Get it right in camera or fix it in post?

[Village Idiot]

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.

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

John.

Actually, the noise is minimal depending on how much you increase the exposure and with these new Nikons, it's more like film grain and no real chroma noise

 

[Braineack]

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

John.

I wouldn't say lots. Maybe a little.

I can handle that 400ISO looking noise at the gain of 3EV of recovery.



Where I actually made focus on that same comparison, it's really hard to tell it's been raised 3 stops:

This is not how I normally expose, but goes to show you the power of a good sensor. Even though mine spews oil and made me celibate.

 

[bribrius]

mehh...

they all too fake looking anyway.... They are so close to perfect they look fake. Kind of like the record player vs compact disc thing when discs came out. I try to get it right in camera, try to make it okay after post. I try to get it right, because when you screwed up film it just made it look kinda more authentic sometimes. when you screw up digital it just looks really stupid. As it starts out kinda fake like anyway. so now it is fake like and stupid looking because you messed it up too much. I mean hell it is just 1's and 0's data or some chit. so I try to get it right in camera and probably lean on the purist side but realistically, all digital is pretty much bullshit.
Perfect photos for me? Hell no. There wasn't a single perfect photo in our family photo album from when I grew up. None.
I can make all kinds of nice photos now I suppose. They all look fresh off the boat from china.. They got no salt? ya know? salt? just data, tweaked to meet some middle of the road standard for a properly done photo. so shoot, straight of cam sometimes, shot straight jpeg other night on long exposure landscapes of all things, wth you got to lose? Might have to delete your thirtieth worthless photo of a sunset? who gives a rats azz with your perfection post processing and plastic photos.

I think that is what bothers me so much, I get riled up. Look at photos, imperfect as they were a hundred years ago. THEY GOT SALT. Look at this thing , we argue about, with one and zeros data. Lot like the perfectly remastered music....wth they think people listen to LIVE band for... I dunno, perfection kind of sucks sometimes. Entire thing is kind of a joke. same with a band though. Ever listen to a groups cd, and think they are great? so you decide to go see them in concert, and you find out they actually kinda fruckn suck? Photography is becoming a lot like that with processing. Data did the same thing to music.
I dunno, I just dunno. Rant over.

 

[photoguy99]

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.

 

[bribrius]

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.

straight up I am NOT a great photographer. okay maybe. I try. But here is the thing. I doubt almost everyone with digital, because it is too easily manipulated. You buy a expensive camera and dish out for photoshop you can screw up every photo you ever take pretty much. Like if you, or anyone, took a photo walk with me and I found out the person couldn't use their camera sooc and make a decent image I sure would say something. There is a distinct line between being a photographer and being a digital image editor me thinks.
And if someone is more on the editing side and not so good with a camera that is fine and dandy, but they probably shouldn't be saying they are a photographer but something else. Eventually all of it will go by the way side far as photography in this context. As data is pretty much data. you will be able to walk up and hit your button. There wont be settings but just a menu. you will type in the result you want for your image and it will spit it out. More of a computer system than a camera at all. I think that is pretty much where we will end up eventually. It might even tell you what lens to put on after you are done talking to it describing your desired effect with the voice commands. At that point though, you are most likely not engaging in photography. which doesn't matter. But if someone wants to be a photographer they will hold onto that littlest bit of the purest mentality as long as they can because photography is going extinct. we have billions of photos for those that just concentrate on that end result. But that isn't photography and we should probably be calling them "images" not photos. Photography, is going extinct. And THAT is the difference between the guy using the proper lighting instead of the cameras forgiving dynamic range and post processing corrections. The guy pulling out the lighting gear trying to go as close sooc is a PHOTOGRAPHER. The one taking advantage of the forgiving dynamic range on their five k new camera and post processing is a digital editor. So in that context, you can have a more serious and better photographer with a hundred dollar point and shoot.

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

Bingo. ! The guy with the hundred dollar point and shoot that shoots at the right time of day, right perspective with right accessory lighting that makes focus with proper exposure and dof is a photographer. The person with the five k camera that snaps fourty photos, misses focus on 39 with the wrong lighting or perpective but then uses that dynamic range and processing to fix that photo and the great amount of mps too crop heavy and correct that IS NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER. They rely purely on tech and edit consequentially . Digital editor or manipulator they are. Which is fine, but if they cant make a proper sooc image they aren't a photographer.and should pick a new label. Not accusing anyone here, I edit too. I think the line here with photography is on in camera skills.

 

[Village Idiot]

mehh...

they all too fake looking anyway.... They are so close to perfect they look fake. Kind of like the record player vs compact disc thing when discs came out. I try to get it right in camera, try to make it okay after post. I try to get it right, because when you screwed up film it just made it look kinda more authentic sometimes. when you screw up digital it just looks really stupid. As it starts out kinda fake like anyway. so now it is fake like and stupid looking because you messed it up too much. I mean hell it is just 1's and 0's data or some chit. so I try to get it right in camera and probably lean on the purist side but realistically, all digital is pretty much bullshit.
Perfect photos for me? Hell no. There wasn't a single perfect photo in our family photo album from when I grew up. None.
I can make all kinds of nice photos now I suppose. They all look fresh off the boat from china.. They got no salt? ya know? salt? just data, tweaked to meet some middle of the road standard for a properly done photo. so shoot, straight of cam sometimes, shot straight jpeg other night on long exposure landscapes of all things, wth you got to lose? Might have to delete your thirtieth worthless photo of a sunset? who gives a rats azz with your perfection post processing and plastic photos.

I think that is what bothers me so much, I get riled up. Look at photos, imperfect as they were a hundred years ago. THEY GOT SALT. Look at this thing , we argue about, with one and zeros data. Lot like the perfectly remastered music....wth they think people listen to LIVE band for... I dunno, perfection kind of sucks sometimes. Entire thing is kind of a joke. same with a band though. Ever listen to a groups cd, and think they are great? so you decide to go see them in concert, and you find out they actually kinda fruckn suck? Photography is becoming a lot like that with processing. Data did the same thing to music.
I dunno, I just dunno. Rant over.

Most clients don't pay for salt, they pay for good photos.

Bingo. ! The guy with the hundred dollar point and shoot that shoots at the right time of day, right perspective with right accessory lighting that makes focus with proper exposure and dof is a photographer. The person with the five k camera that snaps fourty photos, misses focus on 39 with the wrong lighting or perpective but then uses that dynamic range and processing to fix that photo and the great amount of mps too crop heavy and correct that IS NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER. They rely purely on tech and edit consequentially . Digital editor or manipulator they are. Which is fine, but if they cant make a proper sooc image they aren't a photographer.and should pick a new label. Not accusing anyone here, I edit too. I think the line here with photography is on in camera skills.

You miss the point. It’s a tool to use. It’s like a flash, but just a different technique or tool. Do you think editing photos only came about once Photoshop was created? If so, you’re mistaken. This isn’t about missing photos and fixing them, this is about using the camera’s capabilities to deliberately expose a certain way to get a certain effect. It’s like using film and a dark room but with digital and Photoshop.

Photography is generally defined as the capturing of light on a physical media. Whether or not you’re editing doesn’t change this. But this is an entirely different discussion.

 

[Village Idiot]

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.

That's what a lot of people thinks looks good. Hard light is defined as bad light because most people are exposed to it as the pop up flash from a camera and not pointed with a purpose.

 

[paigew]

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

John.

I wouldn't say lots. Maybe a little.

I can handle that 400ISO looking noise at the gain of 3EV of recovery.



Where I actually made focus on that same comparison, it's really hard to tell it's been raised 3 stops:

This is not how I normally expose, but goes to show you the power of a good sensor. Even though mine spews oil and made me celibate.

Have to say that is impressive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braineack]

This is not how I normally expose, but goes to show you the power of a good sensor.

Have to say that is impressive

I only went in and did that for purposes of this thread, but now I'm actually looking back at some of my fubbed exposures.

When I shot that I was trying to get sky detail and intentionally underexposed the subject; there still wasn't much there, but the end result after spending about 30 seconds trying to recover it ain't bad.

 

[photoguy99]

'Gritty' doesn't mean the same thing as 'hard light' although hard light may or may not be involved. It means, in this case, the same thing as 'salt'.

I am taking the latter to mean 'not the same gutless, plastic, looks exactly like everyone else's, garbage cranked out ad nauseum by a certain class of amateurs and low level professionals'.

 

[Village Idiot]

'Gritty' doesn't mean the same thing as 'hard light' although hard light may or may not be involved. It means, in this case, the same thing as 'salt'.

I am taking the latter to mean 'not the same gutless, plastic, looks exactly like everyone else's, garbage cranked out ad nauseum by a certain class of amateurs and low level professionals'.

So "salt", which was said to be unpolished, unperfect, and mostly what sounds like a snapshot is not garbage but garbage is a polished product? You kids and your backwards ways...

 

[photoguy99]

'Gritty' doesn't mean the same thing as 'hard light' although hard light may or may not be involved. It means, in this case, the same thing as 'salt'.

I am taking the latter to mean 'not the same gutless, plastic, looks exactly like everyone else's, garbage cranked out ad nauseum by a certain class of amateurs and low level professionals'.

So "salt", which was said to be unpolished, unperfect, and mostly what sounds like a snapshot is not garbage but garbage is a polished product? You kids and your backwards ways...

That is a very strange way to interpret what I wrote.

 

[gsgary]

they will look ok on the internet how does a big print look

 

[limr]

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 too 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

 

[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.