Camera Settings Vs Editing

MiniSqueeze · Aug 10, 2015

I have always had a habit of editing pictures after I take them to make them brighter or the colors bolder or even from color to black and white. I am just curious now that I have been playing around with my settings on my camera is it ideal to create that perfect or close to perfect setting where you don't edit as much or regardless is it always good to edit your pictures? For example there a two pictures below. The first one is the raw picture and the second is edited. I personally like the second but I don't know if it looks unrealistic because its not "raw".

tirediron · Aug 10, 2015

All images need some processing to look their best, but I'm of the opinion that it's always best to get as close as you can in-camera.

weepete · Aug 11, 2015

^^ This

dennybeall · Aug 11, 2015

Circumstances often dictate how close you can come to the final picture you want in camera. You often see a photo and you can't get to the exact spot you want or you can't control the lighting. If you can control things then it's best to do so in camera but I see post-processing as just part of the effort.
Not having a lens in the bag that can take the entire width of the photo I want is an example that comes up often. Should I just not take the photo or take a set and pano them in PS???? I choose PS.

Ido · Aug 11, 2015

I set my camera to save raw files instead of JPEGs. They look flat and lifeless, which is what I want—I know I want to edit the image, so the original file has to give me the utmost flexibility. I shoot for that flexibility, meaning I set the exposure so that highlights don't burn but there's also as much data in the shadows as possible. I use a histogram to determine whether or not the exposure is as I desire: ideally, the graph wouldn't touch the right edge, but be pretty close to it.

In even light, that typically means the image (original, untouched) looks overexposed, and in highly contrasty light it looks underexposed. In the raw converting software, I just need to use the "Exposure" slider so it looks "correct" again, and then I use the Highlights, Shadows, Whites and Blacks sliders to control the contrast.

Because I do that, I can reveal detail in the shadows if I want to without revealing too much noise along with it.

I do all of this because I don't like fiddling with these settings in-camera. My camera does offer those—there's a nice "Curves" tool that works just like the tone-curve in Lightroom and Photoshop, and there are options to choose saturation (including different black and white choices), sharpening, etc.—but I'd rather focus on catching the moment in the camera, something that can't be tweaked after the shot had been taken.

JustJazzie · Aug 11, 2015

tirediron said:
All images need some processing to look their best, but I'm of the opinion that it's always best to get as close as you can in-camera.

What he said......

The only thing I always leave imperfect in camera is cropping. I pretty shoot loose so I can decide later what size to crop it in since the cameras default is usually less than ideal. I also usually have to do some straightening so I leave adequate space for that. (Unless I'm shooting on a tripod and have time to level the shot)

That said, raw always neds a bit of work and in general- I add some contrast, vibrancy, sharpening and noise reduction if required. (Just my style I suppose) These things are "preset" when shooting JPEG so they don't need done.