Get it right in camera or fix it in post?

[tirediron]

Okay fine. It's just a tool. My thoughts on the tool? I'm not interested in using it, and it will not change the way I take photographs. The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer" is a completely foreign thought to me and I don't really care to switch my approach to include it. It would involve creating post-processing work in front of the computer that I don't enjoy.

And yes, there was darkroom work to on prints to correct imperfections or create more impact, but relatively speaking, they were minor edits and tweaks compared to what is being discussed here.
Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom

Is it really being exposed poorly if you’re exposing for a proper image or is shooting a scene with blown out highlights because of a large dynamic range being exposed poorly?

And again, I’m not talking as a new way to shoot all the time. In fact, I could see this being useful with a scene shot with proper lighting that still doesn’t do the coverage you need. Like having a one light photo that leaves the surrounding scene dark when it would otherwise be undesirable to do so. And with LR, pulling details from the shadows is a matter of clicking and dragging a slider.

I'm pretty much with Lenore on this. It's not something I would ever use intentionally, but If there was a "grab it now or miss it forever" opportunity, then yes, it has its uses, but for the most part, IMO, "proper" exposure means just that. The image captured by the camera should be more or less as you thte finished image to be. Granted, there will be the odd time it can't be, but 99.9% of the time, why not?

 

[limr]

Is it really being exposed poorly if you’re exposing for a proper image or is shooting a scene with blown out highlights because of a large dynamic range being exposed poorly?

Yes, I believe the originals were exposed poorly.

And again, I’m not talking as a new way to shoot all the time. In fact, I could see this being useful with a scene shot with proper lighting that still doesn’t do the coverage you need. Like having a one light photo that leaves the surrounding scene dark when it would otherwise be undesirable to do so. And with LR, pulling details from the shadows is a matter of clicking and dragging a slider.

You said in post #32:

This was more of a topic of discussion about how improved technology can change how we take pictures.

I'm not interested in changing the way I take pictures.

I also don't shoot weddings or portraits or with lighting equipment, so this tool would be of very limited use to me. And I don't enjoy processing in front of a computer, even if it is just a matter of dragging sliders around (assuming one has LR, which I don't), so even if I did shoot portraits or whatever with lighting equipment, I would rather put in the time of setting things up at the shoot.

I wasn't arguing anyone's point. You asked for thoughts. Those are my thoughts about my own individual interest (or lack thereof) in this tool.

 

[Village Idiot]

Okay fine. It's just a tool. My thoughts on the tool? I'm not interested in using it, and it will not change the way I take photographs. The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer" is a completely foreign thought to me and I don't really care to switch my approach to include it. It would involve creating post-processing work in front of the computer that I don't enjoy.

And yes, there was darkroom work to on prints to correct imperfections or create more impact, but relatively speaking, they were minor edits and tweaks compared to what is being discussed here.
Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom

Is it really being exposed poorly if you’re exposing for a proper image or is shooting a scene with blown out highlights because of a large dynamic range being exposed poorly?

And again, I’m not talking as a new way to shoot all the time. In fact, I could see this being useful with a scene shot with proper lighting that still doesn’t do the coverage you need. Like having a one light photo that leaves the surrounding scene dark when it would otherwise be undesirable to do so. And with LR, pulling details from the shadows is a matter of clicking and dragging a slider.

I'm pretty much with Lenore on this. It's not something I would ever use intentionally, but If there was a "grab it now or miss it forever" opportunity, then yes, it has its uses, but for the most part, IMO, "proper" exposure means just that. The image captured by the camera should be more or less as you thte finished image to be. Granted, there will be the odd time it can't be, but 99.9% of the time, why not?

Because not every out door shot will be on an overcast day or will have the time to set up lights?

 

[Buckster]

The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer"

Statements like this strongly imply that people are actually out there, actively thinking to themselves WHILE SHOOTING, "I'll INTENTIONALLY expose my photos badly, and then just fix it in post. Yes, let me see - all I have to do is move that exposure needle away from the middle, way off the scale, and I'll have EXACTLY the bad exposure I'm looking for."

And that, my friends, is just pure BS.

Ever notice how most of the "purists" who make these kinds of arguments about how people just expose badly while thinking, "I'll just fix it in post", usually supplemented with the argument about how photography shouldn't be about spending time in front of the computer and how they don't enjoy the editing process, also admit in other threads that they basically suck at the editing process because they haven't taken the time to actually learn it? To them, that's not part of photography, while to those who aren't put off by it, it is indeed a part of photography, just as the darkroom aspects were a part of photography to those who worked in the medium pre-digital.

Meanwhile, who really cares? Do what you want, the way you want, and don't judge others for doing it differently.

Gee, there's an idea.

 

[limr]

The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer"

Statements like this strongly imply that people are actually out there, actively thinking to themselves WHILE SHOOTING, "I'll INTENTIONALLY expose my photos badly, and then just fix it in post. Yes, let me see - all I have to do is move that exposure needle away from the middle, way off the scale, and I'll have EXACTLY the bad exposure I'm looking for."

And that, my friends, is just pure BS.

But that's what the OP was talking about: knowing full well that the shadows will be too dark but taking the picture anyway with the intention of bringing up the shadows in LR.

Ever notice how most of the "purists" who make these kinds of arguments about how people just expose badly while thinking, "I'll just fix it in post", usually supplemented with the argument about how photography shouldn't be about spending time in front of the computer and how they don't enjoy the editing process, also admit in other threads that they basically suck at the editing process because they haven't taken the time to actually learn it? To them, that's not part of photography, while to those who aren't put off by it, it is indeed a part of photography, just as the darkroom aspects were a part of photography to those who worked in the medium pre-digital.

Did I ever say this, here or in another thread? Did I ever say what photography SHOULD be or just how I personally like to shoot? This seems like a sweeping generalization that can also be characterized as pure BS. I've seen this countless times on this forum: anyone who says they don't like X really just doesn't know how to use it. It was, in fact, written in this very thread. Anyone who says they only shoot manual or natural light are morons. Why? Why can't it just be preference instead of a lie to hide inadequacies, as the accusation often runs? People ARE allowed to have likes and dislikes, right? And to base their behaviors upon these likes or dislikes?

Meanwhile, who really cares? Do what you want, the way you want, and don't judge others for doing it differently.

Gee, there's an idea.

Gee, I think I've already expressed that idea:

Everyone shoots different and wants different things from their final image and we're all going to do what we prefer to do and what we need to do to get that image.

I personally do very little post processing and try to get it as right as possible in the camera. This is a function of my training, my equipment, my preferences, and my photographic goals and interests. Some of us have clients and have to take their concerns into consideration. Others don't and we can shoot whatever and however the hell we want.

Whatever people want to do with their photos makes absolutely no difference to me. If you accomplish what you want to accomplish using the camera or using your computer, that's totally up to you. But I'm certainly not going to feel like I'm doing things wrong just because I'm doing things differently.

 

[Buckster]

The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer"

Statements like this strongly imply that people are actually out there, actively thinking to themselves WHILE SHOOTING, "I'll INTENTIONALLY expose my photos badly, and then just fix it in post. Yes, let me see - all I have to do is move that exposure needle away from the middle, way off the scale, and I'll have EXACTLY the bad exposure I'm looking for."

And that, my friends, is just pure BS.

But that's what the OP was talking about: knowing full well that the shadows will be too dark but taking the picture anyway with the intention of bringing up the shadows in LR.

FOR A REASON that has to do with the exposure of the rest of the image. Did you miss that part?

We see the purist's arguments all the time on these issues, and it always boils down to the same thing when it's all said and done:

To the purist, photography is about how to operate a camera.

To the rest of us, photography is about how to make an image people like to look at or even treasure.

 

[limr]

Oh god, this is so not worth it. Walls are more interesting to talk to.

 

[tirediron]

...To the purist, photography is about how to operate a camera.

To the rest of us, photography is about how to make an image people like to look at or even treasure.

Really? Sorry Buckster, not buying that for a second. How about, "To the purist, photography is about using all of the tools the photographer has available to create the image that he (or she) envisions." The camera is a tool, and while important to the process it's not the be all and end all.

 

[Gary A.]

The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer"

Statements like this strongly imply that people are actually out there, actively thinking to themselves WHILE SHOOTING, "I'll INTENTIONALLY expose my photos badly, and then just fix it in post. Yes, let me see - all I have to do is move that exposure needle away from the middle, way off the scale, and I'll have EXACTLY the bad exposure I'm looking for."

And that, my friends, is just pure BS.

Ever notice how most of the "purists" who make these kinds of arguments about how people just expose badly while thinking, "I'll just fix it in post", usually supplemented with the argument about how photography shouldn't be about spending time in front of the computer and how they don't enjoy the editing process, also admit in other threads that they basically suck at the editing process because they haven't taken the time to actually learn it? To them, that's not part of photography, while to those who aren't put off by it, it is indeed a part of photography, just as the darkroom aspects were a part of photography to those who worked in the medium pre-digital.

Meanwhile, who really cares? Do what you want, the way you want, and don't judge others for doing it differently.

Gee, there's an idea.

I shoot 90%+ in manual, 99+% of the time I shoot in a fluid environment with constantly changing light. Many times I get sloppy and I don't adjust my settings to accommodate the changing light ... conscientiously knowing I can probably pull out the image in post. It is a bad lazy habit that I am working hard to change ...

Gary

 

[Buckster]

...To the purist, photography is about how to operate a camera.

To the rest of us, photography is about how to make an image people like to look at or even treasure.

Really? Sorry Buckster, not buying that for a second. How about, "To the purist, photography is about using all of the tools the photographer has available to create the image that he (or she) envisions." The camera is a tool, and while important to the process it's not the be all and end all.

Clearly, that is NOT the purist's position at all. "Get it right in the camera" is the only thing important to them. Photoshop is clearly a bad thing that shouldn't be considered a part of photography, and that they don't even care to learn much about.

If you can't see that for yourself from their statements, you're blind.

 

[bribrius]

You can make lovely gritty photos with digital. It ain't the medium. It might be the forum. TPF leans toward the 'fill light, clone that out, crop this, smooth that' end of things.

I block a lot of that forum talk out with the processing usually. ignore much of it. There are a billion processed photos already and counting that aren't worth a damn thing. shows how much the cloning mattered.

...To the purist, photography is about how to operate a camera.

To the rest of us, photography is about how to make an image people like to look at or even treasure.

Really? Sorry Buckster, not buying that for a second. How about, "To the purist, photography is about using all of the tools the photographer has available to create the image that he (or she) envisions." The camera is a tool, and while important to the process it's not the be all and end all.

Clearly, that is NOT the purist's position at all. "Get it right in the camera" is the only thing important to them. Photoshop is clearly a bad thing that shouldn't be considered a part of photography, and that they don't even care to learn much about.

If you can't see that for yourself from their statements, you're blind.

just different mentality. For me I find photography, that I enjoy being out in the world. Looking at things. The relationship between me and the world around me and whatever camera I am holding. I almost find it somewhat enlightening in a odd way. Watching the world go bye. Actually doing it. The processing part, while I do some is NOT enlightening. No relationship. sort of the darkness and drudgery of it. Really a mood killer. I come back from shooting in a good mood. Start going through images and that mood is dulled quick. There is no relationship with a computer screen. Life is outside, moving, vibrant. The computer is sitting there dead. no life. emotionless. So even if the image comes out well or better after post processing it is pretty much dead for me. I will often toss images just to avoid processing them. The computer edits and time spent staring at it on the screen sucked the life out of it. But if I come back from shooting and I have images that I can or I desire to leave near as is. I am tickled pink. As I kept that relationship with being "out there" through out and staring at the computer didn't detract from the experience or what I considered the relation I had with what is around me. For me photography IS NOT in editing. It is the direct relationship with what is around me and my ability to capture that while being a part of it. Staring at a screen editing, well that is something else far less intimate or real.

 

[Buckster]

You can make lovely gritty photos with digital. It ain't the medium. It might be the forum. TPF leans toward the 'fill light, clone that out, crop this, smooth that' end of things.

I block a lot of that forum talk out with the processing usually. ignore much of it. There are a billion processed photos already and counting that aren't worth a damn thing. shows how much the cloning mattered.

...To the purist, photography is about how to operate a camera.

To the rest of us, photography is about how to make an image people like to look at or even treasure.

Really? Sorry Buckster, not buying that for a second. How about, "To the purist, photography is about using all of the tools the photographer has available to create the image that he (or she) envisions." The camera is a tool, and while important to the process it's not the be all and end all.

Clearly, that is NOT the purist's position at all. "Get it right in the camera" is the only thing important to them. Photoshop is clearly a bad thing that shouldn't be considered a part of photography, and that they don't even care to learn much about.

If you can't see that for yourself from their statements, you're blind.

just different mentality. For me I find photography, that I enjoy being out in the world. Looking at things. The relationship between me and the world around me and whatever camera I am holding. I almost find it somewhat enlightening in a odd way. Watching the world go bye. Actually doing it. The processing part, while I do some is NOT enlightening. No relationship. sort of the darkness and drudgery of it. Really a mood killer. I come back from shooting in a good mood. Start going through images and that mood is dulled quick. There is no relationship with a computer screen. Life is outside, moving, vibrant. The computer is sitting there dead. no life. emotionless. So even if the image comes out well or better after post processing it is pretty much dead for me. I will often toss images just to avoid processing them. The computer edits and time spent staring at it on the screen sucked the life out of it. But if I come back from shooting and I have images that I can or I desire to leave near as is. I am tickled pink. As I kept that relationship with being "out there" through out and staring at the computer didn't detract from the experience or what I considered the relation I had with what is around me. For me photography IS NOT in editing. It is the direct relationship with what is around me and my ability to capture that while being a part of it. Staring at a screen editing, well that is something else far less intimate or real.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

For you, the joy of photography is about operating the camera as you interact with the world. Post processing can go stuff itself, whether that would result in a nice image or not.

 

[bribrius]

I spent quite a few years shooting polaroid instant film too. so that might have something to do with it. I am really into "the moment"

 

[paigew]

5dmkiii
I blew this shot...it was the very first one of the session as we were walking to our place and I hadn't metered yet. Although the save looks okay, I didn't give this to my clients...it is unacceptable to me to have to increase exposure so drastically.

 

[bribrius]

You can make lovely gritty photos with digital. It ain't the medium. It might be the forum. TPF leans toward the 'fill light, clone that out, crop this, smooth that' end of things.

I block a lot of that forum talk out with the processing usually. ignore much of it. There are a billion processed photos already and counting that aren't worth a damn thing. shows how much the cloning mattered.

...To the purist, photography is about how to operate a camera.

To the rest of us, photography is about how to make an image people like to look at or even treasure.

Really? Sorry Buckster, not buying that for a second. How about, "To the purist, photography is about using all of the tools the photographer has available to create the image that he (or she) envisions." The camera is a tool, and while important to the process it's not the be all and end all.

Clearly, that is NOT the purist's position at all. "Get it right in the camera" is the only thing important to them. Photoshop is clearly a bad thing that shouldn't be considered a part of photography, and that they don't even care to learn much about.

If you can't see that for yourself from their statements, you're blind.

just different mentality. For me I find photography, that I enjoy being out in the world. Looking at things. The relationship between me and the world around me and whatever camera I am holding. I almost find it somewhat enlightening in a odd way. Watching the world go bye. Actually doing it. The processing part, while I do some is NOT enlightening. No relationship. sort of the darkness and drudgery of it. Really a mood killer. I come back from shooting in a good mood. Start going through images and that mood is dulled quick. There is no relationship with a computer screen. Life is outside, moving, vibrant. The computer is sitting there dead. no life. emotionless. So even if the image comes out well or better after post processing it is pretty much dead for me. I will often toss images just to avoid processing them. The computer edits and time spent staring at it on the screen sucked the life out of it. But if I come back from shooting and I have images that I can or I desire to leave near as is. I am tickled pink. As I kept that relationship with being "out there" through out and staring at the computer didn't detract from the experience or what I considered the relation I had with what is around me. For me photography IS NOT in editing. It is the direct relationship with what is around me and my ability to capture that while being a part of it. Staring at a screen editing, well that is something else far less intimate or real.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

For you, the joy of photography is about operating the camera as you interact with the world. Post processing can go stuff itself, whether that would result in a nice image or not.

To a large extent YES. I will and need to get involved in processing more for that occasional one image that really means something I just feel the need to have or if it is REQUIRED. But for the most part I toss post processing out the proverbial window as I would rather toss the photos than do it whether they come out nice or not.. But if a certain image or images is of high importance I will process, I will make myself process even though I dread it.