Get it right in the camera!

[Vtec44]

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

Because it's not right for one process, but right another process.

Most of my digital photos for work are way under exposed about 1 stop intentionally, where most of my film photos are at least 2 stops over intentionally. If someone look at my RAW files, or JPEGs backup of these RAW files, they would wonder if I know what I'm doing because the photos certainly don't look right out of the camera (this would include WB) LOL

 

[fmw]

Because it's not right for one process, but right another process.

Most of my digital photos for work are way under exposed about 1 stop intentionally, where most of my film photos are at least 2 stops over intentionally. If someone look at my RAW files, or JPEGs backup of these RAW files, they would wonder if I know what I'm doing because the photos certainly don't look right out of the camera (this would include WB) LOL

What is the benefit of correcting a 1 stop underexposure in editing rather than during exposure?

 

[Vtec44]

What is the benefit of correcting a 1 stop underexposure in editing rather than during exposure?

Highlights retention...

This was shot at least 3 stops under exposed

This was shot about 2 stops under exposed

This was shot about 3 stops under exposed

This was shot with multiple strobes but still about 2 stops under exposed.

 

[Overread]

Vtech I'd argue that that isn't so much "under" exposure but really respecting the fact that you've a need to bias the meter reading against the scene you're set with. Either knowing that you'll brighten the foreground in editing or through flash (which the meter can't account for) or also through HDR methods.

 

[robbins.photo]

Firstly, I agree with everybody.

Bold stance Gary.. lol

 

[Stradawhovious]

Firstly, I agree with everybody.

I disagree with you.






PARADOX!!!!!

 

[Vtec44]

Vtech I'd argue that that isn't so much "under" exposure but really respecting the fact that you've a need to bias the meter reading against the scene you're set with. Either knowing that you'll brighten the foreground in editing or through flash (which the meter can't account for) or also through HDR methods.

Thanks. Whatever you call it, my digital photos are rarely "right" in the camera, intentionally.

 

[chuasam]

People get so obsessed and hung up with a photo being sharp and perfectly exposed that we get an endless flow of perfectly shot boredom.

 

[OGsPhotography]

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.

M


I like to think I only do post to my "good" pics. The others are deleted hopefully before they get to the computer as I dont want to look at " not good" photos.

I skipped mucb of this thread but sill go back Nd look as its rather amusing.

To the OP, why not just walk closer to the thermometer? Get it right in camera lol. You cropped it kinda defeates the thesis.

I do not imagine many beginners Re going to find this post or this thread in general helpful.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

All this talk begs the question, should you ever really take a picture of a thermometer in the first place. I'm still not clear on that.

 

[Overread]

People get so obsessed and hung up with a photo being sharp and perfectly exposed that we get an endless flow of perfectly shot boredom.

Technical proficiency must come before artistic development can be fully realised.

Give it 20 years and some of those "boring" photographers will have honed their skills and be producing some outstanding photography. And sometimes its being produced right now; only the vast volumes we are exposed to daily - hourly - by the moment - overwhelms us.

 

[fmw]

All this talk begs the question, should you ever really take a picture of a thermometer in the first place. I'm still not clear on that.

What? You don't like thermometers?

 

[fmw]

Vtech I'd argue that that isn't so much "under" exposure but really respecting the fact that you've a need to bias the meter reading against the scene you're set with. Either knowing that you'll brighten the foreground in editing or through flash (which the meter can't account for) or also through HDR methods.

Thanks. Whatever you call it, my digital photos are rarely "right" in the camera, intentionally.

If they are what you intended then they were right in the camera, right?

 

[Ysarex]

Vtech I'd argue that that isn't so much "under" exposure but really respecting the fact that you've a need to bias the meter reading against the scene you're set with. Either knowing that you'll brighten the foreground in editing or through flash (which the meter can't account for) or also through HDR methods.

Thanks. Whatever you call it, my digital photos are rarely "right" in the camera, intentionally.

If they are what you intended then they were right in the camera, right?

That was my point.

Joe

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

All this talk begs the question, should you ever really take a picture of a thermometer in the first place. I'm still not clear on that.

What? You don't like thermometers?

I'm frightened by large ones.