowing what your camera can do is very important.

As for the haters? Well I put them in the same category as those to say they only shoo tin manula mode, use natural light, only shoot raw/jpeg etc...morons.

The particular person who said that meant it as to properly expose the subject in camera. Also, they mentioned waiting for the right light to shoot it, which I basically ignored because when you’re working for a paying client doing portraits, weddings, etc… you can’t just put everything on hold to wait for the hour after sunrise or before sunset.

 

[Designer]

I use whichever method will yield the results I want with the least amount of fussing.

 

[SCraig]

What difference does it make as long as the results are what you wanted?

If I get it right in the camera, great, and I will try to do that with each shot. If I miss then I'll fix it in post processing. Either way works fine for me as long as the end result is what I wanted.

The days of truly "Straight Out Of Camera" ended in the early 1800's. Since then we have always had the ability to manipulate the results in a darkroom or with software or with the camera firmware itself.

 

[runnah]

Looks to me in those examples that you are getting it right in camera. You exposed for the sky knowing that your camera could pull that much detail back in the shadows. be doing so you have a nicely exposed sky and subjects.

Knowing what your camera can do is very important.

As for the haters? Well I put them in the same category as those to say they only shoo tin manula mode, use natural light, only shoot raw/jpeg etc...morons.

The particular person who said that meant it as to properly expose the subject in camera. Also, they mentioned waiting for the right light to shoot it, which I basically ignored because when you’re working for a paying client doing portraits, weddings, etc… you can’t just put everything on hold to wait for the hour after sunrise or before sunset.

Oh I know what they mean't, but it's really an outdated way of looking at things. I normally shoot darker to allow for a properly exposed sky.

Frankly I'd tell the person to tend to their own garden as there is no "right" way to do things.

 

[pgriz]

If it comes to capturing an image of a specific place/time/context, then getting it right in camera is a good idea. However, there's lots of stuff you can do with an image beyond the purely representational or documentary, so post-processing to enhance certain characteristics, or use the image as a starting point for further creative work is certainly a legitimate approach.

I do documentary photography on my contracting projects, to show the before/during/after sequence to my clients, and to educate prospective clients on the process, techniques, and issues. It is frequently difficult to get the lighting right, and sometimes you just have to work with what you have. Then using the RAW file and processing it to bring out the details you need becomes part of the workflow. My clients don't really care how the lighting is done - what they care about is whether the details they need to see are clearly visible.

For more artistic shots, the image is driven by the vision you have, and the camera is only part of the creative process. There's the light manipulation before the image is taken, then there's the post-processing that can give the intended visual flavour to the finished image. Fixing things in post that should have been done properly at the camera, is just sloppy work, in my opinion. But that also applies to setting up the lighting, staging the shot, choosing the appropriate background, etc. Image-making is much more than setting ISO, focal length, shutter speed, aperture, and focus point.

 

[paigew]

I wonder how those look full size, those are pretty extreme edits.

 

[tirediron]

I grant you that those comparisons really show the capability of the camera, and how much easier life can be now than it was even ten years ago, photographically speaking, BUT.... I would submit that had used a bit of supplemental light in either/both of those images, and exposed them correctly in-camera, they would have been that much better.

 

[Village Idiot]

I wonder how those look full size, those are pretty extreme edits.

The noise is handled extremely well and photos edited as such look pretty amazing. I’m done several myself, but I figured those were better examples.

 

[paigew]

I wonder how those look full size, those are pretty extreme edits.

The noise is handled extremely well and photos edited as such look pretty amazing. I’m done several myself, but I figured those were better examples.

I don't know...I have a 5dmkiii and yeah it handles noise great. I frequently max out my ISO. But I still want to see those up close...especially the first. I mean what if the client wanted a 30x40 canvas of that...would it print okay? I might be worried.

 

[Village Idiot]

I wonder how those look full size, those are pretty extreme edits.

The noise is handled extremely well and photos edited as such look pretty amazing. I’m done several myself, but I figured those were better examples.

I don't know...I have a 5dmkiii and yeah it handles noise great. I frequently max out my ISO. But I still want to see those up close...especially the first. I mean what if the client wanted a 30x40 canvas of that...would it print okay? I might be worried.

The 5D MKIII doesn't have as much latitude in the dynamic range.

This is before, after and cropped of 2.6 stops of extra exposure in LR then bumping the shadows up on the curves a little more.

And a DR test on another site comparing the 7D MKII, 5D MKIII, and D750
Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test by Michael The Maven - Michael Andrew Photography Blog&

 

[paigew]

well that isn't a person I think portraits are different as noise affects skin so much. also that doesn't look nearly as drastic.

 

[slackercruster]

Sure OP, do best you can in can. But your set-up / staged photog. Doc photogs don't have that luxury, so we do it in post a lot. If you any decent photog you will do it in cam anyway when you have that option.