Get it right in camera or fix it in post?

[photoguy99]

If the relationship between tones in the scene (or, more exactly, as captured by whatever your sensing apparatus is) is what you want in the final print, then you can "get it right in camera" by exposing properly.

If NOT, then you just can't. You have to make adjustments. At least a touch on the contrast slider, to move tones closer together or farther apart. HDR as she is done is really just a really clever contrast slider, after all.

And for reference, even PH Emerson, who was the single most rabid anti-post-processing photographer *ever* adjusted contrast in post. It was literally the only thing he felt was legit.

 

[Village Idiot]

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.

This was more of a topic of discussion about how improved technology can change how we take pictures. I know not everyone can do this and as a fact, attempting it with my 5D MKII would I would get banding with chroma noise like crazy when attempting this to any extreme measures.

And I'm not saying to use it for every photo. I'll still use my lights as I can create drama with different types of lighting that you couldn't get with ambient, I just think it's a new tool to get photos you otherwise couldn't without go through a lot more work. This is something that I've see a lot of wedding photographers work with. Those are the types of photographer that shoot in rapidly changing environments with varying light.

 

[astroNikon]

Looks like you are really digging your Nikon over your Canon there.

I wasn't expecting as much LowLight/DR difference when I bought my d600 as compared to my d7000.
But it is a big difference in my eyes. I love pulling the details out of the shadows, or in many instances the darkness.

It took me awhile to "dial in" my abilities to the capabilities of the d600 to the d7000.
But still plenty to learn

 

[limr]

This was more of a topic of discussion about how improved technology can change how we take pictures. I know not everyone can do this and as a fact, attempting it with my 5D MKII would I would get banding with chroma noise like crazy when attempting this to any extreme measures.

And I'm not saying to use it for every photo. I'll still use my lights as I can create drama with different types of lighting that you couldn't get with ambient, I just think it's a new tool to get photos you otherwise couldn't without go through a lot more work. This is something that I've see a lot of wedding photographers work with. Those are the types of photographer that shoot in rapidly changing environments with varying light.

I understand this was intended as a discussion, but this kind of X vs Y dichotomy tends to lead to fractured discussions and people getting defensive.

The bolded statement also implies a certain level of judgment about what kind of "work" is more or less useful for someone. For you, setting up lighting might be onerous and time-wasting, but others might feel the same way about post processing in front of a computer.

I'm not trying to fault you for initiating the discussion, and I realize my opening sentence also sounded judgmental and I apologize for it. I've simply seen many of these threads started in this manner descend too quickly into bickering about what is better. I've seen better discussions when the question was more open-ended and more explicitly discussed context.

 

[runnah]

I've simply seen many of these threads started in this manner descend too quickly into bickering about what is better. I've seen better discussions when the question was more open-ended and more explicitly discussed context.

You're not a real photographer until you shoot manual settings and focus, all your images are SOOC and use natural light.

 

[limr]

I've simply seen many of these threads started in this manner descend too quickly into bickering about what is better. I've seen better discussions when the question was more open-ended and more explicitly discussed context.

You're not a real photographer until you shoot manual settings and focus, all your images are SOOC and use natural light.

Well then I'm a real photographer.

 

[runnah]

I've simply seen many of these threads started in this manner descend too quickly into bickering about what is better. I've seen better discussions when the question was more open-ended and more explicitly discussed context.

You're not a real photographer until you shoot manual settings and focus, all your images are SOOC and use natural light.

Well then I'm a real photographer.

Film doesn't count!

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

If your camera has an EVF you can virtually see what your photo is going to look like in terms of exposure before you take the shot, and adjust with exposure compensation if needed.

John.

 

[pgriz]

Hah. I have a camera and I click shutters. Therefore, I am a photographer. A real one. Maybe not a very good one, but that wasn't one of the criteria.

If I accept Runnah's tongue-in-cheek definition, then I must be a real photographer because I shoot manual (on occasion), focus manually (as and when needed), all my images are SOOC (until I can see where I can improve them), and I use natural light (but then, pretty much all photons are "natural"). Oh, and I shoot digital (however the film camera's still loaded and ready).

But really, the argument is kinda sterile. As our tools improve, there's more latitude in terms of what we do, and greater choices in terms of the possible workflow.

 

[Braineack]

Nikon makes this too ezpz:

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

Yeah, but correcting an underexposed photo introduces a lot of image noise, but it`s better than loosing the image i suppose.

John.

 

[photoguy99]

Yeah, but correcting an underexposed photo introduces a lot of image noise, but it`s better than loosing the image i suppose.

John.

I think the point is that, within certain surprisingly broad limits, that's not true any more.

 

[Fred Berg]

I like to get as much right at the time of exposure as is possible. That doesn't mean that I don't do any work in post, and often I know that this will be necessary to get what I want out of the photo; but getting as much right in-camera as possible increases my options afterwards.

 

[paigew]

Nikon makes this too ezpz:

So actually this is my point.There is obvious noise/shadows especially on baby. While it looks okay...I wonder, what does this look like at 100%? The image in your other thread for example was imo taken too far in post. I don't think this is a reliable way to expose images.

 

[Overread]

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.

I would agree with this stance. Getting it right in camera means getting the hot as perfect as possible at the time, accepting that you might have to make sacrifices because the camera has limitations, but it also has strengths. In this case the limitation is the capacity to withhold detail in the whites - whilst the strength is the ability to restore details in the shadows.

So the photographer has worked within those boundaries and exposed the shot for the camera and then used editing to bring out the information that was captured.



Getting it right depends on a lot - much so upon what you have to work with and also what you like to work with. If you have all the lights you need sure you can go in and do just that - or you can use the cameras dynamic range. Either way is correct as they are just different approaches.

Of course it also depends upon the output needs too - might be that shot looks great on the PC but if you blew it up or wanted more fine details it might be lacking (I say might as I've no working idea of the cameras performance in this regard).

The photographer might also have high technical standards - yes the camera can do it; but the photographer would prefer to work with a higher grade starting photo and thus could use lighting or other elements to get more of the shot closer to the final version in editing.

My view is also that one should be able to freely choose how to shoot; rather than be restricted by ignorance. It's like learning how to expose - sure you can use auto mode every day if you want; but you should make that choice from a position where you can use all the other modes and then select the one you want to work with.

(note that this view is generally one aimed at enthusiasts and up - most of the general public its not a valid viewpoint - they not an interest great enough to make them want to learn how to use the camera in other modes - though that isn't to say they wouldn't "like" to, just that they don't feel the need to invest into learning it