Get it right in camera or fix it in post?

[Village Idiot]

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. View attachment 91425

If it comes up with an acceptable finished product, then why?

Especially if the finished product looks better than a shot where the subject meters at properly exposed and you end up with a lot of overexposed area, like sky. I'm not saying that shot wouldn't have been OK, but there are circumstances where the DR of the displayed image is too much for the displayed media and more than the actual DR of the scene you're shooting.

 

[Buckster]

Yes, the cake was delicious when I tasted it, and everyone would have loved it. But I threw it in the trash anyway because I took it out of the oven 5 minutes too early and then had to put it back in for a while to make up for it, and that's just wrong to me.

 

[Braineack]

what does the client care?

 

[paigew]

well it isn't acceptable to me. I prefer smooth glowing skin of a properly exposed image...one that I can confidently print on a canvas if requested. I don't know, I suppose I am a perfectionist in that way. I just could not give an image that wasn't of a certain level of technical correctness/quality.

 

[Village Idiot]

well it isn't acceptable to me. I prefer smooth glowing skin of a properly exposed image...one that I can confidently print on a canvas if requested. I don't know, I suppose I am a perfectionist in that way. I just could not give an image that wasn't of a certain level of technical correctness/quality. View attachment 91427

What's the difference between your two finished photos? Also, the new Nikon cameras are still more capable than the 5D MKIII.

 

[Rick58]

I was taught to hunt with a single barrel shotgun. The lesson was to get it right the first time (in this case, there wasn't a second or third chance to clean up sloppiness). It seems the trend is to machine gun off 100 exposures, in hopes get one "keeper" or shoot away "close enough" to clean up in Photshop. To me both just breeds sloppiness. I could be wrong, but it seems the more an image is post manipulated, quality HAS to be lost, no matter how minute. Just my two cents.

 

[paigew]

this is the difference to me. I can see a huge difference in quality/color/tone/highlights

 

[bribrius]

well it isn't acceptable to me. I prefer smooth glowing skin of a properly exposed image...one that I can confidently print on a canvas if requested. I don't know, I suppose I am a perfectionist in that way. I just could not give an image that wasn't of a certain level of technical correctness/quality. View attachment 91427

well if I isn't acceptable to you that is all that matters. you are in charge. You are ceo of quality control and your business toss it.

 

[Village Idiot]

I was taught to hunt with a single barrel shotgun. The lesson was to get it right the first time (in this case, there wasn't a second or third chance to clean up sloppiness). It seems the trend is to machine gun off 100 exposures, in hopes get one "keeper" or shoot away "close enough" to clean up in Photshop. To me both just breeds sloppiness. I could be wrong, but the more an imagine is post manipulated, quality HAS to be lost, no matter how minute. Just my two cents.

That's entirely the opposite of using the technique that this thread was started about. There are also lossless files and non destructive editing. In fact, taking an image with blowout bits and leaving them blown out without recovering them gives you an image with more lost data than recovering them.

this is the difference to me. I can see a huge difference in quality/color/tone/highlights
View attachment 91430

Did you raise just the shadows or the overall exposure?

Edit: And you can see the difference between how the Canon handles this vs. the new Nikons with the chroma noise that's all too apparent in the adjusted photo. You don't get this until more extreme adjustments with the Nikon RAW files.

 

[paigew]

@Village Idiot

 

[gsgary]

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.

QUOTE="Village Idiot, post: 3392588, member: 28914"]
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.[/QUOTE]

Thats because you shoot mostly film like me and you have to take more care and attention to exposure, even though I have an A7 that can do the same as that example I would never shoot like that
[

 

[Village Idiot]

@Village Idiot View attachment 91431

Bumping up the overall exposure by over 2 1/2 stops will blow highlights because you're not just recovering shadows, you're raising the exposure level of everything.

 

[gsgary]

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.

QUOTE="Village Idiot, post: 3392588, member: 28914"]
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.

Thats because you shoot mostly film like me and you have to take more care and attention to exposure, even though I have an A7 that can do the same as that example I would never shoot like that
[[/QUOTE]
Well I made a mess of the post big fingers and smart phones don't go together

 

[Braineack]

this is the difference to me. I can see a huge difference in quality/color/tone/highlights
View attachment 91430

okay yeah, i see it there.

 

[bribrius]

on subject. I think there are instances one should be on guard using that dynamic range. As it does give more power in editing it might require some self restrictions. I was looking at a photo I took earlier of a snow covered road, almost full sunset. Exposed for the sky. course the road and trees lining it are heavily shadowed and dark. First instinct looking at it was to get rid of that darkness on the road and dark trees as it was exposed for the sky. shadow recovery. But upon considering it, the road and trees WAS dark when I looked at it. so I could recover the shadows and brighten them up and upon viewing the photo it might look more appealing. But if one thought about it for more than a couple seconds staring at it they would wonder how at that time of day with the sun where it is the road and trees could even have light. so it becomes very unnatural very quick if you stop and actually consider what you are looking at. with less dynamic range, that limit in shadow recovery could have been a barrier preventing extreme screw ups. with more dynamic range one might have to "self police" themselves..