Get it Right In Camera

[407370]

Hi All,

It has occurred to me that certain perceptions about photography no longer apply.

"Get it right in camera"

In particular the High ISO / noise fear photographers have been avoiding for years.

My example :

That is a screenshot of an unprocessed RAW file opened in Affinity Photo:

As you can see from the data, this photo was always going to be very noisy.

Here is an extract of the same photograph 5 minutes later:

The software we have been using for years to process pictures has been upgraded to the point where I can deliberately use settings that only a few years ago would be regarded as ruining a photo.

Does anyone have an opinion about "Get it right in camera" being less important now than it used to be?

CHEERS
JBO

 

[KJ_North]

I think this is so true. I am an amateur at heart and make lots of mistakes as i tend to rush and not think at times. But some basic processing and cropping are my best friends.

When i think ISO i think my first camera the 60D it of course was an APS-c sensor not full frame and as i dont have the luxury of the "L" series lenses and there wider apertures shooting even indoors in the daytime was a struggle. Basically anything over 3200 ISO and you were beat. Now having said that i didnt use any post processing software either.

Now with my EOS-R and post processing i set my ISO to max out at 25,600 if needed and still the shots are more than usable after noise reduction. Obviously that ISO is not ideal but still it opens up a lot of possibilities with more affordable tighter lenses etc.

Also now with Mirrorless cameras showing the actual picture the way the exposure etc is going to look before you take it that really helps people like me.

So "Get it right" IMO is not near as important

 

[smoke665]

has occurred to me that certain perceptions about photography no longer apply.

"Get it right in camera"

This is an incorrect perception. While the digital age has brought about the ability to correct exposure/composition mistakes easier than before, the need to compose and shoot SOOC is still just as important today. The old adage "garbage in, garbage out" applies. The better the data pool going in the better the final image coming out. Right now it seems you're fascinated with editing, but you will eventually tire of of wasting time correcting things that could have been avoided in camera.

In particular the High ISO / noise fear photographers have been avoiding for years.

This is a subject that's been discussed at length here on TPF. With noise you first have to determine which noise you're talking about? There are three common types (Fixed Pattern, Random, and Banding).

Fixed occurs in long exposure, low ISO shots, and is affected by heat build up on the sensor. Random occurs in short exposure, high ISO shots. Banding is highly camera-dependent, and is noise which is introduced by the camera when it reads data from the digital sensor.

The better the exposure (SNR) the less noticeable the noise. Under exposing and boosting post is across the board amplification, any noise you introduced when you took the shot gets amplified, and you lose sharpness. In the case of banding probably more so than the other two. Understanding cause and effect of the different types of noise and maximizing exposure create less need for noise reduction post. Just an FYI my profile picture is an "EXTREME" crop from a laser light show reflected off the face of Stone Mountain in GA. It was shot at ISO 25,000 and has very little noise reduction applied. Is it noisy??? That depends, at a small resolution like this no, but if you were to enlarge it to an 8x10, the noise would unacceptable.

 

[407370]

Right now it seems you're fascinated with editing, but you will eventually tire of of wasting time correcting things that could have been avoided in camera.

I am a computer geek and will always be fascinated by what the evolution of image editors can do.

You seem to be making a rather patronising assumption that any reason for editing a photo can be avoided by camera settings. I can take the perfect exposure and still decide to replace the sky, remove the Portable toilet, add a sun star or soften a few wrinkles in a face. These are not corrections for something that I have done wrong.

My little example above is a demonstration of what happens when something cannot be avoided in camera. I accept that perfect conditions will not always be available while photographing.
The most common situation I face is photographing Dragon Flies / Bees / Flowers on a windy dull day. I need shutter speed around 1/1000 and as close to wide open aperture as possible to reduce the ISO. Shutter Priority / Auto ISO can drive ISO above 10000 but nowadays that can be fixed in post.

If the camera is not on a tripod in a studio then you have to work with what conditions you have and that means sometimes you have to ".......Waste Time correcting things.......".
The point I was making is that only a few years ago that picture would not be fixable.

With noise you first have to determine which noise you're talking about?

Who cares what the noise source is???? in practical terms if the De-Noise software can fix it then its fixed.

 

[smoke665]

Who cares what the noise source is???? in practical terms if the De-Noise software can fix it then its fixed.

People who care about the quality of their work care. ALL denoise post comes with a price (loss of IQ). People who value their time behind the camera, more than being in front of a computer screen repairing rather than enhancing their work care.

 

[407370]

People who value their time behind the camera, more than being in front of a computer screen repairing rather than enhancing their work care.

Patronising and condescending (if you need me to explain the difference please let me know).

Lets assume that I know how to get a good exposure and know how to limit noise. There are times when I (or anyone else) will have to generate noise to get the shot. Software allows pictures to be edited to remove noise that cannot be avoided.

I am really good at editing pictures and its something I really enjoy.

See if you can spot the subtle edits in this photograph:

You do you and I will do me.

 

[smoke665]

You seem to be making a rather patroniUsing assumption that any reason for editing a photo can be avoided by camera settings. I can take the perfect exposure and still decide to replace the sky, remove the Portable toilet, add a sun star or soften a few wrinkles in a face. These are not corrections for something that I have done wrong.

No, this ^^^ is not what you said in your OP. This is what you said "occurred to me that certain perceptions about photography no longer apply.
"Get it right in camera"
In particular the High ISO / noise fear photographers have been avoiding for years"

You put forth an overly broad premise based on anecdotal evidence, that was patently false.I never said post editing is not required even on a good SOOC image, I said I shoot for SOOC as much as possible so my time editing can go to enhancement of the image, not correcting errors that could/should have been handled in camera.

"The most common situation I face is photographing Dragon Flies / Bees / Flowers on a windy dull day. I need shutter speed around 1/1000 and as close to wide open aperture as possible to reduce the ISO". This isn't a unique problem, have you ever looked at HSS? With HSS you gain the advantage using a smaller aperture, lower ISO, and the camera shutter speed becomes mostly irrelevant, as the typical flash duration is 1/10,000 or better. The best part is there's no noise to clean up post.

am a computer geek

Then you should be familiar with the adage "garbage in, garbage out".

. There are times when I (or anyone else) will have to generate noise to get the shot. Software allows pictures to be edited to remove noise that cannot be avoided

Again a broad assumption. As I pointed out earlier, there's more to consider. Things like what type of noise??? You said "Who cares what the noise source is???". Understanding what type of noise you're dealing with allows you to make a better decision on both exposure and post processing. Fixed and random can both be improved in camera by raising the exposure (slower shutter, larger aperture, or or supplemental light), to increase the SNR. Underexposing an imag (regardless of ISO) decreases the SNR, which in turn do to lack of signal, only shows fixed and random recorded. Banding is pretty much camera model dependent. Applying any gain post (increasing exposure), affects the noise an signal equally, so keeping it to a minimum to begin with is important. That doesn't mean you shouldn't raise the ISO, just strive for a full exposure. I have no fear of shooting at higher ISO, it's another tool in my toolbox, but I don't use it haphazardly when other tools available might provide a better result.

The algorithms in both cameras and software have made great strides, with the newer AI capabilities of actually targeting noise. The problem is it can quickly over come the actual image data resulting in a plastic look, lacking sharpness. AI and digital editing as a whole has also created a misguided perception, that it's okay to not be the best you can be as a photographer because, I can fix that post.

Just an FYI to all, the OP has been sharing his experiences with a software. Any comments I've made are not meant to be argumentative, nor patronizing, but based on my experiences, let's all keep it civil please.

 

[SunriseAvenue]

This... escalated quickly.
One thing I definitely agree with you on, OP, is the following:

I am a computer geek and will always be fascinated by what the evolution of image editors can do.

Yes, the abilities of photo editors are fascinating and there is still more to come, given the rise of AI. There is an article by DPS from 5 years ago where they praise denoising abilities of Photoworks, and now there is a full-blown AI based tool by Lightroom for that alone. If that's not amazing then what would be?

However, I also agree with people saying you're getting tired of constant editing and fixing stuff that could have been avoided in the first place. You really do, even if you enjoy the post-processing stage. It's one thing to get creative and work on something that's really interesting to edit, but doing repetitive work is completely different. You're right, though, to each their own, and if you don't feel the need to get something right in the camera because you have no problem working on it later, more power to you!

 

[407370]

There are photographs that can be saved by 2024 software that could not be saved by software even 5 years ago.

Thats the only point I was making.

Getting it right in camera is always the correct thing to do.

Not being able to get it right in camera is going to happen outside of a controlled environment:

Scenario 1
The church I was photographing in had a "No Flash" rule. The lighting was horrible so I made a choice to use high ISO / F4 (to get a high enough shutter speed) and fix the noise in post. The end results were not possible 5 years ago.

Scenario 2
Macro Bees / Dragon Fly. I need a very high shutter speed. Typically the time between seeing the shot and taking the shot is 3 seconds or less. On a cloudy day Shutter Priority (S) / Auto ISO is the only way to go. Regularly this takes me over ISO 10,000. I fix the noise in post and the end results were not possible 5 years ago.

Scenario 3
Landscape on a cloudless / windless day. Full manual control. Time to take the perfect shot. No post processing required. The end results were possible 40 years ago.

 

[Woolsocks]

There are photographs that can be saved by 2024 software that could not be saved by software even 5 years ago.

Blatant lie. Or ignorance. I'm not sure. One click or 5 clicks on one button. Maybe. But the skillz necessary with photoshop have been around for almost as long as I've been using photoshop.

 

[limr]

This indeed has escalated quickly. This thread is closed.

A reminder to all to discuss differences of opinion with respect and an open mind.