Get it right in camera or fix it in post?

[Village Idiot]

It's not, but I said my examples aren't the best as I've not had it nearly long enough. I'll still light shots that need to be lit, but having the ability to use the DR to deliver otherwise unusable photos will be fantastic.

I started looking at other cameras after being limited by my previous camera at my last weddings because of the AF. The DR is just a bonus that will let me have some amazing photos for the bride and groom. I can honestly remember several instances from my last wedding where dropping the exposure by a stop or two to expose the sky and being able to recover the shadows in post would have been a much more desirable result to a slightly blown sky and properly exposed people. I was already being rushed to finish pictures as the bride and groom took a side detour to a bar down the road where they met and didn’t have the time to pull out all the lights. But they understood because they had already been made aware that less time for photos meant they might not be as good as if I were shooting my model photos and had the time to do everything I needed.

 

[Village Idiot]

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.

Um….are you sure you read the first post? How I explained with the DR available in new cameras you can easily shoot what would not be a usable SOOC shot or a poor SOOC shot and make it look like a great photo in post?

 

[paigew]

Idk call me a purist...expose for the image you want. That is my motto. I would have personally trashed those shots. Yeah they do look great, they were great saves. But I guarantee that took a lot of levels work + long time in post. I would hate to see if you had 10 images from that set all exposed like that.

 

[Village Idiot]

Idk call me a purist...expose for the image you want. That is my motto. I would have personally trashed those shots. Yeah they do look great, they were great saves. But I guarantee that took a lot of levels work + long time in post. I would hate to see if you had 10 images from that set all exposed like that.

Exactly, if you have the ability to expose for a properly exposed sky and then properly expose your subjects.

The slight editing I've done in LR is easy. Pull the shadows slider up 5 stops, adjust the exposure if needed and tweak the contrast. If you have multiple photos that were shot the same way, you can sync settings between the photos. Works great and it's quick.

 

[JustJazzie]

My favorite artist has always been Jerry Ulesman, and he never got it right in camera. ;-)

jerry uelsmann - Google Search

 

[Gary A.]

My manner of shooting is to expose for the final image ... expose for the previsualized image. This was essential in film where you have less room to play and less tools to play with as compared to digital.. But I think it is still important to see the final image before you release the shutter and expose for what you want the final image to reflect. For me, photography isn't all about DR ... it is about capturing the exceptional image. Often, an image's impact ... the drama ... can be enhanced by being at the ends of the photographic spectrum. Bad lighting versus good lighting, extreme dark and light versus nice even lighting, et cetera. Shooting at the extremes is much tougher than shooting on good middle ground, while you'll probably end up with less keepers, the keepers you do capture may be better.

On the flip side of the coin, PhotoShop can add drama to any image, it can make day into night, give motion to still, even give or remove smiles ... but then at what point are we photographers and at what point are we digital artists?

I'm all for photo manipulation, use it as you see bit ... but for me, it is important for me to be a photographer, not a digital artist. It is important for me not to over used PhotoShop as a crutch for poor photography skills.

Gary

 

[paigew]

Idk call me a purist...expose for the image you want. That is my motto. I would have personally trashed those shots. Yeah they do look great, they were great saves. But I guarantee that took a lot of levels work + long time in post. I would hate to see if you had 10 images from that set all exposed like that.

Exactly, if you have the ability to expose for a properly exposed sky and then properly expose your subjects.

The slight editing I've done in LR is easy. Pull the shadows slider up 5 stops, adjust the exposure if needed and tweak the contrast. If you have multiple photos that were shot the same way, you can sync settings between the photos. Works great and it's quick.

Well I would have personally chosen a different exposure. One that worked with the given lighting situation + equipment.

 

[pgriz]

Idk call me a purist...expose for the image you want. That is my motto. I would have personally trashed those shots. Yeah they do look great, they were great saves. But I guarantee that took a lot of levels work + long time in post. I would hate to see if you had 10 images from that set all exposed like that.

Exactly, if you have the ability to expose for a properly exposed sky and then properly expose your subjects.

The slight editing I've done in LR is easy. Pull the shadows slider up 5 stops, adjust the exposure if needed and tweak the contrast. If you have multiple photos that were shot the same way, you can sync settings between the photos. Works great and it's quick.

Well I would have personally chosen a different exposure. One that worked with the given lighting situation + equipment.

It really depends on whether the exposure was set with specific intent (as seems to have been the case here), knowing exactly how the post-processing will need to be done to get to the final image; vs. getting an exposure that didn't work well, and then trying to recover in post. This is no different than pushing the development in film days, where you deliberately underexpose and then over-develop. Similarly, in the "expose-to-the-right", the image is usually a lot brighter in camera than it will be in the final finished image, because of the post-processing adjustments that are already planned for at the time of the camera exposure.

 

[runnah]

Lets all draw lines and make rules as to what is the right and what is the wrong way to make photos!!!

FFS, who cares what road people take to get to the final destination?

 

[paigew]

It was meant to be a discussion no? I never said it was wrong. Just said I don't do it like that [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[runnah]

It was meant to be a discussion no? I never said it was wrong. Just said I don't do it like that [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing wrong with a discussion!

I am just tired of various factions trying to say what is right and wrong with what is supposed to be an art form. If you want to put limits on yourself, such as only using natural light, only using SOOC, or only using manual mode that is fine, but looking down upon people who don't, is not cool.

 

[Designer]

I'm all for discussing things, and the quicker you all agree with me, the quicker we can arrive at a consensus.

 

[photoguy99]

Looking down on people IS my art.

 

[MichaelHenson]

I think that approaching this from the perspective of the OP is an interesting concept and could very easily deliver images that are great without the additional effort in working with lighting, etc. to accomplish the same result.

The primary question I have is, what if the client (or you) would like a large print of a photo that you've processed in this way? Would it hold up to printing as well as a photo that was taken with lighting, exposure, etc. so minimal "recovery" processing is needed? My gut and what I've read says that it wouldn't but I'd love to see a comparison or hear a review from someone that's had a chance to compare.

Lively discussion! Cue the band!

 

[limr]

I find that whenever these questions come up, it's usually someone taking a technique that works for their individual needs/style/experiences and then wondering why everyone doesn't do things the same way.

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.