Get it right in the camera!

[Ysarex]

I get it the way I need it to be in the camera, and most of the time that is not right in the camera but perfect for post process.

That's illogical.

Joe

How is it illogical to shoot for post?

I didn't say it was illogical to shoot for post. It is illogical to say it's both perfect and most of the time not right at the same time.

Joe

 

[sscarmack]

My style of shooting is solely done to then edit in post. To each their own.

 

[astroNikon]

I wish I knew what was right in camera to begin with...[emoji31]

When you get to your 10,001 photo (in reference to his signature line), then you'll know.

maybe.

 

[The_Traveler]

This becomes silly when people insist on specific words or specific word definitions as the 'correct' way to state how one tries to shoot.

I can't imagine that anyone says, 'well I'm going to screw this up and try to rescue it later.'
Probably what they, and I, say is 'terrible lighting, I'll expose to get everything I want into a fix-able range and be happy I got something on the sensor.'

Some kinds of shot or shooting just don't lend themselves to the kind of looking, considering, reshooting, waiting around, moving things, repositioning the tripod, coming back another day, taking a whole bunch of different shots, changing the angle of the polarizing filter or switching lenses that taking photos of flowers, landscapes, cityscapes, portraits allow.

I walk around with two camera bodies with lenses that cover the range I'll shoot, with my settings, including EC, set for what I think I'll need - and then I get a chance to shoot and expect that shot will be as good as I can get.

This allegiance to specific words and specific intent in shooting is getting religious when, imo, all that counts is the picture.

 

[fmw]

One reason that this discussion can get a little dramatic and argumentative is because we forget that getting it right in camera is highly dependant upon what we want to do with the photo.


At its core the concept of "getting it right in camera" is all about reducing editing workflow; improving our end result and resulting in the most efficient use of our time and skill. Getting it right in camera means you've got the best possible shot given the situation you are in at the time and given your intended output. If your intended output is resized online chances are you can get it right in camera with more degree of freedom than others can if they are cropping heavily and then making enlargements.


The lesson we want people to walk away with is to be awake when taking photos. To THINK about the photo; what they want to do with it; what they want from it. With that information it puts boundaries and criteria on the situation for the person to have some idea what "right" is for the shot. When written out it can sound like a lot of work and often it can be a lot to think about for some; in other situations its really very simple "I want a nice sharp shot; with good even exposure and no blown highlights". There that's a criteria and in the moment takes all of a millisecond to think.

Meanwhile you might have other situations where your desires are more demanding and complex; at which point you have to work harder to get it right in camera; but the pay off is a greater reward in the quality and closeness of your final image to what you wanted.

Nicely said, Overread. Those who do photography that requires fast action - sports, street, wildlife etc - actually do what I am suggesting to beginners and most do it without even thinking about it. They do it from experience that beginners don't have. If they didn't they wouldn't get images in the camera that would produce the best images in post production. I'm amazed that some people don't see the benefits of getting it right in the camera.

 

[table1349]

This becomes silly when people insist on specific words or specific word definitions as the 'correct' way to state how one tries to shoot.

I can't imagine that anyone says, 'well I'm going to screw this up and try to rescue it later.'
Probably what they, and I, say is 'terrible lighting, I'll expose to get everything I want into a fix-able range and be happy I got something on the sensor.'

Some kinds of shot or shooting just don't lend themselves to the kind of looking, considering, reshooting, waiting around, moving things, repositioning the tripod, coming back another day, taking a whole bunch of different shots, changing the angle of the polarizing filter or switching lenses that taking photos of flowers, landscapes, cityscapes, portraits allow.

I walk around with two camera bodies with lenses that cover the range I'll shoot, with my settings, including EC, set for what I think I'll need - and then I get a chance to shoot and expect that shot will be as good as I can get.

This allegiance to specific words and specific intent in shooting is getting religious when, imo, all that counts is the picture.

While not quite that dramatic, if you remember a few months ago there was a thread started that was of the opposite view. There was no reason to get it right in the camera as it could be rescued in Photoshop. I am still waiting for my completely underexposed photo to be rescued by the OP.

 

[astroNikon]

So the question begs .. how many people do Post Production on their SOOC good images.

And when talking about film, what is considered Post Production/modification of the captured image.

I know I always do some PP as mentioned before for some WB/Color adjustments and cropping.

 

[Ysarex]

So the question begs .. how many people do Post Production on their SOOC good images.

And when talking about film, what is considered Post Production/modification of the captured image.

I know I always do some PP as mentioned before for some WB/Color adjustments and cropping.

How is an SOOC photo NOT post processed? Define what is done as post processing. By SOOC photo do you mean the JPEG the camera creates?

Joe

 

[astroNikon]

So the question begs .. how many people do Post Production on their SOOC good images.

And when talking about film, what is considered Post Production/modification of the captured image.

I know I always do some PP as mentioned before for some WB/Color adjustments and cropping.

How is an SOOC photo NOT post processed? Define what is done as post processing. By SOOC photo do you mean the JPEG the camera creates?

Joe

define it as you like, as everyone will complain one way or another.

I shoot mostly RAW .. thus I have to convert it at some point and I use LightRoom. And I make my adjustments. Even when I do shoot JPEG, I still make adjustments.

I'm just curious how many people make "no adjustments" (per their own definition).

 

[Ysarex]

So the question begs .. how many people do Post Production on their SOOC good images.

And when talking about film, what is considered Post Production/modification of the captured image.

I know I always do some PP as mentioned before for some WB/Color adjustments and cropping.

How is an SOOC photo NOT post processed? Define what is done as post processing. By SOOC photo do you mean the JPEG the camera creates?

Joe

define it as you like, as everyone will complain one way or another.

I shoot mostly RAW .. thus I have to convert it at some point and I use LightRoom. And I make my adjustments. Even when I do shoot JPEG, I still make adjustments.

I'm just curious how many people make "no adjustments" (per their own definition).

It's impossible to not make adjustments. No option exists to not make adjustments. Unless you're happy with your photos looking like this:

Joe

 

[JacaRanda]

I wish I was that perfect to get it right in the camera in the first place all the time.
I guess the percentage would be much much better if I was staging things.

Unless you're a journalist, there's nothing wrong with staging a shot.

I shoot mostly wildlife/birds but I understand what the op is getting at.

Most insect photos are staged.

Not the ones I shoot. In fact, none have been, unless you count setting up a tripod/flash etc.

 

[Gary A.]

Firstly, I agree with everybody.

Secondly, I think all of us seasoned photogs know what Fred is talking about, except maybe James (joking), but James is so good that he can shoot blindfolded, from the hip and still hits his targets (seriously).

Thirdly, when I was shooting film, I made a point of getting it all right in the camera. Getting it right does not mean getting it perfect, but rather capturing an image which requires the least amount of post processing manipulation. When I was shooting film, I exposed specifically for how I developed and I shot for full-frame printing. If the shot required cropping, I would dump it and print a negative that didn't require any cropping.

Unfortunately or Fortunately, manipulations with digital are much easier than with film. With digital, I quickly got lazy and sloppy in the field knowing that I could easily fix it in post. That, for me, was a slippery slope, and pretty soon my keeper ratio skyrocketed to 75:1 and higher. I am now attempting to shoot without cropping and minimize my post time. I mainly shoot non-stationary, action type stuff in uncontrolled environments. I shoot manual and most recently I have dialed down my FPS to Single Frame (except for sports and the like). Shooting single frame is making me see and think about the image more then shooting multiple FPS. With single frame I concentrate more on my subject waiting for the peak of action. Shooting in an anticipatory shooting methodology with single frame rather than at 8FPS in a reactionary shooting style is improving my photographic eye and timing. Getting back to "getting it right in the camera" is improving my photography.

I shoot to capture the previsualized image. I shoot to capture the final image with as little post processing manipulations as possible.

 

[Overread]

I think one other reason this subject gets heated is passionate teachers.

Most of us here are here to share our knowledge and we enjoy doing that; we enjoy seeing people progress and can't understand always when people choose to "fail" in our eyes; or rather to not reach their full potentail. As such not "getting it right in camera" is a major failing.

I think also its a bit like spelling and writing a proper letter when applying for a job. It's not just that we expect it by some social or community standard; but its an element of caring; or being seen to care. We hate the idea of someone not being seen to care about their photography - about not wanting to get it right in camera.

So we rebel against it; more so today because editing is SO much easier than in the past in the digital world; even though most of us know that editing is not a be-all and end all; and that good editign to fix problems takesa lot of time and skill.

 

[JacaRanda]

I think one other reason this subject gets heated is passionate teachers.

Totally agree!

Wondering if anyone is actively using a mentor here.

 

[fmw]

So the question begs .. how many people do Post Production on their SOOC good images.

And when talking about film, what is considered Post Production/modification of the captured image.

I know I always do some PP as mentioned before for some WB/Color adjustments and cropping.

How is an SOOC photo NOT post processed? Define what is done as post processing. By SOOC photo do you mean the JPEG the camera creates?

Joe

I would term it as production. To me the post production is what WE do after the shutter is released, whether it is done on a computer or phone or in the camera.